Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review

[richard12511]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ts-community-project.14929/page-3#post-468028

Thanks! Been comparing back and forth, and I think I prefer it over the stock, though it's not a huge difference.

You should have @Thomas savage 's avatar, blessing us with these EQs.

 

[q3cpma]

Good overview. The good news is that more attention is paid to inharmonic distortions. Smooth frequency response, that's cool, of course. But you twist your head, your auricles create frequency changes, the location in the room changes... I think that from a certain level of unevenness the frequency response ceases to be significant, because over time, hearing adapts slightly, as it adapts to the color temperature. But if inharmonic distortions are present - there is no getting around - they can be heard or can make the sound cloudy. Although sometimes they can give a feeling of "assertiveness". For example, I can clearly hear the 3rd harmonic from 1000Hz, which is 50dB below the main signal. Especially, if in the room 1000Hz forms a standing wave, then moving in space you can get into the zone where 1000Hz will fall in level, and 3000Hz will be clearly audible.

Curiously, DACs and amplifiers have reached stunning levels in non-harmonic distortion .. distortion is sometimes below 130dB! They are transparent to sound. But the speaker has a distortion level of -50-60dB. I would ask researchers to pay more attention to the topic of measuring nonharmonic distortion in speakers. It is interesting! And also add measurements to the table, where it would be possible to compare different dynamics with each other in terms of inharmonic distortions. Thanks!

Do you mean non-harmonic or non-linear?

 

[scherbakov_al]

Do you mean non-harmonic or non-linear?

Oh sorry. Of course, nonlinear distortion. Non-harmonic concerns musical instruments.

 

[wsmith]

I'm puzzled by this latest observation. I use my Genelecs and have co-produced at DAWs of friends with their Genlec models. Using them as designed, as near-field reference monitors.

They are designed to close enough to render room acoustic reflections inconsequential.

Now, I get it re the desire to explore using them as entertainment, audiophile monitors. I too aspire to eventually give em a try in a HT surround set up. I'm currently using my pair for listening to music in my living room acoustic reflections and all. Using as such involves the same considerations as any other entertainment monitors across the room or at some distance.

I'd like to upgrade to the 8341 SAMs where the GLM calibration app can be used. Unlike something like Dirac, which tells you where best to place the monitors (I've never used it), GLM changes the sonic signature of the monitors and also the latency on individual monitors based on the mic position. Thus they are designed to perform better in a acoustically poor room. Even with GLM you still keep them near-field to use them designed, i.e. post-production audio work.

I'd love to hear from anyone using SAM models with GLM in an entertainment setting and or HT surround setting. Including with the matched sub woofer which is, in my personal opinion, would be even more important in such settings.

I've recorded and done post work on big orchestras recorded in big halls and never really felt like I was missing much by not working with a sub. (In any case, I often crank up the volume enough for short periods that I really need to use headphones to properly assess the LFE and not raise complaints from my condo neighbors)

Again, hopefully we can hear from users of SAM models with matched subs and GLM in entertainment settings.

Thanks

 

[q3cpma]

Oh sorry. Of course, nonlinear distortion. Non-harmonic concerns musical instruments.

Not really, loudspeakers suffer from IMD too.

Unlike something like Dirac, which tells you where best to place the monitors (I've never used it), GLM changes the sonic signature of the monitors and also the latency on individual monitors based on the mic position.

Dirac does this too, though I don't know if it does per channel phase compensation; not very important, to be honest.

 

[stevenswall]

Also, a long product lifecycle because they rewrite the SOTA in their designs the first time round, and then only need make minute revisions (eg. power-saving electronics). The 8030/40/50 came out in 2004 and have stayed almost identical since but are still excellent. And then the next big change was the 8351A (and the short-lived transitional 8260A), bringing with it a fundamental rethink of speaker design.

The 8260 was in production almost a decade it seems. Transition wise the engineering finally seems to have trickled down to newer moderls looking at the smoother roll off with the 8341B graphs I've seen compared to the original 8341A, just need more bass extension from The Ones and the smaller ones don't seem to control dispersion quite as low as the 8260 slightly lower frequencies

Maybe with a bit more development the next 8361 will go noticeably deeper and not roll off so much off axis when you look at the 45deg and 60deg lines which look closer to the original The Ones: (In this case it looks like the 8361 is a step back from the B models of The Ones.)

Wider dispersion, smoother roll off for the decade old speaker on the left, narrower dispersion, more ragged roll off on the right. You can also see the bass extension here with the newer speaker rolling off starting at 40hz instead of 30hz. Not terrible as a sub can take care of deep bass better than either of these can standalone, I just like to see what things can do without since they are so often run without subs, and from an engineering standpoint it's nice to see things that are technically better even if it's a very small difference. (Like the frequency response on the 8260 being +/-1dB rather than +/-1.5dB like other models.)

https://assets.ctfassets.net/4zjnzn...e3a40ce92d0c8d57/8361A_operating_manual_a.pdf

TLDR: I think the 8260 is still trickling down to The Ones in a few ways (Wider dispersion, smoother off axis response, more bass extension, and I think there is a thread on the Genelec forums talking about higher distortion and some phase issues with The Ones and the smaller woofers, which shouldn't be an inherent problem looking at how well the 4" woofers on Devialet's Phantom perform.)

 

[richard12511]

The 8260 was in production almost a decade it seems. Transition wise the engineering finally seems to have trickled down to newer moderls looking at the smoother roll off with the 8341B graphs I've seen compared to the original 8341A, just need more bass extension from The Ones and the smaller ones don't seem to control dispersion quite as low as the 8260 slightly lower frequencies

Maybe with a bit more development the next 8361 will go noticeably deeper and not roll off so much off axis when you look at the 45deg and 60deg lines which look closer to the original The Ones: (In this case it looks like the 8361 is a step back from the B models of The Ones.)

Wider dispersion, smoother roll off for the decade old speaker on the left, narrower dispersion, more ragged roll off on the right. You can also see the bass extension here with the newer speaker rolling off starting at 40hz instead of 30hz. Not terrible as a sub can take care of deep bass better than either of these can standalone, I just like to see what things can do without since they are so often run without subs, and from an engineering standpoint it's nice to see things that are technically better even if it's a very small difference. (Like the frequency response on the 8260 being +/-1dB rather than +/-1.5dB like other models.)

View attachment 85581

https://assets.ctfassets.net/4zjnzn...e3a40ce92d0c8d57/8361A_operating_manual_a.pdf

TLDR: I think the 8260 is still trickling down to The Ones in a few ways (Wider dispersion, smoother off axis response, more bass extension, and I think there is a thread on the Genelec forums talking about higher distortion and some phase issues with The Ones and the smaller woofers, which shouldn't be an inherent problem looking at how well the 4" woofers on Devialet's Phantom perform.)

The 8260A does look better than the 8361A. The 8351b looks perhaps a little smoother than the 8260A, but still not as wide dispersion.

I thought the ones were the successor to the 8260? @q3cpma The Ones do seem to have better vertical dispersion.

*Edit: Quoting a response from the Genelec forum

Hi thesam, i haven't been on the forum for a long time now, but Genelec have asked me to comment on your question as i have a lot of experience on this exact question. I am the Genelec Product Specialist for Australia, you can contact me directly if you'd like via www.studioconnections.com.au

Your question is a very tough one to answer, both speakers are fantastic, but offer different solutions. I have said here on the forum a few times that in my opinion the 8351 is Genelec's best speaker to date, and i still stand by that... BUT that doesn't mean it is the best solution for everyone. The 8260 has more scale than the 8351, it has more extension and more output, typically in most rooms we install them into we are flat down below 20Hz... They are flexible in their mounting and horizontal placement is a viable solution due to the coax driver...

The Ones images like no other speakers i've heard, and the 8351's are by far my favourite "Ones"... but they don't do what 8260's do... A close friend of mine owns 8260's, so one day i eagerly visited him with a pair of 8351's to allow him to compare... side by side in his room which is massive, it is a factory space essentially, so L 25m x W 10m x H 6m. In this room the 51's couldn't compete with the 60's there was no contest....

Once i know more about your needs, what type of content you work on and what typical SPL you are monitoring at, i can give more specific advice. One thing to note, there has been much talk of the newer smaller ones 31's and 41's being superior to the 51's as they have more powerful processing and more filter choices, i totally discount this theory, i spend most of my life critically listening to all sorts of different installs and helping users exploit the most performance from their monitors.. The tech in the 8260's, 8351's and all the Genelec Main Monitors is well up to scratch...

Contact me, Steve at Studio Connections and i'll see if i can arrange something for you.. We have just sold a pair of 8260's into a Sydney facility after discussing very similar questions to yours.

 

[Sancus]

If you trust Genelecs spec, the 8361A get *a lot* louder than the 8260A while being about the same size. So, if you were trying to fill an 80 foot room lol... The 8351B is of course a much smaller speaker. I suspect the 8361A was designed to combat some beliefs that The Ones don't get loud enough

8361A vs 8260A is interesting but I suspect we are talking about extremely incremental differences.

 

[stevenswall]

The 8260A does look better than the 8361A. The 8351b looks perhaps a little smoother than the 8260A, but still not as wide dispersion.

I thought the ones were the successor to the 8260? The Ones do seem to have better vertical dispersion.

*Edit: Quoting a response from the Genelec forum

Yeah, the B series of the Ones looks as smooth perhaps smoother. Finally getting there and surpassing it in that regard. They are the successors, but the 8260 at the time seemed to be their all out effort at paying attention to every single aspect of the design. The next 8361 will probably be more like that. Better in every measurable way.

Oh yes, vertical dispersion, yes that looks better on The Ones. I've seen that forum post you quoted and wish he'd make arguments backed with measurements. Scale, dynamics, body, power, all seem to be ways of saying SPL.

This being Audio Science Review, I'm curious if anyone could point out how an 8351b for example is measurably and comprehensively better than the 8260, which frankly I'm shocked has lasted this long.

 

[stevenswall]

If you trust Genelecs spec, the 8361A get *a lot* louder than the 8260A while being about the same size. So, if you were trying to fill an 80 foot room lol... The 8351B is of course a much smaller speaker. I suspect the 8361A was designed to combat some beliefs that The Ones don't get loud enough

8361A vs 8260A is interesting but I suspect we are talking about extremely incremental differences.

For the louder people who don't care so much about more ragged off axis, I imagine they'd be better served by the 1238 or something in that series.

As far as extremely incremental differences, besides SPL, it seems off that a speaker with most of a decade more engineering time doesn't trounce the 8260.

 

[Sancus]

For the louder people who don't care so much about more ragged off axis, I imagine they'd be better served by the 1238 or something in that series.

As far as extremely incremental differences, besides SPL, it seems off that a speaker with most of a decade more engineering time doesn't trounce the 8260.

Well, SPL is important, I mean REALLY important. Higher SPL capability also generally comes with less distortion even when not maxing things out. And you already have people complain that Genelecs don't get loud enough for the price. It makes no sense to compare any of the coaxials to non-coaxials at all imo, they're qualitatively different things. But I mean you must have had this same conversation at least 20 times on these forums already. You think the 8260A is the best, we get it That vertical dispersion still looks ridiculously ragged to me for a coaxial.

But it is difficult to decide how audible any of this stuff is without more precise data, the Genelec contour maps are pretty low resolution compared to what we get out of the Klippel. Get both of those speakers in it and then we'll talk. When you have speakers that are already so good, it's sort of pointless to talk about average stats like +/- 1.5dB. You have to look at the directivity and evenness at particular frequencies, distortion too, and all that, which I'm sure Genelec has done. But for example the 8361A has narrower horizontal directivity in the low mid/high bass frequencies. Does that make it sound audibly better? Dunno.

As far as 10 years not making that much improvement, I suspect it gets much tougher to improve the closer you get to perfection.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

I'm puzzled by this latest observation. I use my Genelecs and have co-produced at DAWs of friends with their Genlec models. Using them as designed, as near-field reference monitors.

They are designed to close enough to render room acoustic reflections inconsequential.

Now, I get it re the desire to explore using them as entertainment, audiophile monitors. I too aspire to eventually give em a try in a HT surround set up. I'm currently using my pair for listening to music in my living room acoustic reflections and all. Using as such involves the same considerations as any other entertainment monitors across the room or at some distance.

I'd like to upgrade to the 8341 SAMs where the GLM calibration app can be used. Unlike something like Dirac, which tells you where best to place the monitors (I've never used it), GLM changes the sonic signature of the monitors and also the latency on individual monitors based on the mic position. Thus they are designed to perform better in a acoustically poor room. Even with GLM you still keep them near-field to use them designed, i.e. post-production audio work.

I'd love to hear from anyone using SAM models with GLM in an entertainment setting and or HT surround setting. Including with the matched sub woofer which is, in my personal opinion, would be even more important in such settings.

I've recorded and done post work on big orchestras recorded in big halls and never really felt like I was missing much by not working with a sub. (In any case, I often crank up the volume enough for short periods that I really need to use headphones to properly assess the LFE and not raise complaints from my condo neighbors)

Again, hopefully we can hear from users of SAM models with matched subs and GLM in entertainment settings.

Thanks

With Genelec subs you are paying for ultra compactness (their fancy spiral port), ruggedness, GLM integration, I/O, and 200 lb shipping from Finland. Performance won't be great compared to internet direct subwoofers costing far less. The subwoofer lock in is the main reason I wouldn't recommend GLM for home use. You are unlikely to get any benefit over Dirac. They both have the same problem with assuming in-room steady state response is how humans perceive sound.

 

[richard12511]

Yeah, the B series of the Ones looks as smooth perhaps smoother. Finally getting there and surpassing it in that regard. They are the successors, but the 8260 at the time seemed to be their all out effort at paying attention to every single aspect of the design. The next 8361 will probably be more like that. Better in every measurable way.

Oh yes, vertical dispersion, yes that looks better on The Ones. I've seen that forum post you quoted and wish he'd make arguments backed with measurements. Scale, dynamics, body, power, all seem to be ways of saying SPL.

This being Audio Science Review, I'm curious if anyone could point out how an 8351b for example is measurably and comprehensively better than the 8260, which frankly I'm shocked has lasted this long.

The thing that stood out most to me with that quote was the imaging comment. Based on personal experience, I suspect the superior imaging of the 8351b is due to a combination of being fully coaxial and having narrower dispersion. My coaxial narrow dispersion speakers image much better than my non-coaxial wide dispersion speakers. This is by far the biggest difference between the two, and the first thing everyone noticed - and commented on - when we compared them side by side in stereo. It doesn't surprise me that he noticed the same thing with the Genelecs.

On the flip side, I would expect the 8260a to sound more enveloping, again based on my personal experience. So, if you have a strong preference for that more enveloping sound, the 8260a may still be the better speaker. It's also much bigger, so if you have a huge room and listen super loud, there's that advantage as well.

 

[richard12511]

With Genelec subs you are paying for ultra compactness (their fancy spiral port), ruggedness, GLM integration, I/O, and 200 lb shipping from Finland. Performance won't be great compared to internet direct subwoofers costing far less. The subwoofer lock in is the main reason I wouldn't recommend GLM for home use. You are unlikely to get any benefit over Dirac. They both have the same problem with assuming in-room steady state response is how humans perceive sound.

The advantage of GLM over Dirac to me is the ease of use and integration. I think a properly setup GLM system with Genelec subs will sound much better than a poorly setup Dirac system with ID subs. Of course, I also think a properly setup Dirac system with ID subs will sound much better than a properly setup GLM system with Genelec subs. I think it depends on your goals and priorities. For a secondary system, I think I'd go with the GLM approach.

 

[q3cpma]

This being Audio Science Review, I'm curious if anyone could point out how an 8351b for example is measurably and comprehensively better than the 8260, which frankly I'm shocked has lasted this long.

Only talking about inherent advantages: sound power and being full-range coaxial with no drawbacks (amazing vertical dispersion, complete time alignement and compactness). The sound power, more than probably a result of the smoother baffle step due to the "woofer system" being symmetrically placed inside the boundaries of the cabinet, is especially interesting.

Otherwise, the 8260A is still amazing and I would have loved to see it updated with newer tech, as its standalone use would probably rival expensive floorstanders. But Genelec having fully embraced subwoofers, it makes sense to not continue making it.

 

[EchoChamber]

Yesterday, I finally had a first go at properly setting up my 8030C's in my attic/home office space. Now with a power cord and balanced XLR cables of the right length (DYI Supra cables), moving them away from the Schiit Freya S was much easier - no XLR cable chain... This is an untreated room and as you can see in the picture far from an acoustically ideal setup... Yet, using REW + Umik for measurements to set a mix of built-in bass tilt adjustments and a EQ curve for the left speaker through Roon, REW measurements show a fairly behaved curve at the listening position (sorry, I forgot to save the post setup measurements). Subjective listening at moderate volumes is excellent, at higher volume it is capable of shaking the walls, but the reflective nature of the room starts to get in the way a bit... Sound stage is quite good even when working behind my 32" monitor (speakers are not blocked by monitor).

Final adjustment was:

Left Speaker
-6 dB bass tilt
EQ: 69.6 Hz / -5 dB / Q 2.34

Right Speaker
-4 dB bass tilt
EQ: none

PS: by ear, I had set bass tilt at -6 dB to both speakers, and -2 dB treble tilt. That 68-70 Hz spike was messing everything up... This is how that first subjective adjustment looked like at the listening position (without Roon EQ):

 

[ElNino]

Did you eventually turn off the -2dB treble tilt, or did you leave it on?

 

[EchoChamber]

Did you eventually turn off the -2dB treble tilt, or did you leave it on?

Yes, I turned treble tilt off, I now only have bass tilt applied (-6 dB for the left speaker and -4 dB for the right).

 

[AnalogSteph]

Looks neat. I would assume your ceiling / roof is posing some substantial early reflection issues though... treatment likely required.

 

[EchoChamber]

Looks neat. I would assume your ceiling / roof is posing some substantial early reflection issues though... treatment likely required.

Yes, and it is very obvious by just clapping hands in that room... Listening at low volumes, the reflection are tolerable, but louder and it smears and colors the sound... I need to find a practical and discreet solution.