Neumann KH 150 Monitor Review

[Rednaxela]

Thank you.

 

[changer]

View attachment 254145
Please read my post where I explained what estimated in room response is, I'll repeat briefly

...

In layman terms, KH 150s drivers and their radiation pattern sum up pretty well in short distances but not so well in long distances.

Here I disagree. ASR has its own kind of fetishism and audiofoolery and it is widely known that this lies in the seductive graphs the Klippel machine provides, and the at times cultish behavior that surrounds them. Especially the PIR graph. But when the off-axis is not a total failure, as was much more common with speakers a while ago, it will rather tell us something about slight timbral shifts: the direct sound remains dominant.

From all I know I am pretty sure the KH150, with its narrow radiation pattern, does sound much better from further away as compared to when listened to in headphone mode, 0 early reflections direct field. As with the highly regarded Genelec 1032, that has the same stepped PIR, and even more uneven, yet absolutely acceptable axial responses.

From everything I know about the KH 150, I recommend hifi listening to it from 2.5 to 3.5 meters. Its output capabilities are good enough for music, with its pattern it will benefit from more early reflections and its axial responses are well controlled so that listening to it without toe-in will enable exactly the additional reverberations without sacrificing direct sound.

 

[phile2]

No, it's just as important in near field (when the slightest movement of your head puts it away from the sweet spot) as in mid/far field (when the room reflections dominate).

ah ?
So what ? please explain because I've got some difficulties to imagine what you mention...

According to (and the thumbs up), a near-field speaker sounds badly when used "far-field" ? (let's assume we have in both cases a well treated-room)
So, a speaker with a sticker "near-field", must be used "only" in near-field (same vs far-field speakers), otherwise, if you mix "speaker-field" & "placement-field" you end up with a complete messy SQ and... Beethoven plays like my uncle Jo... and it's terrible to hear that ! LOL !

You mention the sweet spot, and point out the "precise" position of your head.
If you have a very narrow sweet spot, you should change something in your setup (speakers / room acoutics / speaker placement). With my Core59, at 3m each, equilateral triangle, I have wide scene & wide sweet spot (3 seats sofa, and it's ok from each seats ; of course, the best seat is in the middle but no big diff)

 

[teashea]

Hello,
Still very interesting thread, but...
I find a bit useless to talk & talk about Amir measurements about directivity & so on.
These measurements are interesting as such but they are relevant regarding "listening", "only" when you listen any speaker in near-field (1.5m max, without room effect).

Then, we have 2 kinds of people =>
1. the ones that listen near-field (to "produce" music for instance)
2. the ones that listen far-field for pleasure.

The very few ones that listen near-field for pleasure are... very few... (I'm talking about "in living-room", not on desk)

Based on that, why so much blabla about precision & directivity of these speakers, for daily use into a living room ? (do you all listen near-field ? waouh !?)
I did not listen to the KH150, but this "near-field" speaker, simply put them into a 40-50m2 living room, with 1 sub, and they will sound very very nicely.
"near-field" is a "sticker", it doesn't mean that it sounds good only at 1.5m because Neumann designed these speaker for "this" use... LOL..

Then, something important that has not been discussed (I'm talking about far-field use now, 3m min) =>
1. no one buy a KH or Genelec or Dyn without listen to them.
They all have their "sound". You listen to them, side by side, and you'll buy "these ones" because you "like" their sound.
Thus, here => "precision" & Amir's measurements etc... you don't care, the buying choice is not related to that.
I bought my Dynaudio Core59 after listening, knowing that after reading many pages about KH & Genelec I was sure I was going to listen & buy a KH or a Genelec (finally my ears said => forget your readings, the 59 are the one )

2. the implementation of these speakers.
These actives are bloody great stuff. But we should have in mind that "source first" is still valid with actives.
Thus, the KH420... are not fancy with their sole old-fashioned analogue input... Genelec's digital input enables to step up SQ.
The KH150 are great (on paper) because they have analogue & digital inputs (although I'm laughing about this crapy coax digital input... I don't get why Neumann did not put an AES instead...). Use the analogue input and you'll find the limit "A". Use the digital input with a proper digital interface, and you'll overcome "A" easily.
I'm saying that because I did the test (analogue vs digital) on the Core59 ; digital input beats analogue... wah ! By the way, the Core series has word clock inputs... another tool to even improve the SQ... no wordclock-in in genelec & KH... LOL (but I guess the AES67 option on the KH150 will be a really interesting feature !)
my 2 cents

I am purchasing KH150's for use in my recording studio, where I will be using them nearfield - 1.2 meters. So, Amir's information is quite informative to me. Actually for pleasure listening I have several other sound systems, which I also use to check my mixes.

 

[teashea]

View attachment 254145
Please read my post where I explained what estimated in room response is, I'll repeat briefly

Far field estimation =estimated in room response = (44% direct sound + 44% early reflections + 12% sound power). Sound power response tells us how speakers sound in a completely reverberant field. The thing is, KH 150/KH 310 are designed to be listened in a direct sound dominated field.

The most interesting example of speakers which have incredible sum of early reflections and uneven sound power is Neumann KH 310. They are designed for nearfield use, while the listener sitting very close to speakers, the sound field is dominated by the direct sound hence the prominent factors in determining sound quality in such close distances are only sum of early reflections and direct sound. Neumann designed KH 150s and KH 310s waveguide and driver configuration in such way that they have incredible sum of early reflections but clearly uneven sound power response. Simply because, sound power response of these speakers do not matter for their use cases much.(again, I repeat, they are designed for nearfield use) As you get farther from those speakers they sound starting wonkier compared to, say Genelec 8361 because, again, their sound power response is not as balanced as far field speakers have. KH 420 for example, designed in such way the drivers and waveguides are configured to perform great in both direct sound dominated field and reverberant field hence they have incredibly ERDI and SPDI at the same time. In layman terms, KH 150s drivers and their radiation pattern sum up pretty well in short distances but not so well in long distances.

Amen and thanks again for the information. I agree that the 120's and 310's I own are designed as nearfield speakers. I also strongly suspect, as you note, that the 150's am ordering tomorrow, will be the same. While they may function adequately at some farther distances in some instances, this is not their primary design purpose.

 

[enricoclaudio]

The KH150s sound amazing when near field but from 8 ft, they sound GREAT too. At least for me when press benching (like right now) they sound delightful, the tonality remains the same as when near field.

 

[jhaider]

2- Eqing speakers above 700hz(or room transition frequency x2/x3~) is not a good idea. Because above that frequency human auditory system starts discerning direct sound from reflections.

Your error here is not specifying measurement conditions. Yes, Dr. Toole and others are generally down on statistical region sound power EQ, i.e. from listening position measurements. (Exception: when used to adjust the program rather than “calibrate” the speakers.) However, nobody sensible opposes EQ based on a full suite of direct field measurements.

Also then comes the question, if constant-change-in-DI speakers or constant DI speakers are more EQable?

That’s not in question. EQ affects all radiation, so the more constant the radiation the more EQ can do. This applies to direct field EQ. Sound power EQ is still generally frowned upon.

 

[Marc v E]

Thank you for the great explanation(s) on direct vs reflected sound and sound power. Very clear now.

One question I have on sound power is : am I right that sound power is the estimated response in an average (American sized?) room?
If this is the case, can I expect a different sound power response if my room shape or size is not average?

 

[fuzzychaos]

Then It's better to buy speakers which have better far field performance. KH150's are designed to perform best in direct sound dominated sound fields.

They perform great where they are, thanks. I have had dozens of speakers in my living room from $500 to $20,000 and these are one of the best.

 

[fuzzychaos]

What precisely is not good in KH150 far field performances?

They sound great at up to 18’ (from Neumann’s website). I use them at about 11’ to 12’, and they are excellent.

 

[changer]

One question I have on sound power is : am I right that sound power is the estimated response in an average (American sized?) room?
If this is the case, can I expect a different sound power response if my room shape or size is not average?

ANSI/CTA-2034-a is freely available:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/ansi-cta-2034-a-pdf.45978/

From page 13:

Sound Power
The sound power is the weighted rms average of all 70 measurements, with individual measurements weighted according to the portion of the spherical surface that they represent. Calculation of the sound power curve begins with a conversion from SPL to pressure, a scalar magnitude. The individual measures of sound pressure are then weighted according to the values shown in Appendix C and an energy average (rms) is calculated using the weighted values. The final average is converted to SPL.

From page 44:

Appendix C. Sound Pressure Weighting Values
In order to approximate the total sound power radiated from a source by using the measurements at equal angular increments, the measurement at each angular increment must be weighted by the appropriate value. The weighting value corresponds to the area of the spherical quadrangle centered at the microphone position for a particular angular position. The table below gives the weighting values applicable for horizontal and vertical polar measurements at 10° increments.

 

[Blockader]

Thank you for the great explanation(s) on direct vs reflected sound and sound power. Very clear now.

One question I have on sound power is : am I right that sound power is the estimated response in an average (American sized?) room?
If this is the case, can I expect a different sound power response if my room shape or size is not average?

I am not good at explaining things and while attempting to make things more understandable, my definitions might get a bit inaccurate. But I'll take the attempt.

low frequencies have larger radiation pattern than high frequency sounds. Simply because they are larger. As a result, forward firing speakers* have higher total acoustic output(usually) in low frequencies relative to high frequencies, naturally this shifts tonal balance of reflections towards low frequencies. In other words, bass & mids dominate the tonality of reflections. They can fill the room with more *sound* than higher frequencies.

Basically total acoustic output vs frequency property of speakers(which is by definition what sound power is) is a physical property of speakers which is one of the determining factors of how reflections are going to sound in a room. Sound power can be described as = the sound of speakers where no direct sound exists. (no room modes are taken into consideration). Rooms will add their own modes & alter the the outcome based on their dimensions etc.

This is how Sean Olive described sound power:

The sound power response is the frequency response of the total radiated sound produced from the loudspeaker at different frequencies. This can be measured by measuring the loudspeaker in a reverberation chamber or calculated by measuring the loudspeaker in an anechoic chamber at many angles around a sphere. We do a total of 70 different measurements in the vertical and horizontal orbits (every 10 degrees) and then calculate the sound power response from those measurements.

*(forward firing speakers which do not have any cardioid effect & dipole bass)

 

[JustCoolin‘]

Then It's better to buy speakers which have better far field performance. KH150's are designed to perform best in direct sound dominated sound fields.

What (active) speakers should I look for that have a similar price, but perform in mid- or even far field as well as the KH 150s do in near field?
Or is it a given that you’d need to spend considerably more to achieve similar performance at a greater distance?

 

[Blockader]

What (active) speakers should I look for that have a similar price, but perform in mid- or even far field as the KH 150 does in near field? Or is it a given that you’d need to spend considerably more to achieve similar performance at a greater distance?

KH 150's are amazing for 1750$ per speaker. Well designed coaxial speakers tend to have more balanced sound power however KH 150's have quite high output(for their size) and fantastic on-axis response. The only downside of KH 150's are the 2000hz dip which can only be audible from far field. Would I mind that? No. are Genelec 8351's better? yes. Is it worth to pay x2 more for 5-10% improvement? No unless you seek absolute perfection. Should you? no, unless you are super rich. because simply a room mode or a SBIR peak can be just sitting on 2000hz to fix that dip too!

that being said I'd check KEF's coaxial speakers too If I were you. As I said before, Genelec The Ones are obviously great speakers but they cost a lot and the total improvement they bring over KH 150 is not more than 5-10%. Needless to say, (talking from memory) KH 150's max SPL vs per frequency is on par with Genelec 8351's which cost significantly more than KH 150's.

 

[JustCoolin‘]

Thank you, appreciate it! As you mention KEF I was looking at Geithain coax speakers, but the ones that are remotely affordable are all designed for nearfield as well.

 

[dshreter]

That’s not in question. EQ affects all radiation, so the more constant the radiation the more EQ can do. This applies to direct field EQ. Sound power EQ is still generally frowned upon.
I’m not sure if it’s an agreement or contradiction, but EQ to adjust timbral balance at the listening position is sensible, including compensating for a speaker that is voiced brighter or darker than you prefer.

I think the major point on EQ off of sound power is that it should not be used to correct flaws in the reverberant sound field because direct sound influences perception more prominently. So if there is a 300Hz null but the speaker is flat on axis, it should not necessarily be corrected. Now if you would like a fatter bass tilt in far field, that’s totally appropriate to adjust.

 

[fuzzychaos]

Thank you, appreciate it! As you mention KEF I was looking at Geithain coax speakers, but the ones that are remotely affordable are all designed for nearfield as well.

The KH 150 is great up to about 18’, according to Neumann. Every speaker in the world has more room influence the further you are from the speaker, the Neumann and other near field monitors as well as bookshelf and towers. Genelec even make a series, the G series, that is marketed toward consumer home listening, and they are identical to the 80xx series except it uses RCA rather than balanced inputs. Buy a pair at Sweetwater and return them if you don’t like them.

 

[phile2]

+1 fussychaos !
Neumann says "up to 18' "... of course !
Blockader & followers are stuck to : a near-field speaker, as the sticker on it states, must be used in near-field... what a joke...

hey Blockader & fellow ! please back to earth !
A few are listening near-field (I put "pro" a part ; knowing that "pro are 90% of time, artist, & 1% only digs vs basic electronics)
A lot, are listening far-field !!! (I assume this forum aims at "common people" (gift =>

). No !?

So, as this forum is aiming at "common people", to get nice sound for daily life in main room => we are "far-field" => and these KH150 would sound great... until "joe" listen to them vs other speakers... and buy them , but Patricia buy another speaker because found an "better" alternative.
This is question of taste... so what ?!

At 18', I would add a sub. Anyway, with this kind of blookshelf, you have to support them with a sub anyway, of course.

To the stubborns that get stuck upon Amir measurements,
you'd better look at & run tests regarding : analogue input vs digital input vs the promising AES67 input (and test the related source upstream, of course).
Keep talking like daddy about hifi gear... is old-fashioned, and bizarre (we're in 2023, not in 1980... LOL)

 

[LTig]

ah ?
So what ? please explain because I've got some difficulties to imagine what you mention...

A nearfield speaker needs to have a wide dispersion with smooth on and off axis frequency response so that someone sitting at a large mixing console can move left and right without to much change of the sound.
A farfield speaker should have a somewhat less wide dispersion[1] but also smooth on and off axis frequency response so that the reflections of the room sound similar to the direct sound.

So in all cases smooth on and off axis frequency response is vital to good sound.

[1] Whether people prefer wide or narrow dispersion ist just that, a personal preference. To reduce the amount of reflected sound a narrow dispersion is better, but the resulting sound will appear somewhat darker. People who prefer a wide dispersion can use nearfield speakers in the farfield but are usually limited in max SPL. I'm very happy with my O300D (predecessor of KH310) with a 7060b sub in the far field (3.8 m listening distance, 50 sqm room).

According to (and the thumbs up), a near-field speaker sounds badly when used "far-field" ? (let's assume we have in both cases a well treated-room)
So, a speaker with a sticker "near-field", must be used "only" in near-field (same vs far-field speakers), otherwise, if you mix "speaker-field" & "placement-field" you end up with a complete messy SQ and... Beethoven plays like my uncle Jo... and it's terrible to hear that ! LOL !

This is rubbish. Don 't believe everything you read in the internet ...

 

[LTig]

That’s not in question. EQ affects all radiation, so the more constant the radiation the more EQ can do. This applies to direct field EQ. Sound power EQ is still generally frowned upon.
I’m not sure if it’s an agreement or contradiction, but EQ to adjust timbral balance at the listening position is sensible, including compensating for a speaker that is voiced brighter or darker than you prefer.

I think the major point on EQ off of sound power is that it should not be used to correct flaws in the reverberant sound field because direct sound influences perception more prominently. So if there is a 300Hz null but the speaker is flat on axis, it should not necessarily be corrected. Now if you would like a fatter bass tilt in far field, that’s totally appropriate to adjust.

Yep. One should not use REW or Audissey or similar to correct frequency response above Schröder, but using tone controls afterward to tilt the spectral balance according to the recording makes a lot of sense.