Adam T8V Studio Monitor Review

[ROOSKIE]

The off-axis dip around the XO point can't be cured by DSP. It's a function of the crossover frequency, slope, and centre-to-centre distance between the drivers.

For a given XO frequency and C2C distance, the magnitude and (in particular) bandwidth of the dip can be reduced by using higher-order filters, which is certainly cheaper/easier to do with DSP. However, beyond a certain limit there are other trade-offs involved (increased group delay and/or ringing).

Or are you talking about the on-axis dip at the crossover point? This is certainly something I would expect DSP equalization to remedy. Perhaps Adam was going for a house tuning here. It is a bit surprising IMO.

There are a lot of on axis frequency errors that can never be fully fixed by DSP.
Such as edge diffraction from the woofer surround, the woofer dust cap or lack of dust cap, some cabinet edges, some tweeter edges ect.
DSP is amazing but something things will just never be fixed.
In fact driver surround, edge diffractions and others of these type of errors are often less when off axis then on. Or at least the changes are give and take.

You also have to factor that as a business model the budget speaker needs to have some flaws to justify the more expensive models. Not many companies can work well if it is truly going to be a race to the bottom. That will not work in our type of economy where many folks need to be employed and companies need to structure multiple lines of products in order to be able to stay profitable and thus employ people.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Genelec tried making a budget monitor with the M40 and M30 and failed.

 

[amirm]

Are you sure it works like that? I thought the distortion was measured relatively to a SPL measured at say 1kHz.

That's only for electronic tests. For speakers, the level is kept constant (86 or 96 dBSPL at 1 kHz) and frequency swept. So at every frequency, you see the harmonics generated.

 

[Helicopter]

Thank you for the review. These seem like a really good value at the price point, especially for anyone interested in ribbons. That little dip in the highs is probably not something that would bother me.

The video of the German talking about them in what looks like an open industrial space is misleading since these are made in China, but at this price and performance we should probably expect a low cost manufavturing location.

 

[Xyrium]

finally seeing this after pressed the button on the 8030Cs and kills my bonus. It looks like their lower end brothers T5V will be remarkable costing 1/3 of the genelec which I should kept secret to my wife

though the crossover cancellation puzzles me as I think the T series are dsp active crossovers which should let them make perfect cross overs and not needed the gentle roll off for passive crossovers?

Congrats on the Gennies, you won't be dissatisfied with them, especially if you're nearfield listening and want a good soundstage up close.

Re: the comparisons to low cost monitors, I wonder if there would be a preference for the Kali IN-8's over these, after a good pair was measured and observed.

 

[digicidal]

I've really enjoyed my T7V's and feel almost identically to @amirm as far as the subjective. I'm running them as the front 3 in my family room for mostly theater duty with a sub... but with the exception of "movie night" I just leave the sub off. There is no need for bass that's any lower at lower levels especially... it's there and pleasant, but not reverberating off the walls or through the floors to the adjacent bedroom. I can only imagine that the 8's have just that tiny bit more extension and output to improve higher levels even more - but at well below reference levels they are quite decent even as mid-field monitors (and they're $50 cheaper to boot).

 

[YSC]

Congrats on the Gennies, you won't be dissatisfied with them, especially if you're nearfield listening and want a good soundstage up close.

Re: the comparisons to low cost monitors, I wonder if there would be a preference for the Kali IN-8's over these, after a good pair was measured and observed.

I don't think I would regret for the Genelecs (Cursing DHL for slow shipping) although my room is basically sxxt for acoustic environment. but didn't expect the adam T series to be this good, this actually can make me pretty satisified at 1/4 of the cost so I am now recommending them to my friends who are new to the hobby and didn't earn as much

 

[ROOSKIE]

I don't think I would regret for the Genelecs (Cursing DHL for slow shipping) although my room is basically sxxt for acoustic environment. but didn't expect the adam T series to be this good, this actually can make me pretty satisified at 1/4 of the cost so I am now recommending them to my friends who are new to the hobby and didn't earn as much

I recommend a Dsp such a MiniDSP and or Dirac.
Nothing will help you more once you have some decent speakers.
If your room is bad and especially if it is a smaller/small room at least the DSP can help you cope with some of the frequency error distortion.
These T8V speakers may be hitting some high Harman ratings with DSP prototypes but really you add DSP to the Genelecs and you theoretically will still be ahead in the numbers game.
In the end you still have to listen. All these measurements add up to something very meaningful but there is still something about actually listening.

 

[BYRTT]

Sounds like talk goes alot on technical details when Amir test studio monitors so maybe below detailed view of directivity patterns can help a bit on system setups for Adam T8V users/owners or as performance comparison, data is based Amir's Klippel analyze thanks and take notice acoustic output is not at say 1 meters nearfield distance but calculated per CEA/CTA2034 ANSI standard to be at 2 meter distance, view of graphs is restricted to 2pi half space and 500Hz-10kHz bandwidth to improve on details and animation toggles or includes blurred / contour line / normalized-blurred / normalized-contour line presentations, have best audio/studio fun.

Horizontals..

Verticals..

 

[YSC]

I recommend a Dsp such a MiniDSP and or Dirac.
Nothing will help you more once you have some decent speakers.
If your room is bad and especially if it is a smaller/small room at least the DSP can help you cope with some of the frequency error distortion.
These T8V speakers may be hitting some high Harman ratings with DSP prototypes but really you add DSP to the Genelecs and you theoretically will still be ahead in the numbers game.
In the end you still have to listen. All these measurements add up to something very meaningful but there is still something about actually listening.

I am new to dsp and budget limited. If I use one will it work on streaming services also? Coz nowadays I mostly listen to tidal

 

[ROOSKIE]

I am new to dsp and budget limited. If I use one will it work on streaming services also? Coz nowadays I mostly listen to tidal

Yes. Any stand alone DSP can. I pretty much only use Tidal myself.
Some of the DSP apps for phones and computers will not be Tidal compatible.
You will need a calibrated measurement Mic and learn some basic skills with getting everything correctly set-up. There is deff a learning curve and for some it may take time to get it right.
Nothing will help more though, as you can see from this review DSP is capable of taking a decent speaker of 4.7 Harman scale to new heights. (6.5-6.8) additionally you can tailor it to your tastes if different from harman's and even have several different settings to switch back and forth for different reasons.
The $200 MiniDSP 2x4hd is more than a good starter unit. Add a $100 umik calibrated mic. $300 and you are seriously equipped.
Most of my listening these days is with that very unit running Tidal off my LG phone.
I have many speakers and much gear, DSP/PEQ and other filtering is just such a powerful part of the chain. It is a no brainer now.

 

[YSC]

Yes. Any stand alone DSP can. I pretty much only use Tidal myself.
Some of the DSP apps for phones and computers will not be Tidal compatible.
You will need a calibrated measurement Mic and learn some basic skills with getting everything correctly set-up. There is deff a learning curve and for some it may take time to get it right.
Nothing will help more though, as you can see from this review DSP is capable of taking a decent speaker of 4.7 Harman scale to new heights. (6.5-6.8) additionally you can tailor it to your tastes if different from harman's and even have several different settings to switch back and forth for different reasons.
The $200 MiniDSP 2x4hd is more than a good starter unit. Add a $100 umik calibrated mic. $300 and you are seriously equipped.
Most of my listening these days is with that very unit running Tidal off my LG phone.
I have many speakers and much gear, DSP/PEQ and other filtering is just such a powerful part of the chain. It is a no brainer now.

Thanks for advise, I likely will measure the response first and see if the 8030 dip switches can fix most of the problems before going into DSP, good performance DSP should not be too cheap and the cables are another expense so likely won't do so in the meantime

 

[ttimer]

I am new to dsp and budget limited. If I use one will it work on streaming services also? Coz nowadays I mostly listen to tidal

Going into more detail: It depends on what devices you use and where in your chain you splice in the DSP. If your source device is a PC, everything is trivial and all the DSP can be done in software on the machine.
If you like to stream (wireless) from a phone or tablet, you need a separate DSP device to be spliced in between your receiver (bluetooth, airplay, whatever) and the speakers.

 

[andreasmaaan]

There are a lot of on axis frequency errors that can never be fully fixed by DSP.
Such as edge diffraction from the woofer surround, the woofer dust cap or lack of dust cap, some cabinet edges, some tweeter edges ect.
DSP is amazing but something things will just never be fixed.
In fact driver surround, edge diffractions and others of these type of errors are often less when off axis then on. Or at least the changes are give and take.

I agree in general, but not applicable here IMO, where we have a broad, shallow dip that is uniform both on- and off-axis, implying that it could be effectively cured with EQ.

You also have to factor that as a business model the budget speaker needs to have some flaws to justify the more expensive models. Not many companies can work well if it is truly going to be a race to the bottom. That will not work in our type of economy where many folks need to be employed and companies need to structure multiple lines of products in order to be able to stay profitable and thus employ people.

Also possible (although I don’t think the drive to employ people tends to be the primary motivation for companies striving to be profitable).

 

[Helicopter]

@andreasmaaan That dip at 2k-3k where the active crossover shows has actually already been optimized by Adam in the speaker design implementation. A quick glance at the frequency response curve is misleading if it makes one think bumping things up here with EQ will improve the result.

The thing is, little peaks tend to be worse than deeper dips, and you get those little peaks at 2k and 3k when you bump more at 2.5k. It makes the curve look flatter but it doesn't pan out to better results, as we see in subjective listening tests, but also in those little peaks in the EQ'd FR.

I would only add EQ to these to match a room, not to try to improve the initial performance of the speaker itself. In a nearfield application with medium or high volume, I would not EQ these, as well-executed EQ is already included in the speaker between the inputs and the drivers.

No harm in playing around with it though. You might like it, and disagree. This is certainly a scenario where perception will be the most important thing. I would recommend blind testing before hard conclusions. (I am not drawing hard conclusions.)

 

[richard12511]

@andreasmaaan That dip at 2k-3k where the active crossover shows has actually already been optimized by Adam in the speaker design implementation. A quick glance at the frequency response curve is misleading if it makes one think bumping things up here with EQ will improve the result.

The thing is, little peaks tend to be worse than deeper dips, and you get those little peaks at 2k and 3k when you bump more at 2.5k. It makes the curve look flatter but it doesn't pan out to better results, as we see in subjective listening tests, but also in those little peaks in the EQ'd FR.

I would only add EQ to these to match a room, not to try to improve the initial performance of the speaker itself. In a nearfield application with medium or high volume, I would not EQ these, as well-executed EQ is already included in the speaker between the inputs and the drivers.

No harm in playing around with it though. You might like it, and disagree. This is certainly a scenario where perception will be the most important thing. I would recommend blind testing before hard conclusions. (I am not drawing hard conclusions.)

Would it be possible to use multiple filters to get the best of both worlds(ie low Q filter to raise the broad dip and then high Q filters to cut the peaks)?

 

[andreasmaaan]

@andreasmaaan That dip at 2k-3k where the active crossover shows has actually already been optimized by Adam in the speaker design implementation. A quick glance at the frequency response curve is misleading if it makes one think bumping things up here with EQ will improve the result.

The thing is, little peaks tend to be worse than deeper dips, and you get those little peaks at 2k and 3k when you bump more at 2.5k. It makes the curve look flatter but it doesn't pan out to better results, as we see in subjective listening tests, but also in those little peaks in the EQ'd FR.

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here. But I feel almost as though I'm looking at a completely different set of measurements to you and @ROOSKIE

If you have a look at the EQ correction filter provided by @Maiky76, you can see that the 2.43dB EQ boost they implemented, which is centred at 2012 Hz, improved the on-axis FR, the LW, the PIR, and the power response. Indeed, as I said in my previous post, because the dip centred at around 2kHz is present on-axis and off-axis, it is a good candidate for EQ correction.

Without EQ (note uniformity of the dip in all the curves):

EQ curve:

Result:

Do you perhaps have a graph you could point to to show me what I'm missing here?

 

[Helicopter]

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here. But I feel almost as though I'm looking at a completely different set of measurements to you and @ROOSKIE

If you have a look at the EQ correction filter provided by @Maiky76, you can see that the 2.43dB EQ boost they implemented, which is centred at 2012 Hz, improved the on-axis FR, the LW, the PIR, and the power response. Indeed, as I said in my previous post, because the dip centred at around 2kHz is present on-axis and off-axis, it is a good candidate for EQ correction.

...Do you perhaps have a graph you could point to to show me what I'm missing here?

I am looking at the same thing and interpreting it differently. I see a nice chart that illustrates your point. Your point is based on the assumption that flattening things out will make them better. If we agree to that, then we also agree to the conclusion. I agree flattening the curve is a good principle in general. I have some concern about the peak at the crossover point in your EQ'd response. EQ'd response is always going to make more visually appealing FR charts, even it it causes distorted, underpowered, slightly peaky sound.

Will the EQ peak actually sound bad? Will the no-EQ dip be just fine, or will it annoy me? Will the EQ's response be underpowered? Will it be more distorted? Will the trade-offs be justifiable? I don't know the answers to these questions without having and spending time with these speakers, so I am not drawing conclusions.

There is no question the EQ's response looks prettier. I am assuming Adam played around with this before they produced it, but I don't know that. It might be fairly easy to make better.

You make a good argument, but I am not ready to accept or reject it. If I bought these fairly big and powerful, versatile speakers with RCA inputs and everything, the ability to EQ for nearfield wouldn't influence me anyway. I would probably use them at farther distance and EQ them to my room. I would play with the dip in the process because, as I said, you did make a good argument, which I am not ready to reject.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I am looking at the same thing and interpreting it differently. I see a nice chart that illustrates your point. Your point is based on the assumption that flattening things out will make them better. If we agree to that, then we also agree to the conclusion. I agree flattening the curve is a good principle in general. I have some concern about the peak at the crossover point in your EQ'd response. EQ'd response is always going to make more visually appealing FR charts, even it it causes distorted, underpowered, slightly peaky sound.

Will the EQ peak actually sound bad? Will the no-EQ dip be just fine, or will it annoy me? Will the EQ's response be underpowered? Will it be more distorted? Will the trade-offs be justifiable? I don't know the answers to these questions without having and spending time with these speakers, so I am not drawing conclusions.

There is no question the EQ's response looks prettier. I am assuming Adam played around with this before they produced it, but I don't know that. It might be fairly easy to make better.

You make a good argument, but I am not ready to accept or reject it. If I bought these fairly big and powerful, versatile speakers with RCA inputs and everything, the ability to EQ for nearfield wouldn't influence me anyway. I would probably use them at farther distance and EQ them to my room. I would play with the dip in the process because, as I said, you did make a good argument, which I am not ready to reject.

You also make good arguments

In terms of the idea that this EQ could cause "distorted, underpowered, slightly peaky sound", I don't see anything in the measurements to suggest this might be the case. This dip is primarily within the woofer's passband, where power handling is high and distortion levels are relatively low, and the EQ bump we're talking about is only just over 2dB, a relatively small increase which is not likely to lead to significant additional stress on the speaker.

There is no question the EQ's response looks prettier. I am assuming Adam played around with this before they produced it, but I don't know that. It might be fairly easy to make better.

That's quite possible, and I'm willing to also accept that there may be some reason the speakers won't sound better with this region corrected by EQ. I guess I just don't see anything in the measurements that suggests this would be the case...

 

[sealykojac]

Replaced KEF R3 with the T8V a few months ago in my less than ideal setup. Very happy with the overall performance and the bass is simply nuts for a bookshelf speaker.