• 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 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 6 0.9%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 4 0.6%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 28 4.1%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 638 94.4%

  • Total voters
    676

Elkios

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
114
Likes
61
Location
Australia
I haven't, actually. Where do I find that setting? Thanks
Hi unfortunately I sold my 8341 prior to trying it so I'm unsure. If you go to Genelec site it shows the before and after result of activating that is all I know. Last time I heard from new owner he hears the benefit. I will hit him up on location of setting.
 

Sam Ash

Active Member
Joined
May 24, 2017
Messages
162
Likes
37
Hi Amir, great review and I really enjoyed your video and how you expressed your experience. I have a question and it's open to fellow members too. You mentioned that lesser models in the range struggle a bit with volume and the light coming on to signify compromise in terms of clipping and distortion etc. I love it when a company is bold enough to take such honest and down to earth approach, very rare in this day and age.

However, I was wondering how a pair of 8341A's coupled with a 7350A sub would perform in a 2.1 or 2.2 configuration?

Does anyone on the forum own such a configuration or experienced it in a demo?

Furthermore, has anyone experienced the 6040R speakers?

Last but not least, how do the G Four and Five perform in conjunction with the F Series subs for a more affordable living room music listening experience compared to a pair of Sonos Play 1s and a Sonos Sub or a pair of Devialet Phantom 1s?
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,200
Sure, I wrote about it in several places, and the final REW MMM measurements are here.
I'll acknowledge, however, that the rooms are different, and I suspect that the small room and suboptimal placement of the Genelecs may have handicapped them.
Also the EQ/GLM may have handicapped them, unfortunately a not gated listening position measurement does not show how the direct sound was, which should be rather the target above transition frequency if neutrality is desired.

Beats me. I never thought the 8351b's were bright. Especially compared to the HD800 and D9200.
This also shows how dominant habituation (and probably also hearing age) is, if the OP comes from old school BBC type loudspeakers designs he will probably perceive the Genelecs as bright but if someone comes for example from a Sennheiser HD800

1637490060789.png

source: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqnpv0cub6vl12q/Sennheiser HD800 (Optimum HiFi Curve).pdf?dl=0

he rather will find it the opposite.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
3,060
Likes
4,416
Location
France
I'm not sure who exactly you're addressing, but I'll volunteer to answer. I'll start by saying this is the kind of discussion that needs mutual goodwill and tolerance as we seek an answer to a complex question, rather than the kind of antagonism and aggression you include above.
The problem is that "throwing the baby with the bathwater" isn't what I call goodwill, because I don't think it's a sincere mistake, more of a justification or simplistic reduction.
I'm a musician, and I also understand the science pretty well. Probably better than you understand music, anyway.
That's gratuitous, but okay.
I'll start with an imperfect comparison: low noise and distortion are important in electronics, but improvements that happen below the threshold of audibility don't matter; just as FR in a speaker doesn't matter beyond a certain point.
Yes.
The former is well understood and widely accepted. The latter hasn't been tested yet.
Doesn't change the fact that flat is the target, even if the perception of different deviations isn't completely understood.
Except it has, billions of times over the last century. Musical joy and ecstasy have been achieved by listeners with grossly inadequate equipment, when compared to Genelec standards. How is that possible?
That's fallacious, mate; because you don't know if such joy couldn't be greater with better equipment. Anyway, there are two reasons: that joy comes mainly from the content (in most genres, modern music can make use of texture and crushing sound that needs adequate reproduction) and the fact that "ignorance is bliss": you can be happy as long as you don't know that way better sound does exist, stuck in your cave content watching shadows instead of the real thing; or "big fish in a little pond", if you prefer this saying.
We know the brain has immense audio processing capabilities. We experience the effects every second of every day. The sophistication is stunning. Is it unreasonable to surmise the brain interprets and smooths FR where it needs to? In a way we can prove it does - think of the serious record reviewers from the past, when that was an honorable profession (still is, mostly) - how could they make musical sense of what they were hearing, if we judge solely on technical grounds? How did they sense touch and nuance, and line and flow, when we know the sound power in their room was hopping randomly up and down?
There's no need to bring the brain into the question to make it more complicated than necessary, the point of flat is to get the same thing as studios, which are supposedly producing material that should translate well to flat systems (even when using flawed equipement); at least when averaged between all of them.
My experience over 44 years as a pro on both sides of the glass is that all speakers are pretty inadequate. All of them eventually reveal their clumsy, lumpen, mechanical nature. At best I carry around a mental database, a bit of this, a bit of that, a kind of imaginary Franken-speaker that would combine the best parts of the best I've heard. Some of those parts are cabinet silence, headroom, lack of compression, low distortion, bandwidth ... undoubtedly all measurable metrics, yet they're rarely reported and it's rare that they're considered as a related suite.
These all apply to the speaker in question, though. And the research is pretty clear on the fact that linear distortion is way more important than nonlinear. Anyway, how can they be inadequate when the studios use the same "inadequate" devices so that you're hearing sound they were content enough with to put on the market?
But if all that's not science-y enough for you, concentrate on explaining to me how one somewhat-wiggly FR is better than another somewhat-wiggly FR. Is it where the wiggles are, or their height, or spacing, or exact shape, or what? If you can't tell me, will you admit there might be more to speakers than spinoramas?
First, as I said, even if "which imperfection is better than which" couldn't be explained right now, "imperfection" is still completely defined in this context.
Second, I'd say that considering music as a wideband signal (whose average shape has been studied enough) and using detailed masking data should allow to make decisions.
Third, you don't need such a strawman as your last sentence, I consider nonlinear and phase distortion as not completely negligible.

Anyway, all of this is useless, we're in the presence of perfect speakers (modulo the dispersion discussion) that should leave the problem entirely up to the circle of confusion, room problems (even with GLM) and stereo limitations.
An interesting question would be the effect of coaxial type vertical dispersion when the studio/listener don't both use such coaxial speakers.
 
Last edited:

caught gesture

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
443
Likes
936
Location
Italia
Can you share a few tracks you think best demonstrates your issues?

Generally, I’m not alone in thinking that most classical recordings are made from too close. Still, that’s what we mostly have. Some of those records are still great, but lean speakers are not compatible. We live in the real world with imperfect records, some more imperfect than others. For example, Isabelle Faust is a violinist I like very much , but many of her recordings are very closely miked. Now, you can say that I don’t like accurate speakers because of the inaccurate recordings. But I don’t think it’s that simple. I recognize this is a compliated issue, but, in any event, we can only listen to available recordings, and why would any consumer want speakers that doesnt make the better of those recordings sound nice?

Since we have mentioned BIS and someone earlier mentioned Martinu, I think the following recent recording is excellent and decently recorded. Zimmerman is obviously a great violinist and this recording sounds like a real violin I think, both on orchestral Martinu and instrumental Bartok: https://bis.se/performers/zimmerman...iolin-concertos-bartok-sonata-for-solo-violin.

I know very little about recording, but I have noticed that Tony Faulkner, a legend of some sort I guess, is the Engineer on many records I like. More natural recordings not usually so close miked. Here is an interesting interviiew with Faulkner about classical recording. He notes that he uses quad esl. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...BAA73E9C3B4B33B86059BAA73E9C3B4B33B&FORM=VIRE.
Can you post a picture of Genelec speakers set up in your listening room? My shill detector is bleeping. Maybe it is faulty.
 

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
Also, I have yet to see a classical music lover step up and disagree with my take on the speakers.
Ok, an extended comment from me on your take on these speakers: As for me I much appreciate your input here! I think it's really valuable with reasoned subjective takes on speakers, for me particularly when it's compared to acoustic music and instruments, as that's my main interest as well.

That said, my advice for you as a newbie on the forum would be to put some qualifiers around your statements/perceptions - in order not to start flame wars. After all, you are relating your impression, just like my impressions are mine. These impressions could be indicative of something objective that many people will agree with. But they can also be biased - for example that the form or color of the speakers shapes your perception of how they sound (these biases are real!). Or it may be that your impressions do relate to something objective about the speakers, but that your explanation for the impressions is wrong. In any case - adding some qualifiers makes it much more easy for the measurement/objectivist folks here to accept your contributions as bringing something of value to the conversation.

Concerning these speakers themselves, I have not heard them. But I have also had similar experiences to yours with other "perfect" speakers. Like you I'm an amateur musician who's mainly into classical music and jazz. I'm exposed to acoustic music more or less on a daily basis. My subjective goal is also to have my speakers reproduce acoustic instruments in real space. I bought the Dutch & Dutch 8Cs, given their stellar measurements, but had a similar kind of reaction. It didn't sound as real in my own living room as my older active monitors, the DM10s from AVI. On paper the 8C are much, much superior to the AVIs, both when it comes to smoothenss of the frequency response, bass extension, and how even the dispersion pattern is. But the AVIs sounded more like real instruments to my ears.

So I sold the 8Cs and kept the AVIs.

Nobody can argue with my personal preference, of course. If I get more musical pleasure from a small bluetooth speaker than a good fullrange speakers, that's a legitimate preference as well. But is my preference indicative of something objectively real about these speakers? I am open to the possibility that my perception may be "wrong" - that I would have perceived it differently in a blind test, for example.

But I tend to think that my preference was about something real. I think it may be about dispersion to a large degree - narrow dispersion does not sound as natural to me as wider dispersion. It just doesn't. So far we're on objective territory. It is well established that dispersion patterns and reflections affect our perception a whole lot.

Then let's move on to more speculative territory:

Do waveguides which are not super shallow affect the sound as well? I have a suspicion that it does, and that waveguides create higher-order modes which may impact how natural it sounds. It is established that higher-order modes (HOMs) exist in waveguides and horns, but it is controversial how audible it is and whether they affect waveguides with the kind of profile of the Genelecs and the 8Cs. So I'm not going to claim that this is indeed the case. But since I have really really enjoyed some narrow dispersion speakers which do not primarily use waveguides to narrow the dispersion, namely the Beolab 90s, 50s and 28s from Bang & Olufsen; I allow myself to entertain the theory. (EDIT: but only listened to the Beolabs at B&O stores, and haven't compared them directly to other speakers)

BUT: I could be wrong! have not listened to these speakers blindly, and I have not seen explorations of HOMs in for example the Genelecs and 8Cs vs the Beolabs. Hence qualifiers are important and called for.

Other possibilites - distortion, low-level resonances, class D amplifiers for the tweeters which modulate noise into the audible range? Cabinet resonances? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. It may also be about habituation, that I got so used to the AVIs that other speakers sound wrong to me. I cannot really know.

Those were thoughts form me. In any case - I do hope that you continue posting here!
 
Last edited:

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
Ok, an extended comment from me on your take on these speakers: As for me I much appreciate your input here! I think it's really valuable with reasoned subjective takes on speakers, for me particularly when it's compared to acoustic music and instruments, as that's my main interest as well.

That said, my advice for you as a newbie on the forum would be to put some qualifiers around your statements/perceptions - in order not to start flame wars. After all, you are relating your impression, just like my impressions are mine. These impressions could be indicative of something objective that many people will agree with. But they can also be biased - for example that the form or color of the speakers shapes your perception of how they sound (these biases are real!). Or it may be that your impressions do relate to something objective about the speakers, but that your explanation for the impressions is wrong. In any case - adding some qualifiers makes it much more easy for the measurement/objectivist folks here to accept your contributions as bringing something of value to the conversation.

Concerning these speakers themselves, I have not heard them. But I have also had similar experiences to yours with other "perfect" speakers. Like you I'm an amateur musician who's mainly into classical music and jazz. I'm exposed to acoustic music more or less on a daily basis. My subjective goal is also to have my speakers reproduce acoustic instruments in real space. I bought the Dutch & Dutch 8Cs, given their stellar measurements, but had a similar kind of reaction. It didn't sound as real in my own living room as my older active monitors, the DM10s from AVI. On paper the 8C are much, much superior to the AVIs, both when it comes to smoothenss of the frequency response, bass extension, and how even the dispersion pattern is. But the AVIs sounded more like real instruments to my ears.

So I sold the 8Cs and kept the AVIs.

Nobody can argue with my personal preference, of course. If I get more musical pleasure from a small bluetooth speaker than a good fullrange speakers, that's a legitimate preference as well. But is my preference indicative of something objectively real about these speakers? I am open to the possibility that my perception may be "wrong" - that I would have perceived it differently in a blind test, for example.

But I tend to think that my preference was about something real. I think it may be about dispersion to a large degree - narrow dispersion does not sound as natural to me as wider dispersion. It just doesn't. So far we're on objective territory. It is well established that dispersion patterns and reflections affect our perception a whole lot.

Then let's move on to more speculative territory:

Do waveguides which are not super shallow affect the sound as well? I have a suspicion that it does, and that waveguides create higher-order modes which may impact how natural it sounds. It is established that higher-order modes (HOMs) exist in waveguides and horns, but it is controversial how audible it is and whether they affect waveguides with the kind of profile of the Genelecs and the 8Cs. So I'm not going to claim that this is indeed the case. But since I have really really enjoyed some narrow dispersion speakers which do not primarily use waveguides to narrow the dispersion, namely the Beolab 90s, 50s and 28s from Bang & Olufsen; I allow myself to entertain the theory.

BUT: I could be wrong! have not listened to these speakers blindly, and I have not seen explorations of HOMs in for example the Genelecs and 8Cs vs the Beolabs. Hence qualifiers are important and called for.

Other possibilites - distortion, low-level resonances, class D amplifiers for the tweeters which modulate noise into the audible range? Cabinet resonances? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. It may also be about habituation, that I got so used to the AVIs that other speakers sound wrong to me. I cannot really know.

Those were thoughts form me. In any case - I do hope that you continue posting here!
I bet it's dispersion mostly as room modes are dominant when you are not listening really near field

but maybe it's also due to brain run in? I mean, when one adapted to how a speaker sound in your own setup, when you first change to a new set of different speakers, everything stayed the same, it will sound really weird at first few days or so,it happened to me also when I first bought my genelecs and moved to the KEF X300A, which the X300A have to be placed <50cm to me due to the desk and room limitations... before I adapted and enjoyed them it have a few moments feeling strange with the same tidal playlists.

May I ask how much time you listened to your 8Cs before you decide to sell them? I think if you have a first impression of "man this sounds not right" (different to the used to sound) , then you can be unconciously trying to find the difference/bad sounding area, which usually we could pick up some parts of the music sounding annoying
 

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
I bet it's dispersion mostly as room modes are dominant when you are not listening really near field

but maybe it's also due to brain run in? I mean, when one adapted to how a speaker sound in your own setup, when you first change to a new set of different speakers, everything stayed the same, it will sound really weird at first few days or so,it happened to me also when I first bought my genelecs and moved to the KEF X300A, which the X300A have to be placed <50cm to me due to the desk and room limitations... before I adapted and enjoyed them it have a few moments feeling strange with the same tidal playlists.

May I ask how much time you listened to your 8Cs before you decide to sell them? I think if you have a first impression of "man this sounds not right" (different to the used to sound) , then you can be unconciously trying to find the difference/bad sounding area, which usually we could pick up some parts of the music sounding annoying

Sure, ask all you want :) I listened to the 8Cs in three different rooms in two different houses (due to moving) over a period of two-three months before selling them. Did direct comparisons with the AVIs in mono, never blind or carefully level matched though. On thing which may have played a role is that my preference is to listen in the near-field (about 1-1.5 m from the speakers). In the near-field the direct sound dominates, so even dispersion matters less. It may also be that the narrower dispersion of the 8Cs then became too dry. When listening in the far-field (about 3-4 m from speakers) I thought that the 8Cs imaged much better, which makes sense given that their dispersion is more even and narrower.

But sure, habituation may absolutely play a role! And I really don't mean to belittle the 8Cs, they are amazing feats of loudspeaker engineering, and I know several music pros who think they are among the best speakers ever. I also know several people knowledgeable about music who think the AVIs are too anemic, thin and dry in the bass and mid-bass (I use them with subwoofers and I eq up the bass and mid-bass a bit). My point is that I'm not trying to universalize my own perceptions or preferences.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
3,194
Likes
2,570
Sure, ask all you want :) I listened to the 8Cs in three different rooms in two different houses (due to moving) over a period of two-three months before selling them. Did direct comparisons with the AVIs in mono, never blind or carefully level matched though. On thing which may have played a role is that my preference is to listen in the near-field (about 1-1.5 m from the speakers). In the near-field the direct sound dominates, so even dispersion matters less. It may also be that the narrower dispersion of the 8Cs then became too dry. When listening in the far-field (about 3-4 m from speakers) I thought that the 8Cs imaged much better, which makes sense given that their dispersion is more even and narrower.

But sure, habituation may absolutely play a role! And I really don't mean to belittle the 8Cs, they are amazing feats of loudspeaker engineering, and I know several music pros who think they are among the best speakers ever. I also know several people knowledgeable about music who think the AVIs are too anemic, thin and dry in the bass and mid-bass (I use them with subwoofers and I eq up the bass and mid-bass a bit). My point is that I'm not trying to universalize my own perceptions or preferences.
Sure, I was always wondering about these preferences, and, too bad you guys all know how to sell, I would love to pick up those "thrown away" great stuffs for my poor home ;)
 

waldo2

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
94
I have appreciated everyone’s perspective here. I reported my impressions of the 8361 because I thought it might be a useful word of caution to classical music people before they bought the speakers. In sum, I would like to make a coupe of points. First, I do not believe I arrived at my conclusions about the speakers by comparing them to other speakers. I am comparing the sound coming from the speaker to the sound of real instruments. I understand that no speaker is perfect and that they are all just an approximation of the real thing. The 8361, however, in my well damped listening room, with and without glm correction and judicious eq, on and off axis, listening in equilateral triangle configuration from about nine feet, sounded artificial and a shrill compared to real instruments. On recordings good and bad that I am very family with. Further, they sound less like real music with a great variety of recordings than other speakers I have experience with like spendor, quad esl, Harbeth, stirling, etc. I understand the deep skepticism of my view here. I really wanted to like 8361. They are well priced, have incredible bass and clarity, and it will be hugely inconvenient and will cost several hundred dollars to send them back to seller.

Second, I truly appreciate the measurements provided by ARS. I surely agree that a speaker that measures poorly will sound bad. I also agree with a couple of you all here that the wave guided dispersion may be part of the problem I had with the speakers. I know it sounds crazy to greatly prefer speakers that were designed in the 1970s to acive dsp contemporary designs. Again, I did not want it to be this way. The active dsp speaker route is, in theory, very attractive me. I also agree with comments suggesting my reaction to the speakers is related to the state of audio recordings. But, the world of recordings is what it is and I am unwilling to fall on my sword to listen to speaker jsut because it measures well, or to listen to speakers that sound bad with almost all of the recordings out there when other speakers, though colored from your perspective, make those recordings sound much more like real music. We cannot know how the perfect measuring speaker would sound on the perfectly recorded piece of music, because very few recordings even approach perfection, and most, as we all know are not so good at all. I take the world as I find it. I know this will be controversial here, but I think part of the reason so many like the 8361 is because they are listening to heavily processed music made in recording studios for which there is no analogue in the real world to compare it to. I reiterate that I know that many here think it is naive to try to compare the sound coming from a speaker to real world instruments, but i see that as the ultimate measure of the success of a speaker. Music is beautiful, and I want the speaker to sound like music.

Finally, a couple of people commented here that their musician friends have no interest in audio. That is a well known phenomenon. I would attribute it partly to the fact that few speakers sound like music and musicians know well the sound of the real thing. Sit them down in front of a pair of quads and I think the reaction may be different.
 

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
I have appreciated everyone’s perspective here. I reported my impressions of the 8361 because I thought it might be a useful word of caution to classical music people before they bought the speakers. In sum, I would like to make a coupe of points. First, I do not believe I arrived at my conclusions about the speakers by comparing them to other speakers. I am comparing the sound coming from the speaker to the sound of real instruments. I understand that no speaker is perfect and that they are all just an approximation of the real thing. The 8361, however, in my well damped listening room, with and without glm correction and judicious eq, on and off axis, listening in equilateral triangle configuration from about nine feet, sounded artificial and a shrill compared to real instruments. On recordings good and bad that I am very family with. Further, they sound less like real music with a great variety of recordings than other speakers I have experience with like spendor, quad esl, Harbeth, stirling, etc. I understand the deep skepticism of my view here. I really wanted to like 8361. They are well priced, have incredible bass and clarity, and it will be hugely inconvenient and will cost several hundred dollars to send them back to seller.

Second, I truly appreciate the measurements provided by ARS. I surely agree that a speaker that measures poorly will sound bad. I also agree with a couple of you all here that the wave guided dispersion may be part of the problem I had with the speakers. I know it sounds crazy to greatly prefer speakers that were designed in the 1970s to acive dsp contemporary designs. Again, I did not want it to be this way. The active dsp speaker route is, in theory, very attractive me. I also agree with comments suggesting my reaction to the speakers is related to the state of audio recordings. But, the world of recordings is what it is and I am unwilling to fall on my sword to listen to speaker jsut because it measures well, or to listen to speakers that sound bad with almost all of the recordings out there when other speakers, though colored from your perspective, make those recordings sound much more like real music. We cannot know how the perfect measuring speaker would sound on the perfectly recorded piece of music, because very few recordings even approach perfection, and most, as we all know are not so good at all. I take the world as I find it. I know this will be controversial here, but I think part of the reason so many like the 8361 is because they are listening to heavily processed music made in recording studios for which there is no analogue in the real world to compare it to. I reiterate that I know that many here think it is naive to try to compare the sound coming from a speaker to real world instruments, but i see that as the ultimate measure of the success of a speaker. Music is beautiful, and I want the speaker to sound like music.

Finally, a couple of people commented here that their musician friends have no interest in audio. That is a well known phenomenon. I would attribute it partly to the fact that few speakers sound like music and musicians know well the sound of the real thing. Sit them down in front of a pair of quads and I think the reaction may be different.
Try ATC scm50 instead
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
Just keep training your ears and then make a own personal preference FR and EQ the 8361.

You have one of the most easiest setup ( Genelec 8361 ) to work with.
The 8361, however, in my well damped listening room, with and without glm correction

Indeed the strength of the Genelec Ones is your unique listener preference achieved by both controlled directivity together with GLM - to have these speakers without GLM tuning them to your taste is to give up the one feature for which you paid a huge premium!
 

waldo2

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
94
Indeed the strength of the Genelec Ones is your unique listener preference achieved by both controlled directivity together with GLM - to have these speakers without GLM tuning them to your taste is to give up the one feature for which you paid a huge premium!
 

waldo2

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
94
Sorry if i was confusing. I did use GLM. it seems to improve bass, but that only emphasized the upper kids and highs more. So, I also did some manual eq to reduce the leanness of the speaker with glm correction applied.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
Also the EQ/GLM may have handicapped them, unfortunately a not gated listening position measurement does not show how the direct sound was, which should be rather the target above transition frequency if neutrality is desired.
Interesting theory.
The thing is, without GLM/EQ, the violins still sounded "just ok." So it's not like the Genelecs sounded perfect and were "handicapped" by the EQ and GLM.
Regardless, GLM only works in the lower frequencies, where gating is less important. And my room is so small that MMM would be pretty close to the gated measurement anyway, since all initial reflections are delayed perhaps less than 10ms tops.

This also shows how dominant habituation (and probably also hearing age) is, if the OP comes from old school BBC type loudspeakers designs he will probably perceive the Genelecs as bright but if someone comes for example from a Sennheiser HD800

View attachment 167107
source: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqnpv0cub6vl12q/Sennheiser HD800 (Optimum HiFi Curve).pdf?dl=0

he rather will find it the opposite.
I know how fashionable it is to assume there are defects in the listener rather than to re-examine the validity and interpretation of the measurements. My favorite is how people here are questioning how a classical musician who has been around violins his whole life doesn't know how a violin should sound because the Genelecs are the truth! The level of cognitive dissonance required to dogmatically adhere to the notion that loudspeaker measurements are 100% predictive of perceived sound quality is fascinating.

Consider the fact that Harman research has already established differences in bass/treble balance preferences tend to correlate with gender, age, and country of residence. There are also differences based on whether an individual has gone through formal listener training.

Human variation exists. Just because a loudspeaker is engineered to match the FR preferences of the average of the sampled humans, doesn't mean it will sound outstanding to everyone. Human beings are not robots that come off an assembly line.
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
I find that particularly older guys who have grown up with distortion whether it’s coloured speakers or source tend to enjoy it and there is nothing wrong with that.
Remember listening to an instrument in a room is not at all like listening to a recording of that instrument made in the very same room.
Keith
 

Laserjock

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
1,327
Likes
1,000
Location
Texas Coastal
Sorry if i was confusing. I did use GLM. it seems to improve bass, but that only emphasized the upper kids and highs more. So, I also did some manual eq to reduce the leanness of the speaker with glm correction applied.
What speakers/system were you used to using before and what made you want to change?
 

waldo2

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
94
What speakers/system were you used to using before and what made you want to change?
I find that particularly older guys who have grown up with distortion whether it’s coloured speakers or source tend to enjoy it and there is nothing wrong with that.
Remember listening to an instrument in a room is not at all like listening to a recording of that instrument made in the very same room
 
Top Bottom