By that I guess you're saying that all these professional reviewers are either mistaken, or lying, and I find that hard to believe. I might be more inclined to believe it on the hi-fi side, but I doubt Hedd as a startup even had the type of clout or funds to bribe all these reviewers. Is Sound on Sound now not a credible publication?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
By that I guess you're saying that all these professional reviewers are either mistaken, or lying, and I find that hard to believe. I might be more inclined to believe it on the hi-fi side, but I doubt Hedd as a startup even had the type of clout or funds to bribe all these reviewers. Is Sound on Sound now not a credible publication?
"Professional reviewer" means nothing. 99% of them are either indirectly bribed by advertisement or simply mistaken like everybody doing sighted listening. Even the Dayton AIR got raving reviews from such reviewers while measuring and sounding like hot garbage; cf https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/dayton-audio-b652-air-speaker-review.11410/ for more fun.
SOS can be quite good, as some writers do some useful measurements too (e.g. iLoud MTM or Type 20 review, by Phil Ward), but in the end, it's still nothing compared to what ASR gives us.
You have quality third-party measurements of their most expensive product showing that they're not good enough (not remotely flat on-axis, truckload of resonances, lumpy directivity, etc...) to even pretend playing in the same park as the speaker this review is about, what else do you need?
For the Type 20, as my previous post explained, all speakers sporting such a layout are fatal compromises offset only by being listened to nearfield. Compromise without advantages other than SPL, here, as (completely) coaxial speakers are even more compact.
But the real problem is being priced like Genelec/Neumann when it's just another MDF box without DSP nor quality manufacturer measurements. Let's say that I'm still interested because they can probably do better.
Last edited:
But the Hedd speakers do have DSP. Their Lineariser software provides both frequency response and phase correction.
"For the Type 20, as my previous post explained, all speakers sporting such a layout are fatal compromises offset only by being listened to nearfield. Compromise without advantages other than SPL, here, as (completely) coaxial speakers are even more compact."
Are you referring to the orientation of the tweeter, midrange, and woofer?
As far as I understand, this is just some computer software to do phase correction, the speakers themselves don't use DSP for the crossover or frequency response correction.
Yes.
Since this is a science-oriented, fact based forum, can you prove that statement?
The DSP provides both Frequency and Phase correction.
ATC SM25a, KH310, etc... uses the same approximate configuration?
"The compact three-way arrangement of the Type 20 drivers is one that we’ve seen on a few nearfield monitors in recent times. Neumann with the KH310A, ATC with the SCM25A, and Dynaudio with the Lyd 48, for example, have all come to the same conclusion that low-, mid- and high-frequency drivers, arranged with the first alongside a vertically orientated array of the latter two, is a good idea. "
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/hedd-type-20
I'm not really here to get into a debate or a back-and-forth about whether Hedd speakers are good or not. I'm not a professional listener. To me, they were better than the Genelec, which I expected to be better than the Hedds.
In any case, I just wanted to add that the professional reviewer community seems to have a much better impression of Hedd speakers than forum posters here. Take it for what it's worth.
1) Don't be hypocritical. You can play that card once you start following it yourself.
2) Can't prove the advertisement bit, indeed. But I certainly can about sighted listening; just bring a counter-example where those "pros" take the time to prepare a valid ABX test.
https://www.hedd.audio/de/dsp-or-not-to-dsp/
They don't use DSP.
https://www.hedd.audio/en/hedd-lineariser/
If I read well, only the time domain (phase) is corrected.
They do, and it's the best compromise barring very R&D intensive coaxials like the Ones when baffle area must be limited. Still a compromise, as the measurements show.
I understand where you come from, but the situation really is as simple and outlandish as it looks like.
Don't waste your time. He is so totally besotted by Genelec he will just go on and on (and on) until you give up.
tuga
Major Contributor
Believe no one.
I mean, if we're being objective, would about 85% of people be in love with Genelec considering the preference ratings here, compared to all other speakers so far tested if they've heard a coaxial Genelec and some of the others? I'd also stretch that to say, any speaker that doesn't follow the design principles that seem to correlate with better scores here (controlled directivity in particular,) if assumed worse until proven otherwise by a user, I wouldn't blame them, and can still imagine them being a logical, reasonable person.
Wish there were a feature to have people crowd fund speakers to send to Amirm... And then buy him a large house so that all of them were available for repeated testing, and then to have this be his day job if he so chose.
From the Lineariser link you cited:
"MODEL
Each HEDD monitor is carefully measured in the large anechoic chamber of the Technical University in Berlin. The individual impulse response serves to linearise the respective model both in time and frequency."
I don't think I'm being hypocritical. I've been very clear to state that my impressions are the subjective impressions of a recreational listener. My point is, when you say "99% of professional reviewers" are either bribed or making faulty reviews, I'd like to see some evidence that it's anywhere near that high. I don't think that evidence exists.
Valid, and I agree, a healthy measure of skepticism and incredulity is important. That said, this method seemed to work for me. I read reviews, began to get a "picture" of what this monitor (the Type 20) might be like from those reviews, and it turned out to be the right choice for me vs. the one other comparably priced monitor I compared it too, the 8341.
That said, I personally am more of a tech enthusiast and so I'm always looking for a way to upgrade or improve or otherwise experience really great technology ... I gain as much enjoyment from experiencing improvements as I do from listening actually. That's why I'm now talking to Dutch & Dutch about comparing the 8cs to the Type 20s.
You're just wrong, while I think Genelec is n°1 everything considered, there are other good manufacturers. I'm mostly against the lack of data transparency and brands that can pretend to play on the very high-end field just with marketing blurb.
Not really, there's not much to go on with; can't "pester" him further with facts like the layout or the pro reviewers' lack of variable control completely ignored by cherry picking. In the end, it's just another brand amongst other, nothing really special about it except doing some DSP on the computer (which doesn't seem to reduce the price very much).
Anyway, nice "women whispering into each other's ear" act you got there, almost took you for someone decent.
Wouldn’t need to crowd fund the speakers, just to cover crating and shipping for members.
He already has a big house and a very nice daily job. If I understood @Thomas savage correctly it is finding a gardener where he needs help with.
Last edited:
It’s possible to come pretty close to proving this, but outside of reviewers outright admitting that their reviews are effectively bought, how can you 100% prove this? Well here’s the thing: we DO have many reviewers on record outright admitting this: Admitting that they are forced to always slant reviews to be glowingy positive in some way, or they will lose contracts, stop receiving test samples, and be otherwise cut off from industry benefits they rely on to stay afloat!
How much more crystal clear than this do you need the situation to be, before you accept this as “proof” of this situation? If you’re not convinced, keep digging. Keep researching the topic, and you will discover that this is pretty much an “open secret” in the industry.
Many of us are a little jaded about this status quo in the speaker review industry, because many of us have been bitten by it (losing good money on bad speakers, from purchasing decisions made based on trust of these subjective reviews by “industry professionals”). That’s why many of us are here: because AudioScienceReview has proven itself willing to post objective reviews that are brutally honest about bad products out there.
Before you trust ANY review, especially one in the subjective speaker review industry, look into whether your reviewer has demonstrated the ability to give a genuinely bad review conclusion to genuinely bad products. Your eyes may be opened when you realize that most professional reviewers in this industry are literally incapable of doing this.
Last edited:
Hiilari
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
- Messages
- 33
- Likes
- 55
An unusually heated debate for ASR...
I've also found that the studio monitor reviews in magazines like SoS and others are pretty useless since they tend to like almost everything, and there's little or no measurements. I'd trust ASR much more, this is such a great community and service! And when it comes to bang-for-buck, not many beat Behringers - which are essentially Genelec cheapo copies. Spot some similarities:
I've also found that the studio monitor reviews in magazines like SoS and others are pretty useless since they tend to like almost everything, and there's little or no measurements. I'd trust ASR much more, this is such a great community and service! And when it comes to bang-for-buck, not many beat Behringers - which are essentially Genelec cheapo copies. Spot some similarities:
We'll need to wait for ASR to confirm how true this is.
I love that classic Genelec look though. Like the current 1032C.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,390
- Likes
- 6,781
The answer to that is clearly no, given the the 0.8 standard deviation. Based on the scores, quite a few speakers(some much cheaper) should be a near coinflip with the Genelecs.
I get what you're saying, and I fully believe that reviewers are influenced towards saying positive things about speakers or other products by repercussions from manufacturers.
I don't necessarily believe though that you can simply throw out all professional reviews as meaningless. I've found them valuable in guiding me to products I was pleased with, even upon comparison with other products. Sometimes a reviewer will be "politely positive and gently critical," and other times they will be gushingly positive. Does that mean in the latter case they were bribed more money, or could it mean they simply really liked the product? Especially if multiple reviewers say similar things.
Again, I compared the Type 20s and the 8341. Despite rapturous descriptions here of how good the 8341 measures (as well as this guy's review, which had me expecting the 8341s to be amazing:
Similar threads
- Poll