Neumann KH120 II Monitor Review

[IamJF]

In a modern room (a lot of glass, hard wood and concrete to look "great") reverberation radius is significant <1m! So you already have more than 50% reverb ...

Do some calculations. r=sqrt( V / (c * RT60) ). Volume in m³, speed of sound, reverberation time. or
r = 0,054 * sqrt ( V / RT60)

A 30m² room with RT60 of 1s get's about 0,5m. Getting reverberation time down to 0,5s -> 0,7m

Now you would need to add the directivity index of the speaker ... which we don't know and changes over frequency. A perfect cardioid or figure of 8 would boost it to 1,2m - but that's pretty unrealistic. So you would be in the 0,8-0,9m range.

And now go into Studio building ... reverb time of 0,2s boosts to 1,1m and with directivity a little more. But that means a LOT of absorption area! Not hanging a few panels ...

 

[IamJF]

A different way to estimate reverberation radius (but I didn't check tche formular, just copied): r = sqrt (A / 50)
Where A is the equivalent absorption area (1sqm of absober with absorption 0,7 counts as 0,7). So you need about 50m² of absorption to get a r of 1m.
How much do you have in your living room?

(I have about 40m² broadband absorption in my 15m² reference listening room. That's REALLY dead already, still under 1m for omni sound source. I have on/in wall speakers and recognise a change in sound at about 1,2-1,4m distance. But since the room is neutral the balance is not really changing but the fine details you can hear. And of course stereo size changes. )

 

[thewas]

Nobody listens to direct sound at these distances in a living room - most people dont't know that experience and some even don't like it. It's simply not the usecase for casual listening in a living room.

I know some audiophiles who do that exactly at their living rooms, for example Neumann KH420 or Geithain 921K at 2 meters, it is rather an exception though.

Nevertheless - a good monitor has at least some directivity and brings
a) a little more direct sound to your listening position
b) more neutral over all sound in the room cause of controlled off axis sound.

Exactly, so listening at larger distances is usually less problematic than with typical hifi loudspeakers with less smoother directivity.

 

[Pearljam5000]

The AKG K1000 that I owned were probably the closest thing to speakers In a perfect room that I'll ever get lol

 

[teashea]

I've been dreaming of a Neumann speaker for a whiles, but I have always had one hesitation...

Can anyone postulate why Neumann recommends such short listening distances for the KH 120II (1m-2m) and KH150 (1m-2.5m)? Is it just a matter of achieving reference level SPL or are there other problems that might arise at lengthier listening distances? I know they were intended for near field, but seems like they would do just as well for larger rooms.

In short, I need a new speaker for a large room (3.5m+ listening distance) and tend not to listen very loud. Would these be a good option? If its an SPL issue, what if I just included a subwoofer?

It is because these are designed as nearfield / very nearfield monitors. They are not intended for midfield use. And this is exactly what I want. There are so many advantages of using nearfield monitors. The issue of room acoustics is dramatically reduced, almost to the point of irrelevance. Neumann knows exactly what they are doing. For those who want midfield speakers - look elsewhere. Neumann is laser focused on nearfield monitors. Get your pleasure listening speakers somewhere else. It is the essence of the design parameters of the Neumann audio engineers.

 

[Curvature]

It is because these are designed as nearfield / very nearfield monitors. They are not intended for midfield use. And this is exactly what I want. There are so many advantages of using nearfield monitors. The issue of room acoustics is dramatically reduced, almost to the point of irrelevance. Neumann knows exactly what they are doing. For those who want midfield speakers - look elsewhere. Neumann is laser focused on nearfield monitors. Get your pleasure listening speakers somewhere else. It is the essence of the design parameters of the Neumann audio engineers.

This is just as subjective as anything on Audiogon or elsewhere. You don't realize it.

There is absolutely nothing that prevents studio speakers from being used elsewhere, and there is no inherent design difference. In fact these Neumanns are better and more capable than traditional home speakers, even some of the bigger ones. Plenty of 5" bookshelves are being sold for living rooms.

Everyone has all the data to decide.

 

[teashea]

This is just as subjective as anything on Audiogon or elsewhere. You don't realize it.

There is absolutely nothing that prevents studio speakers from being used elsewhere, and there is no inherent design difference. In fact these Neumanns are better and more capable than traditional home speakers, even some of the bigger ones. Plenty of 5" bookshelves are being sold for living rooms.

Everyone has all the data to decide.

That is incorrect. The Neumann audio engineers know because they are the experts. They know. They understand. That is what matters. Your lack of understanding is irrelevant.

 

[Ellebob]

That is incorrect. The Neumann audio engineers know because they are the experts. They know. They understand. That is what matters. Your lack of understanding is irrelevant.

Please quotes and facts I've given facts in the past on how things are done for dispersion and SPL level and driver integration. You've given no facts on why a near field speaker can't be used in the midfield as long as you don't need higher SPL. I would bet Neumann gets upset at you saying this all the time because I'm sure they would like to sell their speakers. You are the one spreading misinformation. Present the facts and stop trying to say the engineers designed it this way. Yes they designed it to reach a certain SPL at a given distance and other than driver integration that's about it.

 

[holdingpants01]

 

[HQY]

i'm not a prefessional user so i care about the listening distance but not too much. i try to follow the manual of the 120ii to get as better result as much as possible but not so strictly. my listening distance is around 2 meters. the result is good enought for my need.

 

[Curvature]

That is incorrect. The Neumann audio engineers know because they are the experts. They know. They understand. That is what matters. Your lack of understanding is irrelevant.

Explain it to me.

Both the KH120II and SVS Ultra Bookshelf produce around 1% or -40dB THD at 96dB SPL output at 100Hz.

The SVS is a very popular, highly recommended small speaker used in living rooms and elsewhere. It has a slightly bigger woofer than the Neumann.

Both are ported. Both are two-ways. Both manufacturers rely on anechoic measurements, although Neumann's design process involves much more intensive simulation.

What's the difference?

And then also explain this part:

The issue of room acoustics is dramatically reduced, almost to the point of irrelevance.

 

[IamJF]

It is because these are designed as nearfield / very nearfield monitors. They are not intended for midfield use. And this is exactly what I want. There are so many advantages of using nearfield monitors. The issue of room acoustics is dramatically reduced, almost to the point of irrelevance. Neumann knows exactly what they are doing. For those who want midfield speakers - look elsewhere. Neumann is laser focused on nearfield monitors. Get your pleasure listening speakers somewhere else. It is the essence of the design parameters of the Neumann audio engineers.

Again this nonsense

 

[rrahmanucla]

It is not just a SPL issue, for quality monitoring the direct sound at the listening position should dominate over the reflected sounds, that is why such recommendations are quite short. Genelec also has similar recommendations with an explanation https://www.genelec.com/correct-monitors

This is an interesting thought... Let me know if I am understanding this correctly...

Looking over the Genelec webpage, they identify a "critical" distance as the distance at which reflected sounds dominate over the direct sound. I thought provided a smooth up sloping sound power curve, a speaker's "critical distance" changes depending on the slope of the sound power curve? In other words a speaker's suitability for longer distances depends on the slope of the speaker's sound power curve, w/ steeper curves more suitable for near field and more gradual up sloping sound power curves more suitable for far field? More gradual sound power curves, would allow a larger portion of the audible spectrum at the listening position to be dominated by direct sound verses reflected sounds.

How can we ascertain the aforementioned "critical distance" or optimal listening distances from a CEA 2034 measurement?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Again this nonsense

I blocked him a long time ago

 

[IamJF]

This is an interesting thought... Let me know if I am understanding this correctly...

Looking over the Genelec webpage, they identify a "critical" distance as the distance at which reflected sounds dominate over the direct sound. I thought provided a smooth up sloping sound power curve, a speaker's "critical distance" changes depending on the slope of the sound power curve? In other words a speaker's suitability for longer distances depends on the slope of the speaker's sound power curve, w/ steeper curves more suitable for near field and more gradual up sloping sound power curves more suitable for far field? More gradual sound power curves, would allow a larger portion of the audible spectrum at the listening position to be dominated by direct sound verses reflected sounds.

How can we ascertain the aforementioned "critical distance" or optimal listening distances from a CEA 2034 measurement?

Just a few posts earlier I wrote about reverberation radius/critical distance which is the point where room and direct sound are the same level. https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...nn-kh120-ii-monitor-review.46362/post-1688247

It depends on the directivity of your speaker, size of your room and reverb time of your room. I normal living rooms it's <1m.
Which means in 99% of living room listening room sound is louder as direct sound.

 

[dominikz]

Just a few posts earlier I wrote about reverberation radius/critical distance which is the point where room and direct sound are the same level. https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...nn-kh120-ii-monitor-review.46362/post-1688247

It depends on the directivity of your speaker, size of your room and reverb time of your room. I normal living rooms it's <1m.
Which means in 99% of living room listening room sound is louder as direct sound.

It has been a long time since I finished my studies, but unless I'm mistaken, the critical distance calculation you quote is based on Sabine's reverberation formula, which is as far as I remember only applicable for very large volume spaces for any reasonable accuracy (and even then some prerequisites should be met).
Therefore I don't believe it is correct to extrapolate the critical distance estimations in this way to "small" (domestic/residential sized) rooms where the soundfield would be very different compared to e.g. concert halls or churches.

Unfortunately I cannot offer a better way to calculate the direct vs reverberated sound ratio in "small" rooms

 

[IamJF]

You are right with both!
When you follow the definition of reverb - there is no reverb in a (fairly) dampened small room!
And there is no other way to calculate reverberation radius cause that's the definition of it.

It's more an academic value anyways. Nobody (I know) sets listening distance after this value. But it gives a "feeling" about the circumstances in which we listen to music. How important the room is and what we would need to do when we really wanted to listen to the "raw/real" music from our medium/recording/... (like I can do in my listening room)

You never listen 100% direct sound. Very rare to 50% direct sound. Even in professional environments. There is no such thing as "very nearfield" and the term "Nearfiel monitor" is very loose - the TECHNICAL nearfield is something completely different.

Speakers are not designed for a distance* (e.g. 1-2m) - they are designed to make as few mistakes as possible. Or to deliver a sound (e.g. read the test of the Focal speakers here). Most as "monitor speaker" advertised are simply normal speakers with an amp inside (Focals, small Adams or PMC, ...). And in HiFi and Monitor world you find some which take radiation over angles and summation in the room serious. They work more neutral as the others - in all distances. (And that is not what all listeners want btw! Even professionals often prefer a sound which "shows" stuff)

(*of course there is a recommended minimum distance for speakers, esp when drivers are far appart)

 

[dominikz]

You are right with both!
When you follow the definition of reverb - there is no reverb in a (fairly) dampened small room!
And there is no other way to calculate reverberation radius cause the definition of it.

It's more an academic value anyways. Nobody (I know) sets listening distance after this value. But it gives a "feeling" about the circumstances in which we listen to music. How important the room is and what we would need to do when we really wanted to listen to the "raw/real" music from our medium/recording/... (like I can do in my listening room)

You never listen 100% direct sound. Very rare to 50% direct sound. Even in professional environments. There is no such thing as "very nearfield" and the term "Nearfiel monitor" is very loose - the TECHNICAL nearfield is something completely different.

Speakers are not designed for a distance* (e.g. 1-2m) - they are designed to make as few mistakes as possible. Or to deliver a sound (e.g. read the test of the Focal speakers here). Most as "monitor speaker" advertised are simply normal speakers with an amp inside (Focals, small Adams or PMC, ...). And in HiFi and Monitor world you find some which take radiation over angles and summation in the room serious. They work more neutral as the others - in all distances. (And that is not what all listeners want btw! Even professionals often prefer a sound which "shows" stuff)

(*of course there is a recommended minimum distance for speakers, esp when drivers are far appart)

While loudspeakers are indeed themselves 'distance agnostic' there are a few attributes that can influence loudspeaker selection based on listening distance, namely:

1. SPL capability - larger listening distance requires more powerful loudspeakers to achieve the same maximum (clean) SPL at the listening position
2. Directivity characteristic - though this has probably more to do with personal preference than with listening distance, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that some people may prefer different directivity characteristic when listening close to loudspeakers versus when listening from further away. In my view this is still an open question, but naturally the directivity characteristic will influence the amount (and spectrum) of reflected sound at the listening position.

However if max SPL capability is sufficient, and there's no preference for one directivity characteristic vs another, then I don't see a reason why one wouldn't use something marketed as a "nearfield monitor" in 'midfield', 'farfield' or home HiFi environments.

 

[Ellebob]

Directivity characteristic is one thing that might help with SPL at a given distance for example a horn speaker. But in general the directivity characterisitc is more about what one is trying to achieve acoustically than specific nearfield or midfield definitions. You will find many speakers with similar characteristics.

Marketing is the key here. Neumann usually markets to the professional market while a company like Revel markets to the home market. Some have similar products in both markets like Focal, Dynudio, etc. You could easily use a Revel bookshelf as a studio monitor as well as use a Neumann for the home. As long as they fit your needs and you like their sound.

 

[Drew456]

For a nearfield listening set up of 1.1 metre equidistant triangle, would the slightly wider dispersion of the KH120II compared to the KH150, make the former a better choice?