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

[Karmacoma]

Why do you say "it's important to understand that it is a very weak argument to chose ATC's"? Who argued for choosing ATC? I never did, I even mentioned that I'm on Neumanns.

My bad.

Where is the appeal to anecdote/popularity/authority in me saying that "loads of successful engineer's preferred monitor choice for work is ATC"?

It is an interesting information. you're right, it isn't that if you're not implying they're objectively better, I thought that's what you meant, hence the quid pro quo.

I know my example above was oversimplified and silly but I hope it helps to make sense of my argument.

I does makes sense. It was the argument of engineers choosing the Yamaha NS10's back in the days. That way of seeing things seems to fade away.

 

[kharan]

Where is the appeal to anecdote/popularity/authority in me saying that "loads of successful engineer's preferred monitor choice for work is ATC"? What if the popularity is based on actual performance and not marketing and woodoo? What if authority is demonstrably paired with knowledge, experience and wisdom? And what if it's not an anecdote?

- If you just run through the gear lists of professional commercial studios in London, Paris, Prague, Berlin, Budapest, New York, Los Angeles, Nashville, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Sao Paolo, Istanbul, Tokyo...and you often bump into ATCs than it's not an anecdote.
- If you just randomly checked studio visit videos from channels like Rick Beato, Produce Like a Pro, Studio Time, Agartha Studio Tours etc. and you often bump into ATCs than it's not an anecdote.
- If you happen to work in loads of different studios and you recognize that, "hm so many studios are kitted with ATCs" than it's not an anecdote.
- For God's sake, if northwardacoustics (one of the most well known high-end studio design company) who built "more than 200 projects spanning over 20 countries, 4 continents" pretty much only works with ATC than where is the appeal to anecdote in what I said?
Instead of arguing with me, look at their list of works from 2009-2016: https://northwardacoustics.com/on-the-job/on-the-job-2026/
Do you see anything else than ATCs? If not than why are you so argumentative when I just stated the fact that "loads of successful engineer's preferred monitor choice for work is ATC". That's not an anecdote, that's a fact.
I suggest you to read what Thomas Jouanjean from Northward says about why he builds his high-end studios around ATC systems:
"The reason I stick with ATC is that they are simply, in my experience, the best speakers you can get: they are the best compromise..."
His full post is here (worth reading some of his other posts as well):
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...c-speakers-monitors.17448/page-13#post-938413
And if even after reading his posts, checking his references etc. you still think that what I said is just "appeal to anecdote/popularity/authority" than I honestly can't help you.

To preface my answer, this is neither an attack nor a critique of the choice made by many engineers or companies; making choices based on anecdotes or professional consensus is perfectly acceptable.

The key distinction is that the plural of anecdote isn't data. Even very large collections of anecdotes do not constitute statistically sound, rigorous evidence.

From your examples, there is selection bias (your knowledge of high-end studios, the studios that choose to advertise their gear, the gear that advertises well...), a lack of control groups (would those engineers perform worse with Neumann, Genelec, or Barefoot?), and potential systematic sampling errors (preference for familiarity, peer pressure, historical dominance, prestige...).

The observation that ATC monitors are widespread among high-end studios is likely a valid industry trend, but turning that trend into a claim of objective sonic superiority isn't something you can do from a collection of anecdotes. It would require controlled double-blind testing, and frankly, I don't see anyone with a large enough financial incentive to run such tests who isn't hopelessly biased from the start.

 

[Blockader]

This has come up many times before: ATCs(especially large ones) do measure "good enough" for mixing and mastering, and you can certainly make great recordings on them. To be fair, very few studio monitor manufacturers can match ATC's serviceability and support while also measuring better. Genelec is one of them. Neumann's support on the other hand, seems questionable. Blackbird Studios use both Genelec and ATC's for example. PSI audio seems "good enough" too but they are also overpriced like ATC's.

What's annoying about ATC isn't how bad / good they measure. What annoying is the people people who insist that ATCs are the best speakers ever made, that the mid-dome is somehow magic or that a soft dome is the only proper way to design a tweeter and they defend one or more of these claims without anything substantial to back them up.

The Neumann KH 350, meanwhile, is an absolute masterpiece. Vertical directivity, on- and off-axis response, group delay... on paper, it seems to beat everything else on the market. The real question is how well Neumann will support its products over the next 20 years and for anyone building a studio, that question matters a lot.

 

[jhaider]

The 310 II has my attention. I’d be more interested in the measurements than the leaked specs, though.

The only competent measurement set I’ve seen to date that didn’t confirm Neumann’s public facing data was @amirm’s original KH 80 set, which led to interesting information about the effect of temperature on bass response due to good faith investigation on both sides, and ultimately confirmation of the company’s public facing data.

 

[viktorapo]

This has come up many times before: ATCs(especially large ones) do measure "good enough" for mixing and mastering, and you can certainly make great recordings on them. To be fair, very few studio monitor manufacturers can match ATC's serviceability and support while also measuring better. Genelec is one of them. Neumann's support on the other hand, seems questionable. Blackbird Studios use both Genelec and ATC's for example. PSI audio seems "good enough" too but they are also overpriced like ATC's.

What's annoying about ATC isn't how bad / good they measure. What annoying is the people people who insist that ATCs are the best speakers ever made, that the mid-dome is somehow magic or that a soft dome is the only proper way to design a tweeter and they defend one or more of these claims without anything substantial to back them up.

The Neumann KH 350, meanwhile, is an absolute masterpiece. Vertical directivity, on- and off-axis response, group delay... on paper, it seems to beat everything else on the market. The real question is how well Neumann will support its products over the next 20 years and for anyone building a studio, that question matters a lot.

also, i think big factor is that ATCs are making main monitors SCM110 and up - while Neumann is more focused on smaller ones. hence, looking more ATCs in the "pro" studios world. i believe, both companies make PERFECT monitors

 

[HQY]

Providing detailed specs and test data at least shows Neumann's rigor and transparency.

 

[Mysta]

@Curvature @Matt_Holland
Thanks for the links and insights.
Room size/ceiling height Im going dsp route. See how it all sounds and take acoustic treatment as a stage 2.

FWIW went down a long AI chat with room stats etc, fir some basic leads on panels, placement etc. That went well. 2ks worth if curtains, 2.5k plus worth of panels etc... Think it connected me to the GIK sales team. On a serious note it was helpful and reflective. Im producing/mixing no live recordings as such. Due to space Id struggle with free standing speakers then desk. So speakers will be on 3u desk stands recommended iso feet. I was considering dirac dsp, flexible but introduces other concerns.
So the KH310mk2s and 8351Bs are in the audition list atm no more in thr frat... Ive been atc brainwashed somewhere along the road, so will listen to shake of any regrets mentally.
Seems a good compromise of what im after and room suitability.

Thanks for now

 

[kimmosto]

What's the problem, exactly? We have a small number of studies about a measurement whose impact is extremely difficult to assess. Sure I would like GD, like THD, as low as possible, but I have no idea what the "sound" of GD is.

Ignorance, inexperience, laziness, invalidity and biases of scientific studies, and erroneous information and conclusions in publications and book(s). My personal problem is that I worry too much about that. Fortunately Neumann speakers don't have big problems in time domain though possible subsonic filter makes it worse and subwoofer with IIR XO will ruin timing for sure.

 

[Curvature]

subwoofer with IIR XO will ruin timing

Is this a personal conclusion or do you have a source?

 

[kimmosto]

Is this a personal conclusion or do you have a source?

There is at least one study focusing to subwoofer XO: "On the Audibility of Group Delay Distortion at Low Frequencies", AES Preprint 2894 by Gunter J. Krauss (DYNACORD Electronic und Gerätebau GmbH & Co KG - so it was commercial too). Maybe there are some others, but they are difficult to find from AES library. Anyway, they (3 listeners) compared original to normal LR12 and LR24 XO at 100 Hz using Stax Lambda Pro (and some dynamic) headphones. Signals were bass drum and tone burst. Both XOs were audible.

I have compared LR12 and LR24 XOs from 50 Hz to 400-600 Hz using HD600. Test signal was sine wave cropped so that signal looks ideal symmetrical step response. Fundamental f 10 Hz or 20 Hz. LR12 was audible to ca. 280-350 Hz, and LR24 was audible to ca. 500-700 Hz. Lower XO frequency -> more audible so all phase-matched (LR) subwoofer XOs are audible also with headphones. Difference between direct and low XO such as 50-70 Hz is like night and day. Quite totally different sound. GD step is enormous, so the timing can be said to be ruined without even listening a second

I'm not sure why this distortion is so secret, poorly known or acknowledged. Perhaps because subwoofers are good business for the audio industry. I have never had separate sub with low XO, and experiences elsewhere have not been good.

 

[Curvature]

@Curvature @Matt_Holland
Thanks for the links and insights.
Room size/ceiling height Im going dsp route. See how it all sounds and take acoustic treatment as a stage 2.

FWIW went down a long AI chat with room stats etc, fir some basic leads on panels, placement etc. That went well. 2ks worth if curtains, 2.5k plus worth of panels etc... Think it connected me to the GIK sales team. On a serious note it was helpful and reflective. Im producing/mixing no live recordings as such. Due to space Id struggle with free standing speakers then desk. So speakers will be on 3u desk stands recommended iso feet. I was considering dirac dsp, flexible but introduces other concerns.
So the KH310mk2s and 8351Bs are in the audition list atm no more in thr frat... Ive been atc brainwashed somewhere along the road, so will listen to shake of any regrets mentally.
Seems a good compromise of what im after and room suitability.

Thanks for now

With a small amount of space I think Genelec would be better due to the short integration distance of the coaxials. GLM is a good autoEQ solution as well since it has selectable latency vs. phase compensation. Dirac ART is very interesting but I haven't been able to test is personally yet.

 

[Chanur]

Yes. I would trust the mixing engineers with multiple Grammies that continuously use ATC’s and PMC’s, rather than technical measurements. I trust the mixing engineer over the scientist because they first hand experience mixes translating and their experience is far more beneficial to me than the scientist in the lab. When I see the best mixing engineers continuously using Atc, Pmc, Amphion etc and rarely Neumann and even moving away from Neumann, I have a natural and valid skepticism and reason to question why they have gone for these other brands over Neumann. The question is so then why did I bother asking for scientific answers on this forum? My thinking was that the new model Neumann which apparently has been in development for ages had changed something substantially in their monitors that would now convert Pmc, ATC users to them and to assess if anyone had any answers to what they would be improving in these new models (partially in the midrange where our hearing is the most sensitive). I guess I’m just going to wait and see what they launch and make my assessment from there. Thank you all for your time.

If there is one thing Sennheiser and Neumann is known for is terrible midrange! /s

 

[ShadowFiend]

There is at least one study focusing to subwoofer XO: "On the Audibility of Group Delay Distortion at Low Frequencies", AES Preprint 2894 by Gunter J. Krauss (DYNACORD Electronic und Gerätebau GmbH & Co KG - so it was commercial too). Maybe there are some others, but they are difficult to find from AES library. Anyway, they (3 listeners) compared original to normal LR12 and LR24 XO at 100 Hz using Stax Lambda Pro (and some dynamic) headphones. Signals were bass drum and tone burst. Both XOs were audible.

I have compared LR12 and LR24 XOs from 50 Hz to 400-600 Hz using HD600. Test signal was sine wave cropped so that signal looks ideal symmetrical step response. Fundamental f 10 Hz or 20 Hz. LR12 was audible to ca. 280-350 Hz, and LR24 was audible to ca. 500-700 Hz. Lower XO frequency -> more audible so all phase-matched (LR) subwoofer XOs are audible also with headphones. Difference between direct and low XO such as 50-70 Hz is like night and day. Quite totally different sound. GD step is enormous, so the timing can be said to be ruined without even listening a second
View attachment 559106
I'm not sure why this distortion is so secret, poorly known or acknowledged. Perhaps because subwoofers are good business for the audio industry. I have never had separate sub with low XO, and experiences elsewhere have not been good.

Do you have any solution for minimize the group delay distortion in speaker and in system level. I mean problem identification is one thing but finding out solution for that problem without making other things worse is even more important. In speaker level, from what I understand we should
1. Use low order crossover in low frequency. 4th order LR-filter is fine for tweeter/midrange or 2" dome midrange to midwoofer but midrange /woofer (over 350Hz) should be LR2
2. No crossover below that point and if absolutely needed, 1st order filter only.

While this criteria is durable for some type of speaker, it put a huge constrains to the system. So the system need at least good dual 8" woofer/ one 10" woofer in box to reproduce the needed bass, aka bass extension to some 30s Hz. And in some type of speaker like dipole, even dual 12" high power PA woofer is not enough for reference level at 30Hz. And the lowest octave (20Hz-40Hz) really need subwoofers. With subsonic filter then the distortion (both HD and IMD) is better than without even though it make the GD distortion worse. I am appreciated to hear your opinion about the solution to minimize GD distortion at bass frequencies.

 

[Ype]

If there is one thing Sennheiser and Neumann is known for is terrible midrange! /s

Honestly it was the same story 20 years ago, the knowledge was all there.
Like I said earlier, nobody ever looked at a properly calibrated display and pulled out their phone to color grade on that instead.

The only other industry where I've encountered such hubris is in the medical field, where some doctors thought they did not need checklists.
But even those could be convinced.

In the grand scheme of things this is just entertainment and I am happy I did not spend much time in such discussions.
I still find them fascinating though, from a purely mental gymnastics perspective, which includes looking at my own.

If you, me, or anyone else thinks you don't need standards we are wrong.

Edit: feel free to delete as it is a bit off topic and nothing against the people I am talking with in this thread.
The general observation stands though.

 

[ozonepaul]

I think most of the points are unassessable. There are no stats or public attempts for a brand-level study about speaker use, reliability, etc. Likewise, I don't know of any serious way to assess translation. Which for me means that we are pitting reputation against reputation if we aren't interested in measurements, and reputation tends to drift wildly depending on who you talk to, which part of the world you are in, and so on.

Lots of great music has been made using many different speakers. The question is if using speakers that show better measured results would make the artist's (or engineer's) job easier and the listener's time better. I'm no scientist, I'm a civilian. But my earnest effort to read the science has pushed me toward a few simple conclusions about how to understand speakers and away from the reams of hearsay that defined the pro scene for me since I was a kid.

This sort of information counts for a lot: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...leaked-pricing-info.72465/page-6#post-2669027

To preface my answer, this is neither an attack nor a critique of the choice made by many engineers or companies; making choices based on anecdotes or professional consensus is perfectly acceptable.

The key distinction is that the plural of anecdote isn't data. Even very large collections of anecdotes do not constitute statistically sound, rigorous evidence.

From your examples, there is selection bias (your knowledge of high-end studios, the studios that choose to advertise their gear, the gear that advertises well...), a lack of control groups (would those engineers perform worse with Neumann, Genelec, or Barefoot?), and potential systematic sampling errors (preference for familiarity, peer pressure, historical dominance, prestige...).

The observation that ATC monitors are widespread among high-end studios is likely a valid industry trend, but turning that trend into a claim of objective sonic superiority isn't something you can do from a collection of anecdotes. It would require controlled double-blind testing, and frankly, I don't see anyone with a large enough financial incentive to run such tests who isn't hopelessly biased from the start.

1. Why the "...if aren't interested in measurements..."? I don't remember anyone saying we aren't interested in measurements, nothing even remotely close. In fact I'm pretty sure the exact reason for most of us to sign up to ASR and visit a forum like this is precisely because we actually are very interested in measurements.

2. "The key distinction is that the plural of anecdote isn't data."; "turning that trend into a claim of objective sonic superiority isn't something you can do from a collection of anecdotes." Similarly as in my first point: No one tried here to turn anecdotes into data; no one claimed the objective sonic superiority of ATC here; no one turned any trend into a claim...

3. "When pitting reputation against reputation, reputation tends to drift wildly depending on who you talk to" is only true when you talk to random people. But (and it's true pretty much on any given serious field) as soon as you talk to people
- who actually work professionally,
- whose income is directly linked to the quality of work they produce,
- who can present some high quality portfolio,
- who accumulated 15-30-40 years of experience, knowledge, wisdom;
in short if you base "reputation" on the opinions of pro people and not just any random anonymous guy on the internet, than you will realize reputation actually don't drifts wildly at all.
Pro studios tend to be kitted with ATCs, Neumanns, Genelecs, Focals and a few other brands like Amphions, Barefoots etc.
Most dentists/implantologists use Straumann, Nobel Biocare, Ankylos and a few other brands.
And most pro drummers use Gretsch, Yamaha, Pearl, Tama, Sonor and a few other smaller brands.
Random guys (who never ever played drums) arguing about the quality of Gretsch drums on a drum forum telling Vinnie Colaiuta, Keith Carlock or Gergo Borlai that without controlled double-blind tests we don't accept that Gretsch drums are good (or as good as let's say Yamaha) makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of Vinnie Colaiuta, Keith Carlock or Gergo Borlai who all spend their whole life behind drum kits playing professionally. (Obviously there are other factors than just the sound of the drums - from backline services to artist management - that matters, exactly the same way as with monitors in a pro environment: sound quality is paramount but there are all kinds of other factors that are also important.)
The same way random Joe aggressively bashing the monitor choice of Thomas Jouanjean (northwardacoustics) in the ATC speaker thread; or here in this thread someone writing "When I see the best mixing engineers continuously using Atc, Pmc, Amphion etc and rarely Neumann and even moving away from Neumann"....On which planet are the best mixing engineers rarely use/move away from Neumann? Not on this one that's for sure. This is total madness. So "when pitting reputation against reputation" don't just talk/listen to every random Joe.

4. "The question is if using speakers that show better measured results would make the artist's (or engineer's) job easier and the listener's time better." Most probably yes, but what I'm 100% sure about is this: if there is better measuring gear that makes our job better, faster, more efficient, and it's also reliable etc. (and it's priced well) than we will buy that gear. It's as simple as that because it's our own interest.

5. I knew absolutely nothing about dental implants, so I didn't know "any serious way to assess" the quality and the expected lifespan of the different brands. But than, when I needed an implant I did not ask random Joe about his opinion... I read a ton on the subject (e.g. some long-term patient follow up statistics) and it certainly helped me to answer my basic questions. But then when I met some oral/maxillofacial surgeons (one of them a good friend) and they told me "...yes, yes, Ankylos is also great but for XY and Z reasons (and they actually listed their reasons) in your case we suggest Nobel Biocare"...now this is when I did not start an argument, I just simply listened to them.
Similarly: you wrote that "I don't know of any serious way to assess translation." Believe me you can when it's bad . And than above a certain quality just trust people who actually can. Accept that (at least for now) the best you can do about "assessing translation" is listening to the opinions of people who actually can assess it. People who actually gained enough experience/trained themselves to hear a 1dB level change, 2ms attack time difference on a compressor, 3% panning move even in a busy mix. And just ignore the opinions of people who couldn't hear a 10db, 20ms and a 30% even if their life depended on it. If loads of great engineers say that "I get better translation with X monitor than with Y monitor" than you should listen to them (and not just when X = Neumann or Genelec but also when it's ATC or whatever else).

6. You say that in my "examples, there is selection bias". To prove my point that "loads of successful engineer's preferred monitor choice for work is ATC" I suggested the following: "... just run through the gear lists of professional commercial studios in London, Paris, Prague, Berlin, Budapest, New York, Los Angeles, Nashville, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Sao Paolo, Istanbul, Tokyo.." to see how many ATCs you bump into. If this is selection bias than I just don't know what to say.

To close my long rambling:
Knowledge and experience does matter, so it's well worth filtering whose opinions you listen to, and whose opinions you ignore.
+ Just because you don't have all the necessary scientific data it doesn't always mean you can't get pretty close to objective reality: for example it's a good idea to ask (and than listen to) the opinions of people with the best knowledge and experience on the given field.

 

[Curvature]

1. Why the "...if aren't interested in measurements..."? I don't remember anyone saying we aren't interested in this thread, nothing even remotely close. In fact we all are in this forum because we actually are interested.

2. "The key distinction is that the plural of anecdote isn't data."; "turning that trend into a claim of objective sonic superiority isn't something you can do from a collection of anecdotes." Similarly as in my first point: No one tried here to turn anecdotes into data; no one claimed the objective sonic superiority of ATC (or any other brand) here.

3. "When pitting reputation against reputation, reputation tends to drift wildly depending on who you talk to" is only true when you talk to random people. But (and it's true pretty much on any given serious field) as soon as you talk to people
- who actually work professionally,
- whose income is directly linked to the quality of work they produce,
- who can present some high quality portfolio,
- who accumulated 15-30-40 years of experience, knowledge, wisdom;
in short if you base "reputation" on the opinions of pro people and not just any random anonymous guy on the internet, than you will realize reputation actually don't drifts wildly at all.
Pro studios tend to be kitted with ATCs, Neumanns, Genelecs, Focals and a few other brands like Amphions, Barefoots etc.
Most dentists/implantologists use Straumann, Nobel Biocare, Ankylos and a few other brands.
And most pro drummers use Gretsch, Yamaha, Pearl, Tama, Sonor and a few other smaller brands.
Random guys (who never ever played drums) arguing about the quality of Gretsch drums on a drum forum telling Vinnie Colaiuta, Keith Carlock or Gergo Borlai that without controlled double-blind tests we don't accept that Gretsch drums are good (or as good as let's say Yamaha) makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of Vinnie Colaiuta, Keith Carlock or Gergo Borlai who all spend their whole life behind drum kits playing professionally. (Obviously there are other factors than just the sound of the drums - from backline services to artist management - that matters, exactly the same way as with monitors in a pro environment: sound quality is paramount but there are all kinds of other factors that are also important.)
The same way random Joe aggressively bashing the monitor choice of the guys from Northward in the ATC speaker thread; or here in this thread someone writing "When I see the best mixing engineers continuously using Atc, Pmc, Amphion etc and rarely Neumann and even moving away from Neumann"....On which planet are the best mixing engineers moving away from Neumann? Not on this one that's for sure. This is total madness. So "when pitting reputation against reputation" don't just talk/listen to every random Joe.

4. "The question is if using speakers that show better measured results would make the artist's (or engineer's) job easier and the listener's time better." Most probably yes, but what I'm 100% sure about is this: if there is better measuring gear that makes our job better, faster, more efficient, and it's also reliable etc. (and it's priced well) than we will buy that gear. It's as simple as that because it's our own interest.

5. I knew absolutely nothing about dental implants, so I didn't know "any serious way to assess" the quality and the expected lifespan of the different brands. But than, when I needed an implant I did not ask random Joe about his opinion... I read a ton on the subject (e.g. some long-term patient follow up statistics) and it certainly helped me to answer my basic questions. But then when I met some oral/maxillofacial surgeons (one of them a great childhood friend) and they told me "...yes, yes, Ankylos is also great but for XY and Z reasons (and they actually listed their reasons) in your case we suggest Nobel Biocare"...now this is when I did not start an argument, I just simply listened to them.

Now, you wrote that "I don't know of any serious way to assess translation." Believe me you can when it's bad . And than above a certain quality just trust people who actually can. Accept that (at least for now) the best you can do about "assessing translation" is listening to the opinions of people who actually can assess it. People who actually gained enough experience/trained themselves to hear a 1dB level change, 2ms longer attack time on a compressor, 3% panning change even in a busy mix. And just ignore the opinions of people who couldn't hear a 10db, 20ms and a 30% even if their life depended on it. If loads of great engineers say that "I get better translation with X monitor than with Y monitor" than you should listen to them (and not just when X = Neumann or Genelec but also when it's ATC or whatever else).

6. You say that in my "examples, there is selection bias". If stuff like me suggesting: "... just run through the gear lists of professional commercial studios in London, Paris, Prague, Berlin, Budapest, New York, Los Angeles, Nashville, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Sao Paolo, Istanbul, Tokyo.." to see how many ATCs you bump into, and that's selection bias than I just don't know what to say.

Knowledge, experience does matter so it's well worth filtering whose opinions you listen to, and whose opinions you ignore.
+ Just because you don't have all the necessary scientific data it doesn't always mean you can't get pretty close to objective reality: for example it's a good idea to ask (and than listen to) the opinions of people with the best knowledge and experience on the given field.

Good science shows not only the outcomes and conclusions but the methods it took to get there—the goal is not just to lean on the expert opinion but to assess if that opinion has any merit.

Studios don't publish their room responses, speaker companies don't publish their speaker data, etc. You can swap in any gear you like and the answer is typically the same. Someone has to have the means and opportunity to work in those studios and on that gear to get exposure, and their assessment, whatever it counts for, stays private.

Your way, the loop stays closed. Real data breaks it open and gives way more people a chance at success.

 

[ozonepaul]

Good science shows not only the outcomes and conclusions but the methods it took to get there—the goal is not just to lean on the expert opinion but to assess if that opinion has any merit.

Studios don't publish their room responses, speaker companies don't publish their speaker data, etc. You can swap in any gear you like and the answer is typically the same. Someone has to have the means and opportunity to work in those studios and on that gear to get exposure, and their assessment, whatever it counts for, stays private.

Your way, the loop stays closed. Real data breaks it open and gives way more people a chance at success.

- "Good science shows not only the outcomes and conclusions but the methods it took to get there—the goal is not just to lean on the expert opinion but to assess if that opinion has any merit."
Correct, but why the "just"? Did I say anything even remotely close to "just lean on expert opinion"? No. In fact I started my previous post with: "I'm pretty sure the exact reason for most of us to sign up to ASR and visit a forum like this is precisely because we actually are very interested in measurements."


- Studios don't publish their room responses because why on earth would they? What would be the benefit for them? To be forced to argue with complete idiots, who wave their less than +/- 3dB at no smoothing fake graphs shouting that their 9m2 room sounds better than XY studio's build project? It would just generate even more online arguments where people with no clue how to read an RT60 or a waterfall would teach others how to improve their room. People would no end compare apples with oranges; an empty studio room measurement with a studio with a console or mastering gear already loaded in it; no one would consider physical or financial limitations of these project etc.
So most sane studio designers and studios avoid publishing anything on their room acoustics. You say "someone has to have the means and opportunity to work in those studios and on that gear to get exposure...". You or anyone else has got a chance to get that exposure, but first you would have to put in the work/study/effort. Why on earth would the guys at Metropolis or Church Studio allow any random people in? If you owned Metropolis would you?
By the way you can easily find a few published pro studio room measurements online (just be careful, some - if you consider the design/look/budget - "way too good to be true" results are also out there) + it's easy to find loads of REW measurements of semi-pro/home studios.
If you know what to look for, if you do enough of your own tests and you read enough REW measurements of semi-pro studios than you'll have a pretty precise informed guess about what is achievable and what to expect from a given room with a given budget.
+ If you're interested, there are some articles on the subject in SoundOnSound (e.g. this has got some impulse response graphs as well: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/sos-guide-control-room-design ), + you can find some useful info on Gearspace in the Studio Building/Acoustics forum section
+ When it comes to home studios, the measurement results in this 5 part series shows you the ballpark of what's realistic for a reasonable budget:

- More and more speaker companies do publish their speaker data because it can help sales in certain market segments.


- You wrote: "Your way, the loop stays closed." What the hell is my way?
I ended my previous post with: "... ask and than listen to the opinions of people with the best knowledge and experience on the given field." But I never said "and forget all the measurements and science".

I never said anything suggesting that I'm against the scientific method. I never questioned the usefulness of measurements. I never ever rank ordered monitor brands in this forum thread. I never "claimed objective sonic superiority" for any brand. I never said ATC is better than Neumann, neither that Neumann is better than ATC.
In other threads (either here on ASR or on other forums like Gearspace) even if I rank ordered monitors, headphones etc.
a.) I always talked about specific models (and not about brands in general)
b.) I made it clear that it's only my opinion (usually based on my own experience or measurement data or a combination of the two).

So no idea what do you mean by "your way".


+ I'm tired of writing sentences starting with "I never said that...". It seems to me that expanding and distorting the opinions of others to the extremes in order to win an argument became wide spread here. I find this "debate culture" to be very difficult to reconcile with "science".

 

[Steakhouse]

There is at least one study focusing to subwoofer XO: "On the Audibility of Group Delay Distortion at Low Frequencies", AES Preprint 2894 by Gunter J. Krauss (DYNACORD Electronic und Gerätebau GmbH & Co KG - so it was commercial too). Maybe there are some others, but they are difficult to find from AES library. Anyway, they (3 listeners) compared original to normal LR12 and LR24 XO at 100 Hz using Stax Lambda Pro (and some dynamic) headphones. Signals were bass drum and tone burst. Both XOs were audible.

I have compared LR12 and LR24 XOs from 50 Hz to 400-600 Hz using HD600. Test signal was sine wave cropped so that signal looks ideal symmetrical step response. Fundamental f 10 Hz or 20 Hz. LR12 was audible to ca. 280-350 Hz, and LR24 was audible to ca. 500-700 Hz. Lower XO frequency -> more audible so all phase-matched (LR) subwoofer XOs are audible also with headphones. Difference between direct and low XO such as 50-70 Hz is like night and day. Quite totally different sound. GD step is enormous, so the timing can be said to be ruined without even listening a second
View attachment 559106
I'm not sure why this distortion is so secret, poorly known or acknowledged. Perhaps because subwoofers are good business for the audio industry. I have never had separate sub with low XO, and experiences elsewhere have not been good.

With a sine signal or simple drum tones? How about actual content? How about a real room? Just take a measurement of you speaker and you will see GD under 100Hz in the 50 ms region with heavy spikes just because of room modes. The discussion of 5 vs 10 ms in the bass region is absolutely irrelevant when you listen to a speaker in the room with music.

 

[Ype]

Enjoying the conversation so adding a bit more, not meant argumentative but you obviously take the time to interact in good faith,
Please read the following in the same way, I've been trained to communicate very directly, especially in engineering circles.

You see, this stupid idiot guy (not putting words in your mouth, just tongue in cheek ) might have seen a lot of measurements from studio's and was shocked by the lack of standards.
Some manufactures took action, some did not. I will leave it up to you to deduce which ones.

This is an industry where the following can happen: sounds get mixed in Germany, sounds brilliant.
Gets played back in a studio in America, sounds TERRIBLE.
These people fly half way round the world to listen in Germany, it sounds shockingly good to them and they ask which speakers that were.


You know these stories.
But an argument stands on it's merits.

This an industry I would have loved to help move forward but I came to the conclusion it has no interest in moving forward, so I focused my limited time and energy elsewhere.

To clarify, I don't even have any problems if someone finds its easier to mix with a notch at 3Khz.
What I have trouble with is that people I know can't just walk into a studio and expect their mixes to sound the same, or grab an EQ and dial in their preferred settings.

The only ones that are seemingly trying to move the needle is Dolby, but even their most recent standards also have some ??? in them.
I truly do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp. (In general, not directed at you)

That is not a personal attack to you, it has nothing to do with either of us.
It is simply a fact, and my opinion is that it is silly.

 

[Ype]

Will gladly share the newest standards that I would use if I was asked to put a playback system together today.
When it comes to what I learned, all of it can be found in Sound Reproduction 4th edition directly or the references.