I’ve never heard an issue with bass presentation at lower volumes on these. I have always liked to mix at lower levels too, staying around 70db most of the time and bumping things up when needed. But this isn’t to say they are hyped, they need to be at 83-85db to give their full accurate representation. As far as I know that’s just physics (and we all know what Scotty says!).
Just few weeks ago I had a chance to listen to Questeds V2108 in my room and these were IMHO the best nearfields I had a chance to hear by now. But I am so used to KH310 that don't thing about making a change, though if I would be buying now, I would choose Questeds without a doubt.
I switched from Quested VS2108 to KH310 (I had O300 before). Quested has a great midrange, but sharp and fatiguing. Also week lowrange.
do the KH310 deliver bass at low levels?
this is why I love PMC and ATC so much.. you can listen to them very quietly but still hear the full bottom end.
many mediocre speakers need to be pushed quite loud to fully show what they are able to deliver down there..
I need a little bit of a help from You . What stands you are using for 310s? I almost decided that I will go for them but I need a good stand.
My first idea would be these ones:
I need a little bit of a help from You . What stands you are using for 310s? I almost decided that I will go for them but I need a good stand.
My first idea would be these ones:
I have similar KM's to the ones you linked (with only one rod/pillar), and I wouldn't recommend them for the 310's. They become a bit too "wobbly" IMO and I'm looking into replacing them.
Those Jaspers look more suitable due to their 3-tube construction, but I think I will invest in Zaor (admittedly part for their looks because I know they're sturdy enough. Can't remember which model it is I'm looking into though
i had the 310 in my control room for a week since my 0300 broke down.
they led me to the worst mix ever. it did not translate at all and everything had to be re-eq'ed. maybe my fault - but i was told that they sound almost the same.
but they are very, very different. the 310 is a lot louder. thats about the only thing i liked about them. the mids were bright and agressive to my ears. the bass way too much. this is coming from someone used to 0300s... so take it with a grain of salt. but i personally prefer the 0300 over the new model a lot. i know quit a few engineers dismissing the new model for similar reasons.
basically the 310 sounded like a "sennheiser" version to me. which is what it is. kind of like an u87ai compared to a real neumann u87 i do not understand why sennheiser always think they can improve stuff. every design they ever touched sounded bad after their engineers layed hands on them.
they messed up the neumann line and now moved towards killing the K&H heritage.... imo sennheiser does the worst business in the industry. buying amazing companies to destroy them and drag their designs in the dirt. sorry for this strong opinion but sennheiser ist just the worst pro audio company out there to me.
People seem to have a love hate relationship with the 310's. Seems like the majority love them, but there are always some who strongly disagree. I have a pair and love them. I've worked on ATCs, also own PMC's, and really love how different the Neumann's sounds to those two companies. I consider them very flat, bad mixes def don't sound amazing on them but isn't that what you want? They took a bit of getting used to for sure but once I got a feel for them in my room they became essential.
Reading some of these earlier posts make me question both the room they were listening in and the position of the monitors. They are far from bright/harsh. At first I thought they were almost too "full/dull" sounding but after proper placement the sound came together. There's a great review of these that show how flat they really are -
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Neumann KH 310A active monitor (speaker). It was kindly sent to me by the company for testing. I see it...