Genelec 8330A Review (Studio Monitor)

[daftcombo]

The thing people may overlook is that for many Genelecs the power supply is the weak point, not the amplifiers. The 8030C and 8330A have a 50 watt power supply that probably outputs around 45W to be used for the entire speaker. The two times 50 watt amps in the speakers will never reach their full potential. I know the tweeter does not use much power but even the woofer amplifier does not get the power it could use.

Very interesting. How do you know that, and does it apply to the rest of the 8xxx range?

 

[Sancus]

So, do you think the speaker Amir measured already had the 2kHz filter in place? Maybe he just needs to apply the 4.1 update.

I think it probably didn't. And you'd need to download GLM 4.1, and then click on the speaker in the group config and do the firmware update. I just did this for all of my Genelecs and it's kind of annoying when you have a bunch since there was no way to just queue them all up that I could find, lol.

 

[miofu]

https://www.genelec.com/8430a
I like this! Probably in future most of monitors will have just rj45 for AES67 signal, so can be connected direct to PC via network card/switch
Unfortunately GLAM is not normal ethernet ip connection but proprietary.

 

[MaxRockbin]

x

https://www.genelec.com/8430a
I like this! Probably in future most of monitors will have just rj45 for AES67 signal, so can be connected direct to PC via network card/switch
Unfortunately GLAM is not normal ethernet ip connection but proprietary.

Kind of odd that it doesn't have Wifi, isn't it? I mean, as long as it's taking IP input.

 

[miofu]

x

Kind of odd that it doesn't have Wifi, isn't it? I mean, as long as it's taking IP input.

No, wifi cant be considered as time critical connection. There would be high latency, and speakers might not be synchronized to source, we don't need this
Think about this as digital connection, but instead use AES from DAC, you can connect speaker direct to pc network card and use high sample rates with very small latency like us. This is future, next will be ethernet dacs not usb dacs.

https://en-de.neumann.com/kh-750-aes67
This sub has this too, so signal may be routed to monitors via it's digital AES3 output, or analog xlrs

 

[KaLam1ty]

...
I plan to do a 4.1 test and compare - though I'm also in the means of packing a messy room, so I'm not sure if it'd be a fair 1:1 comparison. I'll share when I can spare the moment.

Got around to updating 4.0 to 4.1 (AutoCal2) Calibration today. Some may be interested in the changes. As mentioned.. the room is in a bit of a mess right now and not in the exact state as it was during the original calibration. So the comparison is not 1:1, but I think the room measurements are close enough to get an idea of the changes.

Most important take away is to review how the major peaks have been handled compared to the previous iteration:

Using 4.0:

Using 4.1 (AutoCal2) - No High Shelf:

Open both images in two tabs and Ctrl+Tab between the two. Again, ignore the slight differences outside of the major peaks due to a changing room. The most immediate improvements are the:
* Flatter Sub Response, due to more aggressive use of notches.
* Flatter 100Hz - 1KHz region, also due to more aggressive use of notch.

Amusingly, the Level Comps and Sub Phase was changed; though I'm not entirely sure why. Perhaps it's a at a higher level due to compensating for my next point. Which...

* AutoCal2 now applies a High Shelf. The above screenshot has it removed for easier comparison between the two "Flat" responses. My understanding, based on Mr. Lund's comments, is this is now applied to achieve a flatter perceived sound and applied to rooms which are not your ideal scenario (Certainly not mine, ....) In any case, this is how the response actually looks after a raw calibration:

My room was given about -2dB High Shelves around 650Hz.

It's hard to give an unbias and conclusive review at this moment. The first two corrections are honestly very hard to differentiate. The one with the new High Shelf is very obvious, so I'll be listening between this and the flat 4.1 correction over the next few weeks to judge.

 

[MaxRockbin]

No, wifi cant be considered as time critical connection. There would be high latency, and speakers might not be synchronized to source, we don't need this

Maybe you're right, though I think the latency for wifi if your router is nearby is a few ms. And the speakers can be synched. "True wireless" earbuds do it. So do google home speakers for stereo (which are wifi).

 

[zym1010]

Got around to updating 4.0 to 4.1 (AutoCal2) Calibration today. Some may be interested in the changes. As mentioned.. the room is in a bit of a mess right now and not in the exact state as it was during the original calibration. So the comparison is not 1:1, but I think the room measurements are close enough to get an idea of the changes.

Most important take away is to review how the major peaks have been handled compared to the previous iteration:

Using 4.0:
View attachment 147362

Using 4.1 (AutoCal2) - No High Shelf:
View attachment 147363
Open both images in two tabs and Ctrl+Tab between the two. Again, ignore the slight differences outside of the major peaks due to a changing room. The most immediate improvements are the:
* Flatter Sub Response, due to more aggressive use of notches.
* Flatter 100Hz - 1KHz region, also due to more aggressive use of notch.

Amusingly, the Level Comps and Sub Phase was changed; though I'm not entirely sure why. Perhaps it's a at a higher level due to compensating for my next point. Which...

* AutoCal2 now applies a High Shelf. The above screenshot has it removed for easier comparison between the two "Flat" responses. My understanding, based on Mr. Lund's comments, is this is now applied to achieve a flatter perceived sound and applied to rooms which are not your ideal scenario (Certainly not mine, ....) In any case, this is how the response actually looks after a raw calibration:
View attachment 147364

My room was given about -2dB High Shelves around 650Hz.

It's hard to give an unbias and conclusive review at this moment. The first two corrections are honestly very hard to differentiate. The one with the new High Shelf is very obvious, so I'll be listening between this and the flat 4.1 correction over the next few weeks to judge.

i have the same impression as you. My sub now has overall much lower level compared to the 4.0 calibration. it's almost like that the 4.0 one's sub has an overall positive level

 

[soundwave76]

That's very interesting. First time I've heard of GLM being patched to correct the response of a speaker itself and not just the room.

Interesting indeed. It would be great if @Ilkka Rissanen from Genelec could clarify this?

 

[Kurzweil]

Very interesting. How do you know that, and does it apply to the rest of the 8xxx range?

They specify it for every speaker.
8030C - Genelec.com
8330A - Genelec.com
8340A - Genelec.com
Look at "power consumption".

 

[Tangband]

They specify it for every speaker.
8030C - Genelec.com
8330A - Genelec.com
8340A - Genelec.com
Look at "power consumption".

You can see that max power consumption is 60 W for 8030c , 50 W for 8330a and 180 W for 8340.

The 8030c has an analog active filter, maybe more power hungry than the dsp filter in 8330a ?

 

[daftcombo]

They specify it for every speaker.
8030C - Genelec.com
8330A - Genelec.com
8340A - Genelec.com
Look at "power consumption".

Yes, but what does it mean?
It would be absolute nonsense to put two 150W amps if 150W+30W would be sufficient.

 

[Trell]

You can se that max power consumption is 60 W for 8030c , 50 W for 8330a and 180 W for 8340.

The 8030c has an analog active filter, maybe more power hungry than the dsp filter in 8330a ?

Not sure if it's right to say "max power consumption". If you look the manual for 8340A it says "Full output (short term) 180W" where I guess the "short term" is power consumption at "Maximum short term sine wave acoustic output on axis in half space, averaged from 100 Hz to 3 kHz at 1 m ≥ 110 dB SPL". If true this means that max power consumption is higher to handle peaks.

Edit: I think it's more correct to just refer to the "Bass amplifier short term output power " in the same section "AMPLIFIER SECTION".

 

[Spocko]

2kHz is well into speaker correction territory, so it's not a room correction. It seems they've chosen to correct the 2kHz resonance via GLM on not internal DSP. It makes sense that they fix it with DSP, but it is interesting that they do it via GLM and not internally. If that's the case, then it seems that all of these 83XX anechoic measurements may be somewhat meaningless now(since they don't have proper DSP applied). To get true measurements, Amir likely needs to :

1. Measure once anechoically
2. Run GLM
3. Compare GLM filters to anechoic measurements to determine which are room filters and which are speaker filters
4. Store only the speaker filters to the monitors memory
5. Re run the NFS measurements

Really complex, but that's the only real way I see to get accurate measurements now if they've started relying on GLM to do both speaker ad room DSP. That, or maybe Genelec could just give Amir a list of speaker filters that he needs to apply.

Hopefully @amirm has not gone too deep into his GLM testing before reading your suggestion - this makes sense to me too.

 

[NeoZs99]

You can se that max power consumption is 60 W for 8030c , 50 W for 8330a and 180 W for 8340.

The 8030c has an analog active filter, maybe more power hungry than the dsp filter in 8330a ?

The 8340 seems to be a beast on paper. Hopefully someone can send one for a review soon

 

[Spocko]

So, do you think the speaker Amir measured already had the 2kHz filter in place? Maybe he just needs to apply the 4.1 update. Honestly, it makes perfect sense to do both speaker correction and room correction using GLM's filters. It just makes it a PITA to measure, if that's what they're doing.

No, I don't believe @amirm applied GLM at all during this review because he wanted to test GLM independently in a separate review. Actually, it's a happy coincidence that the 8330a measured a bit worse because this allows us to examine the GLM's effectiveness at improving the speaker's performance within the context of the room.

 

[Tangband]

The 8340 seems to be a beast on paper. Hopefully someone can send one for a review soon

I can confirm that with two 8340 in my 40 square meter listening room, with walls of concrete, I have never reached the loudspeakers spl limits and never seen the redlight turned on.

My experience with the Aiyima a04 class D tpa3251 is that a power supply with 120 W or more can play really loud with passive loudspeakers. The Genelec 8340 has 180 W rating for each loudspeaker, so there is for sure a difference in power compared to Genelec 8330 with its power supply of 50 W max spec.

If the class D amplifier chip is the same for 8030c and 8330a, then its the tpa 3118 - a very efficient class D chip, but as an example : 24 V 6.3 A gives about 150 W power rating wich is about the power-limit for that chip .

Maybe for long term use and reability, its more sensible to have like 19 V 3 A = 57 W ? Almost spot on to the genelec spec for 8030c and 8330a .
One channel drives the bass and the other channel drives the tweeter in 8030c, and likely the same with 8330a.

just guessing…

 

[alex30]

Hi all,

I m interested in the 8320 or 8330 , but the more i read about the less i know what to buy

On the Genelec forum they usually say, the bigger the speaker the better , but here i see in the other review that the 8320 are better!

How to choose? How to decide for a new customer like me?

The 8330 cost 500 euros more per pair so is there any worth to buy them or stick to the 8320 is enough?

Moreover, I dont want to buy a subwoofer, my wallet will cry so much

I wil use them at 1 m maximum around from me so , the 8330 will be too big in the volume to use or not ?

I will do mixing, use them with a Maschine+ (standalone synth/sampler/groovebox), and listening.

Is the spectrum of the sound good enough to get proper mixing with the 8320 or the 8330 are certainly better and worth the 500 euros more?

Is the calibration system really worth it or models like 8020/8030 are sufficient?

I need some advices , thanks...

 

[Trell]

Hi all,

I m interested in the 8320 or 8330 , but the more i read about the less i know what to buy

On the Genelec forum they usually say, the bigger the speaker the better , but here i see in the comparison review that the 8320 are better!

How to choose? How to decide for a new customer like me?

The 8330 cost 500 euros more per pair so is there any worth to buy them or stick to the 8320?

I wil use them at 1 m maximum around from me so , the 8330 will be too big in the volume to use or not ?

Is the spectrum of the sound good enough to get proper mixing with the 8320 or the 8330 are certainly better and worth the 500 euros more?

Is the calibration GLM system really worth it or i can stick with the 8020/8030?

I need some advices , thanks...

I bought two pairs of 8330A (one pair with a Genelec subwoofer) for my small home office for two with a listening distance of about 0.8m to 1.0m. I could easily fit the 8330A and found the 8320A too small for me.

If you buy the 8320 or 8330 I think that you should even buy the GLM Kit as you not only can use the excellent GLM calibration, but also some settings that are available on the 8030C as dip switches/rotary knob that 8330A lacks: Change input sensitivity, enable auto standby, various filters.

I've the Genelec 8000-323B/W Table stand L-shape that is real nice.

 

[hmt]

They specify it for every speaker.
8030C - Genelec.com
8330A - Genelec.com
8340A - Genelec.com
Look at "power consumption".

Power comsumtion does not mean that the power supply is limiting. It does not even show what the power supply is capable of. Genelec employs a limiter, that is why the max power consumption is "low".