Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review

[JIW]

I have the 8340 in my fairly large living room - about 60m2 with a height about 3,5m. Of course the definition of ’large’ varies but anyway. I have set the max volume to about -35dB and it is still LOUD.

The input sensitivity of the 83xx series is such that 100 dB SPL at 1 m corresponds to an analog input level of 0 dBu and a digital input level of -30 dBFS. Setting the max volume to -35 dB, should result in 95 dB SPL at 1 m for a 0 dBFS input which should be about the same at your listening position.

Amir seems to suggests that the 305p begin to compress in the low frequencies when trying to make them keep up in SPL with the 8341.

The Genelec 8341A quickly showed what it is about with warm and highly balanced response. As much as I liked the JBL 305P Mark ii before, it just could not compete. It sounded much brighter -- an attribute which got worse when I pushed it to higher SPLs to keep up with the Genelec.

The LSR305 go up to 90-95 dB at 10% THD in the low frequencies. I expect the 305p to perform quite similarly.

Source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T9yLUksyFTu8DwtsaUwacoCIpRfmdIzx6vDRPjzfbCg/mobilebasic

Thus, the max SPL Amir found was probably above 95 dB SPL.

Further, compare the max SPL of the 8351A to that of the 8350.

Below 100 Hz, the max SPL at 10% THD of the 8350 is around 6-8 dB higher. Thus, the 8341 was probably similarly limited compared to a speaker of similar size or the ADAM S2V which however is a fair bit bigger at 50% greater volume and has similar max SPL as the 8350 and possibly even greater in the low frequencies.

Overall, I think the max SPL in the low frequencies Amir got out of the 8341 is between 95-100 dB SPL at 1 m.

 

[QMuse]

Well, I usually have to do all my measurements in one go, usually doing two+ speakers on the same day because the setup is the most time-consuming. So aside from any distortion measurements, they're already hearing probably hundreds of sine sweeps just doing the spins .

But yes, the spins are relatively quiet and a handful of high SPL measurements aren't awfu. I hope to do so some distortion measurements down the road, but first I'd like to educate myself a lot more about distortion before I'm comfortable posting data without a meaningful way to interpret it or detect anomalies.

Single tone 40Hz tone isn't very unpelasant even at high SPLs and the test takes less than a minute. I think you can make it..

 

[QMuse]

You are completely wrong. Go and read up about resonance. It is quite non-intuitive but if you have the aptitude and a year or so to study it you will understand and find it fascinating I'm sure.
BTW noise and vibration research was my profession.
I know at least one speaker designer who has shown cabinet resonance to be detrimental but his data is commercially confidential.
I think over the years well funded R&D departments have mainly built a lot of prototypes measured them and listened to them.
More recently computer aided methods have been used to model cabinets, drivers, magnetic circuits etc.. This is less expensive now and has explained lots of things which were simply the subject of speculation a few years ago.
It also means very good performing items can be made much cheaper, building prototypes is expensive slow and may miss key issues.

So, I am wrong for accepting Toole's opinion and should accept yours although you provided no sound arguments nor references to studies supporting your opinion?

I dont think that is how this forum is supposed to work.

Btw, nothing you said contradicts what I told you, excepet for your opinion that cabinet is an issue with mdoern speakers. Once again, it so much isn't that nobody even bothered to study CSD graphs vs audiblity thresholds of some imaginary cabinet resonances. I know some folks are even bothered by virbations sent to the floor via speaker spikes etc. Although it makes even less sense I'm sure someone will brag about that too.

 

[ctrl]

Devialet claims 101dB for stereo playback on the Reactor 900s at 1m, which is pretty close to what my in-room measurements suggest. I think my measurements fall a bit under that, but there's some room for error in my very casual compression measurements and their interpretation.
So taking it all together bass seems to begin compressing below 60Hz at ~95dB for my listening position 3m away. If we subtract 6 dB for room gain and then add 9.5 for dB the difference in distance you get about 99.5dB at 1m. Round that up to 100 and I'd call that close enough.

No way to tell more specifically without actual anechoic compression measurements, of course, but I just present this rough data and calculation to make the point that it doesn't seem impossible they'd hit 101dB down to the 20s anechoically.

The German "Audio magazine" (06-2019, audio.de) has measured the Reaktor 900. According to their statement, the low bass remains up to about 80dB@1m. A limiter prevents higher sound pressure for the low bass (everything below 40Hz).

At 85dB the limiter starts at about 50Hz, at 90dB a bit higher again about 60Hz.

At a sound pressure of 90dB@1m THD at 200Hz is over 4% and in the range 500-1000Hz still just under 3%.

If 2nd order harmonic distortions are dominant, a slightly higher sound pressure level without audible loss of sound quality would be conceivable.

Since the Reaktor 900 uses a small full range driver, the multitone distortion behavior would have to be looked at more closely - but I have no data on this.

 

[napilopez]

You are completely wrong. Go and read up about resonance. It is quite non-intuitive but if you have the aptitude and a year or so to study it you will understand and find it fascinating I'm sure.
BTW noise and vibration research was my profession.
I know at least one speaker designer who has shown cabinet resonance to be detrimental but his data is commercially confidential.
I think over the years well funded R&D departments have mainly built a lot of prototypes measured them and listened to them.
More recently computer aided methods have been used to model cabinets, drivers, magnetic circuits etc.. This is less expensive now and has explained lots of things which were simply the subject of speculation a few years ago.
It also means very good performing items can be made much cheaper, building prototypes is expensive slow and may miss key issues.

The issue I'm having with this line of reasoning is that it seems perfectly sensible to reduce resonances in the hardware as much as possible for passive speakers but I've not seen any evidence that it is significantly superior to EQ for active speakers. I'm sure starting with a good cabinet is easier.

Again, it follows that if you've EQ'd out a resonance such that it is virtually invisible in the frequency response both on and off-axis, it must appear as a flaw in some other measurement. Moreover, that defect must be severe enought so as to be audible in spite of frequency response being the most important metric for assessing loudspeakers.

It doesn't surprise me that sound resonating from a cabinet is not as good as sound emerging from a driver. That makes intuitive sense. But if the frequency response problem has been EQ'd away, the resonance itself is also less audible.

It'd be a good study to read: Take two flattish speakers with small but clear resonances. Fix one resonance mechanically, fix the other in EQ. See if the listener can hear a difference. You seem to be suggesting your friend has done something similar work. Shame we can't read it.

 

[Wombat]

The German "Audio magazine" (06-2019, audio.de) has measured the Reaktor 900. According to their statement, the low bass remains up to about 80dB@1m. A limiter prevents higher sound pressure for the low bass (everything below 40Hz).

At 85dB the limiter starts at about 50Hz, at 90dB a bit higher again about 60Hz.

At a sound pressure of 90dB@1m THD at 200Hz is over 4% and in the range 500-1000Hz still just under 3%.

If 2nd order harmonic distortions are dominant, a slightly higher sound pressure level without audible loss of sound quality would be conceivable.

Since the Reaktor 900 uses a small full range driver, the multitone distortion behavior would have to be looked at more closely - but I have no data on this.

A good reason to test DSP'd speakers with incremental power increases.

 

[QMuse]

. Moreover, that defect must be severe enought so as to be audible in spite of frequency response being the most important metric for assessing loudspeakers.

Audible how? As a decay? Chances are that rooms where we listen to our speakers have a decay for at least 10-100 times longer at any audible frequency than what cabinet resonance produces.

So once it effects have been EQ-ed not to show in FR how exactly are we supposed to hear it? As a distortion?

 

[Mnyb]

Audible how? .

So once it effects have been EQ-ed not to show in FR how exactly are we supposed to hear it?

Directivity, the sound does not come from the desired direction/"point on the speaker" and thus hurt FR off axis hence it cant really be fixed by eq ?
For eq to work at its best on and of axis fr should be very similar ?

 

[Frank Dernie]

So, I am wrong for accepting Toole's opinion and should accept yours although you provided no sound arguments nor references to studies supporting your opinion?

No, you are wrong because you don't understand.
An internet search doesn't teach one much, though most people seem to think it does.
The fact that the Olive and Toole work has a plethora of disciples it that it is published and good stuff but doesn't cover the whole subject by any means.
There is other work, maybe more commercially valuable, which remains confidential.
I am only trying to help. If you do not have the aptitude to try to understand I apologise and won't try to help you any more, but would suggest you stop adding information which is technically incorrect to this thread.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The issue I'm having with this line of reasoning is that it seems perfectly sensible to reduce resonances in the hardware as much as possible for passive speakers but I've not seen any evidence that it is significantly superior to EQ for active speakers. I'm sure starting with a good cabinet is easier.

Again, it follows that if you've EQ'd out a resonance such that it is virtually invisible in the frequency response both on and off-axis, it must appear as a flaw in some other measurement. Moreover, that defect must be severe enought so as to be audible in spite of frequency response being the most important metric for assessing loudspeakers.

It doesn't surprise me that sound resonating from a cabinet is not as good as sound emerging from a driver. That makes intuitive sense. But if the frequency response problem has been EQ'd away, the resonance itself is also less audible.

It'd be a good study to read: Take two flattish speakers with small but clear resonances. Fix one resonance mechanically, fix the other in EQ. See if the listener can hear a difference. You seem to be suggesting your friend has done something similar work. Shame we can't read it.

That is where listening tests are needed.
There is no way I know of to separate spurious sound from wanted sound using a microphone.
As I have written before the method used is to measure the cabinet contribution by computing the sum of the measured (using laser vibrometer) cabinet radiation.
It is worthwhile to use FEA at the design stage to predict what the contribution would be old fashioned "hairy-arsed" engineering (to use a motor racing term) is very ineffective but expensive.
There is no doubt from my experience that in a level controlled blind listening test a speaker with a cleverly designed inert cabinet with modestly priced but well engineered driver sounds better than state of the art drivers in a crude cabinet.
People who only measure using a microphone will not be able to show this.
Whether you choose to believe it or not depends on your engineering aptitude and understanding since the results of these tests are commercially confidential and will not be published for a long time.
The BBC work in the 1970s proved the case already but they didn't have the sophisticated analysis capability we do now so it took a long time and they could only investigate a relatively small number of options.

 

[QMuse]

No, you are wrong because you don't understand.
An internet search doesn't teach one much, though most people seem to think it does.
The fact that the Olive and Toole work has a plethora of disciples it that it is published and good stuff but doesn't cover the whole subject by any means.
There is other work, maybe more commercially valuable, which remains confidential.
I am only trying to help. If you do not have the aptitude to try to understand I apologise and won't try to help you any more, but would suggest you stop adding information which is technically incorrect to this thread.

What exactly do you think I do not understand and what technically incorrect information do you think I added?

Btw, what exactly is your opinion with audibility of cabinet resonance and it's relation to CSD graph? So far I have only understood that some unidentified friend of yours, who is supposedly an exprt in the cabinet resonance matter, have told you an industry secret which you cannot disclose here and you are issuing some vague warnings instead. Am I missing something?

P.S. please keep it as technical as you'd like, I have an EE background and pretty solid education afterwards.

 

[tuga]

The issue I'm having with this line of reasoning is that it seems perfectly sensible to reduce resonances in the hardware as much as possible for passive speakers but I've not seen any evidence that it is significantly superior to EQ for active speakers. I'm sure starting with a good cabinet is easier.

Again, it follows that if you've EQ'd out a resonance such that it is virtually invisible in the frequency response both on and off-axis, it must appear as a flaw in some other measurement. Moreover, that defect must be severe enought so as to be audible in spite of frequency response being the most important metric for assessing loudspeakers.

It doesn't surprise me that sound resonating from a cabinet is not as good as sound emerging from a driver. That makes intuitive sense. But if the frequency response problem has been EQ'd away, the resonance itself is also less audible.

It'd be a good study to read: Take two flattish speakers with small but clear resonances. Fix one resonance mechanically, fix the other in EQ. See if the listener can hear a difference. You seem to be suggesting your friend has done something similar work. Shame we can't read it.

By fix in EQ you mean flatten the peak and the resonance will drop in level by the same amount of dB?

There are plenty of examples for river resonances, but can you point out a speaker FR measurement that shows a peak resulting from a cabinet resonance?

The Wison Duette would be a good candidate. Blip in the impedance curve at around 500Hz, narrow long-delay peaks at "469Hz on both sidewalls and the top". But nothing is apparent in the NRC measurements.

Audible how? As a decay? Chances are that rooms where we listen to our speakers have a decay for at least 10-100 times longer at any audible frequency than what cabinet resonance produces.

I understand your point about audibility but room interference shouldn't not be used as an excuse. Speakers also produce comparatively massive levels of distortion in relation to electronic equipment yet we can hear differences in performance in spite of.

 

[napilopez]

Audible how? As a decay? Chances are that rooms where we listen to our speakers have a decay for at least 10-100 times longer at any audible frequency than what cabinet resonance produces.

So once it effects have been EQ-ed not to show in FR how exactly are we supposed to hear it? As a distortion?

That's what I've been trying to figure out . Might it actually be a lack of distortion since presumably drivers don't have to work as hard when the cabinet is "helping" them out? Is it directivity because resonances have their own uneven directivity properties (they generally show up at all angles but maybe they vary subtly between angles?)

No, you are wrong because you don't understand.
An internet search doesn't teach one much, though most people seem to think it does.
The fact that the Olive and Toole work has a plethora of disciples it that it is published and good stuff but doesn't cover the whole subject by any means.
There is other work, maybe more commercially valuable, which remains confidential.
I am only trying to help. If you do not have the aptitude to try to understand I apologise and won't try to help you any more, but would suggest you stop adding information which is technically incorrect to this thread.

EDIT: Sorry, I just saw you had replied to one of my other posts where you spoke in more detail.

It doesn't really help though. It's kind of like saying the united nations is actually run by tiny little zebras wearing polkadot hats, but only the most elite world leaders can meet them. So we should just believe you because you say you've seen the zebras

We all want to go beyond Toole and Olive, but we need to see the data. I don't know that anyone here necessarily believes resonances are completely gone with EQ, but a lot of us have been led to believe that if they've been removed from the frequency domain on and off axis, they shouldn't be audible. So if you have evidence to the contrary, I welcome it with open arms. But so long as that data to the contrary remains confidential, there's no reason to believe the effects of resonances are significantly audible once EQ'd out.

The German "Audio magazine" (06-2019, audio.de) has measured the Reaktor 900. According to their statement, the low bass remains up to about 80dB@1m. A limiter prevents higher sound pressure for the low bass (everything below 40Hz).

At 85dB the limiter starts at about 50Hz, at 90dB a bit higher again about 60Hz.

At a sound pressure of 90dB@1m THD at 200Hz is over 4% and in the range 500-1000Hz still just under 3%.

If 2nd order harmonic distortions are dominant, a slightly higher sound pressure level without audible loss of sound quality would be conceivable.

Since the Reaktor 900 uses a small full range driver, the multitone distortion behavior would have to be looked at more closely - but I have no data on this.

Thanks for that! Do you have a link? I can't seem to find it. But from what you say, it, seems I was way off, ahem, bass.

That said... 80dB @1m - say 83 dB for stereo - seems much too low given my in-room measurements. That's ~73.5dB at my listening position with stereo speakers. So how am I getting ~96dB at 30Hz my listening position and 30Hz? Even factoring in room gain doesn't give me 23dB worth of extra bass... What am I missing?

In any case, from a practical standpoint, it's all the bass I personally need with more than enough headroom for my 75dBish typical listening levels. But I'd like to understand better what's going on.

 

[QMuse]

That's what I've been trying to figure out . Might it actually be a lack of distortion since presumably drivers don't have to work as hard when the cabinet is "helping" them out? Is it directivity because resonances have their own uneven directivity properties (they generally show up at all angles but maybe they vary subtly between angles?)

Don't you think before exploring how exactly cabinet resonance manifests that we should establish if it manifests at all, meaning if it is audible?

 

[napilopez]

Don't you think before exploring how exactly cabinet resonance manifests that we should establish if it manifests at all, meaning if it is audible?

Certainly! But unfortunately it doesn't seem evidence for it exists publicly, though apparently it does privately.

 

[tuga]

Audible how? As a decay? Chances are that rooms where we listen to our speakers have a decay for at least 10-100 times longer at any audible frequency than what cabinet resonance produces.

So once it effects have been EQ-ed not to show in FR how exactly are we supposed to hear it? As a distortion?

Directivity, the sound does not come from the desired direction/"point on the speaker" and thus hurt FR off axis hence it cant really be fixed by eq ?
For eq to work at its best on and of axis fr should be very similar ?

Is it only about tonal balance or can't a low-level resonance affect clarity and imaging?

It can also distracting. Twice I've heard high-frequency resonances at a piano recitals and a piano concert in different venues (Sheldonian Theatre, Casa da Música).

And can't resonances be transmited to the drivers?

 

[QMuse]

I understand your point about audibility but room interference shouldn't not be used as an excuse.

Room is not an "excuse", it is a huge masking factor.

Speakers also produce comparatively massive levels of distortion in relation to electronic equipment yet we can hear differences in performance in spite of.

Speakers distorion needs to be less than that of the electronics you're trying to measure by ear otherwise electronic distorion will be masked. You may be able to hear some other artifacts like noise, but distorion will be masked. Be aware that clipping is also heard as a distorion beccause huge number of strong harmonics is generated when sine wave gets cutted on top.

 

[QMuse]

Certainly! But unfortunately it doesn't seem evidence for it exists publicly, though apparently it does privately.

Privately? You mean there are some folks braggin about CSD graphs without any real evidence on audiblity? Should we be bothered by that? Am I to start questioning the roundness of Earth because of a bunch of flat-Earthers?

 

[QMuse]

Is it only about tonal balance or can't a low-level resonance affect clarity and imaging?

It can also distracting. Twice I've heard high-frequency resonances at a piano recitals and a piano concert in different venues (Sheldonian Theatre, Casa da Música).

And can't resonances be transmited to the drivers?

You don't have a technical background, right?

 

[tuga]

Room is not an "excuse", it is a huge masking factor.

I agree. So are speakers. Can't you hear differences through them. Can't you converse in a crowded room or near a waterfall?

Speakers distorion needs to be less than that of the electronics you're trying to measure by ear otherwise electronic distorion will be masked. You may be able to hear some other artifacts like noise, but distorion will be masked. Be aware that clipping is also heard as a distorion beccause huge number of strong harmonics is generated when sine wave gets cutted on top.

You speak of speaker or room masking as if it were this big blanket blob. There are so many types of distortion.