Neumann KH120 II Monitor Review

[HarmonicTHD]

I have KH 750 + KH 80s for my computer desk system which is calibrated via MA-1. Wondering if I replace the KH 80s with KH 120 II, would the low pass frequency change since KH120 can go lower frequency ?

I saw some comments in this thread that, for a desk/table system, KH 120 II would provide NO more practical benefit over KH 80 in a KH 750 system, Is this confirmed or just theoretical analysis ?

I have the same system. From the top of my head I’d say there is indeed no or only marginal benefit with the KH120 if you cross them over at the same frequency. (But I would have to look at the details). Yes the KH120 might play louder at less distortion but if that is relevant in your case I don’t know.

 

[goat76]

Artists rely on their senses. There is a mix of people on GearSpace, but a substantial part are musicians making music and they favor gear that make the sound they like. That is not necessarily a correct or true sound, but what fits their music. So opinions on GearSpace is relevant if you want to make music in the same style/genre of a said person on that forum. That is a different approach from hifi. But there is of cause also people on that forum that look for a neutral sound also...

The importance of perfect measuring studio monitors is an idea mostly found at HiFi forums like this one. Don't get me wrong, but it's way more important that the mixing engineer is familiar with the sound of his choice of monitors, and that he or she can listen to them for a full day of work without listening fatigue. If well-known reference tracks sound right to the mixing engineer himself on his sound system, there's no reason his mixes can't sound equally good.

I would like to see a study that points to way better mixing results if the mixing engineers got used to almost completely flat measuring monitors from Neumann or Genelec monitors, over say ProAc, ATC, Yamaha, or any other brands that the mixing engineer was also used to before.

 

[Joaquinín]

I have the same system. From the top of my head I’d say there is indeed no or only marginal benefit with the KH120 if you cross them over at the same frequency. (But I would have to look at the details). Yes the KH120 might play louder at less distortion but if that is relevant in your case I don’t know.

I am in a similar situation (Kh80 at 105 cm distance + Monolith 10v2 SW and Dirac BC, which allows me to put the crossover even at 100 hz or higher to reduce distortion; DAC is Topping's DM7). Sometimes I wonder if the Kh120II could make a difference. The Kh120II distortion figures are certainly much better, but maybe not audible at the usually moderate sound levels I use.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I am in a similar situation (Kh80 at 105 cm distance + Monolith 10v2 SW and Dirac BC, which allows me to put the crossover even at 100 hz or higher to reduce distortion; DAC is Topping's DM7). Sometimes I wonder if the Kh120II could make a difference. The Kh120II distortion figures are certainly much better, but maybe not audible at the usually moderate sound levels I use.

As a quick and dirty assessment. Let’s have a look at the respective distortion charts from both speakers around 100hz (xover). Unfortunately Amir did not measure distortion and Neumann only provides it for a whopping 90dBSPL for the KH80.

Distortion
KH80 at 100Hz, 90dBSPL: ca. -30dB (worst case 2nd Harmonic)
KH120: ca -50dB (2nd and 3rd pretty equal).

So yes when crossing over at 100Hz or less, the KH120 would have less distortion when played at 90dBSPL. However if this is audible is a different matter. Let alone if one plays at this level (the KH80 is more comfortable in the 80dB SPL range approx, but no distortion data is available - at least I couldn’t find it on the fly).

In order to determine the xover where distortion from the KH80 becomes benign (eg-40dB, 1%) the chart gives ca 200Hz. However at this point the sub can be located so two subs would be recommended, so the cheaper option would be KH120 only one sub (KH750).

Because distortions drop generally significantly with lower SPL, I would venture the guess that for around 80dB the KH80 and 120 will probably be similar when xover around 100hz with a KH750.

Again very quick and dirty but I hope it explains the general direction.

 

[HQY]

I have KH 750 + KH 80s for my computer desk system which is calibrated via MA-1. Wondering if I replace the KH 80s with KH 120 II, would the low pass frequency change since KH120 can go lower frequency ?

I saw some comments in this thread that, for a desk/table system, KH 120 II would provide NO more practical benefit over KH 80 in a KH 750 system, Is this confirmed or just theoretical analysis ?

if you already have kh80 and are happy with them, then no need to change to 120ii.
if you dont have either 80 or 120ii and want to buy one, then the 120ii, as it's bigger, has spdif connection, and no issue with standby.
i have 80 and 120ii using with 750, and the above is my summary.

 

[Spocko]

This is a review, detailed measurements and listening tests/EQ of Neumann KH120 MKII DSP active monitor (speaker). It is on kind loan from the company and costs US $999 each.
View attachment 298552
I love the form factor for desktop use. It is not too deep or unwieldly as some larger configurations can be:
View attachment 298553

Back panel shows the settings as used for testing:
View attachment 298554

One nit: while having power and XLR inputs vertically inserted allows for compact placement against the wall and such, it is a bit of a pain to get the cables to go in and stay properly. It is a one time nuisance fortunately. Here are the high level specs:

• High-precision drivers, Mathematically Modelled Dispersion (MMD) waveguide
• Linear frequency response 44 Hz to 21 kHz (±3 dB)
• Linear phase response 120 Hz to 16 kHz (±45°) with latency <2.6 ms
• DSP engine allows for room adaptive calibration via Neumann’s MA 1
• Razor-sharp imaging due to extremely low tolerances (±0.5 dB)
• May be combined with other KH line speakers in immersive/surround setups

Neumann KH120 II Speaker Measurements
As usual we start with our anechoic frequency response generated with Klippel Near-field Scanner:
View attachment 298555
I expect precision from Neumann but I am always amazed how incredibly flat on-axis response is from their speakers. I mean this is the level of flatness we get out of electronics, not something electromechanical! Despite having just a 5.5 inch woofer, the speaker dares to go nearly flat to 50 Hz! Directivity is excellent other than the woofer slightly beaming before tweeter takes over.

Front ported speakers always worry me as far as amount of box/port resonances they can project. But in capable hands of Neumann engineers, this is a non-issue:
View attachment 298556

Our modeling of early reflections is for far field listening but they still provide good insight as to how good the off-axis response is for near-field studio monitors:

View attachment 298557
You get excellent response other than unavoidable vertical dip which can be managed as noted. Perceptually it is not very important though.

Predicted in-room response has the same caveat but nevertheless, is almost textbook perfect:
View attachment 298558

Due to its smaller size, I decided to go down to 80 dBSPL and measure distortion:
View attachment 298559
There is a resonance at 334 Hz or so. This is seen as a tiny blip in on-axis response as well. It is well below my threshold though so not an issue. And at any rate, is overwhelmed at higher SPLs I normally show:

View attachment 298560

This is amazing level of performance. Look ag the gap between measured distortion and our 50 dB target. It is massive. At 96 dBSPL we do get more distortion but it is where the speaker response drops rapidly anyway:
View attachment 298561
As noted, the warning light came on in red although I didn't detect any sudden rise in distortion. Still, this is probably a good limit for the performance of this speaker.

Horizontal beamwidth/directivity shows excellence in design:
View attachment 298562

View attachment 298563

2-way non-coaxial speakers show the classic dip off-axis so best to stick to reference axis (upper ring of the woofer):
View attachment 298564

Waterfall shows the slight resonance I detected with other tests:
View attachment 298565

But look at how clean the back of the chart is.

I don't normally comment on step response but I had to make an exception on how idealized it is here:
View attachment 298566

Neumann KH120 MKII Listening Tests
Going into this review, I expected to focus on tonality as I always do with my female reference/test tracks. But what I immediately noticed was the warmth of the bass out of this little speaker! Even on a track that doesn't show case this, there was nicely present low frequency response. And it wasn't just the ears that detected it. Low notes were accompanied by cool puffs of air landing on my nose! This was at 1+ meter/4 feet which again, is impressive for such a small speaker.

Tonality was of course was right on the money and a joy to experience.

An issue I often I have with active speakers is lack of power. Not here. Despite only testing one speaker, I could get to very impressive levels with no hint of distortion above sub-bass (see below). As noted there was impressive bass that at times started to even resonate into the floor of my room! It is hard to rationalize your eye seeing a small speaker and your body saying, "man that is impressive bass!"

Throwing my torture track for sub-bass response did result in distorted bass. I took a shot at dialing out the extreme lows with a simple high-pass filter and it nicely did the trick:

View attachment 298567

At 35 Hz corner frequency, there was just a hint of distortion in sub-bass but no impact on tonality. If I increased that to 40 Hz, all distortion would vanish but there was tiny, tiny reduction in bass. Given that this is a DSP speaker, I imagine you could just dial this into the speaker.

Conclusions
Neumann once again shows that it takes its commitment to neutrality in professional monitor to the extreme. Once again, we see essentially ruler flat on-axis response and near perfect off-axis. Importantly, distortion is kept to very low level while pumping out a ton of bass relative to the size of the speaker. Combine this with a very compact form factor and you have one heck of a monitor -- for professional or consumer use. I have no need for another set of speakers but keep thinking I should try to buy this from Neumann!

It is my pleasure to recommend the Neumann KH120 II. You owe it to yourself to get a reference quality monitor like this and hear what your source material is supposed to sound like!

---------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

And wouldn't you know it? My KH120ii speakers arrived this week!

 

[Spocko]

As a Genelc fanboy, I am now tempted to try these and compare to my 8340 in the living room. 8331 stays for nearfield, probably for ever.

I'll tell you this (I have both), the differences are minor enough that I see no reason why you'd replace one with the other besides weight or DSP corrections.

 

[Spocko]

Do you recommend these KH120 II for listening at a distance of 2.5-3 metres (8-10 feet) ?

Sounds like you're in a large room - you should get a matching Neumann DSP subwoofer so you can hit the necessary loudness with enough bass and no distortion.

 

[Spocko]

Here's the spectrogram:
View attachment 299112

from my guide

So if I'm reading this right, best to have a system that can play down to 20Hz in order to reproduce all the info shown on the spectro?

 

[Spocko]

I'm talking about Sound Power Response, as defined by CTA2034A/spinorama.

But you are right, power handling drops like a rock anywhere below the port tuning frequency. This is one reason why distortion goes way UP below the frequency of the port/passive radiator.

eg.: port's peak output (tuning) is around 70Hz

Distortion:

View attachment 299732

Distortion momentarily dips at port tuning frequency (~70Hz), but then GOES WAY WAY UP, OFF THE CHART, literally, below 70Hz.

With passive ported speakers, you tend have to be around and have judicious use of the volume control. You can't just turn it up to 11 and go off to party.

One advantage of active speakers is that one can program into the DSP to limit the SPL output going off the deep end and blowing out the woofer and suspension.

This is why there's a matching DSP Neumann subwoofer available if you need to go down there.

 

[Spocko]

Ive just got my first sub! Im now a 2.1 system . Anyway, messing around with bass has really got me stumped. Do I actually want a flat response? I mean how do we know what bass response was used to master the music? And then did they boost it to “help” crappy customer speakers or airpods? Im not sure of my target at the moment.

Get what sounds good to YOU because we all have (1) personal preferences and (2) hearing sensitivities or insensitivities (not necessarily hearing loss) and with these, you can tune them to what you perceive as neutral.

 

[Spocko]

The importance of perfect measuring studio monitors is an idea mostly found at HiFi forums like this one. Don't get me wrong, but it's way more important that the mixing engineer is familiar with the sound of his choice of monitors, and that he or she can listen to them for a full day of work without listening fatigue...

Going to gently disagree here, because we are entering into how mixing engineers approach their work - which is very subjective, unique, etc. I mix/master my own content and I do want "perfectly measuring" studio monitors in order to find and correct deficiencies in my mix. If it is fatiguing, so be it because my raw recording sucks and needs correction - it's not the speakers fault. These are "pro" speakers that are tools designed for a specific purpose and if people happen to buy them for easy listening that's fine, but the idea of no "listening fatigue" is a bit of a paradox like testing a race car and then commenting "it would be nice at the end of a race to take it for a relaxing cruise down the boulevard with softer seats and less noise."

However, unlike a race car, these speakers have full DSP EQ function so you can voice it to sound less fatiguing if you wish!

 

[goat76]

Going to gently disagree here, because we are entering into how mixing engineers approach their work - which is very subjective, unique, etc. I mix/master my own content and I do want "perfectly measuring" studio monitors in order to find and correct deficiencies in my mix. If it is fatiguing, so be it because my raw recording sucks and needs correction - it's not the speakers fault. These are "pro" speakers that are tools designed for a specific purpose and if people happen to buy them for easy listening that's fine, but the idea of no "listening fatigue" is a bit of a paradox like testing a race car and then commenting "it would be nice at the end of a race to take it for a relaxing cruise down the boulevard with softer seats and less noise."

However, unlike a race car, these speakers have full DSP EQ function so you can voice it to sound less fatiguing if you wish!

The thing is that even if the monitors used are not fully correct measuring-wise but the mixing engineer finds them to sound right with well-known reference tracks, he still will be able to make correct mixing decisions with the target of those reference tracks. But if he instead uses some other monitors he doesn't like the sound of, even if they are considered objectively better, he will most likely overcompensate for the things he doesn't like with the sound. He could still use the reference tracks to get in the ballpark of correct, but it's a way better starting point to like how the reference tracks sound on his monitors.

If a professional mixing engineer will be able to work for 8-10 hours a day, it would be a really bad choice of studio monitors if he gets listening fatigue in an hour or two, no matter if the monitors he uses are considered objectively great or not.

Bob Clearmountain is considered a great mixing engineer who's in the mixing world and is also famous for using Yamaha NS-10s, do you think his mixes would have been significantly better if he had used Genelec or Neumann monitors instead? The same goes for all other great mixing engineers out there who are used to completely different sounding monitors of all kinds, and of all types of brands which are all measuring differently from each other. Do you really think their mixes would have been significantly better if they had chosen other studio monitors with objectively better measurements than the ones they are used to and have already given great and proven results?

I don't think so, I think the use of (for the mixing engineer) well-known pair of studio monitors, using well-known reference tracks that sounds right to him on those speakers, and mixing in a familiar studio room will most likely give the best result.

 

[tktran303]

This is why there's a matching DSP Neumann subwoofer available if you need to go down there.

Sure.

It’s also why Neumann make bigger monitors and bigger subs.

 

[dweeeeb2]

As a quick and dirty assessment. Let’s have a look at the respective distortion charts from both speakers around 100hz (xover). Unfortunately Amir did not measure distortion and Neumann only provides it for a whopping 90dBSPL for the KH80.

Distortion
KH80 at 100Hz, 90dBSPL: ca. -30dB (worst case 2nd Harmonic)
KH120: ca -50dB (2nd and 3rd pretty equal).

So yes when crossing over at 100Hz or less, the KH120 would have less distortion when played at 90dBSPL. However if this is audible is a different matter. Let alone if one plays at this level (the KH80 is more comfortable in the 80dB SPL range approx, but no distortion data is available - at least I couldn’t find it on the fly).

In order to determine the xover where distortion from the KH80 becomes benign (eg-40dB, 1%) the chart gives ca 200Hz. However at this point the sub can be located so two subs would be recommended, so the cheaper option would be KH120 only one sub (KH750).

Because distortions drop generally significantly with lower SPL, I would venture the guess that for around 80dB the KH80 and 120 will probably be similar when xover around 100hz with a KH750.

Again very quick and dirty but I hope it explains the general direction.

One interesting chart Erin does is show how distortions drop across the FR when handing lower frequencies to a sub.

 

[witwald]

The importance of perfect measuring studio monitors is an idea mostly found at HiFi forums like this one.

Really? That's a very wide-ranging statement and could do with a bit of substantiation, rather than just falling into the "hearsay" category. Of course, it's a point of view that comes up on HiFi forums that differ from this one. Keep in mind, even back in the 1970s, the "studio monitors" produced by companies such as B&W, IMF, etc., all tended to strive for a flat on-axis frequency response.

...it's way more important that the mixing engineer is familiar with the sound of his choice of monitors, and that he or she can listen to them for a full day of work without listening fatigue.

Maybe if they happen to be working in an unfamiliar acoustic room environment that might ring true. However, although tainted sound reproduction in one's monitors may still allow one to achieve a reasonable result, but it's probably going to result in a less-than-ideal mix. It does appear that the variable "requirements" for mixing are as variable as the "quality" of loudspeaker designs.

If well-known reference tracks sound right to the mixing engineer himself on his sound system, there's no reason his mixes can't sound equally good.

But why make the job harder for oneself? I really doubt that the mooted approach is actually all that good.

In the end, any mix made on imperfect monitors is likely to be a less-than-perfect mix. However, it can still sound acceptable, just not perfect. If less than perfect is acceptable, then mixing on non-flat monitors is acceptable.

 

[danbei]

Bob Clearmountain is considered a great mixing engineer who's in the mixing world and is also famous for using Yamaha NS-10s, do you think his mixes would have been significantly better if he had used Genelec or Neumann monitors instead?

Did he use exclusively NS-10? I believe this is not the case. He might also use Neumann/Genelec or some other brand as regulary as NS-10 on the same projects. He would not be famous for it because this is not as interesting for media as using crappy speakers.

 

[goat76]

Really? That's a very wide-ranging statement and could do with a bit of substantiation, rather than just falling into the "hearsay" category. Of course, it's a point of view that comes up on HiFi forums that differ from this one. Keep in mind, even back in the 1970s, the "studio monitors" produced by companies such as B&W, IMF, etc., all tended to strive for a flat on-axis frequency response.

The ballpark of "flat" sounding speakers is way larger than what this forum set it out to be. Studios that use monitors from B&W, Focal, ProAc, ATC, Yamaha, and so on, all use speakers that are in the ballpark of "flat" and are constantly producing good-sounding records, and that will not change in any significant way if they all one day decided to change their monitors to Genelec or Neumann speakers just because they measure a little bit better.
It's possible these studios could get used to the new monitors, but the records would not sound any better.

Maybe if they happen to be working in an unfamiliar acoustic room environment that might ring true. However, although tainted sound reproduction in one's monitors may still allow one to achieve a reasonable result, but it's probably going to result in a less-than-ideal mix. It does appear that the variable "requirements" for mixing are as variable as the "quality" of loudspeaker designs.

No, using (for the mixing engineer) well-known pair of studio monitors, using well-known reference tracks that sound right to him on those speakers, and mixing in a familiar studio environment that has a proven track record of good translation is all that is needed.
Most studio monitors are in the ballpark of being "flat" enough to do the job, I have never seen any reports that indicate that mixing engineers using monitors from Genelec or Neumann are constantly putting out considerably better-sounding mixes than mixing engineers using monitors from B&W, Focal, ProAc, ATC, Yamaha, and so on...

But why make the job harder for oneself? I really doubt that the mooted approach is actually all that good.

In the end, any mix made on imperfect monitors is likely to be a less-than-perfect mix. However, it can still sound acceptable, just not perfect. If less than perfect is acceptable, then mixing on non-flat monitors is acceptable.

The thing I'm trying to point out is that using familiar-sounding studio monitors with a proven track record is not a handicap, even if it exists other studio monitors that are considered objectively better measuring-wise.

Where is the proof that "any mix made on imperfect monitors is likely to be a less-than-perfect mix", or if we turn it the other way around, that "any mix made on perfect monitors is likely to give perfect mixes"?
Where is the proof that indicates that mixing engineers using monitors from Genelec or Neumann are constantly putting out considerably better-sounding mixes than mixing engineers using monitors from B&W, Focal, ProAc, ATC, Yamaha, and so on?

I would love to hear some examples of records made using Genelec and Neumann monitors, and then compare those mixes to mixes made using some of the other commonly used studio monitors that are considered less flat-sounding. Do you think we will be able to hear a significant difference for the better with the mixes made using Genelec or Neumann monitors over the other mixes?

 

[goat76]

Did he use exclusively NS-10? I believe this is not the case. He might also use Neumann/Genelec or some other brand as regulary as NS-10 on the same projects. He would not be famous for it because this is not as interesting for media as using crappy speakers.

No, I don't think he used NS-10s exclusively, he most likely used them as a "magnifying glass" to pinpoint faults in the midrange frequency area, and for traveling reference speakers. Those NS-10s were considered brutally revealing for faults in the mix, in particular the midrange that our hearing is most sensitive to, and if those faults couldn't be heard on the NS-10s they would probably not be heard on any other speakers.

The other studio monitors he used besides his NS-10s could be anything that is considered flat-sounding enough.

 

[jhaider]

I saw some comments in this thread that, for a desk/table system, KH 120 II would provide NO more practical benefit over KH 80 in a KH 750 system, Is this confirmed or just theoretical analysis ?

You'll have more headroom in the upper bass, at the expense of larger speakers and of course the additional cost.

Otherwise, once you get to this level of performance perceived differences are vanishingly small. FWIW, I tried the OG KH120 on my desk for a bit. Even though they didn't take up any more desk space (using Neumann's expensive but excellent LH 65 desktop stands) I ended up going back to KH 80 for aesthetic reasons. KH 120 just looked too big for me. I noticed them every time, whereas the ever so slightly smaller KH 80 seemed to visually disappear better. Sound-wise they were both superb. MA-1 was not a factor here, as I used a miniDSP SHD Studio with Dirac Live for bandwidth-limited EQ.