Genelec 8030C Studio Monitor Review

[Peluvius]

Is there a way to hook up an external amp to the 8030C without hacking them apart? Not what 99.99999% people who bought this speaker have in mind, I Know

You need to open them but why would you do that?

 

[Alexium]

Adding external amp still pass through the internal amp which will just degrade its performance

I formulated my question poorly, what I really meant to ask is if there is a way to bypass the internal amp, i. e. substitute it for an external one. Does this model have a passive crossover, or is it digital? Or, perhaps, active but analog?

 

[YSC]

I formulated my question poorly, what I really meant to ask is if there is a way to bypass the internal amp, i. e. substitute it for an external one. Does this model have a passive crossover, or is it digital? Or, perhaps, active but analog?

it is active but analog, but TBH, in active speakers part of the design is in the individual amp tuning, you remove the amp and use your own will 99% result in worse performance and removed the safety protection.

 

[N9R]

I formulated my question poorly, what I really meant to ask is if there is a way to bypass the internal amp, i. e. substitute it for an external one. Does this model have a passive crossover, or is it digital? Or, perhaps, active but analog?

8030C has separate amps for each driver, and the (analog) crossover works at line-level, prior to amplification. If you want to drive them using a single stereo amp, you'll have to provide your own passive crossovers and connect directly to the driver terminals

 

[captainspork]

Got my UMIK-1 measurement microphone and started playing around with REW.

I ran a test to check the effect of the "Desktop" switch, which the manual describes as follows: "The desktop low frequency control (Switch 1) attenuates the bass frequencies around 160 Hz by 4 dB. This feature is designed to compensate for the boost often occurring at this frequency range when the loudspeaker is placed upon a meter bridge, table or similar reflective surface."

In addition to desktop use, the manual recommends this switch be set on in a "Near field or console bridge" setup. I'm listening in the near field but my speakers are on IsoAcoustics stands. Please note that my subwoofer (LSR310S) is enabled in this test.

Here's an SPL graph where each configuration is an average over 3 test runs, switch enabled for the purple line, and disabled for the red line:

Overall the switch appears to do what is says on the tin (-4db around 160Hz). To my ear, it sounds better with the switch disabled, and is closer to a downward slope described as a preferred response in this article.

I'm really new to this stuff, but it looks like I could do with trying to clean up the low end variance a bit.

 

[Alexium]

This is not at all the clean and flat response measured by Klippel. Is this because of the room interaction?

 

[Robbo99999]

Got my UMIK-1 measurement microphone and started playing around with REW.

I ran a test to check the effect of the "Desktop" switch, which the manual describes as follows: "The desktop low frequency control (Switch 1) attenuates the bass frequencies around 160 Hz by 4 dB. This feature is designed to compensate for the boost often occurring at this frequency range when the loudspeaker is placed upon a meter bridge, table or similar reflective surface."

In addition to desktop use, the manual recommends this switch be set on in a "Near field or console bridge" setup. I'm listening in the near field but my speakers are on IsoAcoustics stands. Please note that my subwoofer (LSR310S) is enabled in this test.

Here's an SPL graph where each configuration is an average over 3 test runs, switch enabled for the purple line, and disabled for the red line:

View attachment 236982
Overall the switch appears to do what is says on the tin (-4db around 160Hz). To my ear, it sounds better with the switch disabled, and is closer to a downward slope described as a preferred response in this article.

I'm really new to this stuff, but it looks like I could do with trying to clean up the low end variance a bit.

If I was you I'd re-post that graph but with the y-axis showing a spread of 50dB on the y-axis, which is the unofficial standard we use here on ASR - Amir uses that scale on speaker & headphone measurements, and a lot of other reputable measuring sites use a similar y-axis scale - it basically puts the peaks & troughs into the best overall subjective quick glance impression, it puts it in a real sensible perspective. The way you've got it set up with only 20dB spread on the y-axis makes it look totally horrendous, and it's really hard to judge just how good or bad your measurement is. Put the y-axis with a 50dB spread and you'll be happier, and everyone else will find it more useful.

EDIT: thinking about it, I appreciate you may have zoomed in the y-axis in order to highlight more accurately the effect of the "Desktop Switch", so in that respect it totally works & is actually more valid if you're mainly trying to show the effect of the switch. But if you were doing room correction or wanted to show other people your frequency response for general discussion then you'd be best placed to use the 50dB y-axis range scale I mentioned. And thinking about it you are indeed also trying to show how good your frequency response is, as in your last sentence you ask about whether you could do with cleaning up the low end. If I was you I'd post a thumbnail in addition to your large pic you already have, and the thumbnail would show your frequency response with a 50dB scale - that way you've got both pics to highlight your main points to the best effect, the zoomed in y-axis to show the effect of the switch, and the 50dB y-axis scale range for the purposes of discussing if your frequency response needs cleaning up. Sorry for the long post, but a lot of people will think your frequency response is just terrible if you leave it with a 20dB range on the y-axis.

 

[changer]

Re: Alexium

Klippel is quasi-anechoic and the most important letter in PIR is the P.
Scale (!), SBIR, Room curve.

 

[changer]

I'm really new to this stuff, but it looks like I could do with trying to clean up the low end variance a bit.

What is your source, a computer? If you had the chance to make use of some PEQs, you could do a proper room EQ.

 

[Alexium]

Re: Alexium

Klippel is quasi-anechoic and the most important letter in PIR is the P.
Scale (!), SBIR, Room curve.

Thank you, so it is the room (a multitude of effects that it has on sound). What's PIR, though?

 

[spartaman64]

this is what i get when i measured my 8030c with umik1. is my room just really bad or something?

 

[captainspork]

If I was you I'd re-post that graph but with the y-axis showing a spread of 50dB on the y-axis, which is the unofficial standard we use here on ASR - Amir uses that scale on speaker & headphone measurements, and a lot of other reputable measuring sites use a similar y-axis scale - it basically puts the peaks & troughs into the best overall subjective quick glance impression, it puts it in a real sensible perspective. The way you've got it set up with only 20dB spread on the y-axis makes it look totally horrendous, and it's really hard to judge just how good or bad your measurement is. Put the y-axis with a 50dB spread and you'll be happier, and everyone else will find it more useful.

EDIT: thinking about it, I appreciate you may have zoomed in the y-axis in order to highlight more accurately the effect of the "Desktop Switch", so in that respect it totally works & is actually more valid if you're mainly trying to show the effect of the switch. But if you were doing room correction or wanted to show other people your frequency response for general discussion then you'd be best placed to use the 50dB y-axis range scale I mentioned. And thinking about it you are indeed also trying to show how good your frequency response is, as in your last sentence you ask about whether you could do with cleaning up the low end. If I was you I'd post a thumbnail in addition to your large pic you already have, and the thumbnail would show your frequency response with a 50dB scale - that way you've got both pics to highlight your main points to the best effect, the zoomed in y-axis to show the effect of the switch, and the 50dB y-axis scale range for the purposes of discussing if your frequency response needs cleaning up. Sorry for the long post, but a lot of people will think your frequency response is just terrible if you leave it with a 20dB range on the y-axis.

Thanks for this feedback, I added a thumbnail on my previous post with a similar y-axis to what Amir looks to be using.

This is not at all the clean and flat response measured by Klippel. Is this because of the room interaction?

Yes, this is because of the room interaction. As far as I understand it, Amir's equipment is supposed to cancel out the effect of the room reflections. My test which uses a simple measurement microphone (miniDSP UMIK-1) does not do this, and is heavily influenced by room acoustics, especially under 200Hz (according to another of Amir's articles which states that under around 200Hz the room tends to make more of a difference than the speaker). For what it's worth, my measurements are actually quite a lot better than what they show from an untreated room this tutorial. While I don't have any special room treatment (yet), I'm in a carpeted basement that has unsightly (yet perhaps good for sound) drop ceiling acoustic tiles.

 

[Alexium]

An interesting broad dip at 10KHz in @captainspork 's response, while @spartaman64 doesn't have it. Is it also a room effect? I would think that interference peaks and dips should be much narrower at this high frequency. And if it's absorption or reflection, I can't imagine what would affect 10K and not 15K (short of a tuned resonator).

 

[Peluvius]

I'm really new to this stuff, but it looks like I could do with trying to clean up the low end variance a bit.

The first thing I would do is work on how your sub is integrated. Trying to make adjustments to the speakers without getting that to a point you are happy can be frustrating (ask me how I know). If this is the first time you are starting to measure performance, there are lots of things to play with. Have you tried implementing the recommended EQ from REW and measuring the result?

 

[Robbo99999]

Thanks for this feedback, I added a thumbnail on my previous post with a similar y-axis to what Amir looks to be using.



Yes, this is because of the room interaction. As far as I understand it, Amir's equipment is supposed to cancel out the effect of the room reflections. My test which uses a simple measurement microphone (miniDSP UMIK-1) does not do this, and is heavily influenced by room acoustics, especially under 200Hz (according to another of Amir's articles which states that under around 200Hz the room tends to make more of a difference than the speaker). For what it's worth, my measurements are actually quite a lot better than what they show from an untreated room this tutorial. While I don't have any special room treatment (yet), I'm in a carpeted basement that has unsightly (yet perhaps good for sound) drop ceiling acoustic tiles.

Nice, that's good that you've included that thumbnail I mentioned, that puts it in a lot better perspective. If I was you I'd make sure I'm doing multiple measurements at slight and representative positions that represent your entire possible listening position - then I'd average those curves & then roomEQ that. You can't really do it based off just one measurement as it can change somewhat based on what kind of spatial spread your listening position encompasses. But thinking about it, doesn't Genelec come with a built-in roomEQ function with the mic & software - in which case you would just go through that procedure???? But anyway, it looks like there's a 10dB hole at 100Hz that you'd need to EQ up if all your other measurements around your listening position show the same trend. But to be honest that's quite a big EQ adjustment, instead it might be worth trying to optimise your speaker & listening position (along with your room) to make sure such a large adjustment is not necessary. Also, you would get better EQ results by not smoothing the bass measurement as much as you have - you've used what looks like 1/12th or higher octave (eg 1/4) smoothing on that bass measurement, but in my experience when I've compared EQ based on smoothed bass measurements vs 1/48th smoothing (ie virtually no smoothing) then the no smoothing bass EQ sounded better. I think you want to see every imperfection in that bass at your listening position and try to eliminate every peak & trough as best you can - 1st by optimising placement in your room & maybe room treatments (although I've never invested in room treatments) and then secondly through accurate precise bass roomEQ. (So use VarSmoothing option in REW in order to see the best detail level in the bass that you need to EQ out). But doesn't Genelec come with it's own roomEQ measurement and correction functionality????

EDIT: As an example here is an example of how my 2.1 channel setup looked one time using VarSmoothing in REW before & after EQ:

I don't use this exact same EQ, but it's illustrative of the VarSmoothing and the difference of before vs after EQ. Notice how sharp the bass is, that's VarSmoothing albeit averaged over a few spatial measurements.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

This is not at all the clean and flat response measured by Klippel. Is this because of the room interaction?

Yes

 

[changer]

Thank you, so it is the room (a multitude of effects that it has on sound). What's PIR, though?

In this test, the PIR graph is name "Estimated In-Room Response", another wording for Predicted In-Room Response or PIR. It is probably the single most popular benchmark that the Klippel system spits out, because it guestimates how the speaker would perform in a real room, if the room response would be adequately described by the following math: 12% Listening Window, 44% Early Reflections, 44% Sound Power:

Predicted In Room Response?

I have seen a lot of plots of the Predicted (or Estimated) In Room Response. Presumably created automatically by the Klippel software. But I can't seem to find a definitive statement of the precise calculation from the Spinorama data. Maybe it has been posted and I just can't find it in all the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

These are categories widly used with the speaker measuring standard CEA 2034, aka Spinorama, where they are also explained.

Spinorama! (also known as CTA/CEA 2034 but that sounds dull, apparently)

Amir has posted his first speaker review based on Klippel measurements and it includes a lot of excellent information about the CTA (formerly CEA) 2034 standard. I have a few queries and ideas about that standard and probably other people have some interest in it too. So I have started this...

www.audiosciencereview.com

An interesting broad dip at 10KHz in @captainspork 's response, while @spartaman64 doesn't have it. Is it also a room effect? I would think that interference peaks and dips should be much narrower at this high frequency. And if it's absorption or reflection, I can't imagine what would affect 10K and not 15K (short of a tuned resonator).

Well, did they measure with the same method i. e. moving mic or averaged? One scale is 20 dB, the other 60 dB. Many possibilities why less HF energy was recorded in one of the measurements.

 

[captainspork]

The first thing I would do is work on how your sub is integrated. Trying to make adjustments to the speakers without getting that to a point you are happy can be frustrating (ask me how I know). If this is the first time you are starting to measure performance, there are lots of things to play with. Have you tried implementing the recommended EQ from REW and measuring the result?

Since posting those desktop switch comparisons I've been playing around with the subwoofer phase and volume a bit. Found that by setting sub to phase 180 I was able to reduce the amplitude of the difference between 30 and 100Hz from 17.5db to 13.5db (when using 1/3 smoothing). Unfortunately I must have changed my preamp volume in between these tests, since the phase 180 test is lower across the board (despite redoing the "check levels" procedure before the most recent test). I can at least see that I have less extreme dips with phase 180 however. This is using 1/48 smoothing instead of the 1/3 smoothing of my previous images.

I haven't tried applying a room EQ in software yet (I haven't even begun to research how to do that yet actually so I don't even know what software I'd use for applying an EQ).

Nice, that's good that you've included that thumbnail I mentioned, that puts it in a lot better perspective. If I was you I'd make sure I'm doing multiple measurements at slight and representative positions that represent your entire possible listening position - then I'd average those curves & then roomEQ that. You can't really do it based off just one measurement as it can change somewhat based on what kind of spatial spread your listening position encompasses. But thinking about it, doesn't Genelec come with a built-in roomEQ function with the mic & software - in which case you would just go through that procedure???? But anyway, it looks like there's a 10dB hole at 100Hz that you'd need to EQ up if all your other measurements around your listening position show the same trend. But to be honest that's quite a big EQ adjustment, instead it might be worth trying to optimise your speaker & listening position (along with your room) to make sure such a large adjustment is not necessary. Also, you would get better EQ results by not smoothing the bass measurement as much as you have - you've used what looks like 1/12th or higher octave (eg 1/4) smoothing on that bass measurement, but in my experience when I've compared EQ based on smoothed bass measurements vs 1/48th smoothing (ie virtually no smoothing) then the no smoothing bass EQ sounded better. I think you want to see every imperfection in that bass at your listening position and try to eliminate every peak & trough as best you can - 1st by optimising placement in your room & maybe room treatments (although I've never invested in room treatments) and then secondly through accurate precise bass roomEQ. (So use VarSmoothing option in REW in order to see the best detail level in the bass that you need to EQ out). But doesn't Genelec come with it's own roomEQ measurement and correction functionality????

EDIT: As an example here is an example of how my 2.1 channel setup looked one time using VarSmoothing in REW before & after EQ:
View attachment 237013

I don't use this exact same EQ, but it's illustrative of the VarSmoothing and the difference of before vs after EQ. Notice how sharp the bass is, that's VarSmoothing albeit averaged over a few spatial measurements.

Here's the desktop switch comparison using 1/48 smoothing instead of 1/3. You're right that it's a lot more revealing this way. It's interesting that I actually have multiple dips between 80 and 150Hz instead of a steadily decreasing response to 95Hz.

IIRC Genelec does have some kind of EQ software but I thought it requires an additional piece of equipment, and is maybe only compatible on their "active" speakers like the 8320A?

 

[Robbo99999]

this is what i get when i measured my 8030c with umik1. is my room just really bad or something?

I think you've used just about enough sharp enough resolution on the bass (you've not smoothed it too much). The 100Hz dip is significant, and I'd try experimenting with different room setups / speaker position / listening position to try to get rid of that. But if you can't get rid of it completely and if you don't listen loud then I'd probably try to EQ up that area. At the most optimistic I suppose you could put in something like +10dB Q1.75 to 2.0 filter in there (eyeballed so I might be wrong with Q values) and then you'd put in cutting filters around that boost to bring the frequency response down to your target curve. +10dB boost is a little insane though, unless you listen at low levels, in which case you might be able to get away with it. Either way, you won't be be able to get completely rid of that sharp dip using EQ alone, so you'd want to try to sort out your speaker & listening position as best you can within the confines of what is possible in your living environment.

 

[Robbo99999]

Since posting those desktop switch comparisons I've been playing around with the subwoofer phase and volume a bit. Found that by setting sub to phase 180 I was able to reduce the amplitude of the difference between 30 and 100Hz from 17.5db to 13.5db (when using 1/3 smoothing). Unfortunately I must have changed my preamp volume in between these tests, since the phase 180 test is lower across the board (despite redoing the "check levels" procedure before the most recent test). I can at least see that I have less extreme dips with phase 180 however. This is using 1/48 smoothing instead of the 1/3 smoothing of my previous images.

View attachment 237015

I haven't tried applying a room EQ in software yet (I haven't even begun to research how to do that yet actually so I don't even know what software I'd use for applying an EQ).

Here's the desktop switch comparison using 1/48 smoothing instead of 1/3. You're right that it's a lot more revealing this way. It's interesting that I actually have multiple dips between 80 and 150Hz instead of a steadily decreasing response to 95Hz.

View attachment 237014

IIRC Genelec does have some kind of EQ software but I thought it requires an additional piece of equipment, and is maybe only compatible on their "active" speakers like the 8320A?

Yep, good, use VarSmoothing option in REW, that way you'll retain the 1/48th resolution in the bass, and then it'll smooth out the higher frequencies to look and be more acceptable in reality as well as on paper. It's still a big dip at 100Hz, I'd see what you could do about that in terms of changing your speaker & listening positions. Obviously you can't EQ up those super sharp dips entirely, but you can boost general areas & they will rise, just you won't be able to get rid of those two ultra ultra sharp dips at around 98Hz & 125Hz. You can't expect to get rid of those super sharp dips unless you alter your speaker & listening position, but like I said you can broadly EQ up that whole area if you don't have an option to change your room layout. You'd use REW to auto generate filters to cut around the broad (low Q) manual boost filters at 100Hz that you'd put in. Are you sure Genelec don't have an autoEQ option built in, I thought they included the mic & everything???