Neumann KH 310A Review (Powered Monitor)

[dfuller]

The only thing that can really reduce SBIR is flush mounting, and that only reduces it and does not eliminate it. It does provide a LF boost though because the speaker behaves as though it's in an infinite baffle, which can improve headroom somewhat (you can cut bass to get back to linear, thereby increasing maximum possible level).

Desk bounce is a well known phenomenon, it causes a low mid to upper bass region boost. That's why many active speaker manufacturers include a cut centered somewhere in the 120-250hz area in an attempt to counteract it (arguably in vain, but... anyway). Part of the reason many studios that are not meant for large format tracking have moved away from the console paradigm is that consoles are an acoustic nightmare. A huge more or less flat surface in between listener and speaker is bad!

This mastering room (Dave Collins' room, specifically, designed by @Northward Acoustics) is much closer to acoustically ideal. The racks to the side are angled such that the bounce off the top is reflected away from the listening position, and are also mostly open - again, to reduce reflections. The main desk itself is tiny, and it is out of the "flight path" of the speaker-to-LP angle.

 

[ernestcarl]

The only thing that can really reduce SBIR is flush mounting, and that only reduces it and does not eliminate it. It does provide a LF boost though because the speaker behaves as though it's in an infinite baffle, which can improve headroom somewhat (you can cut bass to get back to linear, thereby increasing maximum possible level).

Desk bounce is a well known phenomenon, it causes a low mid to upper bass region boost. That's why many active speaker manufacturers include a cut centered somewhere in the 120-250hz area in an attempt to counteract it (arguably in vain, but... anyway).

The desk also causes undesirable reflections higher up. Neumann’s narrower vertical directivity waveguides help only in the HF. Jesco (from Acoustics Insider) has a video demonstrating the effect of those pre-baked monitor EQ switches… EQ can help partially/roughly compensate, but move away and the SBIR disappears and you now have a dip due to the EQ applied.

 

[dfuller]

The desk also causes undesirable reflections higher up. Neumann’s narrower vertical directivity waveguides help only in the HF. Jesco (from Acoustics Insider) has a video demonstrating the effect of those pre-baked monitor EQ switches… EQ can help partially/roughly compensate, but move away and the SBIR disappears and you now have a dip due to the EQ applied.

Yep, EQ is far from a panacea - in fact, usually it doesn't really work.

 

[boxerfan88]

What is the recommended way to position the mic? vertically or horizontally? I thought i read vertically as you suggested but yet i see lots of reviews that are horizontal. Sorry, not trying to derail this post.
Now back to regularly scheduled programming

I've to say I'm not the expert on this topic.

Years ago I read somewhere that pointing the mic at 0-degrees is generally for speaker measurements (when you want to focus on the direct wave, for example during speaker design), but at 90-degrees when taking room measurements (when you want to more evenly capture the direct wave plus reflections).

Ever since then, I've always used 90-degree UMIK position for room EQ...

Over time, I have also come to learn to use MMM RTA measurements to cross check room EQ that I have done...

Yeah, and back to regular programming...

 

[ernestcarl]

Yep, EQ is far from a panacea - in fact, usually it doesn't really work.

There are caveats that may not be immediately clear. One just needs to have more realistic expectations... also without wider verification, one is left guessing that the correction/compensation works as intended -- or not.

 

[Martigane]

This. Located as they are now:

• the listening triangel is wider because the vertical center is the mid range - tweeter line,
• the high position of the woofer leads to cancellation (due to floor and ceiling bounce) at other frequencies than the Saishos.

Ok, so do you wish to share any constructive advice to simultaneously setup the two speakers in the same room while improving the two issues mentioned ? (which btw will remain true whatever we do)
Or do you just want to complain about imperfections of the real world and build a rotating table that could handle the weight ? (Which still would not solve everything.. maybe add a table to create an artificial bounce at right height?)

I feel like the best alternative would be to put the KH310 each on the left of the saisho, for same tweeter height.
This won't solve the floor bounce delta and bring discrepancies on lateral reflexions.
Or maybe put the KH310 at Saisho's woofer height and tilt them up to be on axis again?

 

[LTig]

Ok, so do you wish to share any constructive advice to simultaneously setup the two speakers in the same room while improving the two issues mentioned ? (which btw will remain true whatever we do)
Or do you just want to complain about imperfections of the real world and build a rotating table that could handle the weight ? (Which still would not solve everything.. maybe add a table to create an artificial bounce at right height?)

No, see below. I hoped you would know what to do if I write what not to do, ...

I feel like the best alternative would be to put the KH310 each on the left of the saisho, for same tweeter height.

... and in fact you do. That would be my approach as well.

This won't solve the floor bounce delta and bring discrepancies on lateral reflexions.
Or maybe put the KH310 at Saisho's woofer height and tilt them up to be on axis again?

This problem however cannot be solved without adding a sub to the KH310. I mentioned it as a possible explanation for different sound.

 

[ribonucleic]

What would one gain from choosing the KH420 - at twice the expense and weight - over this, beyond a few extra hertz on the bottom end?

 

[Pio]

What would one gain from choosing the KH420 - at twice the expense and weight - over this, beyond a few extra hertz on the bottom end?

A lot more dynamics and spl. Plus the ability to get even more with the addition of subs.

 

[ribonucleic]

A lot more dynamics and spl.

Just picturing someone running their 310s at 116dB and screaming over the volume to his wife to explain why he needs louder speakers.

 

[Pio]

Just picturing someone running their 310s at 116dB and screaming over the volume to his wife to explain why he needs louder speakers.

Usually those max spl specs are for certain frequencies, not the full frequency spectrum. For the 310, thats 100hz to 6khz. More telling is "max short term spl on music material" which is 100 db as per the Neumann specs.

 

[Inner Space]

What would one gain from choosing the KH420 - at twice the expense and weight - over this, beyond a few extra hertz on the bottom end?

There's a huge difference, really. It's two different categories, miles apart. The 310s, used nearfield at modest volumes, are virtually perfect, but it's a kind of academic, forensic perfection, and smaller than it should be. Whereas the 420s have a legit claim to be one of the world's best speakers right now, bar none. They have all the good Toole stuff, plus huge headroom, punch and liveness. Honestly, if an apparition appeared and said I had 30 seconds to get on line and order the last-ever speakers I would ever have, I would probably get the 420s. They do everything well and never let you down. The 310s wouldn't be on the list.

 

[ribonucleic]

More telling is "max short term spl on music material" which is 100 db as per the Neumann specs.

100dB from a near field monitor is as hard as I dare to rock at my age.

 

[tifune]

Usually those max spl specs are for certain frequencies, not the full frequency spectrum. For the 310, thats 100hz to 6khz. More telling is "max short term spl on music material" which is 100 db as per the Neumann specs.

Important point depending on listening conditions. I used them for a time at 13ft, and there seemed to be a bass limiter when playing with boosted bass EQ or electronic music. I think you can sort of see it below. The 708p, however, had absolutely no issues at same distance.

 

[teashea]

There's a huge difference, really. It's two different categories, miles apart. The 310s, used nearfield at modest volumes, are virtually perfect, but it's a kind of academic, forensic perfection, and smaller than it should be. Whereas the 420s have a legit claim to be one of the world's best speakers right now, bar none. They have all the good Toole stuff, plus huge headroom, punch and liveness. Honestly, if an apparition appeared and said I had 30 seconds to get on line and order the last-ever speakers I would ever have, I would probably get the 420s. They do everything well and never let you down. The 310s wouldn't be on the list.

I agree that the KH30's are primarily designed for nearfield use. I have mine 1.2 meters from my LP. In fact, with the exception of the KH420's all of the Neumann monitors are primarily designed for nearfiled use.

 

[Pio]

Important point depending on listening conditions. I used them for a time at 13ft, and there seemed to be a bass limiter when playing with boosted bass EQ or electronic music. I think you can sort of see it below. The 708p, however, had absolutely no issues at same distance.

The 708P behaves like a much larger speaker. I absolutely love the 708Ps.

 

[Pio]

100dB from a near field monitor is as hard as I dare to rock at my age.

100 db is pretty loud.. and will hurt ones hearing if exposed for long periods of time. At any age.

 

[Pearljam5000]

KH310 is 10 years old now so there should be a KH310 II soon

 

[Martigane]

What would one gain from choosing the KH420 - at twice the expense and weight - over this, beyond a few extra hertz on the bottom end?

1. Lower distortion in the bass (is a limitation on kh310)
2. Better horizontal directivity.
3. Hopefully better dynamics, i found the kh310 pretty limited there.

Some would argue that keeping the kh310 and investing in 1 or 2 subs would give a better bang for the buck if you focus on nearfield and low frequencies.

 

[unpluggged]

Just picturing someone running their 310s at 116dB and screaming over the volume to his wife to explain why he needs louder speakers.

At one meter?