• 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!

$20-25k budget. Currently eyeing Genelec 8361A, KEF Blade One Meta, and the B&W 801D4.


Only 85 pages to get up to date on the topic ;)
except the first post itself is flawed.
 
except the first post itself is flawed.
1736537682361.gif
 
the contention to the "myth" as some would call it, is that people will put a exercise through their speakers for 100-200 hours. his test was all done in two hours of listening times. and as much respect as i have for amirs work i don't think or see the guy playing highly dynamic music loud for hours at a time. i feel like he was playing mild music and mild levels. some people actually play loud, and highly dynamic music that will exercise a speaker set. if you're going to load a test up with a relatively basic process you can expect results from it doesn't make it fair. i want to see the graphs from a really well worked speaker set, vs when it was new. two hours is a joke if were talking about a perceived test that please make wilder claims on. im thinking a 100-200 hour range and not the kind of "dull music testing tracks" that audiophiles always post about.
 
the contention to the "myth" as some would call it, is that people will put a exercise through their speakers for 100-200 hours. his test was all done in two hours of listening times. and as much respect as i have for amirs work i don't think or see the guy playing highly dynamic music loud for hours at a time. i feel like he was playing mild music and mild levels. some people actually play loud, and highly dynamic music that will exercise a speaker set. if you're going to load a test up with a relatively basic process you can expect results from it doesn't make it fair. i want to see the graphs from a really well worked speaker set, vs when it was new. two hours is a joke if were talking about a perceived test that please make wilder claims on. im thinking a 100-200 hour range and not the kind of "dull music testing tracks" that audiophiles always post about.
Why don’t you do the testing with whatever non-dull music you think appropriate at levels you think suitable in order to prove your assertion?
 
the contention to the "myth" as some would call it, is that people will put a exercise through their speakers for 100-200 hours. his test was all done in two hours of listening times. and as much respect as i have for amirs work i don't think or see the guy playing highly dynamic music loud for hours at a time. i feel like he was playing mild music and mild levels. some people actually play loud, and highly dynamic music that will exercise a speaker set. if you're going to load a test up with a relatively basic process you can expect results from it doesn't make it fair. i want to see the graphs from a really well worked speaker set, vs when it was new. two hours is a joke if were talking about a perceived test that please make wilder claims on. im thinking a 100-200 hour range and not the kind of "dull music testing tracks" that audiophiles always post about.
How about 6 months::cool:
Many hundreds of hours, all sorts of music. The changes are tiny, and the F(s) less than driver to driver matching. In a box, the output change due to so-called break-in is less than 0.1dB.

Also, in my previous post to you, linkgs are provided to Andrew Jones who explains the break-in effect, tiny as it is, occurs in the first few moments of operation, and can be done by hand, so enough of the dull-music.

You need to realize, you are talking to many people who have actually measured this. You have not. Please begin measuring and providing data if you wish to argue. Your appeals to reason are incredibly naïve, and not supported by any evidence at all.

Also, in your signature line, its damped, not dampened. :facepalm: Really embarrassing that you don't understand the difference between things that are moist and things that are damped.
 
Beyond everything else, if genesis here thinks that Amir only plays "mild music" at "mild" volume, they are quite mistaken. Nevermind why engineers would build speakers that require certain types or volumes of content to "properly" exercise the speaker for the best sound.
 
Why all this hate for B&W?
Their high end series are gorgeous.
I wouldn't get any Genelec home, even if they sound 2 times better.
 
Why all this hate for B&W?
Their high end series are gorgeous.
I wouldn't get any Genelec home, even if they sound 2 times better.
Because aesthetics are secondary to their reproduction of sound. And besides, there are plenty of aesthetically pleasing speakers that also sound much better than B&W even if Genelecs aren't your thing.
 
Because aesthetics are secondary to their reproduction of sound. And besides, there are plenty of aesthetically pleasing speakers that also sound much better than B&W even if Genelecs aren't your thing.
Ok, but why the hate? There are plenty of speakers that sound worse than B&W.
Not even Bose get this much hate.
 
Why don’t you do the testing with whatever non-dull music you think appropriate at levels you think suitable in order to prove your assertion?

Ok, but why the hate? There are plenty of speakers that sound worse than B&W.
Not even Bose get this much hate.
bose is pretty horrible. dont get me started on their spacial surround sound garbage
 
Ok, but why the hate? There are plenty of speakers that sound worse than B&W.
Not even Bose get this much hate.
It's a fair question.:cool:
In 1987, $4500 per pair got us frequency response like the green trace, now for $50,000 you get the red trace.

1736553229833.png

These are Stereophile's measurements, on tweeter axis, averaged across 30 degrees horizontal window and corrected for microphone response per their usual. Traces captured with webplotdigitizer.
What isn't shown in the Stereophile measurements is the off-axis performance, which is quite poor on modern 801's.

I think people like to pick on the 801 now. I loved the sound of the 801 back in the day, liked the 802 even more for most spaces. I think the modern versions are a step backwards. And they are incredibly expensive.:eek:
 
“Darth Vaders”! Haha I’ve never seen these in white!
Have your 1022’s ever needed service? Wow, a testament to Genelec that these are still in use!
Yes, the had full service in Finland by previous owner before going into storage :). Woofers looks new! Genelecs amps often do need service at about 30 years of age or so. Soon I'll have a black pair of 1022B too, but with broken amps. I plan a custom solution, maybe Hypex plate amps...

But I think it's fun to see the parallels to the Blades in materials and morphology. At least for Genelec it must have been tough, this was 1985! Even today their speakers get a lot of flack for their unordinary looks... But the shape has very good technical reasons, which KEF also takes advantage of in the Blades :).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
the contention to the "myth" as some would call it, is that people will put a exercise through their speakers for 100-200 hours. his test was all done in two hours of listening times. and as much respect as i have for amirs work i don't think or see the guy playing highly dynamic music loud for hours at a time. i feel like he was playing mild music and mild levels. some people actually play loud, and highly dynamic music that will exercise a speaker set. if you're going to load a test up with a relatively basic process you can expect results from it doesn't make it fair. i want to see the graphs from a really well worked speaker set, vs when it was new. two hours is a joke if were talking about a perceived test that please make wilder claims on. im thinking a 100-200 hour range and not the kind of "dull music testing tracks" that audiophiles always post about.
This would be easier for you if you provided some evidence to support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
the contention to the "myth" as some would call it, is that people will put a exercise through their speakers for 100-200 hours. his test was all done in two hours of listening times. and as much respect as i have for amirs work i don't think or see the guy playing highly dynamic music loud for hours at a time. i feel like he was playing mild music and mild levels. some people actually play loud, and highly dynamic music that will exercise a speaker set. if you're going to load a test up with a relatively basic process you can expect results from it doesn't make it fair. i want to see the graphs from a really well worked speaker set, vs when it was new. two hours is a joke if were talking about a perceived test that please make wilder claims on. im thinking a 100-200 hour range and not the kind of "dull music testing tracks" that audiophiles always post about.
What is there that is going to affect the sound enough to be detectable? The surround suspension and the spider is there. Otherwise the other stuff is not going to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
I like that a sober discussion of the engineering parameters of various speakers is construed as 'hate.'

Seems to be happening more frequently here on this site.

I've not seen anything resembling an emotional outburst about B&W speakers on this thread.

For that go to a subjective forum where people quickly get angry if it's pointed out their speakers don't measure flat, even though the same people often proclaim that 'measurements don't matter.'
 
the contention to the "myth" as some would call it, is that people will put a exercise through their speakers for 100-200 hours. his test was all done in two hours of listening times. and as much respect as i have for amirs work i don't think or see the guy playing highly dynamic music loud for hours at a time. i feel like he was playing mild music and mild levels. some people actually play loud, and highly dynamic music that will exercise a speaker set. if you're going to load a test up with a relatively basic process you can expect results from it doesn't make it fair. i want to see the graphs from a really well worked speaker set, vs when it was new. two hours is a joke if were talking about a perceived test that please make wilder claims on. im thinking a 100-200 hour range and not the kind of "dull music testing tracks" that audiophiles always post about.
You see, now THIS is why I'm a member!!! I stopped frequenting this place because it started to look too polite. :D;) We need a good know-it-all to tell us (amir in this particular case) how wrong we all are and we've been waiting for years (nearly a decade now) for someone to show us the way. It's not that break-in is a myth, it's just that there hasn't been enough of it. It just LOOKS like a myth because you need to do it between 100 and 200 hours but around 103dB!

BTW doesn't "highly dynamic" music (whatever that may be) have a lot of very quiet parts? :D Aren't quite parts LESS of an "exercise" for the speakers.
 
Looking to buy some nice speakers and I've been eyeing the used market. It seems that all of these options are in my budget if I'm willing to go used. I don't have any places near me to demo them, but I was curious if anyone's been able to compare these options previously. The wallet certainly says Genelec 8361A considering they're less than half the cost of the other 2 options. I definitely appreciate the aesthetics of the Blade One Metas and the B&W 801D4 more and was curious if there's also a big aural difference.

Musical genres I tend to listen to the most are techno, edm, pop, and R&B. Would greatly appreciate any input on this!
Anyway, that's not why I came here. I think this is a nice choice, @totaldominasian I, myself, wouldn't go for B&W until they make it more flat frequency response and in that sense, I wonder how come you chose between very accurate and audibly not really accurate? What is your real preference?

Another thing is, these amp ratings in active speakers keep confusing me. Genelec you mention has 1000 watts. There's a 150 watts for the tweeter... OTOH we have thousand of posts on how you don't benefit from idle power and how even headroom is completely covered by a good, solid 150 w per channel into 8 ohms...

How come this Genelec needs 1kW and I'm more than covered by a 100?
 
Back
Top Bottom