Genelec S360 Review (Studio Monitor)

[Ze Frog]

30kgs...wow!

What is the enclosure made from, that's crazy for its size. I'm a sucker for a heavy speaker, always put off but lightweight ones, bit of a hangover from the old days when heavier usually meant better quality.

 

[dfuller]

Maybe so, but the Genelec mains still sound fantastic. Those Genelec engineers of yore knew exactly how to get things right.
To my hears--and I'm not alone in this--the "Ones" sound just mah; choked, metallic with an unpleasant resonance from the slitted woofers.
Sure, the directivity and frequency response charts are superior to the mains, but it merely reinforces the notion that those two measures don't tell the entire story when it comes to loudspeakers--or at least to me.

Actually, I'm not sure why people obsess over the charts so much on this site--other the much admirable intellectual entertainment--as most people here listen to their gear in untreated, sub-optimal rooms, which likely renders all that fantastic technology into a mediocre experience at best.

One last note regarding the mains: size does matter, and experiencing them in well treated room is a pure joy.

Yes, exactly. Weird metallic presence region + bizarrely slow, compressed sounding LF. The mains don't do that, they sound like a good speaker. I haven't the foggiest why this could be, the more in depth measurements don't show anything that could cause that. It's not as though there's excessive group delay or too steep of a port tuning...

30kgs...wow!

What is the enclosure made from, that's crazy for its size. I'm a sucker for a heavy speaker, always put off but lightweight ones, bit of a hangover from the old days when heavier usually meant better quality.

It's bigger than you think - that's a 10" midwoofer. The box is 21x14x14" roughly. Plus, that woofer is a fair amount of weight - it's a custom design made by PHL, similar-ish to the one that Neumann uses in the KH420 (ie, based on the 3411). The midbass driver alone weighs in the region of 7kg.

 

[Ilkless]

Yes, exactly. Weird metallic presence region + bizarrely slow, compressed sounding LF. The mains don't do that, they sound like a good speaker. I haven't the foggiest why this could be, the more in depth measurements don't show anything that could cause that.

Subconscious expectation bias that smooth even dispersion for a given radiation pattern both along horizontal and vertical planes, exemplary flat FR, phase linearity, low nonlinear distortion reduces the room for arcane tweaking whimsy.

hence the mind looks for explanations based on visual intuition unsupported by the actual measurements of the moving air that is emanated to the room and psychoacoustically processed by the human ear to try and rationalise some basis (no matter how anecdotal and intuitive) to undermine the perceived threat

See also: any other equipment maligned as "clinical"

 

[dfuller]

Subconscious expectation bias that smooth even dispersion for a given radiation pattern both along horizontal and vertical planes, exemplary flat FR, phase linearity, low nonlinear distortion reduces the room for arcane tweaking whimsy.

hence the mind looks for explanations based on visual intuition unsupported by the actual measurements of the moving air that is emanated to the room and processed by the human ear to try and rationalise some basis (no matter how anecdotal and intuitive) to undermine the perceived threat

See also: any other equipment maligned as "clinical"

Uh... No?

Look I'm not going to get into this but there was some decidedly unpleasant stuff when I demoed them that similarly objectively excellent speakers (DD8C, Kii, KH420) just didn't have. This was all in the same room, same position, same distance. My only guess from the data available is that the way the power response is designed it's more constant than I like in the presence region.

But that doesn't explain the way the low end sounds, and frankly it doesn't make sense to me why it would considering the behavior of the port etc is pretty much as textbook QB3 as you can get.

 

[holdingpants01]

Uh... No?

Look I'm not going to get into this but there was some decidedly unpleasant stuff when I demoed them that similarly objectively excellent speakers (DD8C, Kii, KH420) just didn't have. This was all in the same room, same position, same distance. My only guess from the data available is that the way the power response is designed it's more constant than I like in the presence region.

But that doesn't explain the way the low end sounds, and frankly it doesn't make sense to me why it would considering the behavior of the port etc is pretty much as textbook QB3 as you can get.

it's just sighted bias or some setup error, or even lack of it, nothing like that in my experience, nor in any measurement. Though it could be that they showed more flaws in the source material, but that's a good thing, I wouldn't want to work on speakers that are making everything sound good. For home use I would go other way

 

[dfuller]

it's just sighted bias or some setup error, or even lack of it, nothing like that in my experience, nor in any measurement. Though it could be that they showed more flaws in the source material, but that's a good thing, I wouldn't want to work on speakers that are making everything sound good. For home use I would go other way

I ended up going with the 420s for my mastering room, fwiw.

Also - the S360 and 1237 both are substantially better than the 8361A to my ears. Couldn't tell you why that is objectively, but it definitely is. That zingy presence region isn't there, and it's something I've noticed across the entire line of Ones.

 

[holdingpants01]

I ended up going with the 420s for my mastering room, fwiw.

Cool, I ended up selling my KH310. Some years ago I had Klein&Hummel O96 and O92, they were very good for their time, closed box and proper size but unreliable as hell and impossible to service when Neumann took over the brand

 

[Pearljam5000]

How can the older design of the 1237 sound better than a newer design like the Ones that also measures better ?(I assume )

 

[Blockader]

I ended up going with the 420s for my mastering room, fwiw.

Also - the S360 and 1237 both are substantially better than the 8361A to my ears. Couldn't tell you why that is objectively, but it definitely is. That zingy presence region isn't there, and it's something I've noticed across the entire line of Ones.

I sold the KH 420s because of how sibilant their tweeters sounded—sibilant, sharp. They always annoyed me. I found the KH 420's midrange to be dark & veiled. (Of course I was using room correction) My 8361s have a better-controlled bass compared to the KH 420s, and they both are situated in the same place.

Needless to say, these are all subjective opinions which I can't back up with any measurements. Especially the sibilance of the treble annoyed me so much that, I sold my KH 420's even though I lost a lot of money from this transaction. I believe the sibilance is a result of high order diffractions of the tweeter waveguide. I may be wrong though.

It is important to note that, all speakers have different SBIR profile in different rooms. I believe 8361's have a better SBIR profile in bass compared KH 420's in my room and I find 8361's treble as incredible... almost perfect.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I sold the KH 420s because of how sibilant their tweeters sounded—sibilant, sharp. They always annoyed me. I found the KH 420's midrange to be dark & veiled. (Of course I was using room correction) My 8361s have a better-controlled bass compared to the KH 420s, and they both are situated in the same place.

Needless to say, these are all subjective opinions which I can't back up with any measurements. Especially the sibilance of the treble annoyed me so much that, I sold my KH 420's even though I lost a lot of money from this transaction. I believe the sibilance is a result of high order diffractions of the tweeter waveguide. I may be wrong though.

It is important to note that, all speakers have different SBIR profile in different rooms. I believe 8361's have a better SBIR profile in bass compared KH 420's in my room and I find 8361's treble as incredible... almost perfect.

How's the 8361 midrange vs the KH420?
Is there a big difference a big difference too regarding the soundstage ? Thanks

 

[Purité Audio]

How can the older design of the 1237 sound better than a newer design like the Ones that also measures better ?(I assume )

You have to take everything that everyone says with a large pinch of salt, only you can decide which you prefer, I realise that it isn’t always easy to get two ‘possible’ loudspeakers into the same room at the same time.
Keith

 

[dfuller]

You have to take everything that everyone says with a large pinch of salt, only you can decide which you prefer, I realise that it isn’t always easy to get two ‘possible’ loudspeakers into the same room at the same time.
Keith

Yeah - at the end of the day, some of this is still subjective and data can inform what you like, not much beyond that.

I sold the KH 420s because of how sibilant their tweeters sounded—sibilant, sharp.

I found they sound more even with the tweeters down 1dB - but yeah, the treble's a little hot with the controls set to flat.

 

[thewas]

I wish more people would do measurements at their listening position which sometimes reveal tonality details which are not easy to see in the anechoic data, for example when some reflections dominate.

 

[RobL]

I wish more people would do measurements at their listening position which sometimes reveal tonality details which are not easy to see in the anechoic data, for example when some reflections dominate.

These are my 8361’s measured with REW at the MLP after GLM calibration:

Right speaker:

Left speaker:

I’m not disputing what dfuller heard at his audition but I don’t hear anything resembling that with my speakers.

 

[HairyEars]

Subconscious expectation bias that smooth even dispersion for a given radiation pattern both along horizontal and vertical planes, exemplary flat FR, phase linearity, low nonlinear distortion reduces the room for arcane tweaking whimsy.

hence the mind looks for explanations based on visual intuition unsupported by the actual measurements of the moving air that is emanated to the room and psychoacoustically processed by the human ear to try and rationalise some basis (no matter how anecdotal and intuitive) to undermine the perceived threat

See also: any other equipment maligned as "clinical"

Sorry, a fallacy. If the "Ones" sounded as amazing as they measure, my mind wouldn't have to resort to "Subconscious expectation bias."
If at all, it is your mind that is biased by the impressive charts and refuses to accept the questionable sound.

BTW, some professionals swear by their translation accuracy, so if the tool works well, who cares what music lovers think.

 

[HairyEars]

How can the older design of the 1237 sound better than a newer design like the Ones that also measures better ?(I assume )

Frequency response and directivity tell only a part of the story. For one, they don't capture the sound characteristics of a loudspeaker. For example, People keep pointing out the subjective issues with the "Ones", but are unable to support it through the charts. The reason is simple: those issues have nothing to do with the frequency response or directivity.

In my opinion, the "Ones" are great working tools, but not a good choice of an audiophile. The 1237 would give you enjoyment that is far beyond the 8631. One thing for sure, PJ: you have to try it yourself. Travel to Haifa and audition the 1032C and the "Ones."; maybe the S360 too. You'll find out soon enough which one is more pleasant to your ears.

P.S.: new is not always "better"

 

[Pearljam5000]

Frequency response and directivity tell only a part of the story. For one, they don't capture the sound characteristics of a loudspeaker. For example, People keep pointing out the subjective issues with the "Ones", but are unable to support it through the charts. The reason is simple: those issues have nothing to do with the frequency response or directivity.

In my opinion, the "Ones" are great working tools, but not a good choice of an audiophile. The 1237 would give you enjoyment that is far beyond the 8631. One thing for sure, PJ: you have to try it yourself. Travel to Haifa and audition the 1032C and the "Ones."; maybe the S360 too. You'll find out soon enough which one is more pleasant to your ears.

P.S.: new is not always "better"

Thanks for the comment

 

[bodhi]

Sorry, a fallacy. If the "Ones" sounded as amazing as they measure, my mind wouldn't have to resort to "Subconscious expectation bias."

So, in other words, "I didn't like it so measurements lie and/or other people got it wrong"?

 

[HairyEars]

The measurements don’t lie, but the two charts that people use to evaluate loudspeakers here do not give the full picture.

I know, it would’ve been lovely to measure directivity and frequency response, and rank products accordingly—which is done here quite often and erroneously. Speakers have a sound signature that isn’t remotely captured by those 2 measures; and often that signature is more important to audiophiles than vertical sound dispersion—for example. (After all, they aren’t in a studio environment, moving about, rather in a fixed position throughout the listening session).

It's not a matter of people “getting it wrong”, as you frame it. You and others are entitled to consider the “One” the bee’s knees, as much as I and others find its sound to be lacking. Here we just have to agree to disagree; a matter of taste.

However, to claim that the “Ones” are superior to the mains can’t be done in good faith without auditioning them all in the same room. I actually own both, so I can report that the mains are hands-down more euphonic. Incidentally, I’m no alone: that observation is voiced by many others who are familiar with the mains: from GearSpace professionals to Genelec user forum’s participants.

But hey, test for yourself. If you reach the same conclusion, perhaps you can be the bright brain to discover the missing sound signature measure that will finally solve that puzzle.

 

[Pearljam5000]

The measurements don’t lie, but the two charts that people used to evaluate loudspeakers here do not give the full picture.

I know, it would’ve been lovely to measure directivity and frequency response, and rank products accordingly—which is done here quite often and erroneously. Speakers have a sound signature that isn’t remotely captured by those 2 measures; and often that signature is more important to audiophiles than vertical sound dispersion—for example. (After all, they aren’t in a studio environment, moving about, rather in a fixed position throughout the listening session).

It's not a matter of people “getting it wrong”, as you frame it. You and others are entitled to consider the “One” the bee’s knees, as much as I and others to find its sound to be lacking. Here we just have to agree to disagree; a matter of taste.

However, to claim that the “Ones” are superior to the mains can’t be done in good faith without auditioning them all in the same room. I actually own both, so I can report that the mains are hands-down more euphonic. Incidentally, I’m no alone: that observation is voiced by many others who are familiar with the mains: from GearSpace professionals to Genelec user forum’s participants.

But hey, test for yourself. If you reach the same conclusion, perhaps you can be the bright brain to discover the missing sound signature measure that will finally solve that puzzle.

Euphonic = less detailed , less instrument separation?
Or something else ?