Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review

[Longshan]

The driver in the middle is a mid range unit, not a "woofer"

Ok, I call that a mid-woofer.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Ok, I call that a mid-woofer.

Well you would be wrong.
Mid-woofers are fitted to 2-way speakers.
The lowest frequencies sent to the mid range of the 8351 is 320Hz, which, even as a fundamental, is it in the upper half of the piano keyboard (middle C is around 261 HZ) so it is not even remotely a woofer.

 

[Longshan]

Well you would be wrong.
Mid-woofers are fitted to 2-way speakers.
The lowest frequencies sent to the mid range of the 8351 is 320Hz, which, even as a fundamental, is it in the upper half of the piano keyboard (middle C is around 261 HZ) so it is not even remotely a woofer.

I guess I use the term to denote a speaker cone serving the midrange. Is it not the same as a sqwauker?

 

[Frank Dernie]

I guess I use the term to denote a speaker cone serving the midrange. Is it not the same as a sqwauker?

A woofer is slang a bass driver. It isn't a term I use, for me a "mid-woofer" is a "bass-midrange" unit, which covers everyting from bass to mid range and is the main driver in 2-way speakers.
A 3-way will have bass, mid and treble units.
Woofer and tweeter were both slang terms which have fallen into general usage (or maybe they were always US terms?). I have seen "squawker" used for mid drivers but not for many years and never in English.

 

[Longshan]

A woofer is slang a bass driver. It isn't a term I use, for me a "mid-woofer" is a "bass-midrange" unit, which covers everyting from bass to mid range and is the main driver in 2-way speakers.
A 3-way will have bass, mid and treble units.
Woofer and tweeter were both slang terms which have fallen into general usage (or maybe they were always US terms?). I have seen "squawker" used for mid drivers but not for many years and never in English.

I think sqwuaker is synonymous with mid-woofer/mid-driver.

 

[Puddingbuks]

What Genelec says:

8331a:
Driver Dimensions
2 x H 65 x W 130 mm Bass + ⌀ 90 mm Midrange + ⌀ 19 mm Treble (view in inches)

8351b:
Driver Dimensions
2 x H 101 x W 218 mm Bass + ⌀ 130 mm Midrange + ⌀ 25 mm Treble (view in inches)

Midrange it is.

https://www.genelec.com/8331a#section-technical-specifications

 

[Frank Dernie]

I think sqwuaker is synonymous with mid-woofer/mid-driver.

I have never seen it to describe a bass-mid unit, only a mid.

 

[Longshan]

I have never seen it to describe a bass-mid unit, only a mid.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

Many years ago before the ubiquitous 2-way when I saw in the odd hifi magazine describe 3-way's units as tweeters, squawkers and woofers I always thought what a silly childish bunch of slang words, but tweeter and woofer have stuck and are in frequent usage nowadays!

 

[jonfitch]

What are the results of the test? lol

The 8331 is deader sounding than the 8341 but I doubt it really makes any performance difference in the bass. For anyone curious about how the 8341 cabinet sounds like, Zeos knocks on the middle of the slit in his video so yeah, there is hollower ring compared to the 8331, but with bass I would imagine you would hear objects rattling in the room before you heard the difference in cabinet resonance.

The much bigger difference between the 8341 and the 8331 is the directivity performance--the 8341 is just a lot smoother and thus is a lot easier to listen to. The 8331 has a shelved up power response in the 300-800hz range and a ~3db rise at 600hz in the off axis curves and dispersion suddenly widens at that frequency, which makes some percussion instruments, especially piano sound very forward compared to 8341. Also vocals sound more like someone cupped their hands around their mouth compared to the 8341 which is more laid back here--might be difference in baffle shape/width causing it since the drivers are the same.

I think the power response and dispersion curves explains most of the sound difference here between the two speakers. On axis FR is close, but the 8331 has more of a rise in the treble than the 8341 so will sound brighter even with bass equalized.

 

[richard12511]

No I'm just saying it looks Darko, Aaron, and it looks like me have similar impressions with regards to soundstage size versus the measurements, it appears the speaker with declining off-axis curves all sounded "larger" during listening tests. I'm just trying to think this through as far as explaining what I'm hearing, it could be I'm describing it wrong. I also had a couple of friends also demo the Revel/KEF vs Genelec 8341 and 8331. They all agreed the Genelecs sounded like they had "no soundstage" in comparison to the KEFs or Revels--their words. I'm postulating it may be part of the same effect that Darko is describing of the Kii's soundstage like they are in the front row, whereas the KEFs sound like they are way back.

Darko has said enough things that are totally opposite of reality that I really can't take what he has to say seriously. I do enjoy his videos, though, mainly for the production value.

I think what's going on with Darko's impressions has far more to do with hifi vs pro expectation bias. The actual differences between these speakers are pretty minor, with the biggest audible difference being dispersion width. Expectation bias can have a massive impact on what our brain hears, much more than slight dispersion width differences. It's the reason why Darko can hear "clear" and "profound" differences between DACs that sound exactly the same. I'd bet that his impressions fall apart under blind conditions.

Darko's pro vs hifi expectation is clear in the way he reviews such speakers. Without fail, he describes pro monitors as clinical, truthful, they "tell you exactly what's there". "If the production is bad, they let you know". He says something similar to this with every active monitor he reviews, regardless of how neutral it actually is. I don't think he realizes just how accurate KEF speakers are. The KEF R3 is as accurate as the Kii 3 or 8341. Revel, KEF, Kii, and Genelec are all very neutral, and the differences between them mostly lie in the dispersion widths. The wider dispersion width will determine the width of the soundstage, as well as the tightness of the images within that soundstage. The wider the dispersion, the wider the soundstage will be.

In terms of dispersion width:
Revel > Genelec > KEF

So in terms of soundstage width, Revel will be wider than Genelec(which I can confirm here), while KEF will be the most narrow. What confuses me is that you seem to be grouping the Revel and KEF together, when objectively the Genelec and Revel are more similar. My guess is that you are running into the same pro vs hifi expectation bias that Darko is, and thus grouping. I don't have the KEF here to compare, but I ran a blind test with my parents between the Genelec and Revel here recently, and all of the impressions were in line with the measured dispersion widths. The Revels threw a wider soundstage and were *actual quotes from video* " "more enveloping", "more reverb", while the Genelec were *actual quotes* "clearer", "more like the singer is right there in front of you". The KEF comparison is harder for me, since I don't have the KEF here to compare, but I would expect the KEF to be even more clear than the Genelec, given that the dispersion is even more narrow, and it's just as neutral.

So I've found a small sample of people that seem to have similar opinions. From Harman's research people have different hearing and they are targeting a composite, maybe we are all outside of the norm--who knows. I merely theorized that expectation of higher frequencies being narrow in directivity might have been the cause of some speakers with more rapid (but still very orderly and linear) off-axis curves sounding much larger.

Honestly, this does make sense, but where I get confused is when you group the Revel and KEF together as having more narrow treble dispersion. Objectively, the Revel has more off axis treble energy than the Genelec, which has more off axis treble energy than the KEF.

I'm guessing the disagreement here is mostly about words and how they are being used.

I agree. I'm guessing what we're hearing is likely similar, but we're just describing it differently.

One thing that I agree with(or at least I can't disagree with) is your comments about soundstage depth. My Genelec's image definitely is closer in space to me than my Revels. I'm honestly not sure what measurements can explain this. I do know that turning on GLM makes the image move even closer to me. Do you experience something similar? @thewas mentioned that it could be due to making the left/right speakers more closely matched, which GLM definitely does. Something to note is that Genelec recently commented here saying that they individually calibrate every 8351 with DSP to make it match closer to target. Revel and KEF definitely can't do this(due to being passive), so Genelec's should be much more closely matched.

 

[jonfitch]

Darko has said enough things that are totally opposite of reality that I really can't take what he has to say seriously. I do enjoy his videos, though, mainly for the production value.

I think what's going on with Darko's impressions has far more to do with hifi vs pro expectation bias. The actual differences between these speakers are pretty minor, with the biggest audible difference being dispersion width. Expectation bias can have a massive impact on what our brain hears, much more than slight dispersion width differences. It's the reason why Darko can hear "clear" and "profound" differences between DACs that sound exactly the same. I'd bet that his impressions fall apart under blind conditions.

Darko's pro vs hifi expectation is clear in the way he reviews such speakers. Without fail, he describes pro monitors as clinical, truthful, they "tell you exactly what's there". "If the production is bad, they let you know". He says something similar to this with every active monitor he reviews, regardless of how neutral it actually is. I don't think he realizes just how accurate KEF speakers are. The KEF R3 is as accurate as the Kii 3 or 8341. Revel, KEF, Kii, and Genelec are all very neutral, and the differences between them mostly lie in the dispersion widths. The wider dispersion width will determine the width of the soundstage, as well as the tightness of the images within that soundstage. The wider the dispersion, the wider the soundstage will be.

In terms of dispersion width:
Revel > Genelec > KEF

So in terms of soundstage width, Revel will be wider than Genelec(which I can confirm here), while KEF will be the most narrow. What confuses me is that you seem to be grouping the Revel and KEF together, when objectively the Genelec and Revel are more similar. My guess is that you are running into the same pro vs hifi expectation bias that Darko is, and thus grouping. I don't have the KEF here to compare, but I ran a blind test with my parents between the Genelec and Revel here recently, and all of the impressions were in line with the measured dispersion widths. The Revels threw a wider soundstage and were *actual quotes from video* " "more enveloping", "more reverb", while the Genelec were *actual quotes* "clearer", "more like the singer is right there in front of you". The KEF comparison is harder for me, since I don't have the KEF here to compare, but I would expect the KEF to be even more clear than the Genelec, given that the dispersion is even more narrow, and it's just as neutral.



Honestly, this does make sense, but where I get confused is when you group the Revel and KEF together as having more narrow treble dispersion. Objectively, the Revel has more off axis treble energy than the Genelec, which has more off axis treble energy than the KEF.


I agree. I'm guessing what we're hearing is likely similar, but we're just describing it differently.

One thing that I agree with(or at least I can't disagree with) is your comments about soundstage depth. My Genelec's image definitely is closer in space to me than my Revels. I'm honestly not sure what measurements can explain this. I do know that turning on GLM makes the image move even closer to me. Do you experience something similar? @thewas mentioned that it could be due to making the left/right speakers more closely matched, which GLM definitely does. Something to note is that Genelec recently commented here saying that they individually calibrate every 8351 with DSP to make it match closer to target. Revel and KEF definitely can't do this(due to being passive), so Genelec's should be much more closely matched.

Nope, you are mostly arguing with a strawman, that's why I haven't really been responding to some of your posts. Like most things on the internet, arguments devolve into arguments over the meaning of words, how the words are used, or hierarchical reputational management, which seems to me where you are going with Darko and attributing to me opinions I don't have based on reading on inferences I had no intention of making to anyone. I'm pretty sure we are hearing the same thing and having different ways of describing it. The picture I drew of the soundstage in the previous page pretty much sums what I hear, no more need to argue over imprecise language or semantics. That's probably the best way to leave it.

 

[richard12511]

Nope, you are mostly arguing with a strawman, that's why I haven't really been responding to some of your posts. Like most things on the internet, arguments devolve into arguments over the meaning of words, how the words are used, or hierarchical reputational management, which seems to me where you are going with Darko and attributing to me opinions I don't have based on reading on inferences I had no intention of making to anyone. I'm pretty sure we are hearing the same thing and having different ways of describing it. The picture I drew of the soundstage in the previous page pretty much sums what I hear, no more need to argue over imprecise language or semantics. That's probably the best way to leave it.

You're misunderstanding me(or I'm not explaining myself well). I'm not arguing. I'm asking for clarification. I agree we're describing the same things differently.

Objectively:
soundstage width = Revel > Genelec > KEF
clarity = KEF > Genelec > Revel
"closeness" = I have no idea what causes this, but subjectively my Genelecs do sound closer than my Revels

Subjectively:
soundstage width: Revel > Genelec
clarity: Genelec > Revel
closeness: Genelec > Revel

I don't own the KEF to compare, but where do you disagree? You seem to be saying that narrower treble dispersion = closer with less soundstage width, yet the Revel has wider treble dispersion than the Genelec, and the Genelec has wider treble dispersion than the KEF. Where do you disagree?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Darko has said enough things that are totally opposite of reality that I really can't take what he has to say seriously. I do enjoy his videos, though, mainly for the production value.

I think what's going on with Darko's impressions has far more to do with hifi vs pro expectation bias. The actual differences between these speakers are pretty minor, with the biggest audible difference being dispersion width. Expectation bias can have a massive impact on what our brain hears, much more than slight dispersion width differences. It's the reason why Darko can hear "clear" and "profound" differences between DACs that sound exactly the same. I'd bet that his impressions fall apart under blind conditions.

Darko's pro vs hifi expectation is clear in the way he reviews such speakers. Without fail, he describes pro monitors as clinical, truthful, they "tell you exactly what's there". "If the production is bad, they let you know". He says something similar to this with every active monitor he reviews, regardless of how neutral it actually is. I don't think he realizes just how accurate KEF speakers are. The KEF R3 is as accurate as the Kii 3 or 8341. Revel, KEF, Kii, and Genelec are all very neutral, and the differences between them mostly lie in the dispersion widths. The wider dispersion width will determine the width of the soundstage, as well as the tightness of the images within that soundstage. The wider the dispersion, the wider the soundstage will be.

In terms of dispersion width:
Revel > Genelec > KEF

So in terms of soundstage width, Revel will be wider than Genelec(which I can confirm here), while KEF will be the most narrow. What confuses me is that you seem to be grouping the Revel and KEF together, when objectively the Genelec and Revel are more similar. My guess is that you are running into the same pro vs hifi expectation bias that Darko is, and thus grouping. I don't have the KEF here to compare, but I ran a blind test with my parents between the Genelec and Revel here recently, and all of the impressions were in line with the measured dispersion widths. The Revels threw a wider soundstage and were *actual quotes from video* " "more enveloping", "more reverb", while the Genelec were *actual quotes* "clearer", "more like the singer is right there in front of you". The KEF comparison is harder for me, since I don't have the KEF here to compare, but I would expect the KEF to be even more clear than the Genelec, given that the dispersion is even more narrow, and it's just as neutral.



Honestly, this does make sense, but where I get confused is when you group the Revel and KEF together as having more narrow treble dispersion. Objectively, the Revel has more off axis treble energy than the Genelec, which has more off axis treble energy than the KEF.


I agree. I'm guessing what we're hearing is likely similar, but we're just describing it differently.

One thing that I agree with(or at least I can't disagree with) is your comments about soundstage depth. My Genelec's image definitely is closer in space to me than my Revels. I'm honestly not sure what measurements can explain this. I do know that turning on GLM makes the image move even closer to me. Do you experience something similar? @thewas mentioned that it could be due to making the left/right speakers more closely matched, which GLM definitely does. Something to note is that Genelec recently commented here saying that they individually calibrate every 8351 with DSP to make it match closer to target. Revel and KEF definitely can't do this(due to being passive), so Genelec's should be much more closely matched.

The question is which has the more accurate soundstage, not just the biggest, if it's bigger than what's actually on the recording then what's the point?

 

[richard12511]

The question is which has the more accurate soundstage, not just the biggest, if it's bigger than what's actually on the recording then what's the point?

That's a question I can't answer. Probably the speaker that is closest to the soundstage width of the speaker it was produced with.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I'm honestly not sure what measurements can explain this. I do know that turning on GLM makes the image move even closer to me.

For me, as I have written before, it is the slope of the FR curve. Steeper makes the sound further away, less steep closer.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The question is which has the more accurate soundstage, not just the biggest, if it's bigger than what's actually on the recording then what's the point?

Wide dispersion speakers inevitably must be adding to the soundstage but is preferred, apparently.
I would expect narrower dispersion to give a more accurate soundstage from my small experience with my own recordings.
Wide dispersion gives "euphonic coloration" IMO, but is preferred by the majority (more even than valve amplifiers )
Personally if I were to buy Genelecs I would choose ones for which they specify my listening distance to be mainly direct sound, which means only a few of them comply.
KEF would probably be a better choice for me.

 

[CJH]

In an attempt to answer Richard12511 question about consistent soundstage depth. You need to have a very flat frequency response, linear phase and time alignment of the drivers. Genelec being active DSP has the leading edge here.
CJH

 

[aarons915]

You're misunderstanding me(or I'm not explaining myself well). I'm not arguing. I'm asking for clarification. I agree we're describing the same things differently.

Objectively:
soundstage width = Revel > Genelec > KEF
clarity = KEF > Genelec > Revel
"closeness" = I have no idea what causes this, but subjectively my Genelecs do sound closer than my Revels

Subjectively:
soundstage width: Revel > Genelec
clarity: Genelec > Revel
closeness: Genelec > Revel

I don't own the KEF to compare, but where do you disagree? You seem to be saying that narrower treble dispersion = closer with less soundstage width, yet the Revel has wider treble dispersion than the Genelec, and the Genelec has wider treble dispersion than the KEF. Where do you disagree?

I know this is a bit off topic but it's interesting to me that so many assume Revel is automatically an ultra wide dispersion design while KEF is a narrow dispersion design and I'm just not really seeing that when looking at measurements or through my own listening tests I've done. If we check the directivity indexes of various Revels, KEFs and this Genelec, they are all very close to each other and are maybe 1 decibel better or worse in certain frequencies. I really can't imagine reflections that are at most 1 decibel stronger to be such a difference in perceived soundstage and I haven't found that to be true in my own listening tests. Then when we factor in that these differences basically disappear when 2 or more speakers are playing together, the wide vs narrow dispersion debate really seems like a non factor in the real world, maybe I'm missing something?

Some KEF are neutral and some aren't so neutral so without knowing which ones you were listening to it could be that the Genelec and Revel were just both closer to neutral and that is the reason why they sounded more similar?

 

[Sancus]

I know this is a bit off topic but it's interesting to me that so many assume Revel is automatically an ultra wide dispersion design while KEF is a narrow dispersion design and I'm just not really seeing that when looking at measurements or through my own listening tests I've done. If we check the directivity indexes of various Revels, KEFs and this Genelec, they are all very close to each other and are maybe 1 decibel better or worse in certain frequencies.

So, I tend to agree that people overstate the differences between Genelec and Kef dispersion. However, the Kef R3 and Revel F208 are ~2dB apart from 1-10khz, which is the region you usually notice dispersion differences as translating to spatial qualities I think.

The real question is: How audible are changes in DI? I don't think there is actually a good explanation of that in Toole's book, even. My guess would be significantly more audible than they seem intuitively.

There is a study referenced by Toole about audibility of different directivity patterns. The graphs aren't exactly... the nicest quality... but their "direct radiator" design and "cardioid" design(pg 293) seem to correspond more or less to the differences I see between the Revel F208 and the Kef R3. And the answer to "was this audible" seems to have been yes. In their first experiment, they varied only the surrounds in a 5-channel system, yet there were significant differences even then. Question 1 is envelopment, Question 2 is detail.

In the 2nd experiment, they varied the front 3 speakers, and while more marginal than the 1st experiment, differences were still audible(and proved that it's... extremely bad to have a significantly different center from your L/R, lol). We know that surround systems make it harder to discern qualitative differences between speakers, so it's logical to predict that audibility of directivity differences is significantly more pronounced in stereo, let alone mono.

It's also important to remember that sound power DI uses the listening window, which ignores vertical dispersion past +/- 10 degrees. So, built into it is the standard "vertical directivity doesn't matter that much" assumption of the Spinorama, which IMO is one of its least well-supported assumptions.

I suspect that a better way to show differences in the overall sound field created by a dispersion pattern would be to calculate the critical distance for each speaker in a standard room. Genelec does this in their "correct monitors" chart and it leads to pretty big differences even though the dispersion of their speakers doesn't vary that much. The 8341A and the 1236A are different by 2x despite the latter's horizontal dispersion being at most (+/-) 10 degrees less than the 8341A's. Vertically there is a much bigger difference, of course... Probably not.

Interestingly, the Neumann KH80, Kef R3, and Genelec 8341A are more similar than not up until about 4khz at which point Genelec diverges with consistently wider dispersion. I suspect that this, too, is audible and probably what leads to the common perception that Genelecs are brighter.