[Mike F]

And talking of low frequencies, here’s one for my friend @Rob80b

 

[bagwell359]

I didn't say that my monitors had nothing below 40 Hz. I have some ATC100ALS in my main system, and have had them for years.

https://atc.audio/professional/loudspeakers/scm100asl-pro/

I wasn't focused on your equipment. I was examining your assertion.

I said that most full range speakers have hardly anything below 40 Hz. I believe that is true. I just randomly looked up a KEF speaker (which I don't know and have never heard) just for an example of a good full range speaker from a well known company. The speaker is the Q950 floor standing speaker. €1,800. Here are the frequency specs:-

Frequency Range
38Hz (-6dB)
Frequency Response
44Hz-28kHz (±3dB)

https://eu.kef.com/products/q950-floorstanding-speaker

Just because a company says its full range, Doesn't make it so. You also said that most start dropping off below 60, that's not the case in this example.

There is no question that flat bass at 20 Hz. in a speaker is an expensive proposition, in particular if the box Q is at .707. Ever since the table radios of the 1920's there have been speakers/cabinets with jumped up bass from 60-250 Hz which to many delivers enough to not make people want or think they need more lower down. But this group here has a higher percentage than the general public looking for, or insisting on more quality.

But the point I should have made is that this contrasts with headphones. Even open back headphones with what is now considered poor bass response do much better than that.
You make a good point about room response problems with speakers/monitors.

There are several ways to judge bass response. It's not just Hz and db. There is also the difference between a speaker and headphone both peaking at 100 db and both capable of 32 Hz flat playing a Bosendorfer Grand Piano recording. The impact/presence of the room speaker is much different than from a headphone.

As to open back vs closed back - that is another whole kettle of fish. It is closed backs that in general I consider to have lesser qualities than open backs.

Most closed backs I have heard have more bass than the recording, more reverberation, and smaller perceived stage. Some of the bass cannon cans have a ludicrous amusical bass - in particular for classical and audiophile type recordings.

Now all that being said, the can in question - the NDH-30 is capable of some fine lower bass reproduction, and its going to deliver that cheaper than any speakers I can think of at the same price.

 

[Mike F]

I wasn't focused on your equipment. I was examining your assertion.

Just because a company says its full range, Doesn't make it so. You also said that most start dropping off below 60, that's not the case in this example.

There is no question that flat bass at 20 Hz. in a speaker is an expensive proposition, in particular if the box Q is at .707. Ever since the table radios of the 1920's there have been speakers/cabinets with jumped up bass from 60-250 Hz which to many delivers enough to not make people want or think they need more lower down. But this group here has a higher percentage than the general public looking for, or insisting on more quality.

There are several ways to judge bass response. It's not just Hz and db. There is also the difference between a speaker and headphone both peaking at 100 db and both capable of 32 Hz flat playing a Bosendorfer Grand Piano recording. The impact/presence of the room speaker is much different than from a headphone.

As to open back vs closed back - that is another whole kettle of fish. It is closed backs that in general I consider to have lesser qualities than open backs.

Most closed backs I have heard have more bass than the recording, more reverberation, and smaller perceived stage. Some of the bass cannon cans have a ludicrous amusical bass - in particular for classical and audiophile type recordings.

Now all that being said, the can in question - the NDH-30 is capable of some fine lower bass reproduction, and its going to deliver that cheaper than any speakers I can think of at the same price.

@bagwell359, thanks for your reply. I don't disagree with anything you say here. My only point was that most full range speakers (by which I only mean that they are supposed to reproduce music without any extra speakers helping them) don't have much below 40 Hz, and that most start to drop off significantly below about 60 Hz. The way they actually sound in a good room with bass reinforcement from a back wall etc is another matter and, as I'm sure you know, room acoustics is an extremely complicated subject. There are any number of speakers whose FR looks similar to the one below for example. The speaker is the PMC IB-1S and the FR graph is from the Stereophile.com test.

Again, my only point is the contrast to most, even open, headphones.

 

[Rob80b]

And talking of low frequencies, here’s one for my friend @Rob80b

Cute Mike...lol

My only point was that most full range speakers (by which I only mean that they are supposed to reproduce music without any extra speakers helping them) don't have much below 40 Hz, and that most start to drop off significantly below about 60 Hz.

To remain off topic...full range are sometimes difficult to get right, especially in small rooms....on the other hand stand-mounts with proper sub integration/calibration.
Haven't re-calibrated in years but fairly flat down to 20 with my Dynaudio Special 25s and Velodyne DD sub...and deep base bass is never there unless it's meant to be.

 

[bagwell359]

@bagwell359, thanks for your reply. I don't disagree with anything you say here. My only point was that most full range speakers (by which I only mean that they are supposed to reproduce music without any extra speakers helping them) don't have much below 40 Hz, and that most start to drop off significantly below about 60 Hz. The way they actually sound in a good room with bass reinforcement from a back wall etc is another matter and, as I'm sure you know, room acoustics are an extremely complicated subject. There are any number of speakers whose FR looks similar to the one below for example. The speaker is the PMC IB-1S and the FR graph is from the Stereophile.com test.

Again, my only point is the contrast to most, even open, headphones.

Room acoustics is a very complex topic. Usually whenever you have an increase at one point(s) in the bass, you have as many nulls to match. Improperly sprung wood floors, and wall board not properly installed, rattling windows, doors. The big TV, equipment and recording rack behind the speakers. Too much or not enough reflections, not enough diffusion. Most people have no idea, and don't take the time to deal with it. It's such an extreme issue for me that after 30 years of great tuned rooms culminating in a room designed by me for audio. I downsized, and the room I have now (even with ASC traps, sound flags, etc.) it is so much of a step down that I melted my room system down to headphones and some oldie moldy speakers.

In this physical world all things being equal smaller is going to cost less to implement than bigger. I do get much better bass out of my HE-6 SE (modded/EQ'd) than I get out of my mini-monitors (about 110 Hz), my 3 way, 2 woofer towers (-3b db at 43 hz), but not my old two way that goes to -3 db at 34, its much tighter with an equal impact of the venerated Lg Walnut Advents.

Added note: I built 5 different sets of sub-woofers, and bought a pair. The obvious thing is the bass, but nearly as important is not stressing the mains for low bass - in particular under the resonance point. Panels that go into the treble in particular.

 

[Rob80b]

All this talk about bass, I'm assuming the NDH30 as a reference tool has flat unobtrusive bass? From my audition I could tell they were extended, a good thing, but bass didn't stick out, another plus.

 

[Satriany]

I bought this Neumann ndh30 to have a reference to calibrate my 3 way active speakers, so I can measure the speakers, the room and then check how it compares to the headphone.
Designing speakers and room is tough so it is wise / simpler to use a neutral headphone as a second reference.

I agree that the ndh30 has very good bass in terms of extension and articulation. I have now two settings on my linkwiz Riley transform for the woofers, one which is safer for the woofers with electronic music which goes very low and one which is now close to what I get with the Neumann. Of course measuring low frequencies in a room is tricky this is where it is good to compare to a reference.
Then as I said I prefer the extension and energy of the compression drivers in horn and the mid horn. Here it is quite the opposite, I eq the Neumann with morphit with a studio target.
I finally have a mix of different studies by Harman or Floyd and I am happy to know what I am hearing and how I am hearing.
The speakers measures flat from 100 to 20khz close field and at listening position you have a downwar slope of 6db.
With good time alignment and phase correction, imaging is stunning and dynamics are excellent.
This is also why I think that it is not insane to slightly eq this Neumann ndh30.

 

[bagwell359]

I'm hyper sensitive to mid/upper bass tubiness, more than almost anyone here (its that extended damped bass - "the New England sound"). The NDH 30 isn't tubby, but I sense a bit of under damped or excess bass in the 60-90 Hz range. A tube amp that leans warm in the bass might be too much. If I bought them I'd try to tune them with parametric EQ and/or dynamat.

 

[Satriany]

This might explain some difference indeed

 

[Mike F]

All this talk about bass, I'm assuming the NDH30 as a reference tool has flat unobtrusive bass? From my audition I could tell they were extended, a good thing, but bass didn't stick out, another plus.

I'm hyper sensitive to mid/upper bass tubiness, more than almost anyone here (its that extended damped bass - "the New England sound"). The NDH 30 isn't tubby, but I sense a bit of under damped or excess bass in the 60-90 Hz range. A tube amp that leans warm in the bass might be too much. If I bought them I'd try to tune them with parametric EQ and/or dynamat.

Rob, I would agree with the above, but I don't think it's much of a boost in that region, and instead of adding muddiness or tubbiness it seems to add a bit of slam, if anything. It's not much at any rate (IMO) and doesn't detract at all from the mids. The NDH 30 does also extend extremely well for an open back dynamic driver. I think the design would probably be better described as semi open in fact. There's a lot of what looks like quite dense foam or damping material under the steel grill.

 

[jamesjames]

Rob, I would agree with the above, but I don't think it's much of a boost in that region, and instead of adding muddiness or tubbiness it seems to add a bit of slam, if anything. It's not much at any rate (IMO) and doesn't detract at all from the mids. The NDH 30 does also extend extremely well for an open back dynamic driver. I think the design would probably be better described as semi open in fact. There's a lot of what looks like quite dense foam or damping material under the steel grill.

Neumann says this phone has selective frequency damping - guessed this was part at least that.

 

[headstef]

Rob, I would agree with the above, but I don't think it's much of a boost in that region, and instead of adding muddiness or tubbiness it seems to add a bit of slam, if anything. It's not much at any rate (IMO) and doesn't detract at all from the mids. The NDH 30 does also extend extremely well for an open back dynamic driver. I think the design would probably be better described as semi open in fact. There's a lot of what looks like quite dense foam or damping material under the steel grill.

Neumann says this phone has selective frequency damping - guessed this was part at least that.

Its internals can be seen in post #20:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/neumann-ndh-30.963439/page-2#post-17004201

 

[jamesjames]

Its internals can be seen in post #20:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/neumann-ndh-30.963439/page-2#post-17004201

That's very helpful, thanks. There's quite a bit going on there - more than I had imagined. It's no wonder I think that it does seem so controlled - nor that it seems a little over-damped for my taste (in the mids-highs).

 

[Mike F]

Its internals can be seen in post #20:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/neumann-ndh-30.963439/page-2#post-17004201

That doesn’t show what’s on the ‘outside’ of the driver though, does it? The ‘foam’ just under the outer grill looks quite dense to me.

 

[jamesjames]

That doesn’t show what’s on the ‘outside’ of the driver though, does it? The ‘foam’ just under the outer grill looks quite dense to me.

Yes, I see what you mean. The spectrum of 'openness' with open-back phones is actually quite wide I guess. I'm thinking of my T1, which has a fine steel mesh that's described as 'semi-open', to the HD800S (steel mesh once again, with a more open centre) to the ADX5000 (the most open phone I know that's not an ear-speaker a la K1000/MySphere). Once again, the experience in each case isn't quite as I would expect. The T1 actually sounds quite open - and the HD800S seems much more open than the ADX5000! The K812 doesn't actually look to be open on first sight (although it is of course) - but really does sound open (in the sense it conveys a great sense of space).