Neumann KH150

[AudioJester]

yes, I recently bought a pair of KH310 for $A5000 in Perth from another dealer

Awesome! Totally unbeatable at that price.
How are you using them?

 

[jae]

Neumann KH 310 A - Active Studio Monitor (Left)

The KH 310 A three-way active tri-amplified monitor features Neumann's outstanding "Mathematically Modeled Dispersion Waveguide".

www.soundseasy.com.au

Neumann KH 150 Studio Monitor (Single)

Powerful bi-amplified studio monitor with reference-class performance. Its 6.5” woofer in a bass reflex cabinet provides stunning low end and high SPL capability with undiminished clarity. DSP controlled electronics ensure linear phase response and allow for room-adaptive calibration via...

www.soundseasy.com.au

Is that the AES67 version of the 150?

 

[jae]

Interestingly, Dennis Murphy's BMR Monitor 3-way was (no waveguide) was preferred to a wide variety of other sub US$3000 book-shelf speakers including the those bought in by dealers. I don't think anyone expected that, except for maybe Dennis, who eschews the use of waveguides. This was at the recent Arizona AV Club event.

The speakers were:
ATC SCM 11
KLH Model 5
KEF R3
Sonus Faber Lumina II
Totem Sky
Philharmonic BMR Monitors
Polk Audio Legend L200
LSA Signature 80
Tekton Design Impact Monitors,
Monitor Audio 100 Gold,
Buchardt Audio S400 MkII
Triangle Comete 40th Anniversary
GoldenEar BRX
GR-Research X-LS Encore
Falcon Acoustics Q7
SpeakerLab Point 1+

Just because it has a waveguide doesn't mean it's better. I agree.

Anyway, guess I better get back to finishing these, with that ol' tool VituixCAD2

DIY 2-way with complete spinorama / CTA2034A measurements - Purifi and Scan-Speak

Project brief- To design a small speaker with a big sound, with the aid of the Klippel Near Field Scanner for complete measurements in 360 degrees! Classic 1/2 cubic foot (14L) 2 way with 6.5" midwoofer / 1" tweeter, stand-mount Driver selection: Midwoofer: Purifi 6.5" Xtended x-max aluminium...

www.audiosciencereview.com

best regards,
Thanh

With the exception of the KEF R3 (which scores similarly/within margin of error), the Philharmonic BMR measures better than virtually all of these that have already been measured in the spinorama database with its predicted higher pref score. Can we really make assumptions about the presence or absence of a waveguide on preference when it's already winning by virtue of number of other simple metrics that predict preference?

 

[Neale]

Awesome! Totally unbeatable at that price.
How are you using them?

Casual music listening in a large room. Plenty SPL and, for now, subwoofer that helped very old passives has been put away. Sounds wonderful

 

[Pearljam5000]

That’s great. Sometimes we do get little wins from the Australia tax.

My wild guess is that about 80% of things cost far more here, than than how much they cost in Europe.

Most of the time we’re like the Middle East, or Israel!!

I'm from Israel and everything is crazy expensive here lol

 

[tktran303]

With the exception of the KEF R3 (which scores similarly/within margin of error), the Philharmonic BMR measures better than virtually all of these that have already been measured in the spinorama database with its predicted higher pref score. Can we really make assumptions about the presence or absence of a waveguide on preference when it's already winning by virtue of number of other simple metrics that predict preference?

Actually before I found out the result, my guess was a 50:50 split between the R3 three-way and BMR Tower 3-way; with the R3 in the lead by a hair.

What came in at 2nd place was far behind, and the R3 closely behind it.

Each speaker was placed in the same position on the same stands, and those who entered a raffle were then asked to list their 1st, second, and third choices. 52 people voted. The BMR received 29 1st choice ballots. The runner up was the Triangle with 6 votes. The KEF R3 received 3 votes, and the ATC and Buchardt 2 each.

From:

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/philharmonic-audio-dennis-murphy.1348949/post-61943997

I agree that one shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

There are a variety of factors that could sway the preference to one speaker or another, for instance room acoustics and speaker placement.

But the take home message for me is that a having a waveguide is neither necessary nor sufficient to create a class leading speaker.

Why? Because I had an waveguide/coaxial design in mind for the largest speakers in this series: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nts-purifi-and-scan-speak.37425/#post-1361511

 

[Curvature]

Show data or forget it. Otherwise it's just idle banter, rambling.

Aren't we past that? Random suppositions and claims? Philosophizing instead of evidencing? Or using entirely circumstantial evidence (votes at an audio show...)?

Come on.

 

[tktran303]

What data do you have, or is out there, that explains why headphones are preferable to speakers?

Or evidence do you have that explains why speakers are preferable to headphones?

 

[Curvature]

What data do you have, or is out there, that explains why headphones are preferable to speakers?

Or evidence do you have that explains why speakers are preferable to headphones?

Reasoning by analogy is another pointless exercise. Like the endless comparisons of audio manufacturing to car manufacturing.

This thread is about the KH150, a deeply waveguided speaker. A member said deep waveguides sound unnatural. And then you popped in talking about waveguides on tangent. Stay on topic or show some data that can lead the discussion somewhere useful.

 

[tktran303]

That member is Kimmo Saunisto, the developer of the leading CAD software for loudspeaker design:

VituixCAD Loudspeaker simulator

Dennis Murphy, who eschews the use of waveguides, has 30 years of experience designing loudspeakers.

Philharmonic Audio

www.philharmonicaudio.com

When they something, I listen with an open mind.

I prefer the sound of Genelec’s 2-way speakers, the ones WITH the waveguides, to their One series, the ones with the coaxials. Why? I do not (yet) know. Could it be that everything below 300Hz is played into the back of an aluminium baffle, causing some kind of smearing? Or some other effect? Or could my eyes be playing tricks on me?

I do not (yet) know.
I do not (yet) have a good test for my hypothesis.

Just because there isn’t yet strong evidence, doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a truth to it. It just means that there’s not yet strong evidence to it.
ie. way to measure it and analyse it with a confidence level of p<0.05.

First comes observation. Then hypothesis. Then devising a test for said hypothesis. Then rinse and repeat. That’s the scientific method.

What evidence do you have, or have seen, that says waveguide has equal preference to to no waveguide. ie. Null hypothesis?

Quit demanding evidence when we may actually be in an evidence free zone, for now…

 

[DJBonoBobo]

That member is Kimmo Saunisto, the developer of the leading CAD software for loudspeaker design:

VituixCAD Loudspeaker simulator

Dennis Murphy, who eschews the use of waveguides, has 30 years of experience designing loudspeakers.

Philharmonic Audio

www.philharmonicaudio.com

When they something, I listen with an open mind.

I prefer the sound of Genelec’s 2-way speakers, the ones WITH the waveguides, to their One series, the ones with the coaxials. Why? I do not (yet) know. Could it be that everything below 300Hz is played into the back of an aluminium baffle, causing some kind of smearing? Or some other effect? Or could my eyes be playing tricks on me?

I do not (yet) know.
I do not (yet) have a good test for my hypothesis.

Just because there isn’t yet strong evidence, doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a truth to it. It just means that there’s not yet strong evidence to it.
ie. way to measure it and analyse it with a confidence level of p<0.05.

First comes observation. Then hypothesis. Then devising a test for said hypothesis. Then rinse and repeat. That’s the scientific method.

What evidence do you have, or have seen, that says waveguide has equal preference to to no waveguide. ie. Null hypothesis?

Quit demanding evidence when we may actually be in an evidence free zone, for now…

What does all this have to do with the KH150?

 

[Curvature]

That member is Kimmo Saunisto, the developer of the leading CAD software for loudspeaker design.

VituixCAD Loudspeaker simulator

Dennis Murphy, who eschews the use of waveguides, has 30 years of experience designing loudspeakers.

Philharmonic Audio

www.philharmonicaudio.com

I prefer the sound of Genelec’s 2-way speakers, the ones with the waveguides, to their One series, the ones with the coaxials. Why? I do not (yet) know. Could it be that everything below 300Hz is played into the back of an aluminium baffle, causing smearing? Or some other effect?
I do not (yet) know.
I do not (yet) have a good test for my hypothesis?

Just because there isn’t yet strong evidence, doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a truth to it. It just means that there’s not yet strong evidence to it. ie. way to measure it and analyse it with a confidence level of p<0.05.

First comes observation. Then hypothesis. Then devising a test for said hypothesis. Then rinse and repeat.

What evidence do you have, or have seen, that says waveguide is equal to no waveguide. ie. Null hypothesis?

Quit demanding evidence when we may be in an evidence free zone, for now…

At least look up some papers. I'll even give you a headstart: Geddes' papers on waveguides and higher order modes (the issue being that in waveguides you get a combo of direct sound and sound that bounces off the sloped walls; these ultraearly reflections he claims are audible). More generally, there are studies on wave propagation in hornspeakers that are also interesting.

I know who Kimmo is and was well aware when asking him. Despite creating that very useful software he insists on unevidenced opinions.

What's clear is that it's easier to build speakers than to study them. To imagine having preferences instead of testing oneself.

I don't care for your other very general comments because they are just that. Look up a paper or two.

 

[tktran303]

Let me connect the dots.

The KH150 has the best data I’ve seen, of a 2 way speaker of that size class.

I almost purchased a pair to listen for myself. I stopped short of it once I saw Kimmo testing it. I’m looking forward to getting Kimmo impression of it. After all, he’s designed over 20 pairs of speakers. Would you ask the Neumann KH150 lead designer which Neumann model (s)he prefers, and why? I would. Or do you just look at the data and buy based on that? And what data would that be, may I ask?

So I asked Kimmo for his opinion- “can I buy it and call it a day?”

Let’s not get so defensive about his response.

 

[abdo123]

You spend so much time here on these monitors, haven't looked at the manufacturer website yet?

ENERGY EFFICIENT​

Neumann engineers took great care to develop a patent pending amplifier technology which combines superior audio performance with the energy efficiency of Class D. Although the KH 150’s amplifiers deliver up to 145 W to the 6.5” woofer and 100 W to the 1” tweeter, they only consume 17 W at idle. Auto-standby reduces power consumption to 0.3 W when the KH 150 has not been used for a while, but can be deactivated.

Source: https://en-de.neumann.com/kh-150

17W at idle is outrageous! What the fuck? That’s not class D.

 

[tktran303]

Curvature I’m going to ignore your condescending tone and instead assume that something I wrote has made you somewhat irate, I already know about Geddes and his HOM since he burst into the scene, so you don’t need to throw me a bone by suggesting only a couple of papers.

Is it easier to design speakers than studying them, is it? What evidence do you have that?

I’m out.

 

[Curvature]

Curvature I’m going to ignore your condescending tone and instead assume that something I wrote has made you somewhat irate, I already know about Geddes and his HOM since he burst into the scene, so you don’t need to throw me a bone by suggesting only a couple of papers.

Is it easier to design speakers than studying them, is it? What evidence do you have that?

I’m out.

Very thin skinned of you.

I didn't expect "building being easier than studying" to be an obscure statement. Just look at the hifi industry: parts are ready to order and full designs are modified slightly from known successes, like the still surviving BBC speaker clones.

I would have preferred some data that would help me understand why you would support onto someone else's claim that the KH150 is flawed because of a design choice.

A quick search on Google pointed me back to an old thread on ASR about waveguides, where someone posted some measurements of HOMs: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-can-waveguides-have.19649/page-5#post-855249 The measurements are good evidence that deep waveguides introduce additional interactions. Are those interactions significant or audible? If audible are they detrimental? Do they somehow radiate separately from regular playback or is their contribution so low in level that it doesn't matter? I find the comment that HOMs are restricted to HF reassuring: they don't matter too much. Like enclosure resonances, and all enclosures resonate, I would guess that as long as the interaction is low enough in amplitude it will likely sum into the overall response without issue.

Are listener reports about the flaws of deep waveguides controlled enough to account for the speaker's radiation pattern and room interaction? I would guess no.

I'll go back to Geddes' work and read the dissertation by Markarski quoted in the other thread.

 

[kimmosto]

What I'd like is to understand your claims with you supplying the data that convinced you that deep waveguides sound unnatural and that traditional mounting is better.

Few questions:
1) What are main targets for horns / wave guides?
2) Is there alternative solution(s) for horn / wave guide to achieve majority of main targets, and what they are?
3) What is average EDT in your listening room? Is decay spectrum balanced/flat or not?
4) What listening distance you prefer?
5) What acoustic resolution as octave transmission index (of STI analysis) is achieved at typical listening point?
6) How many other speaker+listening room -combinations you have investigated by measurements and what are the results?
7) What are (subjective) consequences if directivity index is 0 dB at LF and 10...15 dB at HF in reflecting environment?
8) Do you prefer DI rise of ca. 10 dB from LF to HF or much less for example max 5 dB?
9) How many significantly different directivity concepts you have evaluated by listening?
10) What coffee roast and ice cream you prefer? Show data, not just obscure opinions.

P.S. I have never said that KH150 has design flaw so please don't twist my words. Using horn / horn wave guide is just one "design point" - a compromise with certain assumptions about environment and listening setup and constraints related mechanical design (size and shape). I really don't have to like or design speakers with that concept, but I can easily use it as a design reference and listen music with it.

 

[kimmosto]

 

[kimmosto]

^Quasi far field at 1m + near field responses of cone and vents multiplied by baffle effect response simulated to 10 m, merged at 450 Hz.
Mic is Earthworks Audio M30, raw without calibration file. Hor 0-180, step 5 deg. Ver 0-355, step 5 deg. Time window for far field is quite short ~4.5 ms because room height ~240cm.

 

[Curvature]

Few questions:
1) What are main targets for horns / wave guides?
2) Is there alternative solution(s) for horn / wave guide to achieve majority of main targets, and what they are?
3) What is average EDT in your listening room? Is decay spectrum balanced/flat or not?
4) What listening distance you prefer?
5) What acoustic resolution as octave transmission index (of STI analysis) is achieved at typical listening point?
6) How many other speaker+listening room -combinations you have investigated by measurements and what are the results?
7) What are (subjective) consequences if directivity index is 0 dB at LF and 10...15 dB at HF in reflecting environment?
8) Do you prefer DI rise of ca. 10 dB from LF to HF or much less for example max 5 dB?
9) How many significantly different directivity concepts you have evaluated by listening?
10) What coffee roast and ice cream you prefer? Show data, not just obscure opinions.

P.S. I have never said that KH150 has design flaw so please don't twist my words. Using horn / horn wave guide is just one "design point" - a compromise with certain assumptions about environment and listening setup and constraints related mechanical design (size and shape). I really don't have to like or design speakers with that concept, but I can easily use it as a design reference and listen music with it.

You are introducing a lot of superficial considerations into a simple question. I asked you for data that you've found that supports your opinion that deep waveguides sound unnatural—and the KH150 is a speaker with a deep waveguide. I'm still asking for just that. I even posted some data that potentially supports your opinion with the references to higher order modes.

I'm not big fan of horns and wave guides - especially deep ones because sound is not very open and natural and spectrum of acoustic resolution rises towards HF without significant directivity at LF. Plain tweeter with proper box or flush mounted half space design in a good acoustics offers better sound imo. Horn/wave guide concept can offer some benefits in very bad/harsh acoustics of course.

Hard not to read that as signaling flaw when considering the KH150's design.

I'll answer your questions for the sake of politeness.

1. You are asking as a speaker designer. This is the wrong perspective (not inherently wrong, wrong for the question I asked you). The correct perspective is that of assessment, when the design decisions have already been made and you are looking at a complete product, like the KH150. So how should we assess waveguides? By using what data?
2. Same as above.
3. Doesn't matter. Not balanced. Rising times as you go deeper in frequency, as found in many home rooms. I've experimented with mounting >10 very thick porous panels (>20cm) and wood panel traps, but I've found them ugly and failing to adequately balance the spectrum of reflected sound or to address problems in low frequencies. My view is summarized here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...for-real-bass-traps.37170/page-2#post-1309122 Since reflections in small rooms are specular rather than diffuse, adding absorption is easily audible and traditional measurements of reverberation time like RT60 and EDT are not meaningful. I think the right approach is to either have absorption which focus on the transitional and modal regions alone, with EQ, or to largely ignore the problem and only use EQ, given the impracticality of most room treatments.
4. No preference.
5. STI is an irrelevant metric in small rooms. This is used in large buildings, classrooms, lecture halls. Places with a lot of people where intelligibility is part of the intended architectural function.
6. I've "investigated" speakers whenever I've found a new pair to bring home. Mostly to check they work as advertised or to integrate them with subs and mostly professional brands across a few homes. Earthworks mic, Millenia microphone preamp, Lavry ADC. Am I as experienced as you? No. I would probably say not even close. Never DIYed a speaker, for example.
7. DI is meaningless on its own since its based on aggregated data. You need access groups of curves to understand speakers.
8. No preference and see 7.
9. There aren't that many distinct directivity concepts: they range from front firing to omnidirectional, with hydrid and polydirectional alternatives in the middle. I've listened to my share of non-monopole speakers, if that's what you're asking. Look up this thread here for my comments about a recent great model which I'd really like to hear: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ts-first-product-the-alana-loudspeaker.38493/
10. I think most people have far weaker and more flexible preferences than they say they do. Or if their preference is within very narrow tolerances, then it is most likely that due to social factors and considerations. Likewise, the question of preference doesn't apply everywhere. In speaker design, the ultimate question is not about preference but about perception.

So in the case of speakers with waveguides, they seem to be optimal manner of controlling directivity at high-mid frequencies, which in turn produces better perceptual results in controlled subjective assessments. Neumann and a few other companies have shown how well the mathematical approach can ensure smooth, consistent directivity, with the limiting factor for directivity control being size above everything else. There is of course a lot missing in the existing research, but I don't believe that holding untested preferences like "deep waveguides sound unnatural" is a meaningful challenge to it. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled directivity is audible and sounds bad, as are changes in directivity, whether smooth/sudden/erratic or whether it's wide/narrow, etc. I would tend to believe more that a certain type of directivity pattern can sound unnatural than a certain arbitrary design feature.

Link here to my post in this thread about 2 way vs. 3 way speakers and why that is meaningless: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/neumann-kh150.33454/page-28#post-1294978 Quoting myself:

With measurements you can investigate the contribution of design features and judge how much they matter.

All I'm really asking for is some data or evidence which—separate from speaker directivity in general—shows that waveguides produce unnatural, not open, etc., sound. If all you are really talking about is directivity, then fine, all's clear and the conversation is over. But if you are saying that waveguides have some kind intrinsic weaknesses that produce a characteristic sound, then I want to know what that means.