Yet another Neumann KH150 vs KH310 thread, or any other speaker, for my room and goals

[viktorapo]

1. Room size:
- Length: 4.7m
- Width: 3.5m
- Height: 3m
2. Treatment:
- 40cm Soffit bass traps on all 4 corners + on wall to ceiling on the back corner
- 20cm acoustic panels on the sides and front wall.
3. Listening position is 190cm equal triangle

Currently I have the HS7 which are really not meant for this position and I also really want to improve my monitoring. First I need a better sound stage overall, including stereo dispersion, and freq separation. Also, I do produce electronic music and I find the HS7 quite limiting at "fun" levels of SPL.

I am torn between the KH310 and the KH150, i see the KH150 having a better review index score and seems like runs at higher SPL per specs? Which one of these will have a better IMD and lower level of low freq distortion at higher SPL? I can swallow the bass extension of the KH310 if the KH150 can perform better - as it still seems like a massive upgrade in low end compared to the HS7 which are already at -10db @ 43Hz - the KH150 is 39Hz @ -3db.

I am also considering the KS Digital C88 as I can see some really good words about them online but just cant justify em for a cold buy and shipped to my country where I need to pay like 1K EUR extra of duties without much data and reviews online..

Here are some images of the studio if they can help:

https://imgur.com/a/hZYuZKa

Thanks everyone upfront that will read this and try to help me!

Best

 

[illusonic]

While I don't have IMD measurements for the Neumann speakers, 3-way is generally more robust against IMD because bass/midrange are separate.
There might be IMD measurements on the Neuman product page.

Personally, I would seriously consider Palmer Orbit 11 as an alternative to KH150/310.
For example 2 x Orbit + MiniDSP SHD (including mic) for a fully digital setup with Dirac Live room EQ.
Compared to 2 x KH310 w/o room EQ this leaves 1.4k€ budget for 2 subs.

Or 4-5x Orbit + MiniDSP FlexHTx for a surround setup that would not require subs (I see 4 speakers in your room).
The FlexHTx gives you up to 8CH Dirac Live + Bass Management and stellar analog performance.
Full 5Ch setup is about 2.5k€ more than 2 x KH310 (basically like 3 x KH310 w/o room corection).

For your relatively close listening distance, the coax of the Orbits may be an advantage as all sound comes from the same point.
At the same time your distance is high enough that the Orbit's noise floor will not bother you.
Orbits have good horizontal and vertical dispersion so can be rotated for center duty (requires wall mounting or custom stand).
Bass output is comparable to KH310 in extension and maximum SPL. Both benefit from subwoofer or multichannel support below 50-80Hz

Edit: KSD coax has very bad acoustic integration of the tweeter. So not recommended from my side.

Spinorama comparison:

Easily compare loudspeakers measurements

www.spinorama.org

 

[illusonic]

This guy did not like the noise floor but he sit's closer than you. For me audiblity of noise fades out at 1m.

 

[viktorapo]

The measurements of the Palmer Orbit are not even close, even though it extends in bass, its not conpareable at higher spl. The speakers behind are separate, for the dj booth. I work in 2.0 setup. Thanks tho!

 

[illusonic]

You're sure? Orbit only limits below 40Hz and about 6dB of the distortion around 200Hz is caused by room reflections.
Within variations due to echoic measurement I see similar SPL in bass with higher THD for KH310. You see different?

Orbit Compression at 96dB SPL: ASR vs. stoneeh (unechoic) THD:

Both show fair bit of variation in horizontal dispersion (anyways not very important in your nearfield scenario), Palmer controls radiation down to 250Hz:

You can check vertical dispersion for yourself. KH310 doesn't look good though.

Based on your first response I don't expect that you aknowledge how close measured performance really is.
Not sure what you are after. Maybe someone proposing a Genelec model as usual?

You can check a comparion to 8331A here:

Palmer Orbit 11 Monitor Review

Definitely not 20-20k. Can't remember now without looking at the doc but I think that for mix stages it might be down 3db at 16k or something, for smaller studios I can't recall either unfortunately. I can probably dig up the docs if you're interested. Not sure if THD limits are specified. You...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[b73i57dc3f]

Regarding IMD, here are the measurements by Sound & Recording:

(https://web.archive.org/web/2025060...mann-kh-150-2-wege-nearfield-monitor-im-test/)

(https://web.archive.org/web/2025090...uipment/studiomonitor-neumann-kh-310-im-test/)
The measurement of the KH 150 was performed at 98.2 dB @ 1 m. The red curve shows the fundamental, and the blue curve the distortion components. The measurement of the KH 310 was performed at 85 dBA @ 2 m (red curve, equal to 91 dBA @ 1 m) and at 85 dBA @ 4 m (blue curve, equal to 97 dbA @ 1 m), and shows distortion components relative to the fundamental. 98.2 dB and 97 dBA should be close enough for the comparison to be meaningful, I think? And indeed the distortion of the KH 310 is significantly lower in the frequency range covered by its midrange dome (crossover 650 Hz and 2 kHz), roughly 10 dB below the KH 150 @ 1 kHz.

On the other hand, max SPL @ 50 Hz @ 3 % THD of the KH 150 is about 6 dB higher (see also https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-loud-genelec-vs-neumann.47820/). And if you look at the THD measurements @ 96 dB here on ASR, distortion of the KH 310 is roughly 100 % @ 40 Hz, while only about 4 % for the KH 150. So the KH 150 should provide significantly louder and cleaner bass, particularly in the 40-50 Hz range.
The HS7 doesn't look too bad in the THD measurement here on ASR at first glance, but that's because its bass is significantly rolled off, so it doesn't actually play those frequencies very loud. At 40-50 Hz, the SPL in the 96 dB measurement of the HS7 is only about the same as in the 86 dB measurements of the KH 150 and KH 310!

You haven't mentioned what solution you're using for room correction? The KH 150 has DSP, and can be used with Neumann's MA 1. That's not possible with the KH 310.

 

[illusonic]

Stoneeh's IMD measurement of the Orbits for 100dB rms. Don't know for sure how comparable this is. KH test signal seems to start at 50Hz while the lowest frequency for the Orbit measurement is about 55Hz. Levels are reasonably close. Biggest question is how the Monkey Forest measurement system analyzes distortion components. Does it track peaks witin the analysis bands or rather some kind of average or rms value (like the red line in the ARTA plot). In both cases the Orbits seem to score quite well.
For real fullrange use, the test signal should start at 30Hz. This would make the KH150 look even worse.

Edit:
TD KH150 -22dB/7.94%
TD Orbit 11 -35.5dB/1.68%

 

[dfuller]

The KH310 is the choice of the two IMO. However, they are better when crossed to subs.

There is no small speaker that isn't improved dramatically by a sub. These are all juiced beyond belief to get the low end out of those small boxes.

The KH310 distorts pretty bad below 50hz at 96dB (though 96dB/1m free-field for one speaker is quite a bit louder than you think!), the KH150's response basically falls off a cliff below 40hz (and also is hard limited at about 96dB output), and the Orbit rams into its limiter hard around 87-88dB below 40 hz or so.


That said, the KH310's midrange distortion is incredibly low, and its doppler-based IMD is lower thanks to it being a 3-way.

 

[viktorapo]

Regarding IMD, here are the measurements by Sound & Recording:
View attachment 523012
(https://web.archive.org/web/2025060...mann-kh-150-2-wege-nearfield-monitor-im-test/)
View attachment 523011
(https://web.archive.org/web/2025090...uipment/studiomonitor-neumann-kh-310-im-test/)
The measurement of the KH 150 was performed at 98.2 dB @ 1 m. The red curve shows the fundamental, and the blue curve the distortion components. The measurement of the KH 310 was performed at 85 dBA @ 2 m (red curve, equal to 91 dBA @ 1 m) and at 85 dBA @ 4 m (blue curve, equal to 97 dbA @ 1 m), and shows distortion components relative to the fundamental. 98.2 dB and 97 dBA should be close enough for the comparison to be meaningful, I think? And indeed the distortion of the KH 310 is significantly lower in the frequency range covered by its midrange dome (crossover 650 Hz and 2 kHz), roughly 10 dB below the KH 150 @ 1 kHz.

On the other hand, max SPL @ 50 Hz @ 3 % THD of the KH 150 is about 6 dB higher (see also https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-loud-genelec-vs-neumann.47820/). And if you look at the THD measurements @ 96 dB here on ASR, distortion of the KH 310 is roughly 100 % @ 40 Hz, while only about 4 % for the KH 150. So the KH 150 should provide significantly louder and cleaner bass, particularly in the 40-50 Hz range.
The HS7 doesn't look too bad in the THD measurement here on ASR at first glance, but that's because its bass is significantly rolled off, so it doesn't actually play those frequencies very loud. At 40-50 Hz, the SPL in the 96 dB measurement of the HS7 is only about the same as in the 86 dB measurements of the KH 150 and KH 310!

You haven't mentioned what solution you're using for room correction? The KH 150 has DSP, and can be used with Neumann's MA 1. That's not possible with the KH 310.

thanks a lot, kind of the concrete reply i was looking for. which, made me even more question myself. why am i getting recommendations for the kh310, and how would i benefit from the 3way system, if the kh150 plays with less distortion, louder and benefits from the ability to be matched with their MA system. besides the obvious few hz down in the bass. its so hard for me too choose as I have to order them and there are no returns due to the country I live in.

 

[illusonic]

IMD in the midrange is the distortion component that attacks human voice. For a speaker that plays bass + midrange at the same time (KH150), bass notes will modulate voice which generates a certain roughness. I do a lot of speaker measurement and listening tests and IMD has become the most importamt distortion metric to me. I use 10% IMD as a limit for maximum SPL. At this point audio is not clean anymore.

Looking at THD really tells only a very little part of the story because audibility depends on total SPL, the base frequency and the distance of the actual harmonic from the base frequency. All of this is rooted in upwards masking effects of the auditory system. As a rule of thumb, THD is much less audible for bass than for midrange. But it is literally impossible to assess the degree of audibility while looking at (T)HD graphs.

Take for example Kii 3 and D&D 8C HD plots (see link below). They have really high THD (partly higher than Orbit 11) and are still considered to provide outstanding sound quality. (T)HD is simply not a good metric for sound quality. Unfortunately IMD is often not available.

You can take the Klippel listening test to audition some strong IMD:

Listening Test

www.klippel.de

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/1775422053764-png.522592/

 

[viktorapo]

IMD in the midrange is the distortion component that attacks human voice. For a speaker that plays bass + midrange at the same time (KH150), bass notes will modulate voice which generates a certain roughness. I do a lot of speaker measurement and listening tests and IMD has become the most importamt distortion metric to me. I use 10% IMD as a limit for maximum SPL. At this point audio is not clean anymore.

Looking at THD really tells only a very little part of the story because audibility depends on total SPL, the base frequency and the distance of the actual harmonic from the base frequency. All of this is rooted in upwards masking effects of the auditory system. As a rule of thumb, THD is much less audible for bass than for midrange. But it is literally impossible to assess the degree of audibility while looking at (T)HD graphs.

Take for example Kii 3 and D&D 8C HD plots (see link below). They have really high THD (partly higher than Orbit 11) and are still considered to provide outstanding sound quality. (T)HD is simply not a good metric for sound quality. Unfortunately IMD is often not available.

You can take the Klippel listening test to audition some strong IMD:

Listening Test

www.klippel.de

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/1775422053764-png.522592/

thanks, this explanation seems helpful. are there any IMD measurements for the KH150 or KH310 anywhere that you know of ? or which one would perform better? i think i've read somewhere that also the KH150 performs better by having a better IMD tolerance as well. maybe, ill go with kh150 and a sub. im afraid of placing a sub somewhere else (as not part of the speaker) will bug me out psychologically, also unsure of what to expect hearing wise and if i can feel/hear it coming from other place.


edit: i just saw your edit about the KSD monitors in your reply above. are you referencing to the KSD C88 model? have you tested/measured them ? i cant find any measurements online

 

[tifune]

Lots of good points in this thread; personally it would be difficult for me to buy BNiB 310's (unless it was an incredible deal) 13 years after release. Doubly so now that we see entries for 310II and 350 in recent MA1 installs

I've owned the 150 and 310, unless you're sitting very far away I would take the 150 without a doubt if I was locked in to one of those 2. I would encourage you to check the Neumann threads for reports of QC issues; I'm on my 3rd pair of KH80s for example

 

[illusonic]

IMD

IMD measurements for Neumann speakers were shown in post #6 and for Orbit 11 in post #7. Conclusion for Neumann measurements was that KH310 has lower IMD in the midrange than KH150. This is to be expected as KH150 is 2-way only. For Orbit 11 measurement it's not entirely clear if it can be compared directly to the Neumann measurements as it was generated by another measurement SW. However, the Orbits IMD plot is very clean with closest distortion peak at about 120Hz/-30dB. Neumann plots are only -22dB over a wide frequency range.

The 100dB SPL Orbit measurement and the 98dB SPL KH150 measurement show a single combined value for TD+N (total distortion + noise).
These are listed below as relative dB value and % value (one can be calculated from the other). Again, looks better for the Orbit.
TD+N from IMD KH150: -22dB/7.94%
TD+N from IMDOrbit 11: -35.5dB/1.68%

Max SPL limited by THD

Data below taken from Sound&Recording measurements of the Neumann speakers and stoneeh measurements of the Orbit 11.
Unfortunately frequency ranges and THD limit did not match well between those measurements (check legend entries!!!).
Nevertheless, the combination of available data gives some insights.

Available data:
For KH150 max SPL data at 10% THD is available for 38-10kHz
For KH310 max SPL data at 10% THD is available for 70-300Hz and max SPL data at 3% THD for 70-10kHz
For Orbit 11 max SPL data at 10% THD is available for 30-68Hz and max SPL data at 1% THD for 100-10kHz
Additionally a THD plot measured at 106dB SPL was analyzed for the Orbit 11 and SPL plotted for all frequencies that showed <10%THD (basically above 65Hz)

Insights:
1. For max SPL at 10% THD, KH150 has slightly higher output than Orbit 11 from 40-60Hz.
Below and above this frequency range, Orbit 11 has higher output up to >1kHz (no comparable data above that).

2. For max SPL at 10% THD, KH310 has lower or similar output compared to the Orbits at 70-300Hz (no data below that for KH310).

3. In the midrange KH310 and Orbit 11 show clearly higher maximum SPL than KH150 (despite lower THD limits).

4. From 600-1.2kHz the max SPL at 1% THD from the Orbits gets very close to the 3% THD plot of the KH310.

5. From 500-1.5kHz the Orbit's max SPL at 1% THD is higher than KH150 at 10% THD

Conclusion:
THD and IMD data available for KH150/310 and Orbit 11 was analyzed for high/max SPL levels.
Contrary to common believe, absolutely no superiority was found for the Neumann speakers.

Due to expected cleaner midrange KH310 would be preferable over KH150.
Orbit measurements suggest midrange performance closer to KH310 than KH150.

For 86dB SPL the Orbits are basically fullrange while KH310 is close and KH150 misses low-end extension.
For clean bass at high SPL all 3 speakers require a subwoofer.

 

[illusonic]

edit: i just saw your edit about the KSD monitors in your reply above. are you referencing to the KSD C88 model? have you tested/measured them ? i cant find any measurements online

My comment on the KSD speakers is based on acoustic eperience. To avoid edge diffraction and cancellation effects due to reflections from the midrange cone, the tweeter must be flush mounted. The Orbits (as well as KEF and Genelec) show how to do it.
The tweeter sticking out like in KSD coax is the worst way to do it, comparable to cheap car stereo coax speakers.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Stick-out coaxes basically are addressing one problem (Doppler distortion) or two if you're lucky (location of effective sound origin) while introducing two others (edge diffraction, reflections). They are only viable because of DSP, which invariably gets a good workout. If the tweeter sticks out behind the woofer's effective sound origin, good luck trying to line them up via delay, it'll work on axis but fall apart at an angle.

 

[illusonic]

Stick-out coaxes basically are addressing one problem (Doppler distortion) or two if you're lucky (location of effective sound origin) while introducing two others (edge diffraction, reflections). They are only viable because of DSP, which invariably gets a good workout. If the tweeter sticks out behind the woofer's effective sound origin, good luck trying to line them up via delay, it'll work on axis but fall apart at an angle.

Doppler is not solved only because the tweeter sticks out. Reflections are still modulated. Doppler is solved by avoiding any substantial membrane movement.

 

[viktorapo]

Lots of good points in this thread; personally it would be difficult for me to buy BNiB 310's (unless it was an incredible deal) 13 years after release. Doubly so now that we see entries for 310II and 350 in recent MA1 installs

I've owned the 150 and 310, unless you're sitting very far away I would take the 150 without a doubt if I was locked in to one of those 2. I would encourage you to check the Neumann threads for reports of QC issues; I'm on my 3rd pair of KH80s for example

if it was you buying tomorrow and lets say the kh310 mk2 is out and is a dsp variant, what would you go with for a room of my size, assuming will use the MA-1. the two kh310mk2 with correction or kh150 with kh750 with room correction. what would be more controlled and better, even though id be cranking high spl im afraid those low freqs will shake the hell out of everything and might bring resonances from other stuff like hear, desks, etc.

 

[tifune]

if it was you buying tomorrow and lets say the kh310 mk2 is out and is a dsp variant, what would you go with for a room of my size, assuming will use the MA-1. the two kh310mk2 with correction or kh150 with kh750 with room correction. what would be more controlled and better, even though id be cranking high spl im afraid those low freqs will shake the hell out of everything and might bring resonances from other stuff like hear, desks, etc.

I'm probably the wrong person to ask that question. I've experienced/read about so many QC issues with neumann hardware and MA1 software that I can't see myself buying any of their products unless it's a 2-for-1 deal so I basically have a spare for free. Their support is no charmer, either.

I also wouldn't wait to buy something that doesn't exist yet, especially the way supply chains are these days. So the KH310 II and 350 are non-starters for me. Finally, subwoofer integration is not easy and if this is for production purposes I'd want 2 subs to run in stereo.

Looking at the photos of your studio, I'm guessing either you do this for a living or would very much like to. With the type of $ you're describing, i'd be looking at Genelec 8351B. Genelec support is the best I've ever dealt with which will be important if you have any issues interrupting your business, room correction is a $250 add-on and much easier to use than MA1.

Upgrade choices would be 8361A or D&D 8C Studio. support is a little slower than genelec but I have had very good experience with them overall. AsciLab C8C would be high on my list, but they're difficult to attain for the foreseeable future and theyre too new as a company for us to know how well they can support globally

 

[illusonic]

Maybe you need some big name speakers to impress customers. In this case just let me know and I will stop mentioning the Palmer speakers.
Meanwhile, I want to give you a little perspective on the KH750 output compared to the Orbit 11.

The KH750 has a single 10" woofer in a 48l brutto cabinet with 20kg total weight.
A pair of Orbits has 4 x 8" woofer in 37l brutto cabinet with 28kg total weight.

Based on the total membrane area, the woofer of one KH750 must move 2.5 times more than the 4 Orbit woofers for the same SPL.
An Orbit woofer can probably do about +/-10mm. This means for the same maximum SPL, KH750 requires about +/-25mm excursion.
Although the KH750 woofer is described as "ultra long excursion", it's still questionable if it can really do such excursion.
This analysis is for maximum SPL. So THD will approach 80-100% for KH750 as well as the Orbits.

Looking at the Neumann specs for KH750, we see that they are for half space.
So we have to reduce by 6dB to compare to the Measurements of the Orbits.

Next interesting point is that they claim <0.5% THD at 95dB SPL above 70Hz.
Looking at their own THD plot, it reaches 0.5% THD (-46dB) only above 250Hz.
Same issue with their max SPL spec of 105dB@3%THD averaged over 50-100Hz.
The plot shows below 100dB SPL.

Let's assume in their favor that the plots are unechoic, which may be the reason for these discrepancies.
Still I don't see 105dB even with 6dB room gain from half space measurement, but it's close.

For 10% THD a single Orbit speaker produces 82dB SPL at 30Hz and a pair 88dB. KH750 plot shows 94dB at 30Hz/10%THD.
This would give the KH750 a 6dB advantage over a pair of Orbits with relatively clean bass.

Note that I do consider 10% THD clean for low bass. And I question the use of ultra low THD subwoofers for mixing.
This would translate poorly to most normal speakers which often produce much higher THD than 10%.

From this little analysis you should understand that a pair of Orbits will get close to a single KH750 when it comes to maximum bass output.
A 6dB advantage, based on manufacturer specs, is still an advantage but it will not be as high as you might have thought.
As I have a pair of Orbits, I can report that their bass makes a few things shake in my room which is quite a bit larger than your room.

As you are coming from HS7, the Orbits will be a really huge improvement over your current setup.
And you may find that you don't require a sub at all as your expectations may actually not be very high considering where you come from.
In case you still want a sub, you will have quite some money left compared to Neumann/Genelec setups.

In addition, cardioid + coaxial dispersion characteristics of the Orbits can help to reduce reflections from your table.
In your setup, table reflections will be the worst and vertical dispersion becomes an important factor.
Only large Genelecs like 8361A come close to the vertical disperson control of the Orbits.

Palmer gives you 5 years warranty. And with their low price you could simply buy and sell another pair to avoid any delay in case of defects.
So if you don't need big name speakers, the Orbits are a very good alternative.

Left: KH 750 DSP/AES67 Harmonic Distortion at 95 dB SPL in 1 m (Blue: THD, Green: 2nd harmonic, Red: 3rd harmonic)​

Right: KH 750 DSP/AES67 Maximum SPL at 1m (Red: 10% THD, Green: 3% THD, Blue: 1% THD)​

 

[Jiraya369]

at 2m you wont really reach the limits of the 150 IF you have a sub. Without a sub even at 1m you can reach the limits of that speaker.

Get a pair of subs and you'd be well off. If you can calibrate yourself then the SVS PB-1000 Pro or RSL 12S would be great. If it's for mixing then a full range speaker is necessary for perfect mixes, as you'll make less mistakes since the tonal balance of the song is played out to you.

I use my Ascilab C6B at 1.5m and i dont really get to more than 88 db, which is completely within the spec of the F6Bs, which i think now in hindsight would've been better for me. Along with a subwoofer, I'm happy with my setup and my mixes are good. No fault of my setup, any mistake is due to me.