New Neumann KH 310 II and KH 350 Rumors: Leaked Pricing & Info

[pedrojoaquimborges]

View attachment 558687
KH 350 II

View attachment 558688
KH 310 A

Both taken from data & diagrams sections in Neumann's website.

We've been discussing this issue in previous pages of this post. My opinion is that Neumann's distortion data for the 310 from twenty years ago is not very accurate in the low end. It corresponds to neither Amir's measurements, my own (of my pair) or a lot of user's remarks about the speakers. Comparing Neumman's mk2 and Amir's mk1 measurements, it seems that the mk2 might have up to 10 to 15 dB more headroom in the low end. If that's exactly true - and that's a big if - it'd be a big improvement.

 

[Curvature]

We've been discussing this issue in previous pages of this post. My opinion is that Neumann's distortion data for the 310 from twenty years ago is not very accurate in the low end. It corresponds to neither Amir's measurements, my own (of my pair) or a lot of user's remarks about the speakers. Comparing Neumman's mk2 and Amir's mk1 measurements, it seems that the mk2 might have up to 10 to 15 dB more headroom in the low end. If that's exactly true - and that's a big if - it'd be a big improvement.

You're comparing Amir's 96dB THD measurement to Neumann's, correct? That seems probably right. I found another KH310 measurement, this time by @Cuckoo Studio:

Corresponds well to Amir's:

Assuming S&R measurements are accurate, I see only additional midrange headroom rather than bass:

 

[dfuller]

View attachment 558687
KH 350 II

View attachment 558688
KH 310 A

Both taken from data & diagrams sections in Neumann's website.

For the sake of it, let's add on the S&R 3% curve. Sorry for the low resolution image, I'm working off Archive.org since S&R got absorbed into keyboards.de and the archives disappeared.

Neumann's SPL measurements for the 310 II show about 90dB for 3% THD at 55 hz.

S&R shows about the same for the 310A, accounting for different mics and measurement setups.

I'm sure there's an improvement, but I don't think it's in low bass output.

 

[Jlaz]

if heaven forbid u were on your death-bed and you had one last moment for a cure and 100 medical scientists say to you "We have a pill that will save you, called Y - we have only a handful of people that have used it before but we don't know the stats whether or not it worked for them - but the science is solid and indisputable" - and they show you a bunch of graphs, would u take it? At the same time, 100 people who had the exact same condition all unanimously say "we have tried all the pills out there, including Y, but this other pill called X is the only one that worked for us", would u listen to scientists or the ones with personal experience? I tend to think this is the at the heart of my dilemma being on this scientific forum. Most I think on Audio SCIENCE review would I presume listen to the scientist. However, as a non-scientist - but as a musician, and someone who has seen science constantly evolving and changing over time, with new theories and previous theories proven and then disproven time and time again, my skepticism in audio measurements and "science" is as much as my skepticism in peoples subjective experiences with studio monitors (what people term here "audio voodoo"). I mean look at Neumann themselves - they seem to have rediscovered many new things in their own new monitors. I've seen for example people here punt Genelec 8351b's - which I have personally worked on and have mixing engineer friends who have worked on them - and their results are less than desirable. there is something just not right with their midrange. The science and Erins Corner shows the 8351's are almost perfect, but not myself nor my colleagues can understand these speakers and mix on them - in various room settings. On the other hand, the science seems to be lacking or demonstrates the inferiority of brands like ATC SCM25's and PMC but I see the world's best engineers and the best mixes ive heard made on these speakers - in hundreds of studios. Call it marketing, call it voodoo - but perhaps, just perhaps there is in fact some scientific basis to these other speakers that we might not yet understand. For some unknown reason, mixes just seem to translate on these speakers and perhaps we do not have the scientific tools just yet to measure them or understand them - or maybe ATC or PMC keep these measurements deliberately out of site, not just for mystique purposes, but because they have some legitimate scientific reasoning and rationale behind their designs but its their IP. I have no idea. And with that vent - this will be my last post. I came in confused and left even more confused but nevertheless it's been both informative and entertaining being on this forum and thank you to all those that have contributed. Take care.

 

[Curvature]

The other main difference (other than directivity, which we will need Amir or Erin to verify) between old KH310 and new one is the phase response, which is now linearized, as compared to the S&R measurement (ignore the jaggedness of the latter; a lot of that is due to the low resolution of the picture).

KH310

KH310 II

KH350

 

[CB89]

@Jlaz

This raises a few questions. How long was production carried out using the familiar speakers, and how long with the new ones? How many colleagues struggled with Genelec and Neumann monitors, and how many producers, conversely, get along particularly well with them? It may well be that one’s own experience - and that of one’s circle of acquaintances - is not particularly representative.
It is virtually impossible to argue against accurately determined objective measurements, and they are undeniably a better metric than the subjective impressions of a few individuals.

 

[Curvature]

if heaven forbid u were on your death-bed and you had one last moment for a cure and 100 medical scientists say to you "We have a pill that will save you, called Y - we have only a handful of people that have used it before but we don't know the stats whether or not it worked for them - but the science is solid and indisputable" - and they show you a bunch of graphs, would u take it? At the same time, 100 people who had the exact same condition all unanimously say "we have tried all the pills out there, including Y, but this other pill called X is the only one that worked for us", would u listen to scientists or the ones with personal experience? I tend to think this is the at the heart of my dilemma being on this scientific forum. Most I think on Audio SCIENCE review would I presume listen to the scientist. However, as a non-scientist - but as a musician, and someone who has seen science constantly evolving and changing over time, with new theories and previous theories proven and then disproven time and time again, my skepticism in audio measurements and "science" is as much as my skepticism in peoples subjective experiences with studio monitors (what people term here "audio voodoo"). I mean look at Neumann themselves - they seem to have rediscovered many new things in their own new monitors. I've seen for example people here punt Genelec 8351b's - which I have personally worked on and have mixing engineer friends who have worked on them - and their results are less than desirable. there is something just not right with their midrange. The science and Erins Corner shows the 8351's are almost perfect, but not myself nor my colleagues can understand these speakers and mix on them - in various room settings. On the other hand, the science seems to be lacking or demonstrates the inferiority of brands like ATC SCM25's and PMC but I see the world's best engineers and the best mixes ive heard made on these speakers - in hundreds of studios. Call it marketing, call it voodoo - but perhaps, just perhaps there is in fact some scientific basis to these other speakers that we might not yet understand. For some unknown reason, mixes just seem to translate on these speakers and perhaps we do not have the scientific tools just yet to measure them or understand them - or maybe ATC or PMC keep these measurements deliberately out of site, not just for mystique purposes, but because they have some legitimate scientific reasoning and rationale behind their designs but its their IP. I have no idea. And with that vent - this will be my last post. I came in confused and left even more confused but nevertheless it's been both informative and entertaining being on this forum and thank you to all those that have contributed. Take care.

If you dig in and stick with contradictory "knowledge", confusion is a sure result. Looking instead for the limits of that knowledge is the way out, and it begins with checking one thing at a time to figure out the differences. If even at that point there is no sure answer (for example: wide or narrow directivity for stereophonic music?), then you have to be happy with not knowing and doing the best you can, having a lighter, less stubborn opinion (for example: either directivity is fine, as long as on-axis is flat and off-axis is consistent, but which one is optimal is unknown).

A lot of science ends up being: reiterating a few things known for sure, identifying conjectures and speculations, arguing against things that are disproven, and being clear about the exact problems that are unresolved.

It's too bad you are leaving.

 

[dfuller]

The other main difference (other than directivity, which we will need Amir or Erin to verify) between old KH310 and new one is the phase response, which is now linearized, as compared to the S&R measurement. Ignore the jaggedness of the S&R phase measurement; a lot of that is due to the low resolution of the picture.

View attachment 558790

KH310
View attachment 558787

KH310 II
View attachment 558788

KH350
View attachment 558789

Neumann clearly believe that a linearized phase response is audibly preferred, otherwise I suspect they wouldn't bother and would have lower latency.

 

[Curvature]

Neumann clearly believe that a linearized phase response is audibly preferred, otherwise I suspect they wouldn't bother and would have lower latency.

Phase linearization is cheap these days and has benefits when it comes to autoEQ (e.g., dealing with excess phase in SBIR region to flatten FR). So the engineering is ahead of the psychoacoustics, but there's certainly no research-supported detriment to flat phase.

 

[Karmacoma]

if heaven forbid u were on your death-bed and you had one last moment for a cure and 100 medical scientists say to you "We have a pill that will save you, called Y - we have only a handful of people that have used it before but we don't know the stats whether or not it worked for them - but the science is solid and indisputable" - and they show you a bunch of graphs, would u take it? At the same time, 100 people who had the exact same condition all unanimously say "we have tried all the pills out there, including Y, but this other pill called X is the only one that worked for us", would u listen to scientists or the ones with personal experience? I tend to think this is the at the heart of my dilemma being on this scientific forum. Most I think on Audio SCIENCE review would I presume listen to the scientist. However, as a non-scientist - but as a musician, and someone who has seen science constantly evolving and changing over time, with new theories and previous theories proven and then disproven time and time again, my skepticism in audio measurements and "science" is as much as my skepticism in peoples subjective experiences with studio monitors (what people term here "audio voodoo"). I mean look at Neumann themselves - they seem to have rediscovered many new things in their own new monitors. I've seen for example people here punt Genelec 8351b's - which I have personally worked on and have mixing engineer friends who have worked on them - and their results are less than desirable. there is something just not right with their midrange. The science and Erins Corner shows the 8351's are almost perfect, but not myself nor my colleagues can understand these speakers and mix on them - in various room settings. On the other hand, the science seems to be lacking or demonstrates the inferiority of brands like ATC SCM25's and PMC but I see the world's best engineers and the best mixes ive heard made on these speakers - in hundreds of studios. Call it marketing, call it voodoo - but perhaps, just perhaps there is in fact some scientific basis to these other speakers that we might not yet understand. For some unknown reason, mixes just seem to translate on these speakers and perhaps we do not have the scientific tools just yet to measure them or understand them - or maybe ATC or PMC keep these measurements deliberately out of site, not just for mystique purposes, but because they have some legitimate scientific reasoning and rationale behind their designs but its their IP. I have no idea. And with that vent - this will be my last post. I came in confused and left even more confused but nevertheless it's been both informative and entertaining being on this forum and thank you to all those that have contributed. Take care.

You're making several sophisms and have several biases in your reasoning, I can list them and name them if you want in the case your message was asking for a debate and wasn't just a monologue.

 

[Jlaz]

You're making several sophisms and have several biases in your reasoning, I can list them and name them if you want in the case your message was asking for a debate and wasn't just a monologue.

Not asking for a debate but always open to learning. Always happy to hear a different perspective. If you can list the flaws that would be appreciated

 

[Curvature]

I wanted to extract FR out of the dummy head comparison, but I can't do this because the host is playing the track through continuously rather than a loop. Same issue with the other video which uses a single microphone. @Pearljam5000

I can hear a radical difference in each video between each speaker tested, which tells me something is off.

I hope that demonstrates how difficult it is to do even something as simple as listening comparison, which would seem to be as simple as setting the speakers up and pressing play.

Spoiler: Offsite links below…

 

[Pearljam5000]

I wanted to extract FR out of the dummy head comparison, but I can't do this because the host is playing the track through continuously rather than a loop. Same issue with the other video which uses a single microphone. @Pearljam5000

I can hear a radical difference in each video between each speaker tested, which tells me something is off.

I hope that demonstrates how difficult it is to do even something as simple as listening comparison, which would seem to be as simple as setting the speakers up and pressing play.

Thank you for your effort

 

[Curvature]

Not asking for a debate but always open to learning. Always happy to hear a different perspective. If you can list the flaws that would be appreciated

Not to speak for @Karmacoma, but at least wade around in the mire of confusion for a little.

This is the spirit:

 

[kharan]

if heaven forbid u were on your death-bed and you had one last moment for a cure and 100 medical scientists say to you "We have a pill that will save you, called Y - we have only a handful of people that have used it before but we don't know the stats whether or not it worked for them - but the science is solid and indisputable" - and they show you a bunch of graphs, would u take it? At the same time, 100 people who had the exact same condition all unanimously say "we have tried all the pills out there, including Y, but this other pill called X is the only one that worked for us", would u listen to scientists or the ones with personal experience? I tend to think this is the at the heart of my dilemma being on this scientific forum. Most I think on Audio SCIENCE review would I presume listen to the scientist. However, as a non-scientist - but as a musician, and someone who has seen science constantly evolving and changing over time, with new theories and previous theories proven and then disproven time and time again, my skepticism in audio measurements and "science" is as much as my skepticism in peoples subjective experiences with studio monitors (what people term here "audio voodoo"). I mean look at Neumann themselves - they seem to have rediscovered many new things in their own new monitors. I've seen for example people here punt Genelec 8351b's - which I have personally worked on and have mixing engineer friends who have worked on them - and their results are less than desirable. there is something just not right with their midrange. The science and Erins Corner shows the 8351's are almost perfect, but not myself nor my colleagues can understand these speakers and mix on them - in various room settings. On the other hand, the science seems to be lacking or demonstrates the inferiority of brands like ATC SCM25's and PMC but I see the world's best engineers and the best mixes ive heard made on these speakers - in hundreds of studios. Call it marketing, call it voodoo - but perhaps, just perhaps there is in fact some scientific basis to these other speakers that we might not yet understand. For some unknown reason, mixes just seem to translate on these speakers and perhaps we do not have the scientific tools just yet to measure them or understand them - or maybe ATC or PMC keep these measurements deliberately out of site, not just for mystique purposes, but because they have some legitimate scientific reasoning and rationale behind their designs but its their IP. I have no idea. And with that vent - this will be my last post. I came in confused and left even more confused but nevertheless it's been both informative and entertaining being on this forum and thank you to all those that have contributed. Take care.

1. Neither, both are quacks, I might as well flip a coin. No randomised blind trial in medicine is a sure sign that that there's no solid evidence. Every actual scientist working in medicine is fully aware of that fact.

2. TBH, our understanding of the physics of audio reproduction haven't changed in many decades. There are discoveries that have been made in psychoacoustics, but that's not the same as the physics of rooms and soundwaves.

3. I'm just calling it art. The Mona Lisa isn't accurate like a photograph, yet people just like it. You don't have to work on the most accurate speaker to produce a good result.

I wanted to extract FR out of the dummy head comparison, but I can't do this because the host is playing the track through continuously rather than a loop. Same issue with the other video which uses a single microphone. @Pearljam5000

I can hear a radical difference in each video between each speaker tested, which tells me something is off.

I hope that demonstrates how difficult it is to do even something as simple as listening comparison, which would seem to be as simple as setting the speakers up and pressing play.

As far as I can tell, the head wasn't moved but the acoustic centre of the recorded speakers did, and I think the head is close enough that the angle is changing significantly. I don't know if there's any conclusion to be had.

 

[LiveTek]

@Jlaz

This raises a few questions. How long was production carried out using the familiar speakers, and how long with the new ones? How many colleagues struggled with Genelec and Neumann monitors, and how many producers, conversely, get along particularly well with them? It may well be that one’s own experience - and that of one’s circle of acquaintances - is not particularly representative.
It is virtually impossible to argue against accurately determined objective measurements, and they are undeniably a better metric than the subjective impressions of a few individuals.

In my 20 year of writing and mixing music, my take on monitors being easier or harder to work on, is that none of them are particularly easy to mix on. I honestly don't even know what that means. I've used so many monitors and I never felt like one made anything easier than the other. It pretty much always ends up being me trying to my hardest to make things sound good, and the process is basically the same no matter what monitor I have. I think a lot of it is in our heads, like how exactly does one define that their mix is lacking and would've been better with different monitors? That to me implies one has to already believe they don't have the right tool, and it's A LOT easier to blame the tools than your own work when you aren't happy with your mixes. Sometimes I get tracks with vocal takes done on separate days with different mics in different rooms, you're gonna have to work to make that sound good no matter the monitor.

Whatever my monitors are at the time, I ALWAYS have to still check things on other speakers/systems. Genelec, Nuemann, Kali, Yamaha, Behringer, Focal, and Dynaudio are brands I've owned for at least a years time. My take away is the that brain is absolutely incredible at adapting to just about anything and folks opinions on monitors for mixing are kind of overemphasized. I do understand it, there is very intimate relationship with what you make that comes out of the speakers.

The best mix improvement I can make is to just get good sleep and excercise regularly. I'm sure people have different experiences, but that's mine. If you can't mix on genelec coax, you're probably not going to have a better time with something else.

However, as a non-scientist - but as a musician, and someone who has seen science constantly evolving and changing over time, with new theories and previous theories proven and then disproven time and time again, my skepticism in audio measurements and "science" is as much as my skepticism in peoples subjective experiences with studio monitors (what people term here "audio voodoo"). I mean look at Neumann themselves - they seem to have rediscovered many new things in their own new monitors.

They didn't rediscover anything, they just optimized a few things and went with a different filtering method. These changes are not based on some sort of previously unknown knowledge or understanding, they used the same sciences that they and many others have always used.

 

[Curvature]

As far as I can tell, the head wasn't moved but the acoustic centre of the recorded speakers did, and I think the head is close enough that the angle is changing significantly. I don't know if there's any conclusion to be had.

I had the same thoughts. Other than integration distance, the size of the speaker at close distance also changes the early reflections from walls, desk, etc. The rooms also look like they have significant broadband absorption, so any midrange/midbass dips in acoustically summed monophonic sound will be emphasized, although I would expect more of that for the single mic video than the head, which aligns with what I heard.

 

[Curvature]

In my 20 year of writing and mixing music, my take on monitors being easier or harder to work on, is that none of them are particularly easy to mix on. I honestly don't even know what that means. I've used so many monitors and I never felt like one made anything easier than the other. It pretty much always ends up being me trying to my hardest to make things sound good, and the process is basically the same no matter what monitor I have. I think a lot of it is in our heads, like how exactly does one define that their mix is lacking and would've been better with different monitors? That to me implies one has to already believe they don't have the right tool, and it's A LOT easier to blame the tools than your own work when you aren't happy with your mixes.

I agree deeply.

 

[slavenoise]

I have the opportunity to get the kh350, two pieces arrived in my country, gentlemen, it is worth investing in this model instead of the kh310, I listen only for pleasure, I would combine them with 2x kh750, I sit in a near field of 1.60 at 19m2, unfortunately I have no way to listen to a demo.I really like look kh350, but I wouldn't want to lose the magic of the KH310 and their soft sound presentation.

 

[dfuller]

The KH 350 is in most respects a much more capable speaker if you listen to music with lots of low end, and the design is in general more optimized than the 310.