PSI vs Neumann vs Geithain

[pierre]

In the studio world almost everyone agrees in the rule to increase the directivity with listening distance. So all bigger studio monitors are build this way. In a studio you are able to build a room around the speakers. And as I said every speaker has a listening distance at which it will sound best. It is not something like taste, almost all the time there is a sweet spot.

If the listening test is in mono speakers with wider directivity are prefered. In stereo it is different.

Speakers like the b&o beolab 90 can change directivity and the more narrow mode is preferred with higher listening distance.

I also agree that a lot of research has to been done. There are a lot of parameters which may change the outcome. And some strange concepts like the bose 901 which try to max out envelopment are also interesting. The room and placement is very important and if you compare only very good speaker these parameters will determine which sounds best.

I am not sure about the studio use case. For mixing most people do nearfield and directivity is less important. For mastering, I at least want some reflections and wide directivity is ok. I have large Genelec and I do not find the relatively wide directivity to be an issue at all, I also like the m2 for mastering.

 

[pierre]

Thank you for your insight. I can't read the first review of the A-14 bc it's behind a paywall. My listening distance is 3-4m and I was looking to stretch the budget to the A-23 but are they worth twice the price?? I am not so sure. Room size could be variable unfortunately as I might be moving.

i have listen extensively to the slightly larger a-25. They are likely to be similar. Freq response is very flat (+/-1.5dB > 45hz is pretty good). They are expensive for what they are : mostly because made in Switzerland. Still they are top notch speakers. Now that other colors are available they also look much better too. The directivity is slightly less good than state of the art but I am not sure it is an issue.

 

[thewas]

I am not sure about the studio use case. For mixing most people do nearfield and directivity is less important. For mastering, I at least want some reflections and wide directivity is ok. I have large Genelec and I do not find the relatively wide directivity to be an issue at all, I also like the m2 for mastering.

Yes, modern mastering studios are not as absorptive as they used to be in the past, where it also a result of the poor directivity main monitors used which otherwise sounded bad as Toole writes in his book. In my current unfortunately too reflective listening room loudspeakers with directivity problems sound unbearable to me even at only 2 meters listening distance while in my previous more absorptive room I could bear them.

 

[test1223]

But a modest amount of reflections isn't bad when they're late enough and with (roughly) the same tonality as the direct sound.

Yes this exactly what you get with such a listening distance.

OP isn't building a studio, anyway.

Doesn't you like the sound in a good studio?

 

[Pearljam5000]

I am not sure about the studio use case. For mixing most people do nearfield and directivity is less important. For mastering, I at least want some reflections and wide directivity is ok. I have large Genelec and I do not find the relatively wide directivity to be an issue at all, I also like the m2 for mastering.

Which model?

 

[test1223]

I am not sure about the studio use case. For mixing most people do nearfield and directivity is less important. For mastering, I at least want some reflections and wide directivity is ok. I have large Genelec and I do not find the relatively wide directivity to be an issue at all, I also like the m2 for mastering.

Lage genelecs have a relatively narrow directivity therefore higher listening distances are good. Didn't you use these in distance which are recommended by genelec?

 

[FeddyLost]

Personally I don't think that any of those options are good for ordinary room, wife acceptance factor and 3+ m listening distance. Even for 85 db SPL at LP.
But if we need to keep in those borders (concept, budget and brands), i'd vote for KH420. Maybe with LF assistance of some separate subwoofers if required (bass optimisation issue, not just raw power).
PSI speakers are good and have this low fatigue sound (maybe it's kind of distant and detached for some audiophiles) but they are really overpriced if you don't use them in studio for 10 hours every day. Also, they are not "comfortable" by itself in plain terms and have bad vertical directivity due to phase correction.
And their smaller models will barely manage anything but nearfield without subwoofer support (check out their THD graphs for reference). A25 might be ok, but they are too expensive. About A23 I don't know for sure, but 170 mm woofer is not what i'd like to use from 3+ meters.
Big MEG are OK, but too expensive. Small MEG that i've heard are just not capable for these distances.
Neumann 310 are closed box LF and overloads easily in fullrange unless you support them with sub(s).
So, only pair of KH420 is left if you want to use them in 2.0 fullrange without LF deficiency.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Genelec 1237A

 

[pierre]

Genelec 1237A

Another option is Genelec S360. There is a used pair to buy less than 6k with stands on Reverb.

 

[Scholl]

Also, they are not "comfortable" by itself in plain terms and have bad vertical directivity due to phase correction.

I don't quite understand. Could explain what you mean by them having "bad vertical directivity due to phase correction" ?

 

[FeddyLost]

Could explain what you mean by them having "bad vertical directivity due to phase correction" ?

I don't know how to explain this properly, but it's obvious if you keep in mind that their proper phase alignment is measured at single point at acoustical axis at 1 m from baffle.
So, if you don't sit exactly on this axis (with some error, for sure) at least crossover frequencies'regions might alter somehow while you are moving up and down, and perfect imaging blurs and moves slightly.
My mains are A25 and they image best at exact acoustic axis, and maximum depth, layering and spatiality also require more or less fixed head position (LR, FB). My room is overly dry even by studio means, so maybe it's not universal case, but that's what i experience routinely. I've checked them before purchasing in reflecting room, they had more size and physicality, but still required "head adjustment" for best 3d, like autostereogram pictures.
It's a good instrument, but if you need to have same coherency and palpable imaging while sitting and laying in chair, they just will not manage it.
Frequency response also might alter a bit, but i don't really care about that, as there's a lot of linear speakers cheaper (i.e. same Neumann) and i understand how much my room mangles this +-1,5 db on axis.

 

[Scholl]

Ok, thank you for the answer. My question comes from the fact that, phase correction or not, multiway speakers with vertically arranged drivers will always have narrowing vertical directivity due to path length difference off axis. Correcting crossover group delay, like PSI does, won't prevent or change that. Only coaxial drivers can.

Long story short, this is not specific to the PSI. The problem you describe will exist for all speakers with the same driver arrangement and similar crossovers frequency. All speakers will image best at their designed acoustic axis.

But I preferred to ask you.

 

[thewas]

The problem you describe will exist for all speakers with the same driver arrangement and similar crossovers frequency. All speakers will image best at their designed acoustic axis.

The vertical directivity and imaging depends though also on the directivity of the drivers and also on the steepness of the crossovers.

 

[Scholl]

The vertical directivity and imaging depends though also on the directivity of the drivers and also on the steepness of the crossovers.

That is true of course. Everything has an influence, as minor as it can be.

But, although I was not sure about what he meant at first, I think FeddyLost is, overall, mistaken in his belief that PSI group delay correction will make a significant difference in their speakers vertical directivity compared to other similarly designed speakers, or even the very same speaker without the correction. Other design decisions matter much more in that regard.

I hope I don't sound insulting toward FeddyLost, I don't want to at all, but I am quite wary of the "internet". Some people may read an idea, true or not, and after a while it becomes a widespread "fact". So, by all means somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see how correcting group delay will significantly affect vertical directivity in the case of PSI speakers. On the contrary, if anything I think that it should actually slightly improve it. Less "electrical" crossover path length difference, while acoustical path length difference remains the same.

 

[FeddyLost]

this is not specific to the PSI

For sure, i understand.
But as a customer, when i was choosing PSI, i needed phase linear speakers, so if i move from phase corrected axis and lose coherensy, i feel that "faster" than i feel wrong FR with not corrected vertically aligned 3-way speaker.
It's not so critical as one might imagine through this discussion, but according to the rule of diminishing returns it still cost a lot over "standard" speakers.
In case of mixing/mastering it may save a lot of time due to better "layering" and "attributing phenomenon to object", but in case of end-use customer in big untreated room it's more like personal preference than some seriously good quality.

 

[Spocko]

I think this review, although sighted and highly subjective, gives an overall picture of her use case and needs in the context of some of the speakers mentioned here, namely Genelec, Neumann and PSI Audio. I like this review because she's very specific in her use case and chose accordingly.
Review of PSI a17m vs KH310 vs 8340A vs Focal vs Dynaudio Core

 

[Pearljam5000]

I think this review, although sighted and highly subjective, gives an overall picture of her use case and needs in the context of some of the speakers mentioned here, namely Genelec and PSI Audio. I like this review because she's very specific in her use case and chose accordingly.
Review of PSI a17m vs KH310 vs 8340A vs Focal vs Dynaudio Core

According to to her Genelec is garbage lol

 

[Spocko]

According to to her Genelec is garbage lol

LOL the common theme was that the Genelec did not flatter her husband's voice, so maybe the review should be re-named "the best speaker for my husband's voice".

 

[Docteur Poulet]

I tried the PSI A23M directly in the manufactory : they sound incredibly.
PSI is a really serious brand, handmade in Switzerland, all analog parts (easy to repair) and so on.

You should include the PSI A215M on your list.

 

[FeddyLost]

she's very specific in her use case and chose accordingly

I think for EDM or something else with emphasis on different frequencies choice would be also different.
PSI monitors are good for long sessions with real sounds, when engineer need to properly resolve them in virtual volume.
I think, if one is working on something more artificial, there's no real need to overpay for anything more than L-C-R and here-there. A lot of commercial tracks really not very good in imaging and all that phase stuff, but still popular.

You should include the PSI A215M

I don't remember properly their pricelist, but one should read thoroughly their datasheet or at least compare other options side-to-side.
Lows of 215M are really worse than on 3-ways, also you'll have big flat baffle that might vibrate at high SPL. 215Ms are suited for standing behind the mastering deck, but in home hi-fi lounge this may be not the best solution. Not sure, but maybe even A21s on big stands will perform at least equal.