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

[ozonepaul]

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.

Here is what I think about this ASR/science/measurements vs stone-age mentality mix engineers nonsense argument. (here and there I re-used some of my older posts from Gearspace)

1. Listening to opinions and looking at measurements can be very useful to weed out all the "not so great"/ subpar/ badly designed/ faulty etc... products, but above a certain "measurably/objectively good/great" level you just have to audition them.

2. A few years ago when I was planning an upgrade, I looked at the measurement differences between the D&D 8C, the Neumann KH420, and the Genelec 8361... their measurement data were some of the best at the time, objectively/scientifically they're all great. But than when I had a chance to compare these monitors side by side I quickly realized there is a huge character/sound signature difference between them. And that was true even when I've done everything I could to eliminate all variables (eg. distance/height/SPL level etc.).
So I'm 100% sure that
- the driver material and design,
- the power handling,
- the chosen crossover frequencies,
- ported vs sealed cabinet design,
- point source/coaxial vs traditional driver arrangement
-etc, etc.
so the sum of all of these design choices are way more important than what can be shown you on some measurement graphs. These design choices create clearly audible differences even when the actual measurements would suggest a much more "similar sound". Why? I guess because of it's the combined effect of many small differences. (Like when watching a great engineer working on really well recorded material. You see them doing all these teeny-tiny fader/setting moves on level, panning, EQ, Compressor, distortion/saturation etc., on their own all hardly audible BUT: when they're done, and you listen to the rough mix starting point and their finished work, bam, it's night and day.) I heard much greater character differences between these monitors than what I was expecting based on the measurement data.

3. All 3 of the monitors I just mentioned above were having different strength and weaknesses, all great but at the same time very different, they have clearly different "personalities".
E.g. the feeling what the bass punch and presence creates (while still maintaining mad amount of low end detail) on the 8C is nothing I've ever experienced on any other similarly sized monitors without subs. Or how the 8361 suggests some mix choices in the vocal region that are a bit less obvious on other speakers.
To put it simply: after testing these monitors I'm 100% convinced that a great sound engineer could deliver great results on any of these but the order of their mixing moves would be slightly different because each of these monitors pulls the attention in slightly different directions.
I'm oversimplifying it here, but while listening to a song the first time
- the KH420 sort of forced me to focus on the "big picture";
- the 8C pulled my attention towards the bass/ drums/ groove;
- while the 8361 directed my attention towards the vocals/guitars etc.
To put it simply: I could hear everything on all of these, but there is a clear difference where it took my ears/focus first + how much attention I needed on certain areas to pick up small details.

4. Small positioning differences can matter a lot! Auditioning/comparing in your own space is a must. And while doing your comparisons, be very precise when switching from one speaker to the other. Try to keep the variables like listening distance, listening height, SPL level etc. minimal. It's annoying, it needs a lot of positioning and measuring but well worth putting the effort in; this is the only way to actually hear the real differences between the speakers. Also worth doing REW measurements and analyzing/comparing the results of the different speakers. Just putting monitors side by side, completely different listening distances, often one at an equilateral triangle while the other/s thrown next to it far too wide out...
Look at this "review"/comparison video of the new KH310ii vs KH350 vs KH150:

Total waste of time if you ask me, because he did not bother to change the listening height according to the actual acoustical axis of the given speaker. Small details do matter a lot in acoustics!

5. I'm absolutely fine you saying something like you and your friends found it very hard gelling/working on Genelec 8351s. But saying "there is something just not right with their midrange"...I'm sorry but there is absolutely nothing wrong with their midrange. I never really gelled with Genelecs but I could easily work on them, I just happen to prefer the sound of a pair of KH420.

6. Same way, it's laughable that bashing ATCs is sort of a sport on ASR, even though a good third of my friends/colleagues are spending 8-12 hours a day working on them and they churn out quality work day in day out. I know that the sampling pool of a circle of friends/famous engineers is not scientific evidence for any monitors to be labelled "great"...but not accepting, that there must be something other than marketing and voodoo about ATC's for the use-case of mixing (e.g. as far as translation to other playback systems) because loads of engineers are choosing ATC's after long (often meticulous, multiple weeks long) comparisons against the best competition and they still chose ATC...
This "if ATC was any good than they would certainly put measurements in the center of their marketing and product development" argument is nonsense. ATC is loved in the business because they're proven to be good for the needs of an engineer: from good (or good enough/easily in the realm of learnable if you want) frequency response to great translation, from focused and easy to judge mids to great long-term customer care, from reliability to easy serviceability...these things all matter in a studio.

7. Fun story: a few years ago I recorded drums in Church Studios (the one in Crouch End, London). The main monitor in the mixing room (in room 2) was an Augspurger with 4 x 18” subs. Let me just say, I’ve never ever heard anything as loud and visceral (and still clear, fast and precise) as these Augspurgers. I thought they will not only pulverize most of my internal organs but also all my cymbals in my cymbal case. Now there were also some KH420s in the room. Than lo and behold, the engineer brought in a KH80 or KH120 (I don’t remember which one but one of these smaller ones) and he worked mostly on those. And these were some of the best mixes I ever recorded drums for...
So I guess
- how knowledgeable actually you’re;
- how much real life experiences you gathered as an engineer;
- and on top, how intimately you know your chosen/preferred system is way more important than anything else. Some great "cats", a KH80/120 is all they need.

8. Finally: for gear measurements (including measurements of studio monitors) we use test signals (a sine sweep, pink noise, a signal for checking step response or group delay etc.). BUT A TEST SIGNAL IS NOT MUSIC, it's not the same thing. Hence measurements (based on test signals) can help make informed predictions about roughly how an actual monitor will play back real music, but still those measurements are "only" good for informed predictions; it's not a 100% full representation of the monitors real life behaviour when it receives the complex (ever changing) signals of real music.
And this is where the "real magic is": how a monitor deals with a delay/reverb soaked mix (think some Devin Townsend recordings) or how does it present a Tower of Power type staccato horn stab on top of a fat, already busy mix. How does it exactly present the overly distorted drums on let's say Primus: Brown Album, or how much detail of the strangeness (in a good way) of Gary Novak's bass drum sound comes across from Chick Corea's Paint the World recording etc. etc.
In short: based on measurement signals you can make informed predictions, but the way a measurement signal "tortures" a tweeter, a mid or bass driver is NOT the same as how an actual musical event in an extremely busy or extremely sparse (or everything in between) mix "tortures" a tweeter, a mid or bass driver.

I hope I managed to help you a bit to ease your confusion, all the best

 

[IamJF]

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.

In MOST rooms 1,6m is not nearfield any more. A speaker like KH350 has a more narrow directivity and will extend nearfield and reduce room impact. In a well dampened, linear room not that important, in a living room it can change a lot.

Add MA1 to your setup so you can tailor the response at the listening position more towards a Harman curve. In the rear nearfield for reference listening I prefer a flat response at the top end and some bass boost but with your preference and some distance I would give it a tilt.

 

[Ype]

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

Yeah and to me that is Before Science.

However, from an engineering standpoint, if I was able to do so without adding too much latency, I too would have done so.
They did not sacrifice linearity in the frequency domain to do so for the KH80, KH120MK2 or KH150 and I am looking forward to seeing the new spinorama's.

 

[Karmacoma]

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

I think it has more to do with speaker integration in their ecosystem, including room correction. I'm not gonna watch that 2 hour video again but I think they talked about this a little.

 

[Ype]

@ozonepaul I completely agree with auditioning them, at that point the science already weeded out sub-par options.
The few ATC speakers I have auditioned sounded colored, but I have not carefully auditioned later models as my KH310 have been excellent.

You can find it laughable that we expect the highest possible quality *and need proof in the form of measurements, not just hearsay, but that might say more about you than ASR.
All we can do is share with you what the science shows and point people in the direction of manufactures that implement it to the best of their ability.

I've seen people sit behind a mixing desk and being so baffled by the sound in the studio that they decided to mix on their headphones.
Yet I've never seen someone look at a professional screen in video production and pull out their phone to color grade on that instead.

Luckily music seems to survive all kinds of translations, but surely you can understand my/our concerns.

 

[CB89]

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.

Thanks for the post. I’m just a listener rather than a producer in this regard, but I see it the same way.
From a consumer’s perspective, I’m particularly interested in the significance of differences revealed by measurements and whether they justify the higher price. Aside from total outliers, at what point do weaknesses in dispersion and linearity become unacceptable? Habituation plays a big role here, too. After the initial "honeymoon phase"- would I have been just as happy with a cheaper model?

Thanks to measurements and DSP, buying speakers is no longer an emotional rollercoaster. I feel more confident about the process now; it’s less like shooting in the dark. Still, the question remains: what is "enough"? If the tonality is right and a certain standard of quality is met, you can really enjoy listening to music. Whether it’s the affordable JBL LSR305s, the excellent Neumann KH120s, or the Orbit 11s - which have dispersion flaws but other strengths and great value for money - I think they’re all great in their own way.

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.

 

[kimmosto]

Neumann clearly believe that a linearized phase response is audibly preferred

At least group delay of original KH 310 hits into audibility threshold window at mid-range so it's not just belief.

 

[kimmosto]

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.

Who is able to make correct interpretations from those "accurately determined objective measurements"? Interpretations are usually like "more linear is better" which can be just subjective based on belief or some generalization.

 

[CB89]

Who is able to make correct interpretations from those "accurately determined objective measurements"? Interpretations are usually like "more linear is better" which can be just subjective based on belief or some generalization.

Quite apart from the philosophical question of whether linearity is the right goal, it is - for the time being - a goal. And a product requires a focal point; otherwise, it fails to serve a significant purpose or meet a significant need. A corresponding goal (neutrality) is likewise found in other fields such as graphic design, medical technology, and forensics.

 

[kimmosto]

Quite apart from the philosophical question of whether linearity is the right goal, it is - for the time being - a goal

Of what? Direct sound, some off-axis, which angle, what power average?

 

[ozonepaul]

@ozonepaul ...You can find it laughable that we expect the highest possible quality but that might say more about you then ASR.
All we can do is share with you what the science shows and point people in the direction of manufactures that implement it to the best of their ability....

I never said anything even remotely close to what you suggest here. Where did you get that I find it laughable that you expect the highest possible quality?
I said that I find it "laughable that bashing ATCs is sort of a sport on ASR". And than I went into detail why some ATCs are loved in the business:
a.) because mixes done on them seem to translate well to other playback systems;
b.) because it's frequency presentation is good enough, it's deviations are easily learnable;
c.) because it's mids are very focused, easy to judge, so mixing decisions in this range (the most important range in mixing) are very easy to make, hence it's easy to work fast;
d.) because it directs the attention of the engineer to real problem areas, and it's easy judge when is something done (it helps to avoid overdoing things during mixing);
e.) because it's easy to pick up on (to hear) small setting changes on EQs, Compressors, Saturators, Reverbs, etc. even in busy mixes;
e.) because they provide great long-term customer care;
f.) because they're reliable workhorses;
g.) because if there is any problem they are reasonably easy to service;
h.) etc.
and I said that these are all important in a pro studio (probably I listed less things in my previous post but the gist is the same).

So based on the above I hope you accept that in the pro world "highest possible quality" is a bit more complicated than "highest measurement scores".

Loads of great engineers are choosing ATC's (and PMCs) is a fact. It's also a fact that loads of great engineers are choosing ATC's (and PMCs) even after meticulous comparisons/auditions against the best competition (where they work, make mixes on these different monitors for days/weeks). So it's a fact that for whatever reason(s) loads of engineers like the sound of ATCs (or PMCs) for work. I really do not understand why loads of users on this forum are not curious why? I really do not understand why is it better to believe it's only marketing, or that engineers are simply madly biased, or it's unreasonable brand loyalty, or it's some strange engineer voodoo...I find it laughable how can scientific inclined people be this unscientific.





...

 

[AudioJester]

Yes, the 8C has more and deeper bass output than the 8361a and KH420, plus cardioid..
When you see a "bigger" speaker - it sounds "bigger".
No one would expect 8c, 8361a, KH420 to sound "the same"???

The measurements and science of listening is all there. There was no magical discovery when listening.
There will always be personal prefetence, but the spinorama provides way more informstion than people give credit for.

 

[Madlop26]

Loads of great engineers are choosing ATC's (and PMCs) is a fact. It's also a fact that loads of great engineers are choosing ATC's (and PMCs) even after meticulous comparisons/auditions against the best competition (where they work, make mixes on these different monitors for days/weeks). So it's a fact that for whatever reason(s) loads of engineers like the sound of ATCs (or PMCs) for work. I really do not understand why loads of users on this forum are not curious why? I really do not understand why is it better to believe it's only marketing, or that engineers are simply madly biased, or it's unreasonable brand loyalty, or it's some strange engineer voodoo...I find it laughable how can scientific inclined people be this unscientific.

...

Of course we are curious, i would love to know if there is something else we are missing here, but it has to be a rigorous scientific fact, you are asking us to believe you on base of anecdotal data only. The burden of proof is not in our side. We do not negate your experience but I am also an expert in my area, and biases have made me humble multiple times. we are not being unscientific, but the contrary.

 

[CB89]

Of what? Direct sound, some off-axis, which angle, what power average?

Are you looking for a false statement to throw in my face? Well, let me say this... neutral at 15° off-axis—"nothing else matters." I hope that served as the perfect setup for a detailed correction on your part
No offense, but where are these questions leading?

 

[kimmosto]

it has to be a rigorous scientific fact

Spinorama mentioned earlier by someone else so I'm interested in scientific facts related to the following items so that we can better interpret the most popular and respected measurement on ASR:
1) Optimal, preferred or "the best" shape, slope, level and acceptable variations of on-axis response (ON)
2) ... listening window (LW)
3) ... early reflections (ER)
4) ... predicted in-room response (PIR)
5) ... sound power response (SP)
6) ... sound power directivity index (SPDI or standard DI)
7) ... early reflections directivity index (ERDI)
8) Cross-dependencies of previous items. For example, how to determine ON shape and slope for different slopes and shapes of SPDI (within it's allowed variations).

Include references to scientific facts.

You are also free to agree that interpretations are mostly subjective based on certain appearance of the curves or opinions of some well-known authorities probably having some biases or lack of scientific experience i.e. lots of parameters never studied or studies are not inclusive enough.

 

[Ype]

"I really do not understand why loads of users on this forum are not curious why?"

And the circle of confusion goes round and round.

Do you really don't understand the needs for standards if translation is your goal?
Do you truly do not understand why having resonances added by your speaker, which color all sounds the same way, is undesirable?
Do you not see how the person you responded to before complaining about the Genelec mids is driving this exact point home, namely, a lack of standards?

I truly do not see how one could not, as you yourself auditioned speakers that would also be recommended here.
Part of you has to get it, surely.

"I find it laughable how can scientific inclined people be this unscientific."

*Again, my point is the view on speakers and standards in general, not a certain brand in particular.
I do not care if my speakers says Neumann, Genelec, ATC or PMC, I care about sound quality.

It is about the idea of standards and why they are important.
Neumann and Genelec follow the standards so I recommend them, it is as simple as that.

If either company puts a melon on the market I will not recommend it.
If ATC and PMC do not publish measurements or the measurements show audible resonances I will not recommend them.

How is any of this difficult to grasp without purposely misunderstanding?
Would you truly expect me to recommend studio's to buy speakers from Trust me bro Inc just because others mix on them?

Perhaps you should try first understand before trying to ridicule
Presuming you are a mixing engineer or mastering engineer, your job is literally to make good sounding recordings to be played back in people's homes.
I would hope you care about the preferences of the consumers and standards that will drive your industry forward.

So I am not quite sure why you are the one laughing.
See this is my final response to you, no hard feelings, but I am not paid to educate you on speaker design nor help you get better at what I presume is your job.
Or perhaps I am just mis-interpreting your post.

 

[kimmosto]

Are you looking for a false statement to throw in my face? Well, let me say this... neutral at 15° off-axis—"nothing else matters." I hope that served as the perfect setup for a detailed correction on your part
No offense, but where are these questions leading?

Let's keep neutral at 15 deg off-axis as ultimate goal to avoid infinite loop

 

[Curvature]

Spinorama mentioned earlier by someone else so I'm interested in scientific facts related to the following items so that we can better interpret the most popular and respected measurement on ASR:
1) Optimal, preferred or "the best" shape, slope, level and acceptable variations of on-axis response (ON)
2) ... listening window (LW)
3) ... early reflections (ER)
4) ... predicted in-room response (PIR)
5) ... sound power response (SP)
6) ... sound power directivity index (SPDI or standard DI)
7) ... early reflections directivity index (ERDI)
8) Cross-dependencies of previous items. For example, how to determine ON shape and slope for different slopes and shapes of SPDI (within it's allowed variations).

Include references to scientific facts.

You are also free to agree that interpretations are mostly subjective based on certain appearance of the curves or opinions of some well-known authorities probably having some biases or lack of scientific experience i.e. lots of parameters never studied or studies are not inclusive enough.

You know the answers are not very prescriptive or detailed. There's enough discovered to help interpretation of comprehensive measurements, and in fact the most helpful suggestion is to actually provide full measurements rather than hiding behind reputation, but there's not enough established to say with clear certainly which very similar speakers would be optimal.

I never said anything even remotely close to what you suggest here. Where did you get that I find it laughable that you expect the highest possible quality?
I said that I find it "laughable that bashing ATCs is sort of a sport on ASR". And than I went into detail why some ATCs are loved in the business:
a.) because mixes done on them seem to translate well to other playback systems;
b.) because it's frequency presentation is good enough, it's deviations are easily learnable;
c.) because it's mids are very focused, easy to judge, so mixing decisions in this range (the most important range in mixing) are very easy to make, hence it's easy to work fast;
d.) because it directs the attention of the engineer to real problem areas, and it's easy judge when is something done (it helps to avoid overdoing things during mixing);
e.) because it's easy to pick up on (to hear) small setting changes on EQs, Compressors, Saturators, Reverbs, etc. even in busy mixes;
e.) because they provide great long-term customer care;
f.) because they're reliable workhorses;
g.) because if there is any problem they are reasonably easy to service;
h.) etc.
and I said that these are all important in a pro studio (probably I listed less things in my previous post but the gist is the same).

So based on the above I hope you accept that in the pro world "highest possible quality" is a bit more complicated than "highest measurement scores".

Loads of great engineers are choosing ATC's (and PMCs) is a fact. It's also a fact that loads of great engineers are choosing ATC's (and PMCs) even after meticulous comparisons/auditions against the best competition (where they work, make mixes on these different monitors for days/weeks). So it's a fact that for whatever reason(s) loads of engineers like the sound of ATCs (or PMCs) for work. I really do not understand why loads of users on this forum are not curious why? I really do not understand why is it better to believe it's only marketing, or that engineers are simply madly biased, or it's unreasonable brand loyalty, or it's some strange engineer voodoo...I find it laughable how can scientific inclined people be this unscientific.





...

Two reasons:

1. There are almost no PMC or ATC measurements available.
2. The measurements which are available suggest that the speakers are not worth the money and don't live up to their reputation.

On the one hand, if PMC or ATC have undefinable qualities which make them better for mixing than other speakers, it means the science is not only wrong but deeply wrong, and that artists have no choice but to spend the kind of money they charge to make good music. On the other, if a lot of what is believed is simply false or misguided, then artists are much freer to make clear technical assessments of their equipment and not be bothered with so many irrelevant opinions about gear that contribute nothing to the craft.

 

[Ype]

At least group delay of original KH 310 hits into audibility threshold window at mid-range so it's not just belief.

If you have some time, could you explain further?
The latest paper I read on this subject was Audibility of Group-Delay Equalization, quite a while ago and those listening tests were done with headphones, not speakers.

When it comes to linear phase, I see no way of it reaching me in my normally reflective room and from what I understand my brain does not seem to care.
But I might very well be misunderstanding what you mean and I simply do not know what I do not know.

As for the KH310 specifically, I simply EQ'ed them using IIR filtering, just as I use them for in room EQ for the bass frequencies.



ASR measurements of KH310:

Simulation of KH310 with my own correction filters:

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, looking forward to seeing the Spinorama of the MK2 to see what they were able to do without changing the waveguides.
As well as learning more even though this is just a hobby now

Edit: Re-uploaded the screenshots at the usual 50dB scale

 

[Karmacoma]

On the one hand, if PMC or ATC have undefinable qualities which make them better for mixing than other speakers, it means the science is not only wrong but deeply wrong

Again, the theory based on measurements can be wrong, the measurements can be wrong, but ''science'' isn't.
I think it's important to qualify things properly.

So far the arguments made on this discussion against the theory are particularly weak, it's important for those who keep using this argument to understand that ("a lot of great engineers use ATC's"), and since we don't even know how the big ATC's measure, partly because the company -oddly- refuses to provide measurements, all of this debate, for or against ATC, for or against the theory is totally and utterly baseless.