Can the /excessiveness/ of the 8361A be better utilised?

[Digby]

In terms of actually why, the question of how some of the SPL available to the 8361A could be traded for greater LFE extension interests me. Perhaps I might also add that I'm someone who enjoys the process of tinkering with things to increase knowledge and understanding whilst also exploring the potential of optimising their performance (even if this results in no or minimal gain).

All well and good, but if you are at risk of breaking expensive speakers (by overexerting the drivers), then you can understand that people might want to drive you away from the idea.

I did mention the benefits of a sub as well as not wanting one, but never that I wanted to turn the 8361A into a sub; rather, I wanted to explore safely trading some of its SPL for greater LFE.

If you are at liberty to move the speakers and yourself (listening position) in the room, it might be an idea to take advantage of room gain to get the extra decibels/extension you are after. This would be a safe option.

However, this does not necessary mean I cannot to some degree trade SPL to improve LFE in a manner that is safe and brings measurable benefits. It seems more about getting the balance right and thanks to some of the feedback here, I've more of an idea now about how to achieve this than I did before.

To be honest and without wishing to sound rude, you haven't said why yet. What music are you listening to and would it benefit from flat response to 20hz? Maybe what you really want is louder bass somewhere around 60-120hz, especially if you don't listen to music very loud. Some music is liable to sound flat (as a pancake) if you don't add a little bass (and sometime treble) at low levels, is this what you are battling with?

For most music (save organ music) there is precious little response down at 20-30hz and it is felt more than heard. You really need a lot of cone area for this region and/or a dedicated unit (subwoofer).

Maybe you could buy a subwoofer and play around with it to see if you are actually missing out on something, either a) you are missing out and you could figure a way to fit a small one into your system or b) not missing out, you return the sub and no need to mess too much with the Genelecs.

 

[kharan]

To be honest and without wishing to sound rude, you haven't said why yet. What music are you listening to and would it benefit from flat response to 20hz? Maybe what you really want is louder bass somewhere around 60-120hz, especially if you don't listen to music very loud. Some music is liable to sound flat (as a pancake) if you don't add a little bass (and sometime treble) at low levels, is this what you are battling with?

They said movies, ie they are trying to reproduce the subwoofer channel using a mains speaker. What they really should to is to get a subwoofer, especially since content has been mastered with a sub in mind.

 

[8361AM]

All well and good, but if you are at risk of breaking expensive speakers (by overexerting the drivers), then you can understand that people might want to drive you away from the idea.


If you are at liberty to move the speakers and yourself (listening position) in the room, it might be an idea to take advantage of room gain to get the extra decibels/extension you are after. This would be a safe option.


To be honest and without wishing to sound rude, you haven't said why yet. What music are you listening to and would it benefit from flat response to 20hz? Maybe what you really want is louder bass somewhere around 60-120hz, especially if you don't listen to music very loud. Some music is liable to sound flat (as a pancake) if you don't add a little bass (and sometime treble) at low levels, is this what you are battling with?

For most music (save organ music) there is precious little response down at 20-30hz and it is felt more than heard. You really need a lot of cone area for this region and/or a dedicated unit (subwoofer).

Maybe you could buy a subwoofer and play around with it to see if you are actually missing out on something, either a) you are missing out and you could figure a way to fit a small one into your system or b) not missing out, you return the sub and no need to mess too much with the Genelecs.

Firstly, I've no interest in damaging speakers... I take no issue in accepting what I proposed cannot be achieved in light of convincing evidence to the contrary. Hence, this topic and not acting on what I proposed unless strong evidence was presented for this. Is this perspective not foundational to this forum?

Secondly, if you've taken the necessary time to consider my comments, you should have noted by now that I'm far less interested in my personal situation as I am the broader question of how SPL may be traded for LFE. On multiple occasions, I've outlined my argument as to the potential validity of this question with regards to the 8361A, which appeared to have an abundance of SPL to trade, and asked to be challenged with respect to the stated assumptions underpinning the question. Based on feedback here, it seems that the speaker being ported is what limits its potential to trade SPL for LFE but I remain unconvinced that this necessarily means that its LFE cannot be improved at least to some degree; for example, if one is prepared to listen at sufficiently low SPL or accept minor improvement. You could argue from a practical perspective that insufficient SPL or a minor improvement to LFE negates the question, but you are then addressing a different question: a mostly practical (e.g., "yes, you could trade SPL for LFE but SPL would then be too low and so the question is invalid") rather than an intellectual one (e.g., "yes, here's how you could do it and here are the pros and cons of doing so...").

Thirdly, I've already answered why on multiple occasions: because it's interesting to me! I think my potential mistake here was to assume that posting on a forum with "Science" in its name necessarily means that its members would be more supportive of a post such as this because of their intellectual curiosity rather than their preconceptions of a question's validity. Whilst I appreciate that not all science is mostly motivated by curiosity, some is and so such questions are not necessarily invalid. I further appreciate that there is benefit to challenging questions, such as to improve on them, but I nevertheless strongly believe that the overarching question I posed is interesting and worthwhile. Whilst some members have understood my question and addressed it to my benefit and others (thank you), others appear to continue to misunderstand it. Nevertheless, out of ongoing respect to them, I've done my best to clarify the situation on multiple occasions even if doing so takes me away from what really interests me.

Given events thus far, perhaps I would be permitted to change my line of questioning:

(a) Why do some members seem so against optimising the performance of a speaker to a greater or lesser degree, such as optimising the performance of the 8361A so that it has greater LFE at the cost of SPL? For example, perhaps because doing so would not deliver meaningful benefit, come at too great an SPL cost, or run the risk of damage at the level of meaninful benefit or adequate SPL? Or perhaps something else?
(b) Should members who have clearly mischaracterised what I have shared apologise for doing so?

Please do not take the above as confrontational. I ask (a) because this interests me and (b) because I've been raised to believe this is the right thing to do and so if others don't, I'm keen to understand why.

 

[JustJones]

Firstly, I've no interest in damaging speakers... I take no issue in accepting what I proposed cannot be achieved in light of convincing evidence to the contrary. Hence, this topic and not acting on what I proposed unless strong evidence was presented for this. Is this perspective not foundational to this forum?

Secondly, if you've taken the necessary time to consider my comments, you should have noted by now that I'm far less interested in my personal situation as I am the broader question of how SPL may be traded for LFE. On multiple occasions, I've outlined my argument as to the potential validity of this question with regards to the 8361A, which appeared to have an abundance of SPL to trade, and asked to be challenged with respect to the stated assumptions underpinning the question. Based on feedback here, it seems that the speaker being ported is what limits its potential to trade SPL for LFE but I remain unconvinced that this necessarily means that its LFE cannot be improved at least to some degree; for example, if one is prepared to listen at sufficiently low SPL or accept minor improvement. You could argue from a practical perspective that insufficient SPL or a minor improvement to LFE negates the question, but you are then addressing a different question: a mostly practical (e.g., "yes, you could trade SPL for LFE but SPL would then be too low and so the question is invalid") rather than an intellectual one (e.g., "yes, here's how you could do it and here are the pros and cons of doing so...").

Thirdly, I've already answered why on multiple occasions: because it's interesting to me! I think my potential mistake here was to assume that posting on a forum with "Science" in its name necessarily means that its members would be more supportive of a post such as this because of their intellectual curiosity rather than their preconceptions of a question's validity. Whilst I appreciate that not all science is mostly motivated by curiosity, some is and so such questions are not necessarily invalid. I further appreciate that there is benefit to challenging questions, such as to improve on them, but I nevertheless strongly believe that the overarching question I posed is interesting and worthwhile. Whilst some members have understood my question and addressed it to my benefit and others (thank you), others appear to continue to misunderstand it. Nevertheless, out of ongoing respect to them, I've done my best to clarify the situation on multiple occasions even if doing so takes me away from what really interests me.

Given events thus far, perhaps I would be permitted to change my line of questioning:

(a) Why do some members seem so against optimising the performance of a speaker to a greater or lesser degree, such as optimising the performance of the 8361A so that it has greater LFE at the cost of SPL? For example, perhaps because doing so would not deliver meaningful benefit, come at too great an SPL cost, or run the risk of damage at the level of meaninful benefit or adequate SPL? Or perhaps something else?
(b) Should members who have clearly mischaracterised what I have shared apologise for doing so?

Please do not take the above as confrontational. I ask (a) because this interests me and (b) because I've been raised to believe this is the right thing to do and so if others don't, I'm keen to understand why.

You have the 8361a’s? If so then the way to satisfy your curiosity is try your premise out. Start at -3dB and increase to -15dB or until the speaker begins to complain. See how much added LFE to less SPL is acceptable to you. See if you can get to 24hz flat. It's your curiosity, put it to the test, that's the way "Science"works. Let us know how it goes and take measurements to show us. Good luck!

 

[8361AM]

You have the 8361a’s? If so then the way to satisfy your curiosity is try your premise out. Start at -3dB and increase to -15dB or until the speaker begins to complain. See how much added LFE to less SPL is acceptable to you. See if you can get to 24hz flat. It's your curiosity, put it to the test, that's the way "Science"works. Let us know how it goes and take measurements to show us. Good luck!

Science is also collaborative, hence my post. Whilst I'm grateful for your post and encouragement, I'm left none the wiser.

If you'd like to help, perhaps you could address one or more of the questions I raised about how to do so in a safe manner that have until now gone unanswered (e.g., when to determine that the speaker is 'complaining') or perhaps challenge some of the statements suggesting that any such attempt will result in speaker damage given what I shared above (e.g., if SPL is sufficiently low, damage is unlikely to occur)...

 

[JustJones]

Science is also collaborative, hence my post. Whilst I'm grateful for your post and encouragement, I'm left none the wiser.

If you'd like to help, perhaps you could address one or more of the questions I raised about how to do so in a safe manner that have until now gone unanswered (e.g., when to determine that the speaker is 'complaining') or perhaps challenge some of the statements suggesting that any such attempt will result in speaker damage given what I shared above (e.g., if SPL is sufficiently low, damage is unlikely to occur)...

Why not ask Genelec what's their take on your idea ? There also comes the time to move past theory and on to experiment. I think that's where we are now. Enough what ifs. You've been given reasons why what you propose might be a bad idea just reread the thread.

 

[8361AM]

Why not ask Genelec what's their take on your idea ?

Why not answer one of the questions I asked you?

There also comes the time to move past theory and on to experiment. I think that's where we are now. Enough what ifs.

True but I don't think that time is now. What about securing the method, as I've been attempting to from the beginning...

You've been given reasons why what you propose might be a bad idea just reread the thread.

Some have suggested this but I sense an assumption was made that SPL would be too high or the increase to LFE too excessive. In contrast, others have suggested it'd be OK. What matters is the quality of the reasons, not their quantity.

 

[NTK]

This is the frequency response graphs from Genelec. The extremely quick roll-off at <30 Hz suggests that it is deliberately done using the onboard DSP. There isn't much one can do to get much output from the 8361A below 30 Hz, unless he/she can defeat the protection electronics, which is probably a very bad idea.

 

[holdingpants01]

Seems like you're more interested in academic wandering about what is this board and who the people here are than the real world results. The way of use you think you invented is basically the way Genelec recommends setting up most of their monitors, including subwoofers. That is: close to the wall to gain as much reinforcement from the back wall as possible, then knocking out the peaks and leaving the dips untouched, hoping they are still above the reference level. I gave you the example how much I gained extension in the low end, using Genelec monitors nonetheless. Depending on the room and setup it's entirely possible you already have 5Hz more than the specs say, but you didn't care to measure the response in your room, so we are going in circles.

 

[8361AM]

This is the frequency response graphs from Genelec. The extremely quick roll-off at <30 Hz suggests that it is deliberately done using the onboard DSP. There isn't much one can do to get much output from the 8361A below 30 Hz, unless he/she can defeat the protection electronics, which is probably a very bad idea.

View attachment 411559

Thank you.

I agree it'd be inappropriate to focus on improving the sub-30hz range given the extreme downwards slope. However, the more gentle slope between around 30Hz and 45Hz seems interesting (if we focus on the graph for the time being to keep things simple). Whilst it may not result in a substantial improvement, if this range could be EQ'd to provide a flatter response, I wonder if this would provide an improved experience for those listening to content down to 30Hz who want a flatter rather than overall boosted response. However, I remember reading that having a more gradual slope from the point things being to slope downwards sounds better when listening to music that extends past the point things begin to slope downwards, and so users listening to sub-30Hz content may get an overall worse experience with the kind of EQ I've suggested (because the slope more or less immediately becomes extreme rather than starting gradual and then becoming extreme). Assuming this to be true, Genelec seem to have done the right thing here in terms of providing an optimal experience for most users (as one would expect!), but perhaps users who only listen down to 30Hz could benefit from the 30-45Hz region being flattened at the cost of SPL and a worse experience below 30Hz. Unsure if there's something to this, but keen to explore...

 

[8361AM]

Seems like you're more interested in academic wandering about what is this board and who the people here are than the real world results. The way of use you think you invented is basically the way Genelec recommends setting up most of their monitors, including subwoofers. That is: close to the wall to gain as much reinforcement from the back wall as possible, then knocking out the peaks and leaving the dips untouched, hoping they are still above the reference level. I gave you the example how much I gained extension in the low end, using Genelec monitors nonetheless. Depending on the room and setup it's entirely possible you already have 5Hz more than the specs say, but you didn't care to measure the response in your room, so we are going in circles.

It doesn't seem that you've read and/or understood my posts. Perhaps this explains a sense of going around in circles?

 

[NTK]

Thank you.

I agree it'd be inappropriate to focus on improving the sub-30hz range given the extreme downwards slope. However, the more gentle slope between around 30Hz and 45Hz seems interesting (if we focus on the graph for the time being to keep things simple). Whilst it may not result in a substantial improvement, if this range could be EQ'd to provide a flatter response, I wonder if this would provide an improved experience for those listening to content down to 30Hz who want a flatter rather than overall boosted response. However, I remember reading that having a more gradual slope from the point things being to slope downwards sounds better when listening to music that extends past the point things begin to slope downwards, and so users listening to sub-30Hz content may get an overall worse experience with the kind of EQ I've suggested (because the slope more or less immediately becomes extreme rather than starting gradual and then becoming extreme). Assuming this to be true, Genelec seem to have done the right thing here in terms of providing an optimal experience for most users (as one would expect!), but perhaps users who only listen down to 30Hz could benefit from the 30-45Hz region being flattened at the cost of SPL and a worse experience below 30Hz. Unsure if there's something to this, but keen to explore...

Realistically, a flat anechoic frequency response of a loudspeaker below the Schroeder frequency is not very important because of the effects of the room. You'll almost always need some room EQ for optimal sound quality. At that point, the non-flat FR of the speaker and the room effects can be both "corrected" together using EQ. SPL capability (after EQ) is what is important. The Genelec Ones has very sophisticated protection built-in. They are intended for professional uses, and reliability and tolerance to abuse is extremely important. So I'd expect they should be able to well tolerate some not-too-unreasonable EQ boost at the low end. Below is from the Genelec 8361A product page.

[Edit]

However, I remember reading that having a more gradual slope from the point things being to slope downwards sounds better when listening to music that extends past the point things begin to slope downwards, and so users listening to sub-30Hz content may get an overall worse experience with the kind of EQ I've suggested (because the slope more or less immediately becomes extreme rather than starting gradual and then becoming extreme).

On the other hand, Neumann takes the sharp corner cutoff approach, and nobody seems to have any complaint.

 

[kharan]

Some of the reticence is at least due to not wanting to give advice that could result in considerable financial loss.

And also you haven't posted anything that really describes your situation beyond some theorizing, it would at least go somewhere if you started posting measurements at your listening position.

 

[EJ3]

On the first quote : "these speakers go louder than I would ever want to listen to without damaging my hearing...", Well, that's quite easy to fix, just set the volume lower while listening.
8361 can play pretty loud (118 dB max SPL for one unit, probably measured in anechoic condition -not precised on their website, and no distorsion rate at this level indicated).

I have a great solution: Get a bigger room!

 

[MAB]

Science is also collaborative, hence my post. Whilst I'm grateful for your post and encouragement, I'm left none the wiser.

Yeah, but since I was trying to help you with the physics of what you were attempting, let me chime in and summarize.

We weren't doing 'science'. Yes I know that ASR has 'Science' in the name, but we weren't breaking new ground. In fact you are trying to do the opposite of AN Thiele demonstrated before I was born:
A. Neville Thiele, “Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes: Part 1 - 2,” Proc. IREE (Australia), Volume 22 (1961) (attached below)
His paper discusses EQ to prevent a bass reflex alignment from damaging the driver below resonance due to uncontrolled excursion. Genelec (without a doubt) read that paper and other, and the reason the bass is so flat to 30Hz then drops like a stone is that they implemented a similar equalization to flatten the response to the lowest possible value, then cut the bass below. In summary, AN Thiele's EQ is the inverse of what you are proposing. He is right.

So, from my perspective, I was relying on the results of scientific study, much of it many decades old. I was trying to give a reasonable for you to figure out for yourself that this was a bad idea without killing your gear. Extra credit would be for you to understand how bass is equalized in general, how Genelec's protection and limiting DSP likely will intervene, and the possibility of severe damage when equalizing a ported enclosure below resonance. Aside from proposing the opposite of Thiele's paper and basic speaker principles, and not paying much heed to anything I said, others tried to explain the danger of the type of EQ that you are exploring, but you keep getting emotional, defensive, and a bit aggressive in your responses. I explained the tradeoffs, tried to explain how bass works in a room, but you brushed that off too. I encouraged you to actually apply some bass EQ (and measure with the result) to see if the limiters on your speakers even allow you to make the adjustments. Yet you still are going in circles, and now taking issue with people now that you have everybody saying things over and over as you fly in circles. I get the idea that you don't know what you are doing, or unwilling to do anything.

Applying EQ takes a few moments. Measuring the results, a few more. I hope you go and just do what you want to do.

 

[8361AM]

Realistically, a flat anechoic frequency response of a loudspeaker below the Schroeder frequency is not very important because of the effects of the room. You'll almost always need some room EQ for optimal sound quality. At that point, the non-flat FR of the speaker and the room effects can be both "corrected" together using EQ. SPL capability (after EQ) is what is important. The Genelec Ones has very sophisticated protection built-in. They are intended for professional uses, and reliability and tolerance to abuse is extremely important. So I'd expect they should be able to well tolerate some not-too-unreasonable EQ boost at the low end. Below is from the Genelec 8361A product page.

View attachment 411576

[Edit]

On the other hand, Neumann takes the sharp corner cutoff approach, and nobody seems to have any complaint.

Really appreciate this. Taking all the feedback thus far, I'm confident this is worth exploring but to be cautious about doing so. I've a few questions about how to measure, but it seems that REW plus the UMIK-1 are the way to go and I expect that playing around with both will address them. Both REW and the UMIK-1 also seem able to measure distortion, which addresses another one of my earlier questions and will perhaps provide a means for determining the point at which the speaker is being pushed too far.

Thanks for highlighting the difference between Genelec's and Neumann's roll-off too!

 

[8361AM]

Yeah, but since I was trying to help you with the physics of what you were attempting, let me chime in and summarize.

We weren't doing 'science'. Yes I know that ASR has 'Science' in the name, but we weren't breaking new ground. In fact you are trying to do the opposite of AN Thiele demonstrated before I was born:
A. Neville Thiele, “Loudspeakers in Vented Boxes: Part 1 - 2,” Proc. IREE (Australia), Volume 22 (1961) (attached below)
His paper discusses EQ to prevent a bass reflex alignment from damaging the driver below resonance due to uncontrolled excursion. Genelec (without a doubt) read that paper and other, and the reason the bass is so flat to 30Hz then drops like a stone is that they implemented a similar equalization to flatten the response to the lowest possible value, then cut the bass below. In summary, AN Thiele's EQ is the inverse of what you are proposing. He is right.

So, from my perspective, I was relying on the results of scientific study, much of it many decades old. I was trying to give a reasonable for you to figure out for yourself that this was a bad idea without killing your gear. Extra credit would be for you to understand how bass is equalized in general, how Genelec's protection and limiting DSP likely will intervene, and the possibility of severe damage when equalizing a ported enclosure below resonance. Aside from proposing the opposite of Thiele's paper and basic speaker principles, and not paying much heed to anything I said, others tried to explain the danger of the type of EQ that you are exploring, but you keep getting emotional, defensive, and a bit aggressive in your responses. I explained the tradeoffs, tried to explain how bass works in a room, but you brushed that off too. I encouraged you to actually apply some bass EQ (and measure with the result) to see if the limiters on your speakers even allow you to make the adjustments. Yet you still are going in circles, and now taking issue with people now that you have everybody saying things over and over as you fly in circles. I get the idea that you don't know what you are doing, or unwilling to do anything.

Applying EQ takes a few moments. Measuring the results, a few more. I hope you go and just do what you want to do.

Thanks but you appear to be mischaracterising me... Your argument seems based on me wishing to apply an extreme EQ curve and this is untrue, as I've stated multiple times now. Furthermore, if you go back to post #18, you will note that I express my gratitude for your feedback and acknowledge its points (e.g., specifically about excursion, to which you helped scaffold my learning--thank you). You will also note that I asked for guidance about how to measure but most if not all of these questions went unanswered. Thus, it can hardly be the case that I'm unwilling to try but rather that I did not have the means to. As for your point about me being "emotional, defensive, and a bit aggressive", I think this unfair. I do speak my mind and at times have responded with fewer words, but never whilst in one or more of the states of mind you've ascribed to me. Lastly, I've not had the sense of going around in circles but rather of making progress. As above, if you feel that you are, I suggest it could be because you've not understood what I've been attempting to explore: the potential of improving the low-end frequency response of the 8361A in a manner that is safe and superior--in terms of accuracy--to the often recommended ~2dB 100-200Hz shelving filter.

 

[8361AM]

Some of the reticence is at least due to not wanting to give advice that could result in considerable financial loss.

Thanks and I appreciate this.

And also you haven't posted anything that really describes your situation beyond some theorizing, it would at least go somewhere if you started posting measurements at your listening position.

Agreed but my question was a more general one rather than an individual one (to be clear, I do appreciate the importance of the in room response, but it complicates things and so for the time being, my focus has been on the frequency response graphs Genelec provides). It seems that some members do not like this framing and that's all good, although I would have preferred that it did not cause the frustration it appears to have.

 

[dshreter]

You will also note that I asked for guidance about how to measure but most if not all of these questions went unanswered.

Maybe you could use GRADE to do the measurement if you already have GLM.

GLM GRADE™ - Genelec.com

GRADE™ (Genelec Room Acoustic Data Evaluation)is a powerful new reporting tool in GLM that creates a full analysis of room and monitoring system performance, revealing the information needed to effectively fine tune acoustic treatment, adjust monitor and listener positioning, and optimise Bass...

www.genelec.com

 

[sigbergaudio]

(..)

Secondly, if you've taken the necessary time to consider my comments, you should have noted by now that I'm far less interested in my personal situation as I am the broader question of how SPL may be traded for LFE.

This is a pretty well explored subject. It is safe to do so within the xmax of the driver at any frequency response in a sealed speaker, and above the port tuning frequency on a ported speaker. There is no inherent difference between just turning up the volume and applying EQ, you are just shifting the tonal balance of the speaker.

(..)Based on feedback here, it seems that the speaker being ported is what limits its potential to trade SPL for LFE but I remain unconvinced that this necessarily means that its LFE cannot be improved at least to some degree; for example, if one is prepared to listen at sufficiently low SPL or accept minor improvement.

Which arguments / what type of arguments would it take to convince you? The reason it is a bad idea is that below the tuning frequency there is no inherent damping from the cabinet, so your driver will be "flapping in the wind" so to speak. This will quickly lead to your 8361 no longer having a bass driver, which is not ideal.

Thirdly, I've already answered why on multiple occasions: because it's interesting to me! I think my potential mistake here was to assume that posting on a forum with "Science" in its name necessarily means that its members would be more supportive of a post such as this because of their intellectual curiosity rather than their preconceptions of a question's validity.

I think the main reason you're not getting a lot of traction from a science perspective is that the science behind your question is already well known and understood.

(a) Why do some members seem so against optimising the performance of a speaker to a greater or lesser degree, such as optimising the performance of the 8361A so that it has greater LFE at the cost of SPL? For example, perhaps because doing so would not deliver meaningful benefit, come at too great an SPL cost, or run the risk of damage at the level of meaninful benefit or adequate SPL? Or perhaps something else?
(b) Should members who have clearly mischaracterised what I have shared apologise for doing so?

Please do not take the above as confrontational. I ask (a) because this interests me and (b) because I've been raised to believe this is the right thing to do and so if others don't, I'm keen to understand why.

A) It already has almost flat response all the way down to the port tuning frequency. The port tuning is around 40hz, so below that you will not get any more meaningful output by EQing it. Above that you can EQ it. It will limit maximum SPL but otherwise be fine.
B) Not for me to say.