Neumann KH 310A Review (Powered Monitor)

[richard12511]

I dunno.

6-8 channels of high quality medium power (100-400wpc) amplification isn’t as expensive or heavy as it used to be 20 years ago...

I could swing an active 4 way...

Are you agreeing with me?

My point is that passive speakers end up being much cheaper than active speakers in a living room/HT scenario with an AVR. To really compare actives to passives, you really have to add an "active tax". AVRs with pre-outs are much more expensive, whereas 7 channels of amplification are essentially free.

 

[respice finem]

...for living room/HT use, active is huge disadvantage, as amplification is far cheaper than the connections required to connect to active speakers are...

It may be, but for hone cinema, hardly because of the connections, unless you have a huge cinema room: https://www.thomann.de/de/cordial_cpm_15_fm.htm In most cases, at least from what I see in Europe, home cinemas are not big, for 1-6 persons, and you can only have really optimum SQ in those only for one spot. Multichannel is "calculated chaos" anyway, so realistically, good middle class passive speakers are sufficient (for me with my "cinema for one"). So, why pay through the nose for expensive active speakers with waveguides, only to let them "play against each other" in my 7.1.2? This is why I left my cinema setup passive, as it is, and the active LS are only for the HTPC as stereo source. Another factor: If my AVR breaks or is technically obsolete after the usual 5-7 years, it's cheap and easy to just replace this one "box".

 

[Sancus]

AVRs with pre-outs are much more expensive, whereas 7 channels of amplification are essentially free.

Yeah but is there actually an AVR without pre-outs that has "good enough" room correction? I can't think of any...

 

[respice finem]

BTW any room correction is really optimal only for one spot...

 

[Sancus]

BTW any room correction is really optimal only for one spot...

That's pretty much total nonsense, shouldn't post disinformation like that.

 

[thewas]

Even more impressive: fully analog and passive speakers measuring just as good (I'd say even a bit better). And much cheaper.
https://heissmann-acoustics.de/en/dxt-mon-vs-neumann-kh-120a/

I agree that they are very good, but much cheaper? A single DXT-MON kit costs 389€ in Germany where they are produced while a KH120 costs around 550€, only for the first one you still need enclosures and an amplifier (not to count the work and tools as its hobby) which shows how great the value for price in most studio stuff is. Also at that price the KH120 includes several room tuning trims and a quite sophisticated driver protection which passive loudspeaker usually don't have at that level.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

We are definitely OT. Lot of rationalization to show there are ways to get better than the Neumann KH310 and how the hobbyist can get more for his money....
Let us get these straight, this remains one of the best speakers reviewed here. Maybe Top 5.
As for the AVRs , I believe that we are erring in the sense of qualifying anything with a SINAD of less than 80 dB as "bad". We, also are thinking in term of Pre/Pro which for the most part are expensive and objectively (ASR-wise) have been disappointing. Several AVRs have Pre-out and can be summoned to anchor the most sophisticated domestic Home theater/Music rooms. One brand should come to mind as they have been consistent in their approach: Denon. Their AVR X3700 which is $1300 on Amazon, is a great value and has been reviewed/measured Here. It can function as a pure Pre/pro ( Amps can be completely shut-off) . It has IIRC 13 channels, provides decent, virtually transparent performance, offers all the codecs one will ever need (Atmos, Dolby Vision, DTS, DTX, etc...). also offers plus the seriously underrated Audyssey MultiEq XT 32.
In my experience, one does not need all channels to be equally high performance thus, one could reasonably use KH 310 in front and KH 120 as surrounds and for Atmos, something even less expensive, say KH80?
My entire cables loom cost me less than $200 .. one great exemple of good cables are those made by Ghent Audio: Less than $40 for 10 meters (33 feet) of RCA to XLR cable is a good price IMO, for well-made cables. See these here http://www.ghentaudio.com/part/a05.html

One can use the Neuman with subs, I stress (subS) in a 2-channel, high performance system too.
MiniDSP SHD reviewed here and a superb performer ......... $1300
A Pair of Neuman KH 310A $4400
A pair of SVS SB-2000 Pro $1600
Ghent Audio Cables (for the entire system) $200

For less than $8000 , that is a hell of a full range system in a medium room and a MLP of 3~4 meter... This system gets Dirac DRC, A streamer, A measurements microphone and even comes with a tripod , for the UMik-1! so ....
People! It's time to seriously embrace this stellar performer.. Really!!
There are very few alternatives out there.

P.S. On paper the DXT-MON is good. It is however a kit. It requires assembly and finishing and the owner is left with assembly, testing and finishing... And tools and woodworking skills from its owner... I am not sure it will play "nice" in a 6 x 5 x 3 room ... either...

 

[Ilkless]

Home audio doesn't need the compact horizontal setup with the lobing issues. Same drivers, same attention to detail but a typical vertical TMW configuration would be killer.

 

[respice finem]

That's pretty much total nonsense, shouldn't post disinformation like that.

No. It would be nonsense without the word "really". If you think this is disinformation, take 3 seats in a small home cinema, optimize with anything you want (Audyssey, Dirac, or even manually) and then make a measurement with REW or Carma for this one and the neighboring seats - surprise surprise. It may still sound good, but no one can really outsmart physics. There is a reason why Neumann demands 1cm tolerance for the setup, and a slightly wider sweetspot is not equal to optimal.
For a big commercial cinema, with 50 and more seats, it's again a different story, because they have many more speakers and generally another level of complexity, including an almost "dead" room. And, there are limits of what people will hear. Even in a philharmonic, you have (acoustically) good seats and not so good seats.

 

[lashto]

I agree that they are very good, but much cheaper? A single DXT-MON kit costs 389€ in Germany where they are produced while a KH120 costs around 550€, only for the first one you still need enclosures and an amplifier (not to count the work and tools as its hobby) which shows how great the value for price in most studio stuff is. Also at that price the KH120 includes several room tuning trims and a quite sophisticated driver protection which passive loudspeaker usually don't have at that level.

Admittedly I did not check the prices in detail but I'm not sure where are yours coming from. On that page the costs (in Germany) are presented as
Neumann KH-120 €1300/pair
ADXT-MON Kit including tree cap: ~ 265 € + Hypex AS 2.100D: ~ 250 = ~780 € plus housing / pair

Enclosure kits cost between €3-500 (or you can DIY for less) and those hypex boards/amps actually have a lot more features than the KHs: DSP,ADC,DAC... So, yes the DXTs are cheaper (if you can DIY). And if you already have the amps, the passive DXTs are "much cheaper"

Anyway, the main point was not the price but to signal the wow achievement of a passive with same as good measurements as the active KH120/310. Whether the DXTs are a better choice for anyone, depends on a lot of (other) factors

 

[thewas]

Admittedly I did not check the prices in detail but I'm not sure where are yours coming from. On that page the costs (in Germany) are presented as
Neumann KH-120 €1300/pair
ADXT-MON Kit including tree cap: ~ 265 € + Hypex AS 2.100D: ~ 250 = ~780 € plus housing / pair

Street prices of course and not list prices, currently around 1090€ / pair https://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/OffersOfProduct/5820292_-kh-120-a-neumann.html

Enclosure kits cost between €3-500 (or you can DIY for less) and those hypex boards/amps actually have a lot more features than the KHs

Which Hypex boards cost even more additionally and still won't provide you the advanced driver protection of the Neumann.

So, yes the DXTs are cheaper (if you can DIY). And if you already have the amps, the passive DXTs are "much cheaper"

Again not really, already 780+enclosures is not "much cheaper" than 1090€.

Anyway, the main point was not the price but to signal the wow achievement of a passive with same as good measurements as the active KH120/310.

Which I agreed to, although I haven't seen a DIY kit with a such good 3" mid dome and measurements like the KH310.

 

[Newman]

I had a look at the DXT-MON site and I was very impressed! Thanks for the link.

I would wish for better vertical dispersion, even though it doesn’t have to be as nice as horizontal.... but I would take the DXT-MON.

It looks to be a great option for the small minority of music/HT philes who are DIY inclined. If that describes you, and you have an AVR with good amps that can push 83 dB/1m speakers to 105 dB peaks at 3-4 metres (probably 200W/ch at 4 ohms), I suggest you shortlist it.

But, the passive speaker I would put up for that scenario for the majority who aren't into DIY, would be the Elac Debut Reference DBR-62. The euro price is about EU465 for a pair vs EU780 for the DXT without cabinets. And it scored a goal on Amir’s pink panther scale.

 

[richard12511]

Yeah but is there actually an AVR without pre-outs that has "good enough" room correction? I can't think of any...

I'm not sure. Last few AVRs I've bought haven't been super low end.

 

[infinitesymphony]

No. It would be nonsense without the word "really". If you think this is disinformation, take 3 seats in a small home cinema, optimize with anything you want (Audyssey, Dirac, or even manually) and then make a measurement with REW or Carma for this one and the neighboring seats - surprise surprise. It may still sound good, but no one can really outsmart physics. There is a reason why Neumann demands 1cm tolerance for the setup, and a slightly wider sweetspot is not equal to optimal.
For a big commercial cinema, with 50 and more seats, it's again a different story, because they have many more speakers and generally another level of complexity, including an almost "dead" room. And, there are limits of what people will hear. Even in a philharmonic, you have (acoustically) good seats and not so good seats.

This is why most room correction techniques try to fix the room using practical acoustic methods first, then take multiple measurements across the listening area or use the moving mic technique. Everything is a trade-off, but if you want other people in the room to hear approximately what you're hearing, some averaging must be done.

 

[ernestcarl]

No. It would be nonsense without the word "really". If you think this is disinformation, take 3 seats in a small home cinema, optimize with anything you want (Audyssey, Dirac, or even manually) and then make a measurement with REW or Carma for this one and the neighboring seats - surprise surprise. It may still sound good, but no one can really outsmart physics. There is a reason why Neumann demands 1cm tolerance for the setup, and a slightly wider sweetspot is not equal to optimal.
For a big commercial cinema, with 50 and more seats, it's again a different story, because they have many more speakers and generally another level of complexity, including an almost "dead" room. And, there are limits of what people will hear. Even in a philharmonic, you have (acoustically) good seats and not so good seats.

Maybe not total nonsense, but one can most definitely EQ (making the main listening position slightly less so 'optimal') in consideration for the response measured at the adjacent seats. One method to check for this is by averaging the responses at more than one listening position or overlaying graphs of multiple seating positions and manually adjusting EQ by hand for all seats at the same time.

 

[respice finem]

This is why most room correction techniques try to fix the room using practical acoustic methods first, then take multiple measurements across the listening area or use the moving mic technique. Everything is a trade-off, but if you want other people in the room to hear approximately what you're hearing, some averaging must be done.

Yes of course, and we are both saying the same with different words. Optimum means the best (one position), not still good enough (other positions). BTW, the "moving mic" also serves other purposes, such as eliminating the risk of wrong measurement result due to comb filter effect.

 

[respice finem]

Maybe not total nonsense, but one can most definitely EQ (making the main listening position slightly less so 'optimal') in consideration for the response measured at the adjacent seats. One method to check for this is by averaging the responses at more than one listening position or overlaying graphs of multiple seating positions and manually adjusting EQ by hand for all seats at the same time.

You could do that, but then you only have several so-so positions. My preference would be to have one optimal = best possible, that's what I've buy all this stuff for. Unless I would be building a commercial cinema, but this is another "level", with different objectives as far as optimization goes. There it is as you are saying, let everybody have similar SQ, which succeeds, more or less.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Is this true?

 

[respice finem]

Good question - Neumann is not known for making statements they can't defend, so probably there are measurements to support this claim. I wouldn't even know how to measure/compare transient response, and the ears alone are too fallible.
I can only subjectively say these are my first speakers able to beat my headphones sometimes, as far as "detail and imaging" goes. The longer I listen, the more I like them.

 

[LTig]

Good question - Neumann is not known for making statements they can't defend, so probably there are measurements to support this claim. I wouldn't even know how to measure/compare transient response, and the ears alone are too fallible.

Step response comes to my mind.