Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review

[_Bass]

Hi

Can this spectacular (at least IME) measuring speaker, the Genelec 8030C, be used as mains? , perhaps all around speaker in a a Home set-up helped, of course, by multiple subwoofers?

Is the 8030C a good choice in the far field, say 10~12 ft from the plane of the front speakers?

HT System: A decent AVR such as the Denon AVR-X3600 or X4600 plus 7 of these speakers + 3 Rythmik L12 or SVS equivalent in a 50 square meters room...

I want some answers, if this speaker is not good for the above purposes? Why?

I would also like someone who understands the measurements to answer whether we can have this speaker in a home theater setup as stated above.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Can this spectacular (at least IME) measuring speaker, the Genelec 8030C, be used as mains?

According to the Genelec document the maximum listening distance for direct sound to dominate for this model is just under 2 metres so I would say not for most people IMO.

 

[thewas]

What I wanted to say was that I am not interested in the personnel of hearing tests. They don't know anything about music. they rate the loudspeakers according to their expectations. the quality of experience of the situation - it's actually known what I mean by that? The mindset - is probably rather "good hifi", but not "good music".

They don't need really to "know about music", listeners rather punish colorations of any kind and these are very clearly audible even on unknown music or even test signals.

The difference becomes obvious with the test material chosen by HARMAN.

The test material is wisely chosen having a broad spectral density as this way its more revealing tonal flaws http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/03/method-for-training-listeners-and.html

 

[daftcombo]

Actually, it's basic understanding of how a speaker intereacts with a room that I'm drawing the conclusion on when I'm saying a speaker with collapsing polar like this Genelec will have tonal swifts compared to a speaker with constant directivity lower in frequency.

Just like I can't give you a quick paper on why the earth isn't flat, I can't give you a paper on a subject that's based on understanding of fundamentals that is build on several steps (while I've tried to explain it here to some degree). But it's certainly out there for you educate yourself.

But since the Genelec are supposed to be used as near-field monitors, it's unlikely the wall, ceiling or floor reflections will change the sound heard. The direct sound will reach the ears with a lot more dB than the reflections.

 

[thewas]

Is the 8030C a good choice in the far field, say 10~12 ft from the plane of the front speakers?

For "high fidelity" my experiences are similar to the recommendations of Genelec for direct sound dominance, so not more than 2 meters for a 8x30 model or similar sized other brands, actually in living rooms usually with less dry acoustics than studios even less:

Source: https://www.genelec.com/correct-monitors

 

[aac]

I would also like someone who understands the measurements to answer whether we can have this speaker in a home theater setup as stated above.

50 square meters room is around 150 cubic meters, which gives you a reference level of 80 dB (100 peak).
Unfortunately, calculating what SPL speakers are capable of is complicated as you need to know room absorbtion, speaker directivity, etc.
Genelec gives some approximations/recommendations for various distances, and I'd say, no its not capable, look at a model like 1237A for LCR.

And recommendations for room volume

 

[Thomas savage]

Could we stick to op and remember many diversions are deserving of their own threads . This way the great content you guys provide doesn't get lost in-between the cracks .

Cheers

 

[aac]

They don't need really to "know about music", listeners rather punish colorations of any kind and these are very clearly audible even on unknown music or even test signals.

The test material is wisely chosen having a broad spectral density as this way its more revealing tonal flaws http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/03/method-for-training-listeners-and.html

Was it proven that by finding preference on a "revealing material" the preference for other material is also determined?
Because without that all that "people prefer speakers that have qualities X Y and Z" shrink to "people prefer speakers with qualities X Y and Z when using specific material" which is a HUGE difference.

 

[Bjorn]

But since the Genelec are supposed to be used as near-field monitors, it's unlikely the wall, ceiling or floor reflections will change the sound heard. The direct sound will reach the ears with a lot more dB than the reflections.

No. That's incorrect. Listening in near field in a room only delays the reflections my some ms. In most rooms you still have many reflections arriving very early and contribute to the overall sound both in the time domain and in amplitude (frequency). They only good way to minimize the issue of a collapsing polar is using high amounts of acoustical treatment. But better to start off in the right direction than remedy later.

 

[daftcombo]

"We shouldn't praise mediocrisy. Heck, we shouldn't call this mediocre either. It should at minimum have a uniform directivity down to 700-800 Hz to be considered ok."

Focal Aria 906 fill that bill:

source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/focal-aria-906-speaker-review.14085/

 

[Frank Dernie]

50 square meters room is around 150 cubic meters, which gives you a reference level of 80 dB (100 peak).
Unfortunately, calculating what SPL speakers are capable of is complicated as you need to know room absorbtion, speaker directivity, etc.
Genelec gives some approximations/recommendations for various distances, and I'd say, no its not capable, look at a model like 1237A for LCR.

And recommendations for room volume

I use this document but, for me the key parameter is listening distance and maximum loudness. I had really hoped a lot of smaller monitors would be a good solution but for me, in my room and distance, only the 1236A is ideal For mains and centre, though I could re-arrange the room a bit and get away with the 1238 range.

 

[daftcombo]

No. That's incorrect. Listening in near field in a room only delays the reflections my some ms. In most rooms you still have many reflections arriving very early and contribute to the overall sound both in the time domain and in amplitude (frequency). They only good way to minimize the issue of a collapsing polar is using high amounts of acoustical treatment. But better to start off in the right direction than remedy later.

My left monitor is located 50 cm from the left wall, my right monitor 2,5 m from the right wall. Nevertheless, I don't hear a different kind of sound coming from each. That is different with my Aria 906, which I listen 3 m away.

 

[AnalogSteph]

That's expanding wavefronts for ya. Propagation loss means that the ratio of listening dstance vs. distance of offending surfaces absolutely does matter.

It can be demonstrated easily enough in reverse if you take up the role of a speaker and position a microphone at varying distance. The further away the mic, the more "room" the recording will pick up.

This test is obviously qualitative only, as our hearing is accompanied by some powerful processing that is quite good at separating original sound from late reflections; it's the early ones that are substantially more critical.

 

[GelbeMusik]

They don't need really to "know about music", listeners rather punish colorations of any kind and these are very clearly audible even on unknown music or even test signals.

The test material is wisely chosen having a broad spectral density as this way its more revealing tonal flaws http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/03/method-for-training-listeners-and.html

If I could not imagine that the theory of preference, so celebrated here, would need an addition, then the term 'science' would probably be inappropriate.

I think the 'science' should be clarified in several places. Conceptually I am not quite clear what 'preference' means. The term seems to be self-evident, but even the mapping of statistically maybe secured binary yes-no decisions to a ratio scale ( see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement ) seems to me worth considering. Nevertheless, it is very often treated here as if it were a yardstick.

This is also done quite naturally with qualitative studies, for example from the AES smoke screen. They are simply evaluated quantitatively without any sense or understanding, as if man were a diesel engine.

Well, that said, I would like to say that in my opinion there is a difference between listening to stupid records of unknown intention on the one hand, and enjoying music on the other hand. Listening is focused according to your interests. How can you take for granted that there is no difference between listening and hifi-testing? This will copy through to 'preference', if that does make sense at all.

For purely logical reasons, the circle of confusion sends its regards, there can be no valid evaluation of a loudspeaker based on unknown recordings. At least not if only linear characteristics are to score. Because the linear parameters are left to the arbitrariness of the sound engineer. He mixes the mix. Even in largely unknown surroundings. The listener cannot know what is right! ( Consider the case that engineer and producer both expect You (!) to have a bad taste, and try to shape the sound to Your expectations *g* )

How much more are parameters of secondary importance that are first created in the mixer's control room, where they influence the mixer's taste, implicitly but not explicitly make it into the recording, and then created in a completely different way in the comfort of your own home?

I find it ridiculous to argue about a few dBs here and there. Anyone who does that simply hasn't understood the concept. ( Let alone the more technical problems with "averaging rooms" 8-] )

 

[BYRTT]

No. That's incorrect. Listening in near field in a room only delays the reflections my some ms. In most rooms you still have many reflections arriving very early and contribute to the overall sound both in the time domain and in amplitude (frequency). They only good way to minimize the issue of a collapsing polar is using high amounts of acoustical treatment. But better to start off in the right direction than remedy later.

Honestly Bjørn try think about if you get too passionate about personal research and execution, heck read above and how on earth can industri have made beatifull sounding recordings for 100 years or so without you sit and guide them, myself also have very different system than most and of course it rolls over anything else but that doesn't make me slam D&D Genelec and whatever industry documented research, no hard feelings and you can continue drive the other way and slam anything or you could drive the other way and be constructive publish/share documented improvements, that said beautifull directivity curve pages back.

 

[Deleted member 16502]

No. That's incorrect. Listening in near field in a room only delays the reflections my some ms. In most rooms you still have many reflections arriving very early and contribute to the overall sound both in the time domain and in amplitude (frequency).

Assuming a fixed room geometry, would it be difficult to calculate for the Gelenec's diagram @thewas_posted the relative level of direct and reflected sound and use that as color instead of the qualitative statement Genelec made?

 

[temps]

No. That's incorrect. Listening in near field in a room only delays the reflections my some ms. In most rooms you still have many reflections arriving very early and contribute to the overall sound both in the time domain and in amplitude (frequency). They only good way to minimize the issue of a collapsing polar is using high amounts of acoustical treatment. But better to start off in the right direction than remedy later.

Yes. The right direction is to TREAT THE ROOM.

There are a lot of beautiful and highly effective treatments available these days. Treating a space has a gigantic benefit on all aspects of all sound in the room, and it is very cheap relative to the drivers/amps/whatever else. The research you've been quoting actually has more to do with treatment than speaker design. I'm honestly not sure if I've ever seen someone approach an issue exactly backwards before, but that's what you're doing.

 

[GelbeMusik]

They only good way to minimize the issue of a collapsing polar is using high amounts of acoustical treatment. But better to start off in the right direction than remedy later.

Twisted logic? You'd have to muffle the bass and also the mids, but leave the treble untouched. How?

You sell room treatment commercially. As an expert, what do you recommend to accomplish the task?

 

[Bjorn]

Yes. The right direction is to TREAT THE ROOM.

There are a lot of beautiful and highly effective treatments available these days. Treating a space has a gigantic benefit on all aspects of all sound in the room, and it is very cheap relative to the drivers/amps/whatever else. The research you've been quoting actually has more to do with treatment than speaker design. I'm honestly not sure if I've ever seen someone approach an issue exactly backwards before, but that's what you're doing.

FIY: I work with small room acoustics. I always recommend treatment if possible. However, starting with a speaker that both has uniform directivity and the desired beamwidth is always the better way. A great speaker design can actually minimize need for room treatment. Not that it removes the need, but you get away with less. And so is the case with speakers with narrow dispersion, if the goal is to the hear primarily direct sound and have the best insight into the recorded material.

 

[Bjorn]

Twisted logic? You'd have to muffle the bass and also the mids, but leave the treble untouched. How?

You sell room treatment commercially. As an expert, what do you recommend to accomplish the task?

I would recommend to measure and treat accordingly to measurements and the design goal. In most cases, the aesthetical also come into play.

Generally though, you want broadband treatment to avoid alterting the spectral content. There are several ways to avoid absorbing the highs of specular reflections with treatment.

I would recommend to continue the topic in another thread.