Klein + Hummel 0300's

[elmosgota50cal]

Hi guys. Just wanted to know if you guys knew the difference between the 0300s and the 0300d's. As far as I know the 0300's are exactly the same, but minus the d/a a/d converters (Better to buy separate converters anyway). I am just trying to get a full understanding about all of the different options here. I would hate to drop 6 grand and then realize for a few hundred more I could have gotten a sweet feature. I heard something about a DSP board available on them or something, which means they can be tuned to the room.
Anyone have any knowledge of these speakers?

P.S. I have arranged a listening test between some Focal (twin 6 b?), Adams (s2.5a) and the 0300's. Can't wait!

[jantex]

I am really interested in your conclusions. I've been having O300 for a year now, but haven't A/B/Ced them with the Focal Twins and Adams 2.5A in the same room. Please report about your findings and your opinion.

[elmosgota50cal]

I did a listening test of the Focal Twin 6's and the K+H O300's (not the O300d's). They did not manage to get any Adam's in, unfortunately.

I am not an audio professional, and have little experience with mixing on high quality monitors, so take the below with a grain of salt. Here goes...

A rep for Focal was there, along with the guy at the music shop with whom I spoke. The monitors were set up side by side in he middle of the room, which is aprox 25 X 16 and loaded with gear and angles, so the sound was pretty good. The Focals were set on the outside, which may have given them a larger spectrum. I played Peter Gabriel, Seal and some Velvet Revolver. I had expected the K+H to blow away the Focals, and only really had them bring a pair in to humor the guy from the shop. The Focals sounded better than the K+H upon first listen. I immediately noticed a marked difference in the high's. They were much more open sounding, clearer. The K+H were almost muddy and sounded as though underwater compared with the twin 6's.

Not fully convinced that the Focal's were better to my ears, I looked at the settings of both monitors. Each was set to flat. I switched the K+H's to plus 2 in the highs then listened again. Whilst the adjustment made a difference, the Focals still sounded better. It is possible that the rep had the Focals turned up a little louder than the K+H. I kept asking him to turn them down a bit, and he did towards the end of the listening test. Volume was not the cause of my favouring the twin 6's though. There was a clear and audible difference between both sets.

The mid range and bass response where both very good on each set, but again, the Focal beat the K+H, sounding more open and precise.

There only type of music I played where I didn't think the Focals sounded way better than the K+H was with a piece of classical...Nigel Kennedy I believe. The Focals still won though.

The only thing I am wondering is which will translate mixes better. Often times speakers that sound amazing are hyping certain frequencies, so that may have been the case here. That being said, if I had to buy a pair of nearfields that were markedly better than my Dynaudio BM5a's, I would go with Focal over K+H, based on what I heard. At $3400 cad, there are about $2000 cheaper than the K+H, so there is another factor that gives an edge to the Focal.

Sort of a rambling review, but there you go.

[brandondrury]

Old thread, but.....

Thanks for the perspective! When I get rich I want to mix on a pair of mega high end speakers (not monitors) just to see what happens. I've grown to view the relationship with the studio monitor as more crucial than the actual sound of the monitor....except in situations where the monitor is unpredictable.

Brandon