Subjective comparison of the Neumann KH80DSP and the Revel F206 (David vs Goliath)

[jhaider]

Some measurements from 1kHz upwards. First is the Neumann - second the Revel.

What are the measurement conditions: distance, vertical positioning, horizontal angle, gating (if any), smoothing (if any), spatial averaging (if any)?

 

[Absolute]

So, what is the scientific interest? View attachment 36885

I came here to get away from that naïve stuff. There are plenty of other audio forums that are more suited to it. I hope the next installment is more methodically rigorous.

If you are expecting scientifically elaborate experiments from individuals on random forum threads, you're bound to be disappointed. I think that this kind of testing is as far as any one individual with a healthy interest in the hobby can be expected to go.

What contribution of scientific interest do you reckon can be expected from forum members? Personally I expect none because I don't think anything other than that is realistic.

 

[TimVG]

What are the measurement conditions: distance, vertical positioning, horizontal angle, gating (if any), smoothing (if any), spatial averaging (if any)?

Same as in my other thread!* Except these are made in my own smallish room at home and thus the data becomes increasingly useless below 1khz - I've tried gating but the lack of resolution bothers me. But since the data for the Neumann are a given (they are incrediby consistent from piece to piece) my measurements it seems are not -too- far off. I may have some additional +10kHz artifacts due to the smaller measurement distance.. But it looks pretty good and useful to me.

*50cm from the acoustical axis / Black = on axis / Green = LW (+/- 30° horizontal and +/10° vertical) / Red = early horizontal reflections / no gating /1/24 octave smoothing

 

[jhaider]

Same as in my other thread!* Except these are made in my own smallish room at home and thus the data becomes increasingly useless below 1khz - I've tried gating but the lack of resolution bothers me. But since the data for the Neumann are a given (they are incrediby consistent from piece to piece) my measurements it seems are not -too- far off. I may have some additional +10kHz artifacts due to the smaller measurement distance.. But it looks pretty good and useful to me.

*50cm from the acoustical axis / Black = on axis / Green = LW (+/- 30° horizontal and +/10° vertical) / Red = early horizontal reflections / no gating /1/24 octave smoothing

Nice, thanks! Agreed if you're that close and limiting to 1kHz, gating shouldn't have much effect.

Looking forward to reading more!

 

[ernestcarl]

You know the title of this post mirrors another review written by Mitcho: KEF LS50 (David) Versus JBL 4722 Cinema (Goliath) Speaker Comparison with Binaural Recordings

Except for the binaural recording part.

 

[TimVG]

After dialing in the Neumann speakers with my subs I played through some familiar repertoire. *Subjective opinion warning* What struck me right away was how familiar two neutral loudspeakers can sound at first glance (impulse?) despite the room curves being quite dissimilar above the transition frequency. Another proof that room curves are by no means an indicator of sound quality (above the transition frequency).

Since comparing speakers back to back - let's say it takes me a good 10 min to switch setups with everything dialed in - is downright non-reliable I'll refrain from making too much comparison notes. The Neumanns are in a way impressively unimpressive - meaning I can't find anything wrong tonally. They sound as good as their measurements indicate, have excellent power handling for what is essentially a tiny woofer,, and are built quite excellent. These sound clean all the way up to when the clip light starts blinking. with the exception of short, strong, bass impulses, on which I could hear some artifacts (almost a small buzz - perhaps something internal in the speakers) before any protection system was activad, but was unable to find the source. The control app works very well, although I find it clumsy that you can't enter values by means of keypad, but have to use the little sliders to set everything. Also you have to use an additional network swtich and connect everything by cables - a bluetooth option would have been nice. All in all for +/-€400 ($500 in the US) a piece, this is an excellent compact loudspeaker. Don't use these without subs though - you'll lose a lot of potential.

If I have to point out something negative, it's that perhaps they sounds slightly less 'live' than the Revels - this is hard to describe without going using subjective terms, but I feel this has to do with the dispersion pattern of the Revels being wider - depending on the content played I feel this is noticeable, and desirable. Conclusion: if you're in the market for a compact, active, satelite speaker with a good set of options, and are not expecting cinema reference sound levels, these should be on your list along with perhaps some Genelec offerings.

 

[ernestcarl]

One way of simulating “liveness” would be to at least add some rears and use upsampling of your choice — I just use JRiver’s. It’s what I do, and it works amazingly well. You can turn your head 360 degrees around — even move away from the MLP — and the sound remains relatively consistent throughout the space. Go back to stereo and you will be surely disappointed. It really is amazing. Only problem with my setup is I use the LSR305 as rears and so there is a slight difference in timbre, esp. noticeable as you get closer to the LSRs. Floyd Toole is in agreement with this preference for MCH Upmixing, if at all possible, as well, which is no surprise.

 

[TimVG]

One way of simulating “liveness” would be to at least add some rears and use upsampling of your choice — I just use JRiver’s. It’s what I do, and it works amazingly well. You can turn your head 360 degrees around — even move away from the MLP — and the sound remains relatively consistent throughout the space. Go back to stereo and you will be surely disappointed. It really is amazing. Only problem with my setup is I use the LSR305 as rears and so there is a slight difference in timbre, esp. noticeable as you get closer to the LSRs. Floyd Toole is in agreement with this preference for MCH Upmixing, if at all possible, as well, which is no surprise.

Agreed 100%. However for the sake of comparison that wasn’t exactly desirable for this test.

 

[LTig]

Hi thanks for this review. I enjoyed reading your impressions. I have not heard either the neumann's or the Revel. I had no idea Neumann made speakers.

They make speakers since they bought Klein & Hummel. That's why they name all speakers KH <number>. And the number is higher by 10 compared to the predecessor of K&H: O110 -> KH120, O300 -> KH310, O410 -> KH420.

 

[jhaider]

The control app works very well, although I find it clumsy that you can't enter values by means of keypad, but have to use the little sliders to set everything.

Email Neumann with a feature request!

I've sent them a few. They they said they would consider two of mine (manual entry of frequency and Q in the PEQ, zoom in on a frequency range) but rejected others (related to importing measurements - they're going to eventually have a calibration kit they'll want to sell).

Maybe if more people request manual PEQ filter definition and graph zoom they'll update the app more quickly .

If I have to point out something negative, it's that perhaps they sounds slightly less 'live' than the Revels - this is hard to describe without going using subjective terms, but I feel this has to do with the dispersion pattern of the Revels being wider

Interestingly, I think their newest tweeter+waveguide (Performa BE) has a little higher DI than the Performa3 tweeter+waveguide. I'm not sure if spins have been published of the new ones.

 

[TimVG]

Email Neumann with a feature request!

I've sent them a few. They they said they would consider two of mine (manual entry of frequency and Q in the PEQ, zoom in on a frequency range) but rejected others (related to importing measurements - they're going to eventually have a calibration kit they'll want to sell).

Maybe if more people request manual PEQ filter definition and graph zoom they'll update the app more quickly .



Interestingly, I think their newest tweeter+waveguide (Performa BE) has a little higher DI than the Performa3 tweeter+waveguide. I'm not sure if spins have been published of the new ones.

I take it you own/tested the KH80 as well then? Curious to read up on your impressions if so.

I believe the DI of the new Performa Be series is roughly similar to the Performa3 series, although at least from the Soundstage measurements (see M106 vs M126Be) they seem to have smoothed out the off axis bump in the horizontal plane. My C208 with the 4” mid and slightly higher x-over is textbook in terms of off-axis btw - if it weren’t so bulky I’d use em for the entire front stage. I believe the new waveguide on the Be series is better matched to the 5” midrange that is being used in all of the models with exception of the M126Be. For me however, they are above my paygrade.

 

[maty]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Neumann+KH80DSP+minimum+phase+peq

-> https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/neumann-kh80-dsp

A minor downside of linear-phase filtering, though, is a small processing delay, and the KH80 imposes a (practically negligible) system latency of 2ms. Should that be deemed a problem, there is an alternative filter mode which uses a minimum-phase (ie. analogue-like) filter approach to reduce the latency to just 0.65ms. FIR filter latency is obviously dependent on the DSP sample rate and I mentioned earlier that the KH80 operates with a 48kHz sample rate, which is unusual; most DSP-based monitor speakers I’ve come across operate at 96kHz, partly to minimise latency.

 

[jhaider]

I take it you own/tested the KH80 as well then? Curious to read up on your impressions if so.

Yes. However, I’ve only had maybe 45min listening time. One had a standby bug - namely, wouldn’t stay there - so I warrantied it. The replacement had the same issue. They’re sending me a second replacement now.

 

[vavan]

Some measurements from 1kHz upwards. First is the Neumann - second the Revel

Could you please share mdat of your revel measurements?

 

[wisechoice]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Neumann+KH80DSP+minimum+phase+peq

-> https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/neumann-kh80-dsp

Does anybody here know how to enable the alternate filter mode on the KH80, to reduce latency? I'm integrating it with four KH120s in a 5.1 setup, currently without DSP (so no delay), and would like to hear the minimum phase (0.65ms) version. But I haven't been able to find this alternate mode anywhere on the speaker itself or in the Neumann iPad control software.

 

[DJBonoBobo]

Does anybody here know how to enable the alternate filter mode on the KH80, to reduce latency? I'm integrating it with four KH120s in a 5.1 setup, currently without DSP (so no delay), and would like to hear the minimum phase (0.65ms) version. But I haven't been able to find this alternate mode anywhere on the speaker itself or in the Neumann iPad control software.

If i google for it i find old product descriptions with the 2ms/0.65ms versions. When i look at the Neumann homepage, they only mention the 2ms figure:

My guess is that they originally planned on implementing this feature but eventually canceled it. Same happened sadly for a few other features (such as variable crossover frequencies for the KH750 or Android and PC versions of the Neumann.Control app). They had these features in their descriptions and even early versions of the manual but cut them out at some point.

Maybe @GuyLayfield can say something about the 0.65ms latency thing?

 

[DJBonoBobo]

Does anybody here know how to enable the alternate filter mode on the KH80, to reduce latency? I'm integrating it with four KH120s in a 5.1 setup, currently without DSP (so no delay), and would like to hear the minimum phase (0.65ms) version. But I haven't been able to find this alternate mode anywhere on the speaker itself or in the Neumann iPad control software.

BTW, if this is your setup: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-ma1-absorbers-avaa.27288/page-3#post-1181234

Your Center seems to be closer than L/R anyway? So some delay should not be a problem or even beneficial for you? You might even need a bit more delay for the center? Did you check that?

 

[wisechoice]

BTW, if this is your setup: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-ma1-absorbers-avaa.27288/page-3#post-1181234

Your Center seems to be closer than L/R anyway? So some delay should not be a problem or even beneficial for you? You might even need a bit more delay for the center? Did you check that?

Yeah, exactly. I wouldn’t need more delay though. It’s now between 1-2 ft difference from the other 0ms speakers, even after backing the L&R speaker positions off from where they are in that photo.