Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

[Pdxwayne]

Sorry, just trying to make a joke. Guess it didn’t go over. It does seem like there are two cultures. I see very little discussion of musical instruments, timber, space, etc here. Just not your interest i think. You all talk about frequency response and waveguides and I think you believe those are more accurate and scientific ways of talking as opposed to my way, which you see as soft, aimless, fuzzy subjectivism. I think we understand each other, and just have different interests. We all aren’t listening to speakers for the same reasons.

Also, I wasn’t trying to insult the Genelecs; even I understand they are excellent in many ways. I was just trying to say that for the music I like, I don’t like these speakers because I find them bright and hard, and I couldn’t fix it with glm and judicious eq.

You must admit that most of you all have about the same opinion of bbc monitors or quads that I have about genelecs, only in reverse. Hence the comment about the blanket. I don’t mind such barbs. In retort, I’d just say that I agree that it might be useful to try the blanket.

Curious, how do you connect the speakers to your source?

 

[Pearljam5000]

I really would like to participate in this debate. I would say "finally", as I did not want to intervene before having those speaker at home.
But sorry, for the moment I am just blown away by the music and the way these speakers and the music absorb my attention.

Thank you Waldo for your earlier suggested violin music records.
I am literally blown away by them.

It seems that it is right what they say "la musique adoucit les moeurs" (Music soften the mores / not sure about the translation).
What better compliment could I make about these speakers.

Post some more impressions when you can please
Do you feel they have enough bass without a sub? Thanks

 

[CMB]

Post some more impressions when you can please
Do you feel they have enough bass without a sub? Thanks

Thought about that for a second, still evaluating it, but at the first impression a sub doesn't seem mandatory at all.
Though, I am used actually to have a sub with my other set-up.

Might however need to EQ the bass slightly still a bit.
Will do that tomorrow (checking with REW) - have already put the GLM away for tonight.

The speakers are very involving.
I became a bit worried, especially because of some critical comments lately, but absolutely no regrets at all.
Can not confirm that critical observations.
KR

 

[oivavoi]

I think @waldo2 is basically correct in his assessment of the state of audio or loudspeaker research. It really cannot be compared to other fields of science when it comes to how established or authoritative this body of work should be regarded. There are a few replications, but not many. The concepts and operationalizations which are used varies a lot between researchers and research groups, much of it is commissioned, etc. In my own field of research, which has nothing to do with audio, most of the audio or loudspeaker studies would be labelled as "explorative" or "pilot studies", etc, given that they have yet to be replicated or repeated.

One of the most essential features of a loudspeaker is for example the directivity pattern. Wide, narrow, monopole, dipole, omni? What works best for ordinary listeners in ordinary rooms? One would think that this question would have been investigated systematically and in depth over time. But take a look at this review which looks at the literature: https://www.researchgate.net/public..._sound_quality_-_a_review_of_existing_studies
Conclusion: "Results indicate that for such a widely debated topic, conclusive measurement data with regard to human listeners is limited and therefore a proposal for more informative listening tests is presented".

That said, psychoacoustics in general is a much more developed field than loudspeaker research in a more narrow sense. This probably has to do with the fact that there is more funding available for psychoacoustic research which can be used for stuff like hearing aids and medical challenges, compared to funding for research on expensive loudspeakers which very few people bother buying. We know a whole lot about limits of hearing, audibility of various phenomena, how the brain makes sense of sounds, adaptation to room acoustics, and more. We also know quite a lot of red flags in loudspeaker design - the things which are very audible and can affect experiences negatively. Toole's books is strongly recommended, and provides a useful overview of much of this research. So it's not like we know nothing at all. We know some things. But we don't know everything. For me that also applies to whether speakers such as these really are "endgame" or not

 

[ahofer]

What i understand (from reading here at ASR) the typical 2 way speaker with "BBC dipp" also comes with a corresponding directivity error in the same region this changes how they sound in room ?

So in the same way speakers with huge directivity discontinuities does work not well with EQ . EQ works the direct and reflected sound it cant be separated, so you muck up the direct sound by eq based on some room measurement.

If Harbeths are representative, they generally don't have any BBC dip in on-axis measurement, but I take your point on directivity:

Mine are a successor to this model (SHL5+ shown, I have same but "anniversary edition", which apparently has a slight crossover tweak, continued in current "XD" model).

 

[Inner Space]

What works best for ordinary listeners in ordinary rooms?

This is the key question, I think. Pretty much all of the skimpy historic research we have relates to ordinary situations - intelligibility on the phone, etc, etc. Toole's findings are generally about mass market gear in normal reflective rooms. And so on. Situations beyond the ordinary haven't received much attention. Are we ordinary listeners, or more than that?

For instance, there's a bicycle thread running here at the moment. Lots of participation, lots of great bikes. What would those folks say if we pointed out that broad consumer research said (which I'm sure it does), "No, you're all wrong. The science shows on average that riders prefer relaxed, long-wheelbase steel frames, with generous forks and thick tires." Would they not say, sure, but that's the general mass market, and we're enthusiasts looking for more?

 

[ahofer]

For instance, there's a bicycle thread running here at the moment. Lots of participation, lots of great bikes. What would those folks say if we pointed out that broad consumer research said (which I'm sure it does), "No, you're all wrong. The science shows on average that riders prefer relaxed, long-wheelbase steel frames, with generous forks and thick tires." Would they not say, sure, but that's the general mass market, and we're enthusiasts looking for more?

Interesting question. I assume hearing preferences don't quite have the variability of body type, experience, and conditioning. For instance, someone who can/does ride centuries or Tris is going to have different articulated preferences from a newbie. Yet in Olive/Toole's research, the order of speaker preference was quite similar across groups, if I remember correctly.

 

[Reed]

It's funny about the bass - I definitely used to like more bass when I was a kid (turned bass up on all my cars) but this definitely changed as I got older, I think I turned the corner when I was 30

I think it’s understanding what you’re hearing as well. Dirac helped me with that. Being confronted with that graph brought a “Oh, I get it now” moment to me. But yeah, making my teenage room shake was fun.

 

[Inner Space]

Yet in Olive/Toole's research, the order of speaker preference was quite similar across groups, if I remember correctly.

Yes, indeed, but groups of what? Students, hi-fi reviewers, retail people, warm bodies off the street. No one who worked in the business of turning live sound into salable recordings. IMO that's the weakest part of the research. The question was never, "Which speaker sounded most like real instruments?" It tended toward a closed loop: "Which speaker sounded most like your inherited preconception of how a pleasant speaker should sound?"

 

[oivavoi]

This is the key question, I think. Pretty much all of the skimpy historic research we have relates to ordinary situations - intelligibility on the phone, etc, etc. Toole's findings are generally about mass market gear in normal reflective rooms. And so on. Situations beyond the ordinary haven't received much attention. Are we ordinary listeners, or more than that?

For instance, there's a bicycle thread running here at the moment. Lots of participation, lots of great bikes. What would those folks say if we pointed out that broad consumer research said (which I'm sure it does), "No, you're all wrong. The science shows on average that riders prefer relaxed, long-wheelbase steel frames, with generous forks and thick tires." Would they not say, sure, but that's the general mass market, and we're enthusiasts looking for more?

Interesting question!

This is off-topic in this thread, btw, but a long-standing annoyance of mine is that bicycles for the mass market have become so oriented towards bike types from the sports world. No ordinary city commuter needs a road/speed or offroad bike. We need a relaxed and comfortable upright bike with wide tires, nothing more nothing less. Why aren't the Dutch roadster bikes more common?

So in a way that is the opposite of what you think may be the case with audio - that things which are suitable for the elite cyclists get marketed for groups where they are not the optimal choice, whereas in audio it's the other way round?

I'm not sure to what degree this is the case with audio though. Most of Harman's research for example was done with trained listeners, and my understanding is that most listening tests from non-Harman researchers as well have been done with people who are fairly interested in audio and in rooms which are not "average". But I could be wrong, it's an interesting question you raise.

 

[Spocko]

Why in 2021, the people still get so many problem to find his own preference target? :l

Instead of say '' magic mid range '', '' audio scientists speakers '', '' fun speakers '' why don't just spend these time for find his own preference target?, always people is talking about the speakers sound but never the sound that THEY LIKE.

You don't know what you don't know until you've listened to many MANY speakers

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

You don't know what you don't know until you've listened to many MANY speakers

Or headphones/iems. The good thing about listening first headphones or iems instead of speakers, is no room interaction and there is many full range headphones can go down to 20hz.

 

[Spocko]

I had many guitars and hours of practice with my drummer friend.

You just need more hours of practice with the EQ

Personally i don't like the FR from Genelec, because I like an overall smothness in mid range and highs. If i had this Genelec speaker I'd instantly EQ to my taste, i know very well what i like and how to fix that to my taste.

This is EXACTLY why Genelec added DSP - beyond room correction, individuals have their unique preferences and use cases that require some level of EQ adjustment.

 

[Pearljam5000]

It's fun reading a "mainstream" audiophile review of Genelecs because of a different perspective
But I do agree about what was written there
That Genelecs don't have a sound of their own
And that's ultimately what I'm looking for in speakers.

6moons audioreviews: Genelec 8351A

6moons audio reviews: Genelec 8620

Why in 2021, the people still get so many problem to find his own preference target? :l

Instead of say '' magic mid range '', '' audio scientists speakers '', '' fun speakers '' why don't just spend these time for find his own preference target?, always people is talking about the speakers sound but never the sound that THEY LIKE.

 

[YSC]

Right. FR corrected to ANY target, even your own personal one, doesn't account for all of the perceived sound quality. Mostly because a simple 2-dimensional capture doesn't necessarily represent what you perceive, unless your room is an anechoic chamber. Otherwise, there is reflected sound, sound that is time-delayed, and resonances. There is also FR deviations that are smoothed out when you make corrections, but aren't necessarily inaudible. Sound also strikes the external ear at different angles of incidence.

Well, I think that's because the perceived sound quality thing is mainly if not completely dominated by your speaker placement and room, say damping degree? where's the treatment focused frequency on absorbing? latency? all these are so heavily variable in any one's room, or even varies daily in the same room and same speaker placement! Today my wife put a pile of cloths here, the next day friends come for party so a table is moved. since all these can't be remotely measured or reviewed, all you can do is to measure the objective part and let one figures out how to deal with the room or FR EQ

 

[Mykola]

Well, I think that's because the perceived sound quality thing is mainly if not completely dominated by your speaker placement and room, say damping degree? where's the treatment focused frequency on absorbing? latency? all these are so heavily variable in any one's room, or even varies daily in the same room and same speaker placement! Today my wife put a pile of cloths here, the next day friends come for party so a table is moved. since all these can't be remotely measured or reviewed, all you can do is to measure the objective part and let one figures out how to deal with the room or FR EQ

We just need real-time EQ with array of mics

 

[Inner Space]

... a long-standing annoyance of mine is that bicycles for the mass market have become so oriented towards bike types from the sports world.

Great point. But imagine if the bike tests had been unsighted. (Perhaps the riders wore cones on their necks, like sick dogs.) No visual bias, no fashion, just the feel. Most people would prefer the Dutch roadster. But when they show up at the store, they're easily swayed. So our hypothetical bicycle researcher would say, after carefully controlled experiments, the science shows most people prefer Dutch roadsters, so everyone else in the bicycle thread is wrong.

 

[richard12511]

That whole thing about age or sex related hearing is a red herring.
People use the same ears to listen to real life as they do to a hifi so no compensation is appropriate or necessary.
I am amazed how often this stupid idea crops up.

That definitely makes a lot of sense, and I used to believe that fully(still do to some degree). However, I remember @andreasmaaan and maybe @aarons915? showing an analysis of the data(that controlled for the aspect you mention) that still seems to suggest there is a "real" correlation between age related hearing loss and high frequency level preferences. I'll see if I can go dig that thread up, but it might take awhile. I forget how they controlled for that variable. I remember Sean Olive being in the thread, and he seemed to agree that there was a real correlation. I think I remember they tested multiple sectors of "older" people, holding the age variable constant, and those with very little hearing loss preferred a more neutral balance, whereas those with more hearing loss liked the treble shelved up a bit.

It was as if older folks prefer more treble, not because it's what sounds closest to real life(since that is a constant, as you point out), but because it sounds closer to the balance that the mix/master engineers thought sounded "best", and on average, they(the engineeers) will tend towards getting it right. Many engineers will get it wrong, adding either too much treble or too little, too much bass, or too little, etc., but on average the "wisdom of the crowd" pushes the result towards the average "best". Thus, if the end listener has more HF hearing loss than the mastering engineer, then he/she will tend to add more HF to get him closer to that "best" sound, even if it makes it sound less like the rest of his/her life.

 

[richard12511]

Is it an audio virtue if speakers do stereo well (ie create a nice stable image between the speakers)?

It can be mostly predicted based on looking at measurements. The stereo image is probably the biggest strength I can think of with the Ones, due to the fully point source design, medium width beam, and excellent off axis performance. Comparing my 8351s to a Revel Salon2, the biggest advantage the Ones have is just how much more precise their center image is. It's not just the beam width either, as they have that same advantage over the 708p(which has the same beam width). I've heard a ton of high end speakers, but I still think the 8351 has the best combo of soundstage width and image precision of any speaker I've heard. I'd bet the LS50 Meta could give it a good challenge(also point source with great measurements), but I haven't really heard that speaker.

The only speaker I own that throws a more precise center image than the 8351 is my JTR 212RT, but that's because it has a much narrower 60 degree beam, which limits the soundstage width.

That said, center image strength has more to do with the recording and speaker placement/setup than it does the speaker itself. The Ones are objectively SOTA when it comes to imaging/soundstage, but as with any speaker, they can fail to deliver a good image if setup improperly or listening to a bad track.

 

[richard12511]

Can you post a picture of Genelec speakers set up in your listening room? My shill detector is bleeping. Maybe it is faulty.

Haha just read this. That would be funny if it were true. Hopefully not. I like to trust people .