Hello,
My name is Markus Wolff and I am the portfolio manager and technical coordinator for Neumann studio monitors.
I am not active in forums and usually do not comment in those. But I’d like to give some background information to some of the points mentioned in this thread from our point of view.
First, thanks to all of you for your comments and the constructive and fruitful conversation. I also very much appreciate the generally friendly and constructive way of communicating which is unfortunately not common at all.
A few words in advance before I come to some of the specific topics here. Sorry for the length of this contribution.
Our general philosophy regarding Neumann studio monitors is to provide professional loudspeakers for the audio engineer to enable them to judge audio material and to create statistically the best sounding and most reliable mixes. They provide the precision to immediately show any imperfection and sensitively show any changes in sound editing which leads to the least fatiguing working conditions.
The focus here is to concentrate on the real user benefit. The audio performance which can be achieved, the reliability even under the hardest studio conditions, consistency between different models and under different environmental conditions and the flexibility to integrate them in different environments.
The way this is done is what we see as our part.
Even though it is much appreciated by the marketing department to create stories about specific technical USPs which are relevant for the entire product portfolio (such as specific materials which are used, a certain driver arrangement or housing concept etc.), we use any technology which works best to achieve our goals even if it is different for every model. The USP is the user benefit as the best possible compromise between carefully weighted acoustical parameters. Marketing hates me for that .
A good example are the drivers that you can see on the picture. There is nothing spectacular visible. No die cast basket, no special coating, no unique cone material. The performance is what matters. It usually takes three years to develop a new driver.
Every individual component is simulated in house and as a sum tailored to the needs in the specific model. The feedback loops between simulation, first samples, adapting simulation parameters to the real parameters and material properties and geometry to the simulation takes a long time. All components are individually produced on our own tools exclusively for Neumann. Visual appearance (despite the color black) has no influence.
During the project phase before every development stage the samples have to pass a 1000 hours full power test with different types of test signals. After that the loudspeaker has to behave identically to before in all acoustical parameters as well as with rattling and air tightness.
Regarding the power amplifier which there were some comments about: The performance stated in the data sheet of a component like this is important but does not necessarily reflect the overall performance when it is integrated in complex circuitry. This influences the overall performance significantly. The self generated noise and THD of the entire system shows that this is above what the chip itself is capable to deliver.
Also here: it is not the individual component or material that matters, it is the performance which can be achieved.
Regarding the specifically mentioned capacitors which we are using:
Capxon is one of the largest Taiwanese capacitor makers, they have fully automated processes, have automotive TS 16949 quality systems, supply major automotive companies, there is no evidence to conclude their quality is any lower than any other vendor at this time. There is anecdotal talk on the internet about this, much of this stems form an electrolyte quality incident about 15 years ago that impacted almost all Taiwanese vendors as they used the same sub supplier for the electrolyte, that does not represent the quality of the parts produced now as this issue has been solved. Regarding the apparent internet consensus here you also have to be mindful of the confirmation bias effect that occurs on the internet will tend to amplify a once legitimate quality issue for many years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague
In fact when looking at reports of capacitor failures on the internet, most will be the fault of the product design not the capacitor. It is the responsibility of the design engineers to use a part within its specification or with sufficient margin under its specification to ensure an appropriate lifetime for the product. Unfortunately, many volume consumer goods where Capxon is popular, may only calculate lifetime to the warranty period, using “typical” usage models, and will tend to fail prematurely.
Without calculating the expected lifetime of the part in the application you cannot assume a defective part. You can only assume a part is defective if it failed before the specified lifetime under the conditions in which it was used, this is not what we typically see in the reports.
As these are electro chemical devices the temperature and applied voltage has a huge impact on the lifetime. It is not uncommon to see a low cost 1000 hour part used at or very near its rated temperature and voltage where the expected lifetime is only going to be 1000 hours. Now consider the same brand capacitor but this time we choose a 5000 hour rated part and we ensure that in the system it operated a maximum temperature 25 degrees below its rated value, and 25% below its rated voltage under all conditions, in this case it can be expected to last >50,000 hours. Same brand of capacitor, but a 10 times higher expected lifetime, by design, this is how you ensure a reliable product, not by choosing one brand over another brand.
All electrolytic capacitors used by Neumann are de-rated for a >10 year lifetime under a harsh usage model that far exceeds the expected normal use for the product. This is how we ensure the reliability and quality of our products.
I hope this could give you a rough insight into how we see and develop studio monitors.
Thanks a lot.
