• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Neumann KH80DSP Teardown

So you mean that installing components that meet certain test criteria, but that are not from a premium manufacturer (which is what Neumann did), is comparable to deliberately faking performance features (as VW did)?
Offering a premium product filled with inexpensive capacitors from a manufacturer with a poor reliability history is not good.

Maybe it will turn out that you, with your experience, know better than Neumann with all their tests, but until then you maybe should watch your choice of words a bit?
Huh?
 
Maybe it will turn out that you, with your experience, know better than Neumann with all their tests, but until then you maybe should watch your choice of words a bit?

Nope. I've been cleaning up poor component choices and quality compromises since HiFi started. I could regale you, but somehow, I don't think you'd believe me.

Happy to be be a "I told you so" if that's what it takes. Remember, link back to this post in years to come.
 
Nope. I've been cleaning up poor component choices and quality compromises since HiFi started. I could regale you, but somehow, I don't think you'd believe me.

Happy to be be a "I told you so" if that's what it takes. Remember, link back to this post in years to come.

I am not questioning your experience, only your choice of words. That´s what i asked:

I don't know anything about this, but reading this, I'm wondering what this means for KH80 owners. What you write sounds like you have to expect that all KH80s will break after 3-5 years at the latest. Was that roughly what you meant (and if so, what is the basis for this assessment) or how can I put this? I can not really determine what such comments mean and do not know if I should now be unsettled (...)? (...)

If i am not mistaken you haven´t been answering this question. So i still don´t know how to put your comments.
 
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.
Everything you said is true, but did you conduct actual experiments (or use some equivalent results) to see if they actually match their durability specs? I mean, there's rarely smoke without fire, and there are known good cap brands, so I wonder what kind of knowledge we don't have convinced you that this choice entailed absolutely no risk.

BTW, thanks for taking the time to discuss this.
 

Thanks for posting.

This is the type of BS that needs to change:

"Just had a chat with UK service department (sennheiser UK)

They have a flat rate for repairs and they change the whole pcb."

All the more reason to stay away from brands with single board "solutions" and manufacturers/repair agents that are simply PCB unplug and replace jockeys. Hardly environmentally friendly, eco-aware or sustainable. And who pays for it? The poor consumer. Bring on those EU parts/repair laws fast!

If true, Neumann, you need to step up and do better. A lot better.
 
Last edited:
Slightly of topic (sorry: I don't want to derail this very interesting thread), but: if the TI-Chip measures at least mediocre, should this change our view on power amplifiers? I listened to this little speaker (which seems to have a lot of fan boys out there) before i discovered ASR and despite of its limited bass response and max SPL I was surprised about its performance....

When it's abilities are not negatively influenced by this chip (I suppose the whole electronics might even measure worse than than the spec sheet amir has posted) than we shouldn't care about the SINAD and distortion above a certain level, which seems to be easily achievable by most amps, right?
At least when it comes to active speakers, passive crossover seems to be a different ballgame though.
Always keep in mind what your room SINAD is.
 
The way I see it, the only damage so far has been done by you making statements here that can damage the trust of customers (like me) in a brand. When I asked you to explain them, you didn't, but left it at "murmuring" about brands. At the same time, you seem to make fun of the fact that a representative of one of the best and most respected manufacturers in the world takes the time to respond to you in detail. It is always easier to make any claims than to then respond to them.
I think it's interesting and also legitimate when someone points out possible problems, but as long as you don't have any proof or even a theory whether this is even relevant for the customer, I think it's important to frame it in an understandable way. As a customer, I only want to be irritated if there are serious reasons for it. :)
For the price of these products i would like to see the best materials available not the cheapest.
 
expensive components do not a great speaker make. and the kh 80s are very competitively priced for their level of performance. go ahead and make a cheaper speaker with equivalent performance. this thread is nothing but complaining for the hell of it
 
Sorry but IMHO 900 euro/1000 dollars is not cheap for a pair of tiny 2 ways.
 
then dont buy it lol. the objective performance speaks for itself

1591695846065.png
 
expensive components do not a great speaker make. and the kh 80s are very competitively priced for their level of performance. go ahead and make a cheaper speaker with equivalent performance. this thread is nothing but complaining for the hell of it
They can decrease the price with the non use of white putty.
 
it doesnt have to. im talking about the raw performance of the speaker. and the kh 80 is more than adequate in terms of SPL for its recommended listening distance. if you want more bass, get a subwoofer. not everyone wants or is even able to add more bass.
 
Back
Top Bottom