Neumann KH 310A Review (Powered Monitor)

[PristineSound]

"Improvement" would necessarily mean colorization. Why would putting an unnecessary preamp in the audio chain be better than a KH310 without the preamp?

The technical and scientific explanation you seek is in the video of John Siau of Benchmark that I linked.

To be clear, I only intervene to make sure that I hear you out thoroughly before I correct you to mitigate any misinformation for the sake of other members. I have no dog in the fight.

 

[LETRA]

"Improvement" would necessarily mean colorization. Why would putting an unnecessary preamp in the audio chain be better than a KH310 without the preamp?

Because the DAC digital volume control is acting as a preamplifier. The question is not whether it is better to use the KH310 without preamplification, because you can't do it. The KH310 has no volume controls, and no one is using a DAC without volume control to drive their KH310s. The real question is which preamp you want to use, whether that of a DAC's digital volume control or a dedicated device with the world's best measurements, such as the Topping Pre90.

 

[PristineSound]

Because the DAC digital volume control is acting as a preamplifier. The question is not whether it is better to use the KH310 without preamplification, because you can't do it. The KH310 has no volume controls, and no one is using a DAC without volume control to drive their KH310s. The real question is which preamp you want to use, whether that of a DAC's digital volume control or a dedicated device with the world's best measurements, such as the Topping Pre90.

The answer is, assuming the preamp and DAC are competently designed, there is absolutely zero audible difference with any permutations of use.

 

[Arindal]

These monitors do not need any pre-coloration.

Other way ´round: Due to their uneven directivity index over most relevant frequency bands, the indirect sound field they produce in some rooms, is inherently pre-colorated. The question is to which extend this is audible and if at all it is correctable. These are fine speakers, made for nearfield or to use in well-treated control rooms, where all this is not an issue.

So, yes, placing them in an untreated living environment at listening distances of 3m+, is qualifying as coloration, as it is inevitably leading to shifted tonality of reverb, or a dominance of indirect sound/reflections in some bands. The issue is caused particularly by the (excellent) midrange dome having a tendency of overly broad radiation hence low directivity index around 1K, while the tweeter is narrowing down higher bands, and so is the woofer in its highest, narrow band.

I am using KH310 in an untreated living room at >3m listening distance, and a slight HF shelf works really well for me. I see nothing wrong with that approach.

And there is nothing wrong with that, if the coloration is not in a band and of a significance that would allow your ears to distinct direct from indirect sound tonally (which is unlikely above 6.5k).

Experiencing an elevated treble as a result of room acoustics and placement, is, on the other hand, a general sign that reflections might be dominant. While it is legitimate to correct issues with a shelving filter, it might be a good idea to double-check if reducing the listening distance is the more promising measure here. That is particularly the case if localization stability improves with reduced listening distance.

 

[teashea]

Additionally to what I wrote before: look at the estimated in-room-response of KH310 (optimized for near field) vs KH420 (optimized for mid field) on spinorama.

KH420 clearly has less energy in high frequencies.

Btw this can also be observed when comparing on axis FR between both speakers.

I am using KH310 in an untreated living room at >3m listening distance, and a slight HF shelf works really well for me. I see nothing wrong with that approach.

OK....... KH310's are designed as nearfield studio monitors.

 

[markstein]

OK....... KH310's are designed as nearfield studio monitors.

Correct.

But if you compare KH310 with KH420 on spinorama you can see that HF dispersion is basically identical for both speakers, however, on axis HF level of KH420 is simply lower than KH310 HF level. No reason not to use KH310 in mid field. You simply switch the HF DIP switch to-1.5dB - and voila.

Edit: Contrary to spinorama data (ASR measurement), sound&recording tests data do not show these differences. So I might be wrong.

 

[LETRA]

The answer is, assuming the preamp and DAC are competently designed, there is absolutely zero audible difference with any permutations of use.

No. The answer is that the DAC and the Preamplifier have different components and above all different attenuators. And the attenuator of the DAC volume control is worse than the attenuator of a good preamp. And within the “design competency” there is a hierarchy of who or what does it better as shown by the measurements we usually read in this forum.

 

[PristineSound]

No. The answer is that the DAC and the Preamplifier have different components and above all different attenuators. And the attenuator of the DAC volume control is worse than the attenuator of a good preamp. And within the “design competency” there is a hierarchy of who or what does it better as shown by the measurements we usually read in this forum.

You are wrong. Because the threshold of audibility is .1% THD+N. Even using a pot for attenuation, no issues. So yes, so long it's competently design no issues

You can read more here:

R

'Audibility of SINAD differences?'

Dec 29, 2024

I guess this is a question for Amir.
I’m curious if there’s a correlation between a specific amount of SINAD performance and an audible difference between the amps?

Don’t know if I phrased that right but would an amp within a SINAD of 70 sound audibly different than one of 100 or would an 80 sound different?

• RNRGAGNE
• Replies: 52
• Forum: Member Area

• 

 

[tmtomh]

No. The answer is that the DAC and the Preamplifier have different components and above all different attenuators. And the attenuator of the DAC volume control is worse than the attenuator of a good preamp. And within the “design competency” there is a hierarchy of who or what does it better as shown by the measurements we usually read in this forum.

You have no support for that blanket assertion. Different devices with built-in volume controls will have different levels of noise at different levels of output - yes, absolutely. But as you yourself say, we need to look at measurements. A given DAC's noise level at a given output voltage/volume can be better, worse, or the same as a given preamp's. And there are a whole range of different noise levels that are all below the threshold of human audibility anyway, especially when listening to speakers (as opposed to headphones) in a home listening environment. Even in an unusually quiet home listening space, the range in dB between the room's noise floor and the loudest comfortable listening volume is somewhere in the range of 60-80dB.

It is absolutely possible that two different DACs or two different preamps, or a DAC and a preamp, can produce audibly different results out of a given speaker system. But most of the time any measured differences are not audible, and when they are audible, factors like output impedance mismatched volume when comparing, and so on are more likely to be the culprit than the quality of a digital or analogue attenuation circuit. (Although a significant channel imbalance in an analogue attenuator could also produce an audible change in the sound.)

 

[unpluggged]

John Siau explains why you get better performance when the Benchmark preamp is added instead of connectingb a DAC directly to the power amp.

John Siau, the VP of engineering at Benchmark.

Oh yeah, a totally unbiased and independent person, no commercial interest whatsoever.

By inserting a preamp between an output and an input we amplify the noise of that output and add preamp's own noise. Even if we are not talking about an active preamp, but a passive attenuator, it still can introduce distortion and artifacts. Well-engineered DACs that have low output impedance and high SINAD do not benefit from adding another active stage after their output. If you don't hear any noise, you don't have a noise problem. Better ensure proper gain staging and level matching (by setting input sensitivity and/or perhaps by using passive fixed/switchable attenuators) rather than try to add redundant volume controls with active amplification stages without proper understanding of technical aspects thereof.

And stop misleading people by appealing to an authority (and a false one, for that matter).

 

[PristineSound]

Oh yeah, a totally unbiased and independent person, no commercial interest whatsoever.

By inserting a preamp between an output and an input we amplify the noise of that output and add preamp's own noise. Even if we are not talking about an active preamp, but a passive attenuator, it still can introduce distortion and artifacts. Well-engineered DACs that have low output impedance and high SINAD do not benefit from adding another active stage after their output. If you don't hear any noise, you don't have a noise problem. Better ensure proper gain staging and level matching (by setting input sensitivity and/or perhaps by using passive fixed/switchable attenuators) rather than try to add redundant volume controls with active amplification stages without proper understanding of technical aspects thereof.

After you watch John's technical and scientific explanation of how THD+N actually went down when a preamp is inserted, you will have to walk back your statement. So make sure you don't watch it, this way to can claim ignorance and pretend that you are winning the argument.

And stop misleading people by appealing to an authority (and a false one, for that matter).

I'm a trained EE, and as an EE, I vouch for John Siau's explanation. And John's products on the market vouches for John himself.

When you have products out on the market, then you can criticize John.

 

[unpluggged]

the argument.

I am not arguing with anyone here.

When you have products out on the market, then you can criticize John.

Another fallacy, now of the "appeal to accomplishment" kind. Young man, you do not have even the slightest conception of the scale of products and objects I have successfully designed and built (not single-handedly, of course). But this is not a proper place to discuss my experience.

All the best and good night.

 

[LETRA]

I have no interest in fallacious discussions, so I will not respond to anyone. But what part would they not have understood that if they have a DAC with volume control those users are pre-amplifying, and if they realize that they are pre-amplifying with their DACs why not understand that dedicated pre-amps are better than DAC volume control? I will be left wondering because I have already seen the violent tone used by people too convinced of their misconceptions.

 

[PristineSound]

I am not arguing with anyone here.

Right.

Another fallacy, now of the "appeal to accomplishment" kind. Young man, you do not have even the slightest conception of the scale of products and objects I have successfully designed and built (not single-handedly, of course). But this is not a proper place to discuss my experience.

Then PM with the "scale" of your "accomplishments."

All the best and good night.

Good night indeed.

 

[tmtomh]

why not understand that dedicated pre-amps are better than DAC volume control? I will be left wondering because I have already seen the violent tone used by people too convinced of their misconceptions.

Because it's not necessarily true, that's why not. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You can say you're not responding to folks' comments, but you are. And you can claim folks disagreeing with you is a "violent" response, but it's not.

You're not persuading anyone, because your claims are overarching and lacking in evidence.

 

[RogerSmith]

I had heard some talk the last years that there will be the version MKII in the near future. Any reliable news on this?

 

[Karmacoma]

I had heard some talk the last years that there will be the version MKII in the near future. Any reliable news on this?

New Neumann stuff announcing Friday 9/12

I still don't understand why pro subs are so expensive Profiteering founded on a combo of quality product with the perceived quality being enhanced/ exaggerated by creating an upmarket aura

www.audiosciencereview.com