Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review

[temps]

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.

Sounds like you want electrostatic loudspeakers then? Even the smallest Martin Logan hybrid crosses over at 500hz. The bigger ones are <300hz. That gives you constant (narrow) directivity, with no side reflections to worry about, and you only have to treat the rear wall to taste. I run that setup in the big room downstairs and it sounds brilliant, with no treatment except for some diffusion on the rear wall.

But, we are talking about a tiny bookshelf speaker, intended for studio use, in tight spaces, where the assumption is that the room will either be purpose-built for critical listening or heavily treated. I am not sure what design could accomplish your goals in a 10 litre cabinet?

 

[jhaider]

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.

It depends.

If you're willing to use multiple subwoofers (I'd like to see one near the left speaker, one near the right speaker, and at least one somewhere else in the room) and cross them a little higher than normal, and don't expect deafening "cinema reference" SPL, yes.

If you can only use one sub, refuse to cross subwoofers above 80Hz, and expect to listen at so-called cinema reference levels, I would recommend larger loudspeakers.

It's not much better. This is still what would be considered a classic collapsing polar. In the middle of a sensitive area to our ears, the dispersion changes considerably. The result of that is that reflective energy from the room also changes and the frequency response response start to become very uneven as well.

If that is true, I repeat my question posed earlier but ignored: why doesn't this unevenness (inherently a trait of any monopole narrower than a OLED TV) show up in the PIR?

 

[GelbeMusik]

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.

Hm, lost in translation? Referring to Your recommendation, to mitigate a "collapsing directivity"-- how would you flatten the bass and the mids, but leave the treble untouched? Just a thought experiment.

 

[BYRTT]

.....There is a fair amount of differences with the Genelec 8030A (not C) measured by Princeton in the 1k-3kHz range. It could be due to measurements or to differences between revisions.....

Thanks notice and hint, think for following reasons it must be revision deviations, not long ago at KH 80 sample 3 analyze Amir realligned NFS twice and one of them resulted in black on axis curve below and magenta curve was before (not much alarm there), and after that Neumann confirmed that they could see in their log for sample 3 that Amir was within +/-0,6dB of their notes.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

I think some here are misunderstanding the purpose of this speaker. It is a nearfield speaker that is optimized for cost, compactness, and listening window consistency. How low it controls directivity is not that important.

 

[Sancus]

I think some here are misunderstanding the purpose of this speaker. It is a nearfield speaker that is optimized for cost, compactness, and listening window consistency. How low it controls directivity is not that important.

Yeah, if you want constant directivity and are willing to pay for it(both in bulk and cost) the 8351/8361+W371A are right there. Nobody's getting constant directivity in a speaker the size and price of the 8030C so it's irrelevant.

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:

I don't think it's good to post these kinds of recommendations without acknowledging that it's a particular, personal preference to want the direct sound to dominate. And it's a preference that may not be actually shared by that many people.

The fact of the matter is that many people(maybe the majority?) prefer wide dispersion speakers which, based on Genelec's recommendations at least, would definitely be far too wide to allow the direct sound to dominate in most rooms past ~1-2m.

I think this speaker is fine for any distance as long as you are OK with the resulting SPL, and I would use Toole's -3dB/DD curve to decide that.

 

[test1223]

Hello,

That's also just a claim of people who cannot provide better or actually any research that proves their claims...

Of cause I can! The overall speaker design differences over-shadows a lot of smaller issues, which are researched in its own but not in the overall context of different speaker designs. It is hard to do research on one single aspect in the context of speaker preference since you can not easily change only one aspect form a speaker.
E.g. no one will deny that the preference of one speakers change with the room acoustic and changes if you listen to mono or stereo.
If you have a look at two different hypothetical perfect speaker one with a lower DI and one with the same DI + 3dB. No one would deny that these speaker will sound differently. So there have to be some pros and cons. E.g. in mono testing the speaker with the lower DI would be preferred. In stereo it will depends on the listening distance and room acoustic, which speaker will be preferred. One other aspect: the not perfect summation of Stereo, which causes very small dipps and peaks. The perfect tonality can only be mimic, if you have the exact same speaker positioning as in the mixing studio. If you have a different positioning the frequencies of your dipps and peaks will change. The same is true for the changes in tonality if you have more direct or more diffuse sound compared to the studio, no one will deny all these small changes are there and will change the preference slightly. You take some findings from the research out of context, the preference score was never claimed to be that accurate. In a lot of small details there is scientific work to do.

Best
Thomas

 

[thewas]

Of cause I can!

But your following post didn't do so, it was full of assumptions to some of which I also agree, but still they are not results proved by scientific research.
But I agree also to

In a lot of small details there is scientific work to do.

and would add not even small details, imho there are still huge gaps in this field.

 

[thewas]

The fact of the matter is that many people(maybe the majority?) prefer wide dispersion speakers which, based on Genelec's recommendations at least, would definitely be far too wide to allow the direct sound to dominate in most rooms past ~1-2m.

The problem is that the typical wide/narrow preference tests were mainly performed at distances outside of the dominance of the direct sound and I wouldn't extrapolate those results to preference of listening in near field or outside of it for which I don't know of blind tests. When I have friends listening to my setups I let them try both and the biggest wow moments come when listening in near field, when for some for the first time in their lives they "get into the 3 dimensionality" of a suitable recording.
By the way, I personally also prefer rather wider horizontal radiating loudspeaker but listening to them at distance where direct sound dominates, one doesn't necessarily contradict the other.

 

[thewas]

For purely logical reasons, the circle of confusion sends its regards, there can be no valid evaluation of a loudspeaker based on unknown recordings.

Well, in the linked article of Olive pink noise was on first place

Also if you take many recordings, thanks to statistic distribution the tonal average will be also rather tonally flat:

 

[Sancus]

The problem is that the typical wide/narrow preference tests were mainly performed at distances outside of the dominance of the direct sound and I wouldn't extrapolate those results to preference of listening in near field or outside of it for which I don't know of blind tests. When I have friends listening to my setups I let them try both and the biggest wow moments come when listening in near field, when for some for the first time in their lives they "get into the 3 dimensionality" of a suitable recording.
By the way, I personally also prefer rather wider horizontal radiating loudspeaker but listening to them at distance where direct sound dominates, one doesn't necessarily contradict the other.

Yes -- I don't want to turn this into a wide/narrow directivity preference thread. My point was mainly that if you are recommending things based on direct sound dominance you should note that it's possible not everyone prefers this, and that it's difficult to accomplish at longer distances, so it shouldn't necessarily be your priority.

Otherwise you're telling people to seek out very particular speakers that are very expensive, large, or both. There are few practical options that will provide direct sound dominance at 3m+.

 

[GelbeMusik]

Well, in the linked article of Olive pink noise was on first place

Thank You, I take that. But I'm out anyway. You know, first You try to sport some humor. But sooner than later it becomes sour. Sometimes it feels as if audiophiles in their well-known pedantry (Sigmund had a very German word for it) use "science" as a new toy. That would be exactly the same as it has always been. No offence!

 

[thewas]

Yes -- I don't want to turn this into a wide/narrow directivity preference thread. My point was mainly that if you are recommending things based on direct sound dominance you should note that it's possible not everyone prefers this, and that it's difficult to accomplish at longer distances, so it shouldn't necessarily be your priority.

Otherwise you're telling people to seek out very particular speakers that are very expensive, large, or both. There are few practical options that will provide direct sound dominance at 3m+.

I agree, but on the other hand its a hobby where many people here are ready to spend thousands of $€£ so they should be also warned to that limitation and be told to do the comparison and find their own preference. Personally at listening distances over listen 4m I would nowadays rather go to some PA or DIY stuff which is not very expensive but still rather large I must admit.

 

[thewas]

Thank You, I take that. But I'm out anyway. You know, first You try to sport some humor. But sooner than later it becomes sour. Sometimes it feels as if audiophiles in their well-known pedantry (Sigmund had a very German word for it) use "science" as a new toy. That would be exactly the same as it has always been. No offence!

Well, several your posts give the impressions that you have a personal problem with the current state of science as it represented by AES and other publications and is also always open to changes but for those also a similar level of scientific method is needed, so maybe its a good choice opting out and keeping to his own "science".

 

[GelbeMusik]

Well, several your posts give the impressions that you have a personal problem with the current state of science as it represented by AES ...

Puh! This is a personal offense. Many of my posts should reveal some, in audiophilia maybe unfamiliar, understanding of the topic. Ironically I have a deeper problem with a lack of it. You get the logic?

There are still so many unanswered questions. I only discuss them, or rather try to discuss them, because they belong to science. The answers are still missing. I won't be provoked into repeating my entire sermon. I also deny myself an evaluation.

 

[richard12511]

I think some here are misunderstanding the purpose of this speaker. It is a nearfield speaker that is optimized for cost, compactness, and listening window consistency. How low it controls directivity is not that important.

Agreed.

This is an excellent speaker for the intended use. Calling it mediocre or below mediocre for what it does is ludicrous.

 

[617]

Agreed.

This is an excellent speaker for the intended use. Calling it mediocre or below mediocre for what it does is ludicrous.

Honestly hard to imagine a speaker being much better given the constraints it satisfies.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I don't think it's good to post these kinds of recommendations without acknowledging that it's a particular, personal preference to want the direct sound to dominate. And it's a preference that may not be actually shared by that many people.

This may be a good point.
It is my preference, and it seems Genelec's recommendation, but not what this site usually recommends as preference.
Personally I came to the conclusion based on the way different types of speaker reproduced recordings I made myself in my room(s).
Speakers which I had chosen on audition using favourite bought recordings added a lot of listening room acoustics to my own recordings and it was a while before I heard speakers which reproduced my own recordings with the recording venue acoustics more evident.
They did not sound as "spacious" on the bought recordings.
So I now consider speakers with wide directivity to be euphonically coloured in a way pleasing to many (including me) but not accurate, whatever one's interpretation of accurate is.
So I now have two systems, one has a lovely euphonic stereo, the other adds less of my ownb room to the sound field.
If I bought new speakers I would personally chose some where the direct sound was dominant, as per the Genelec choosing a monitor advice document.
I have never heard the Revel Salon 2 or JBL M2, and never will given their relative lack of availability here but I expect I would be one of the minority who prefers the M2.

 

[fosti]

.....
Otherwise you're telling people to seek out very particular speakers that are very expensive, large, or both. There are few practical options that will provide direct sound dominance at 3m+.

Yes either you end up with large speakers like M2, KH420, RL901K etc. oder specialities like Dutch&Dutsch 8C, KiiTrhree or almost "normal" Grimm LS1

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yes either you end up with large speakers like M2, KH420, RL901K etc. oder specialities like Dutch&Dutsch 8C, KiiTrhree or almost "normal" Grimm LS1

Quite.
It is impossible for small speakers to work well at long listening distance IME.