Neumann KH 150 Monitor Review

[Count Arthur]

Are there any issues with the auto standby on the KH150?

I haven't experienced any.

 

[Count Arthur]

Active speakers had had obvious advantages over passives long before the mass adoption of DSP-based designs. Just look at the measurements of all-analog Neumanns and Genelecs. They are not any worse than similar DSP designs (and the analog Genelecs are often even more linear in frequency response than their SAM counterparts without GLM correction). DSP conceptually can bring two main advantages to the consumer: 1) built-in phase correction; 2) built-in room EQ.

I'm guessing that this is because in pre-DSP monitors you can have the "crossover" at signal level, prior to amplification, which allows for far smaller and less costly components, which in turn might allow you to design more complex filters than would be practical with the larger, more costly components required post amplification. If that makes sense.

 

[kimmosto]

Even some of the best passive speakers struggle to get close to the linearity of some active monitors:

Flat on-axis does not save much if power averages are as bad as with KH 150. Especially for other than near field monitoring. For example magenta line is Harman's recommendation for slope of power response (-6 dB/dec). Many passive speakers sound significantly better and acceptable to far field due to smoother and balanced directivity features.

 

[thewas]

The advantage that many active monitors have over passive speakers is DSP, this allows for finer tuning of the drivers output than a passive crossover.

Which though is something that can be solved with some PEQ in the listening chain and often narrow deviations of 1-2 dB are not very audible.

Don't go this route. Good studio monitors are very well suited for the high listening pleasure - I use studio monitors in all systems at home since 20 years and will never go back to passive hifi speakers - and I'm not the only one here. It's an urban myth that studio monitors are sterile and have bad sound. The best passive speakers can sound as good as very good active studio monitors, but will often cost more even without the required power amp.

I agree that good monitors sound fantastic also for home hifi but sometimes in lower passive price ranges some very good passive loudspeakers can offer better value, so it always depends on the individual case. For example my new KEF Q7 Meta floorstander coaxial 3-way for a pair price of 1600€ (I paid less) offer with a tiny amount of EQ similar linearity to a pair of Neumann KH310 which I also had tested in my place some years ago and costs more than double but better SPL capabilities, smoother horizontal and vertical directivities and for most people better looks and doesn't need some stands. Decent amplification can nowadays thankfully can be gotten for 500€ or even less and EQ is anyway needed for both solutions but isn't a cost issue either nowadays.

 

[kharan]

Flat on-axis does not save much if power averages are as bad as with KH 150. Especially for other than near field monitoring. For example magenta line is Harman's recommendation for slope of power response (-6 dB/dec). Many passive speakers sound significantly better and acceptable to far field due to smoother and balanced directivity features.
View attachment 417373

Neumann probably makes decisions based on typical listening distance and environment, nothing to do with active or passive. The kH310 and the 420 offer much less tilted down sound power curves. And as far as smoothness goes, that sound power curve of the KH 150 is significantly better than that of many passive speakers that are considered "competently designed".

Furthermore, there's the question of the listening position. At least in the UK or many parts of the world, a lot of people find themselves listening at 2.5 to 3.5 m from the speakers, on the shorter end of that distance, it's not a far field listening experience, so there's some question regarding the applicability's of Harman's recommendation. There's also some confusion in my mind regarding which result was obtained from mono blind listening and which were obtained from stereo blind listening, so there may be something to dig here too.

 

[dfuller]

And as far as smoothness goes, that sound power curve of the KH 150 is significantly better than that of many passive speakers that are considered "competently designed".

It really isn't particularly good, tbh. It's got all the trappings of the usual 2-way directivity error, the only difference is instead of flaring wide (because of the WG) it just pinches, but it pinches harder than I'd expect.

Seriously - compare these two. They both have that crossover suckout, and if anything, the Neumann is worse. I'm using the ATC here because I know it has a directivity error.

 

[kharan]

It really isn't particularly good, tbh. It's got all the trappings of the usual 2-way directivity error, the only difference is instead of flaring wide (because of the WG) it just pinches, but it pinches harder than I'd expect.

Seriously - compare these two. They both have that crossover suckout, and if anything, the Neumann is worse. I'm using the ATC here because I know it has a directivity error.

View attachment 417416View attachment 417417

~shrug~ there's one major "smoothness" error in the Neumann and you can see it on the computed smoothness at 0.96 with the KH150 whereas there are many deviations on the ATC which smoothness computes at 0.84. Mind you, it's very possible that the error on the Neumann is much more audible than the deviations on the ATC.

Then there's the overall slope ofc.

 

[kimmosto]

Neumann probably makes decisions based on typical listening distance and environment, nothing to do with active or passive.

Please read the quote what I answered.

The kH310 and the 420 offer much less tilted down sound power curves.

Sure. Power and DI slopes of KH 420 are much much better than KH 150, but this thread is for KH 150.

And as far as smoothness goes, that sound power curve of the KH 150 is significantly better than that of many passive speakers that are considered "competently designed".

...and at the same time much worse than many passive speakers. It's actually exceptionally and unacceptably bad imo due to too high slope and step at mid so for example I had to sell KH 150s.

Furthermore, there's the question of the listening position. At least in the UK or many parts of the world, a lot of people find themselves listening at 2.5 to 3.5 m from the speakers, on the shorter end of that distance, it's not a far field listening experience, so there's some question regarding the applicability's of Harman's recommendation.

I meant "technical" far field. That is at 2.5 to 3.5 m for sure. Recommended power / DI slope by Harman is quite low and difficult to reach for almost any small 2-way. No problem for example with conventional 3-way. Some other recommendation says 5-6 dB from 200 to 12k. Low power slopes can be compensated with EQ, but too high slopes cause too hot on-axis with proper/recommended power slope. Too high power slope can be okay with harsh room acoustics, but not with good acoustics especially to off-axis.

There's also some confusion in my mind regarding which result was obtained from mono blind listening and which were obtained from stereo blind listening, so there may be something to dig here too.

That does not change that too high power / DI slope can be unacceptable especially for casual listening.

 

[dfuller]

~shrug~ there's one major "smoothness" error in the Neumann and you can see it on the computed smoothness at 0.96 with the KH150 whereas there are many deviations on the ATC which smoothness computes at 0.84. Mind you, it's very possible that the error on the Neumann is much more audible than the deviations on the ATC.

Then there's the overall slope ofc.

The smoothness on the ATC is bad specifically because of the dispersion mismatch I mentioned - but note it lacks the severe pinch around its 2.5khz crossover (it has the flare after it transitions to the tweeter which is to be expected of a flat baffle). That pinch on the Neumann is largely a result of the vertical polars lobing worse than expected, in spite of its steep and quite low crossover around 1700hz (which is certainly out of the ordinary; Amphion, for all their other issues, also uses quite low XOs around 1600hz and have unusually good vertical behavior for a non-coax). Combine that with a very narrow horizontal beam and you've got a recipe for quite a dark sounding speaker.

It's actually exceptionally and unacceptably bad imo due to too high slope and step at mid so for example I had to sell KH 150s.

The issue really is that it rolls off extremely fast in the mids and then is pretty near to constant DI above 1.7khz.

 

[Drew456]

Sure. Power and DI slopes of KH 420 are much much better than KH 150, but this thread is for KH 150.

...and at the same time much worse than many passive speakers. It's actually exceptionally and unacceptably bad imo due to too high slope and step at mid so for example I had to sell KH 150s.

I meant "technical" far field. That is at 2.5 to 3.5 m for sure. Recommended power / DI slope by Harman is quite low and difficult to reach for almost any small 2-way. No problem for example with conventional 3-way. Some other recommendation says 5-6 dB from 200 to 12k. Low power slopes can be compensated with EQ, but too high slopes cause too hot on-axis with proper/recommended power slope. Too high power slope can be okay with harsh room acoustics, but not with good acoustics especially to off-axis.

That does not change that too high power / DI slope can be unacceptable especially for casual listening.

Flat on-axis does not save much if power averages are as bad as with KH 150. Especially for other than near field monitoring. For example magenta line is Harman's recommendation for slope of power response (-6 dB/dec). Many passive speakers sound significantly better and acceptable to far field due to smoother and balanced directivity features.

If it's 'exceptionally and unaccepably bad', no less, then why no mention whatsoever of the phenomenon in the highly positive review at the beginning of this thread? Just out of interest.

 

[dfuller]

If it's 'exceptionally and unaccepably bad', no less, then why no mention whatsover of the phenomenon in the highly positive review at the beginning of this thread? Just out of interest.

It's "exceptionally bad" considering it's a Neumann which usually has exceptionally good behavior - which this is not.

 

[Drew456]

It's "exceptionally bad" considering it's a Neumann which usually has exceptionally good behavior - which this is not.

Agreed, disappointing, but my question remains..

 

[JustCoolin‘]

And the S&R review (including their graphs).

https://www.neumann.com/globalassets/digizuite/37633-en-sound_and_recording_5_22_neumann-kh150_en.pdf

 

[kimmosto]

If it's 'exceptionally and unaccepably bad', no less, then why no mention whatsoever of the phenomenon in the highly positive review at the beginning of this thread? Just out of interest.

Reviews could be more inclusive. I believe they are honest, but too thin. Generic review feedback has been available for few months, but it's continuously under construction. The latest version: https://kimmosaunisto.net/Misc/speaker_review_feedback_2025-01-08.pdf
Shortly - related also to KH 150:
* Measured and recommended target slope of SP should be calculated and visible. Not just drawn artistic linear regression without any reference.
* Measured and recommended target slope of ON-LW, PIR and SPDI could be calculated and visible.
* Room acoustics should be measured.
* Bad acoustics (with too long or uneven EDT) should be fixed before reviews including listening test.
* Listening setup (dimensions, locations) should be documented.
* Listening also in stereo.
* Listening in all possible locations to include also casual listening at radical off-axis.

After that also reviewers should know what is wrong with KH 150, Kef Blade etc. with too high power and DI slopes with possible steps.

 

[Drew456]

due to too high slope and step at mid so for example I had to sell KH 150s

Thanks for your reply. Your review project looks very thorough and worthwhile, so good luck with it.

Out of interest, why in the first place did you buy the KH150's if you felt that way about their power and DI slopes. I notice that you were making a similar point near the beginning of this thread, back in late '22, hence the question. Or perhaps you'd already got them prior to that.

 

[Pearljam5000]

So basically it's good for nearfield but bad for midfield listening?

 

[JustCoolin‘]

Not something I would confirm. I use a pair of 120s at my desktop, and a pair of kh150s at around 3.5m on a daily basis, and I prefer the latter. I‘ve also used the 150s in the nearfield for months and don‘t feel like anything got lost now that I am further away.

Mind, I am neither a trained listener, nor am sure which kind of fault I should actually be listening for.

 

[Drew456]

I use a pair of 120s at my desktop, and a pair of kh150s at around 3.5m on a daily basis

Yeah, I don't notice any issues listening to my kh150's when I move away from my desk. However, I'm never more than about 2.6 away and the room is only 3.6 x 4 metres.

 

[kimmosto]

why in the first place did you buy the KH150's if you felt that way about their power and DI slopes.

That was combination of optimism and ignorance. I've been aware of recommended range of power slope for many decades, but the limit is not absolute because of:

• Directive speakers and special concepts which can't be listened much outside sweet spot aren't that demanding for power slope and off-axis responses.
• Near field monitoring is not demanding for power slope and off-axis responses.
• Too high power slope can be useful in bad/harsh room acoustics (though bad acoustics should be the first to fix).
• We have quite long history of designing (small) speakers with too large and deep wave guide which is compensated with slightly rising on-axis (though that strategy has been proven bad a long time ago).

So it's quite easy to make a mistake or trust that speaker is good enough and take a chance. Reviews and reviewers play some part in this game. Proper reviews include enough data and references to enable comparison to something more stable than lines drawn manually with Paint.

 

[40th Anniversary]

That was combination of optimism and ignorance. I've been aware of recommended range of power slope for many decades, but the limit is not absolute because of:

• Directive speakers and special concepts which can't be listened much outside sweet spot aren't that demanding for power slope and off-axis responses.
• Near field monitoring is not demanding for power slope and off-axis responses.
• Too high power slope can be useful in bad/harsh room acoustics (though bad acoustics should be the first to fix).
• We have quite long history of designing (small) speakers with too large and deep wave guide which is compensated with slightly rising on-axis (though that strategy has been proven bad a long time ago).

So it's quite easy to make a mistake or trust that speaker is good enough and take a chance. Reviews and reviewers play some part in this game. Proper reviews include enough data and references to enable comparison to something more stable than lines drawn manually with Paint.

What speakers do you recommend?