Neumann 310A or KH150 + 810?

[Zukan]

I currently have Neumann 120As and am thinking of purchasing either the 150s or the 310s. My gut is going with the 310s as I like the extended LF response, and this would negate me having to opt for the 810 sub. However, after reading Phil's review of the 150s I'm toying with getting those and the 810 sub.

I could get the 810 to marry with the 120s but I've resolved that emotionally and don't want to visit that madness again.

Anyone taken the 150 plunge and if so - opinions?

[Hugh Robjohns]

There other options worth considering in the Neumann regime.

The 750 sub includes DSP on the satellite feeds which would effectively upgrade your 120s to somewhere close to the 150s in both accuracy and quality.... and be less expensive than a whole new system.

The 310s are very lovely speakers and, being a sealed cabinet, have a gently extended LF and good time domain behaviour. Plus, being a three-way it has excellent resolution through the mid-band and crossovers above and below that critical region. But having said that, 750's DSP can correct the analogue crossover deficiencies in the two way models...

If t'were me, I'd keep the 120s and supplement with the KH750 and MA1 alignment software to upgrade the 120s via the inbuilt DSP.

[ConcertinaChap]

There other options worth considering in the Neumann regime.

The 750 sub includes DSP on the satellite feeds which would effectively upgrade your 120s to somewhere close to the 150s in both accuracy and quality.... and be less expensive than a whole new system.

Gosh! Where's me credit card ...

CC

[Zukan]

There other options worth considering in the Neumann regime.

The 750 sub includes DSP on the satellite feeds which would effectively upgrade your 120s to somewhere close to the 150s in both accuracy and quality.... and be less expensive than a whole new system.

The 310s are very lovely speakers and, being a sealed cabinet, have a gently extended LF and good time domain behaviour. Plus, being a three-way it has excellent resolution through the mid-band and crossovers above and below that critical region. But having said that, 750's DSP can correct the analogue crossover deficiencies in the two way models...

If t'were me, I'd keep the 120s and supplement with the KH750 and MA1 alignment software to upgrade the 120s via the inbuilt DSP.

Gracii amigo.

[tea for two]

Way to go Hugh
That's saving Zuke approx £3xxx

[MNicol]

There other options worth considering in the Neumann regime.

The 750 sub includes DSP on the satellite feeds which would effectively upgrade your 120s to somewhere close to the 150s in both accuracy and quality.... and be less expensive than a whole new system.

The 310s are very lovely speakers and, being a sealed cabinet, have a gently extended LF and good time domain behaviour. Plus, being a three-way it has excellent resolution through the mid-band and crossovers above and below that critical region. But having said that, 750's DSP can correct the analogue crossover deficiencies in the two way models...

If t'were me, I'd keep the 120s and supplement with the KH750 and MA1 alignment software to upgrade the 120s via the inbuilt DSP.

Apologies for reviving an old thread, long-time magazine and forum reader, first-time poster!

I’m in a similar spot as the OP, having enjoyed my KH120As for the past five years or so. In scouring the SOS reviews on the KH150s and KH120iis, I wasn’t able to find any mention of latency with the onboard DSP correction (and associated A-D-A) conversion. For those who have taken the plunge with the DSP powered Neumann line (80, 120mk2, 150, 750), have you noticed any latency that has affected your ability to use the monitors for tracking? I wasn’t sure if this would be an issue switching from an “analog” monitor to its new DSP sibling.

Thank you in advance, these forums are a goldmine for rationale discourse and honest insight!

[Wonks]

I’ve got no experience with them, but latency on dedicated hardware is always minimal compared to processing latency on computers as the hardware has one task to do. A good digital mixer has an input to output latency of around 1.5ms, and that has to do a lot more than the DSP in the speaker.

I’d guess the speaker latency (as there must be some) is sub-1ms, akin to having the speakers no more than a foot/30cm further away.

Yes, it’s going to add to the overall system latency, so if your setup with all-analogue speakers is already on the edge of acceptable latency, you’re either going to have to stick to all-analogue speakers or else upgrade your system to obtain lower processing latency in order to accommodate the slight extra delay.

On their own, I doubt you’d notice anything. A lot of active PA speakers have DSP in for crossovers, EQ and phase and frequency correction, and running through an analogue mixer, you’d never know.

[Drew Stephenson]

KH80 user here, I've not noticed any latency from them at all. Plenty of other latency problems but not from the monitors!

[Hugh Robjohns]

The latency (via analogue inputs) is detailed on the Neumann spec sheets:

Kh80 <2ms

Kh120 ii <2.6ms

Kh150 <2.6ms

Kh750 (A-D-A path) 1.5ms

Using digital inputs (where available) will reduce latency by about 0.5ms as the A-D conversion stage is bypassed.

To put that in context, the latency is the equivalent of moving less than a metre away from the speaker... so you're unlikely to find it a problem in most instances.

[Luke Wood SOS News Editor]

The data sheet for both the 120 II and 150 states a figure of 2.6ms when using the analogue input, and 2.1ms for S/PDIF.

Edit: Once again, beaten to it by Hugh.

[Wonks]

Obviously a bit longer than I expected.

So it needs to be viewed in light of your existing system latencies.

Going digital from your AI should cut down on the outgoing AI D/A latency by about 0.75ms as well, which should save around 1.5ms in total.

[MNicol]

Thank you all for your insight and information!

One follow up question based off the published latency figures. For those that have used the MA1 alignment system, is it fair to assume that it will increase those latency figures further still, and if so, any guess as to by how much? I imagine it doesn’t run in a “zero latency” mode given that it is touted as providing a “linear phase response” through most of the speaker’s frequency response bandwidth, though I wasn’t sure how high those figures might rise.

In a perfect world, the room acoustics would be such that there would be little for the DSP to correct, though obviously that isn’t the reality for many of us. My concern regarding the latency stems from wanting to be able to accurately monitor while tracking (things like guitars, keyboards, and drums), and not knowing whether one would have to bypass the DSP correction (and therefore make slightly less surefooted judgments on tone, mic placement, EQ, etc.) in order to use the KH80/120ii/150s.

[Drew Stephenson]

My concern regarding the latency stems from wanting to be able to accurately monitor while tracking (things like guitars, keyboards, and drums), and not knowing whether one would have to bypass the DSP correction (and therefore make slightly less surefooted judgments on tone, mic placement, EQ, etc.) in order to use the KH80/120ii/150s.

My experience of doing some direct testing of the effects of the MA1 (switching it in and out) is that it's not going to change any decisions you're making at the recording stage. The MA1 does improve the monitors, tighter bass, better stereo imaging, better definition in the low mids etc, but it's subtle and not going to lead to any wholesale changes in tone or cause you to second-guess any mic positioning.
I reckon.

[Wonks]

I would imagine that the sound is already going through the EQing software, simply to smooth out the speaker response and get it flatter.

So the room correction process will simply overlay its EQ curves on the existing ones.

No extra delay as a result.