Neumann KH 310A Review (Powered Monitor)

[levimax]

Thanks for the feedback.
It’s good to hear they’re working well for some of you even at >3m.

Speakers are optimized for near to midfield distances and this is a documented fact in Neumann’s own literature though. And I’m just trying to make sense of the distance recommendations Neumann gives. If they’re not that critical, I wonder why they specifically call out an optimal range. Maybe it’s just a conservative spec?

I’m not doubting they can work further back nor saying that they fall apart at 3m+. Just trying to understand if there’s a meaningful difference in how things like imaging or coherence hold up as you move beyond manufacturer's suggested range.

Curious if anyone’s actually A/B tested at different distances?

For what it's worth I have some KH310's setup according to Neumans instructions with a LP just over 2 meters from the speakers with DSP room EQ below 400 Hz. The room is oddly shaped and 8 meters deep. In the dedicated LP everything sounds balanced with a wide variety of recordings and the image is solid. Moving between 1.5 and 3 meters the differences are subtle and all sounds good. If I move further back in the room I start to notice room modes in the bass (loud and quiet spots) and the treble gradually drops off the further away I get. The image also changes to be less "focused" but not at all unpleasant.

I did not directly compare this behavior to other speakers in the same spot but this is pretty much expected behavior.

For "real" monitoring I would definitely use the recommended distance and toe in as this maximises the "direct sound" so takes the room out of things as much as possible. For further distances I don't hear any disadvantages compared to other speakers I have heard but the further away the more the room comes into play and the less the speakers dominate the sound which is OK for recreational listening but not for "real" monitoring.

I would be curious what all goes into Nuemann's listening distance recommendations.

 

[kolestonin]

This mainly has to do with common SPLs used in studio workflow, based on the speaker's output levels. In home environment you are free to use them at any distance you find suitable (beyond the nearfield).

The KH 310 is capable of 110.3 dB SPL at 1m. That's more than enough for large living rooms, and more than many floorstanders rated for farfield use. So it’s hard to believe Neumann’s suggested listening distance has anything to do with output limits.

That leads me to believe their 1.5–2.5m recommendation is more about acoustic design and specifically how the mid and tweeter integrate and sum in phase at that distance.

 

[unpluggged]

The KH 310 is capable of 110.3 dB SPL at 1m

At 3% THD and over 100 Hz. If you take bass into account, the SPL comes down to 106.8 dB SPL. This is for half-space.

Now, at 2 m (twice the distance) this figure falls four times, that is, by 12 dB. If we want to have nice distortion around 0.5% THD, this falls to 95 dB at 1 m or 83 dB at 2 m. In studio, the baseline monitoring level is recommended to be set at around 76 dB. So here there is not enough headroom left to work with (we'd like about 20 dB of it).

Also, consider this figure:

So this speaker is indeed better suited for nearfield studio duties based on its output capabilities. But, as I said, in home environment these considerations and limitations may not be as relevant, and I definitely can see them used at greater listening distances. I even tried my KH 120s in the living room at distances about 2.5 m and liked their sound very much and did not feel they were lacking SPL (at least not with modern pop-style mastered material), so I do make a distinction here and do not categorically advise against such usage (as some other members here do) — on the contrary.

 

[levimax]

At 3% THD and over 100 Hz. If you take bass into account, the SPL comes down to 106.8 dB SPL. This is for half-space.

Now, at 2 m (twice the distance) this figure falls four times, that is, by 12 dB. If we want to have nice distortion around 0.5% THD, this falls to 95 dB at 1 m or 83 dB at 2 m. In studio, the baseline monitoring level is recommended to be set at around 76 dB. So here there is not enough headroom left to work with (we'd like about 20 dB of it).

Also, consider this figure:
View attachment 452789

So this speaker is indeed better suited for nearfield studio duties based on its output capabilities. But, as I said, in home environment these considerations and limitations may not be as relevant, and I definitely can see them used at greater listening distances. I even tried my KH 120s in the living room at distances about 2.5 m and liked their sound very much and did not feel they were lacking SPL (at least not with modern pop-style mastered material), so I do make a distinction here and do not categorically advise against such usage (as some other members here do) — on the contrary.

While I agree with your conclusions all the references I have seen say that doubling the distance from the sound source results in a 6 dB drop in SPL rather than the 12 dB you mention.

 

[Ellebob]

Sound drops 6db per doubling distance in free space or outside. In home sized rooms it is about 4db, depends on the room.

The ongoing arguments about nearfield, midfield, etc. are crazy. This is a site about measurements, go check them. Something like a Kef R3 and a Genelec 8331/8341 will disperse similarly and both have a relatively flat frequency response. Compare some 2 way like speakers like a Revel against a Neumann, etc. Same thing.

But, for some reason it's okay to use Revel, Kef, etc.in you living room 3-4m away but not the Genelec, Neumann, etc. 3-4m away. You could use any of these bookshelf sized speakers for monitors or home use. There would be nothing wrong with mixing on Kef, Revel, etc. and there is nothing wrong with listening to Genelec, Neumann, etc. in your home.

Of course the further you listen from any speaker the less direct sound you hear and the more reflections from the room you will hear. Again, doesn't matter if it is a monitor or home speaker. If you like to listen loud then you need a larger speaker.

Please stop posting these charts designed for PRO applications of listening distances unless the individual is using them for pro purposes. These are about driver integration for nearfield and SPL capability as you listen further away.

If you want to show how a Genelec, Neumann, etc. sound detiorates at 3.5m then do it showing measurements! Then you can show the measurements on how the Revel and Kef are still fine at 3.5m! You won't be able to do it as sound decays based on physics and not because some chart says it is not recommended more than 2m.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[boxerfan88]

The ongoing arguments about nearfield, midfield, etc. are crazy. This is a site about measurements, go check them. Something like a Kef R3 and a Genelec 8331/8341 will disperse similarly and both have a relatively flat frequency response. Compare some 2 way like speakers like a Revel against a Neumann, etc. Same thing.

But, for some reason it's okay to use Revel, Kef, etc.in you living room 3-4m away but not the Genelec, Neumann, etc. 3-4m away. You could use any of these bookshelf sized speakers for monitors or home use. There would be nothing wrong with mixing on Kef, Revel, etc. and there is nothing wrong with listening to Genelec, Neumann, etc. in your home.

Exactly. That's why some of us (me included) are pushing back on the notion of nearfield only. Even Neumann's documentation shows a pretty wide recommended operating distance spanning nearfield to midfield. Anyhow, it's like a mosquito whine that keeps coming back every now and then.

 

[markstein]

I wonder why they specifically call out an optimal range. Maybe it’s just a conservative spec?

My guess is that Neumanns recommendation is due to

- proper driver integration (min. listening distance)
- max. SPL capability (max. listening distance)
- directivity, leading to a indirect/direct sound ratio in room (max. listening distance)

Genelec provides nice bars with red/green color specifying recommended listening distance for their speakers.

Also keep in mind: Neumanns and Genelecs recommendations are meant for professional use of their speakers as a production tool, as an acoustical loupe. Not for listening pleasure at home.

Compare the soundstage of a near field setup with a more conventional living room setup and larger listening distance. Nearfield provides more a "window" to the music (a little bit like a headphone) while the far field setup sounds "bigger" and more "there", but also much less precise (hard to describe). I prefer the latter.

There's is a dedicated thread about soundstage and spaciousness here at ASR, it may be worth reading.

 

[markstein]

The KH 310 is capable of 110.3 dB SPL at 1m. That's more than enough for large living rooms, and more than many floorstanders rated for farfield use.

Not (entirely) correct. Look at the graph "SPL @ 3%/10% distortion" on the Neumann product page and you see that SPL capability is limited by the woofer and more in the range of 103dB @1m. Below 100Hz much less.
Midrange and tweeter can go much louder.

This is sufficient loud for me in my room when paired with subwoofers, crossed at 80Hz. However, in a very large room at very loud levels, you may run into limits.

 

[kolestonin]

Thanks for all the responses which are indeed very helpfull. Most of you keep bringing the SPL factor while I made clear it is not a concern since my first post though. I was also never arguing against using these in a home setup at 3+ meters. I am just trying to get a clearer picture of what the design intent behind those specs really is, especially around driver integration and phase coherence.

Totally agree that home listening allows for more flexibility, and the tradeoff often leans toward spaciousness and scale rather than surgical precision. I’ll check out that soundstage thread too.

That said, my initial point wasn’t to rehash the nearfield/midfield debate, but simply to understand what subtle compromises come into play when moving outside of the manufacturer’s optimal range. I am that type of a guy who reads the manual even of a kitchen boiler(ok exaggerating maybe) and always pay a lot of attention on what the manufacturer/designer of a device says on optimal use/function. Imagine when paying all these money so to buy a some gear of advanced sound engineering. These are precision tools with specific design targets, not that they stop working beyond that, but it seems fair to say they may not operate at 100% of their intended performance envelope when used differently. That’s really all I was trying to explore.

 

[unpluggged]

While I agree with your conclusions all the references I have seen say that doubling the distance from the sound source results in a 6 dB drop in SPL rather than the 12 dB you mention.

Could be. It was late at night when I was writing it

 

[teashea]

There are times when I listen music

Thanks for the feedback.
It’s good to hear they’re working well for some of you even at >3m.

Speakers are optimized for near to midfield distances and this is a documented fact in Neumann’s own literature though. And I’m just trying to make sense of the distance recommendations Neumann gives. If they’re not that critical, I wonder why they specifically call out an optimal range. Maybe it’s just a conservative spec?

I’m not doubting they can work further back nor saying that they fall apart at 3m+. Just trying to understand if there’s a meaningful difference in how things like imaging or coherence hold up as you move beyond manufacturer's suggested range.

Curious if anyone’s actually A/B tested at different distances?

For what it's worth I have some KH310's setup according to Neumans instructions with a LP just over 2 meters from the speakers with DSP room EQ below 400 Hz. The room is oddly shaped and 8 meters deep. In the dedicated LP everything sounds balanced with a wide variety of recordings and the image is solid. Moving between 1.5 and 3 meters the differences are subtle and all sounds good. If I move further back in the room I start to notice room modes in the bass (loud and quiet spots) and the treble gradually drops off the further away I get. The image also changes to be less "focused" but not at all unpleasant.

I did not directly compare this behavior to other speakers in the same spot but this is pretty much expected behavior.

For "real" monitoring I would definitely use the recommended distance and toe in as this maximises the "direct sound" so takes the room out of things as much as possible. For further distances I don't hear any disadvantages compared to other speakers I have heard but the further away the more the room comes into play and the less the speakers dominate the sound which is OK for recreational listening but not for "real" monitoring.

I would be curious what all goes into Nuemann's listening distance recommendations.

It is interesting...... It is clear that it is not simply a matter of SPL.

 

[teashea]

Thanks for all the responses which are indeed very helpfull. Most of you keep bringing the SPL factor while I made clear it is not a concern since my first post though. I was also never arguing against using these in a home setup at 3+ meters. I am just trying to get a clearer picture of what the design intent behind those specs really is, especially around driver integration and phase coherence.

Totally agree that home listening allows for more flexibility, and the tradeoff often leans toward spaciousness and scale rather than surgical precision. I’ll check out that soundstage thread too.

That said, my initial point wasn’t to rehash the nearfield/midfield debate, but simply to understand what subtle compromises come into play when moving outside of the manufacturer’s optimal range. I am that type of a guy who reads the manual even of a kitchen boiler(ok exaggerating maybe) and always pay a lot of attention on what the manufacturer/designer of a device says on optimal use/function. Imagine when paying all these money so to buy a some gear of advanced sound engineering. These are precision tools with specific design targets, not that they stop working beyond that, but it seems fair to say they may not operate at 100% of their intended performance envelope when used differently. That’s really all I was trying to explore.

Good points. My perspective is that Neumann audio engineers know what they are doing and their statements are meaningful.... even if we do not understand all of the factors that form the basic of what they say. Our lack of understanding does not change the reality.

 

[teashea]

Sound drops 6db per doubling distance in free space or outside. In home sized rooms it is about 4db, depends on the room.

The ongoing arguments about nearfield, midfield, etc. are crazy. This is a site about measurements, go check them. Something like a Kef R3 and a Genelec 8331/8341 will disperse similarly and both have a relatively flat frequency response. Compare some 2 way like speakers like a Revel against a Neumann, etc. Same thing.

But, for some reason it's okay to use Revel, Kef, etc.in you living room 3-4m away but not the Genelec, Neumann, etc. 3-4m away. You could use any of these bookshelf sized speakers for monitors or home use. There would be nothing wrong with mixing on Kef, Revel, etc. and there is nothing wrong with listening to Genelec, Neumann, etc. in your home.

Of course the further you listen from any speaker the less direct sound you hear and the more reflections from the room you will hear. Again, doesn't matter if it is a monitor or home speaker. If you like to listen loud then you need a larger speaker.

Please stop posting these charts designed for PRO applications of listening distances unless the individual is using them for pro purposes. These are about driver integration for nearfield and SPL capability as you listen further away.

If you want to show how a Genelec, Neumann, etc. sound detiorates at 3.5m then do it showing measurements! Then you can show the measurements on how the Revel and Kef are still fine at 3.5m! You won't be able to do it as sound decays based on physics and not because some chart says it is not recommended more than 2m.

Sorry for the rant.

They are pro level studio monitors.

 

[Chr1]

My understanding of the maximum optimum distances recommended by Neumann is that they are for the monitors only, and will be limited primarily by SPL.
Presumably if you are using them with subwoofers, and therefore have an increased SPL capability, this ideal usable distance is increased.
How much is open to question, and likely influenced and/or dependant on the particular subwoofers used.
I could be wrong here however...

 

[Ellebob]

At closer distances it's driver integration, further away it's SPL. Look at the measurements. Take the Genelec ones for instance. From the lowest model to the highest model they all disperse about the same plus or minus 50°. Same is true with Neulan the KH80 and KH420 are both 50°. Their larger monitors don't disperse with a narrower angle to send less energy towards the walls. Again these are for monitoring purposes and hopefully in treated rooms. So except for bass extension the main difference is SPL.

I am very familiar with these monitors we install both Neumann and Genelec at work. If you like their sound there's nothing wrong using them in your home and they won't sound like garbage if placed further than near field range. You don't have to go to the larger monitors as long as you don't need louder listening levels.

For smaller speakers it is more essential to use a sub for playing lower octaves but the larger ones not as much so. I recommend sub(s) typically as the best location for bass is not the same as mids and highs. So, even with a capable monitor that plays the lower octaves, sub(s) are nice for better bass. But, that is a different topic.

Again show measurements or research not just the engineers say so. I wouldn't recommend KH80s for a studio with seating 3m away because they most likely need greater SPL capability. If somebody doesn't listen loud and wants quality sound compared to a many BT speakers or uses it connected to their TV and wants better sound than their TV or sound bar can provide they would be fine in that application.

 

[Chr1]

Indeed. Have to say that I reckon that a pair of KH310s combined with a pair of capable subs makes for a pretty awesome home stereo, 2.x setup. Unless you are in a huge room.
Mine are also integrated into a 9.2 surround system and I think I'd be hard pressed to find anything better for the price paid.
My distance to MLP is about 3m.
I mostly listen to electronic music with low bass content, and I'm definitely not lacking in SPL output required for my given situation.

 

[LETRA]

I bought a pair of KH310A a month and a half ago and before that I read hundreds of posts in this thread, which were very helpful. In addition to thanking everyone who wrote I want to say that in the last few days I noticed a very noticeable improvement by introducing a Topping Pre90 preamp into the audio chain. When I received the Neumann's I connected them directly to the Topping DX9 preamp output. However the other day I wanted to do a test and I put the Topping DX9 in DAC mode connecting to the Pre90 and there I connected the KH310s. The sound is more cleaner and there is more separation of instruments. The internal preamp of the DX9 is good, but the dedicated Pre90 preamp is better. For all of you who use the KH310s connected directly to a DAC (I saw several while reading the thread) I would like to suggest that you try a dedicated preamp.

 

[teashea]

I bought a pair of KH310A a month and a half ago and before that I read hundreds of posts in this thread, which were very helpful. In addition to thanking everyone who wrote I want to say that in the last few days I noticed a very noticeable improvement by introducing a Topping Pre90 preamp into the audio chain. When I received the Neumann's I connected them directly to the Topping DX9 preamp output. However the other day I wanted to do a test and I put the Topping DX9 in DAC mode connecting to the Pre90 and there I connected the KH310s. The sound is more cleaner and there is more separation of instruments. The internal preamp of the DX9 is good, but the dedicated Pre90 amp is better. For all of you who use the KH310s connected directly to a DAC (I saw several while reading the thread) I would like to suggest that you try a dedicated preamp.

Do you mean the input to the KH310's? Of course a good source will sound better than a poor quality source.

Or do you mean something else?

 

[LETRA]

Do you mean the input to the KH310's? Of course a good source will sound better than a poor quality source.

Or do you mean something else?

Yes, I mean the use of a dedicated preamp has been crucial with the KH310s and yet it is not so important in another of my setups, with the Seas A26 DIY passive speakers and the Purifi Boxem Arthur amp.

 

[teashea]

Yes, I mean the use of a preamp has been crucial with the KH310s and yet it is not so important in another of my setups, with the Seas A26 DIY passive speakers and the Purifi Boxem Arthur amp.

I am still not sure i understand. Are you saying that the prior amp/preamp you used as an input for your KH310's was inferior quality? ... and that the quality of the KH310's show this difference?