• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Genelec 8030C vs Canton Fonum 300 - In room measurements

OP
D
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
9
Thread Starter #21
The Genelecs look better(more neutral) to my eye. A good, neutral loudspeaker will have a downward sloping curve like you see with the Red/Green/Brown curve. The blue curve is very flat from 70-20,000Hz, which is bad(not neutral). Not terrible, but the Canton definitely looks like it might be too bright, anechoically.

What distance are you measuring from.
The measurements you refer to were conducted with 2m distance between microphone an loudspeakers.
 

GDK

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
241
Likes
506
Location
Toronto
#22
If I want to optimize / compare two loudspeakers in my specific room scenario and listening position I should not measure at the listening position (and not 1 m away from the loudspeaker)?
I am not sure I saw this question answered, but optimizing your room and comparing two speakers are different exercises. By measuring too far away, you cannot isolate the performance of the speakers in order to compare them directly.

When you apply the Dirac room correction, you should definitely do this from your listening position.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
2,220
Likes
3,048
#24
The measurements you refer to were conducted with 2m distance between microphone an loudspeakers.
Aha. Yeah, in that case the Genelec does look to be more neutral. When looking at in room measurements, I often find it helpful to draw an "average" trend line from 500Hz or so up. As you go more and more below 500Hz, you're kinda measuring speaker position more than you're measuring the speaker, so probably easier to just ignore it. The overall slope of the line is more important than the individual wiggles, so that's what I would focus on.

I took your original graph and tried to draw average trend lines from 500Hz up. By doing that it's clear that the Genelec is considerably more neutral.

GvC copy 2.jpg


The brown line(Genelec) is sloped down almost perfectly, which means it's very neutral. By contrast, the blue line(Canton) is near flat(or even sloped up a bit), which is suboptimal, and means it's not as neutral/linear.

As for which is better? The brown line is objectively "better" in the sense that more people will prefer it, as most people prefer neutral speakers, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better for you.

What are you looking for with your speakers? Are you looking for what is most enjoyable to you? Or, are you looking for what is closest to what the artist/producer intended? If it's the former, go with what sounds best to you. If it's the latter, then go with the Genelecs, as it's clear(from your measurements) that they are the more neutral/linear speaker. As shown by the blue line above, the Canton's treble frequencies are giving you a sound that's boosted by 2-5dB from what the artist/engineer produced.

You could also try gated measurements from 1m. Not sure what gate you should use, but my guess is that the Cantons will be sloped up in the treble, while the Genelecs will be more balanced.
 
OP
D
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
9
Thread Starter #25
The Genelec 8330 in my room, using line audio OM1 and audiotools . View attachment 88411 View attachment 88414
When I crop my curve with these settings in REW I get a "nearly" as good looking curve (+- 5 db from 70 db). The difference is for sure as you mentioned due to sbir effects or reflections):

rew7.jpg


Edit: Thought my initial curve was not logarithmic. My bad.
 
Last edited:
OP
D
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
9
Thread Starter #26
Aha. Yeah, in that case the Genelec does look to be more neutral. When looking at in room measurements, I often find it helpful to draw an "average" trend line from 500Hz or so up. As you go more and more below 500Hz, you're kinda measuring speaker position more than you're measuring the speaker, so probably easier to just ignore it. The overall slope of the line is more important than the individual wiggles, so that's what I would focus on.

I took your original graph and tried to draw average trend lines from 500Hz up. By doing that it's clear that the Genelec is considerably more neutral.

View attachment 88415

The brown line(Genelec) is sloped down almost perfectly, which means it's very neutral. By contrast, the blue line(Canton) is near flat(or even sloped up a bit), which is suboptimal, and means it's not as neutral/linear.

As for which is better? The brown line is objectively "better" in the sense that more people will prefer it, as most people prefer neutral speakers, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better for you.

What are you looking for with your speakers? Are you looking for what is most enjoyable to you? Or, are you looking for what is closest to what the artist/producer intended? If it's the former, go with what sounds best to you. If it's the latter, then go with the Genelecs, as it's clear(from your measurements) that they are the more neutral/linear speaker. As shown by the blue line above, the Canton's treble frequencies are giving you a sound that's boosted by 2-5dB from what the artist/engineer produced.

You could also try gated measurements from 1m. Not sure what gate you should use, but my guess is that the Cantons will be sloped up in the treble, while the Genelecs will be more balanced.
Now I am confused :)

Are these statements correct?:
  • Flat frequency response (IN ROOM) = Sounds like intended from musician / producer != neutral speaker (since you have more dampening effect on higher frequencies, thus need equalizing / higher pitched loudspeaker to compensate this effect)
  • frequency response with negative slope = personal taste / house curve / harman curve = neutral speaker (when tested isolated / without room effects)
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Likes
8,940
#27
Your curve is displayed logarithmic and cropped between 200 and 17000 Hz. If I display the curve with these settings in REW I get a quiet similar good looking curve. The dips between 200 and 500 Hz are due to sbir (the genelecs were near the wall and ground in comparison to your setting) and reflections:

View attachment 88432
That's not a logarithmic scale! ;)

Now I am confused :)

Are these statements correct?:
  • Flat frequency response (IN ROOM) = Sounds like intended from musician / producer != neutral speaker (since you have more dampening effect on higher frequencies, thus need equalizing / higher pitched loudspeaker to compensate this effect)
  • frequency response with negative slope = personal taste / house curve / harman curve = neutral speaker (when tested isolated / without room effects)
Only the second of those two statements is correct (for conventional "monopole" speakers like yours).

Unless the loudspeaker has 100% constant directivity at all (audible) frequencies and the room is treated so that its ratio of absorption and reflection is independent of frequency (a near impossibility), the loudspeaker should not give a flat response in-room.

A conventional monopole like your two pairs there should have a flat frequency response on-axis, and smooth performance off-axis. In a normal room (i.e. in which absorption increases with frequency), this should translate into a smoothly downward-sloping in-room response.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,513
Likes
5,109
Location
NYC
#28
Hi @Dominik Kißkalt, I see you are quite new to the forum, welcome =]

There are a few things I'd like to point out that I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned yet. Measuring speakers can be confusing, but unless you have an absolutely bonkers room, the end results should not be so different from that predicted from the spinorama.

First thing: How are you measuring the speakers? Are you performing a single sweep at the measurement position? If so, this is very unlikely to be useful. I also notice that you are measuring on top of the middle of a table -- this is a significant problem as you will get a bounce. While yes, this will be audible as well, chances are it's not quite as audible as it looks in your measurements.

In my opinion, the most useful+easy way to measure speakers at the listening position is using the moving microphone method or MMM for short.. See my post here with a video of the method and brief a description of how I personally use this method. You can decide how wide you want the "listening area" to be, I personally like using a cube about 2x2 feet, or cover a large section of your sofa.

This will help minimize the effects of reflections at a single point that are unlikely to be significantly audible, and help point out the things that might actually be an issue.

Alternatively, you could use a spatial average of say, 7 measurements in a rough area around your LP.

I also second everything @andreasmaaan said. Most speakers that measures "flat" in an anechoic chaamber or at about 1m should tilt down at 2m or greater.

To be clear, you are definitely free to enjoy whatever speaker you prefer, but I'm trying to help you get a more useful in-room measurement to figure out what's really going on.

As an aexample, here's how the dutch and dutch 8c, one of the best measuring speakers on the market measures when i did a single sweep of the left and right speakers together:

1603052321558.png


Not too great. And here it is with a proper spatial average around my listening position.

1603052363460.png


The latter is much more indicative of how it actually sounds in room.
 
OP
D
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
9
Thread Starter #29
That's not a logarithmic scale! ;)



Only the second of those two statements is correct (for conventional "monopole" speakers like yours).

Unless the loudspeaker has 100% constant directivity at all (audible) frequencies and the room is treated so that its ratio of absorption and reflection is independent of frequency (a near impossibility), the loudspeaker should not give a flat response in-room.

A conventional monopole like your two pairs there should have a flat frequency response on-axis, and smooth performance off-axis. In a normal room (i.e. in which absorption increases with frequency), this should translate into a smoothly downward-sloping in-room response.

Ok I think things are getting clearer - sort of :)
So when you say the first statement is wrong - which of its equations is wrong?:

  1. Flat frequency response (IN ROOM) = Sounds like intended from musician / produce (since music is mixed in recording studios with float frequency response)
  2. Flat frequency response (IN ROOM) != neutral speaker on axis (since you have more dampening effect on higher frequencies, thus need equalizing / higher pitched loudspeaker to compensate this effect)
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Likes
8,940
#30
Ok I think things are getting clearer - sort of :)
So when you say the first statement is wrong - which of its equations is wrong?:

  1. Flat frequency response (IN ROOM) = Sounds like intended from musician / produce (since music is mixed in recording studios with float frequency response)
  2. Flat frequency response (IN ROOM) != neutral speaker on axis (since you have more dampening effect on higher frequencies, thus need equalizing / higher pitched loudspeaker to compensate this effect)
Both statements are false for the kind of speaker/room we are dealing with here.

If I could reformulate the statements to make them "true" (i.e. in line with scientific consensus):

(1) Flat frequency response (anechoic) + downward-sloping frequency response (in-room) = more likely to sound as intended by musician/producer (since music is ideally mixed on speakers with flat on-axis response and smoothly declining off-axis response).*

(2) Flat frequency response (in-room) neutral speaker on-axis (since the speaker will need to have an upward-sloping on-axis response to achieve a flat response in room, which will cause it to sound bright/thin).

*For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that there is a minority school of audio engineering that advocates a flat in-room response for mixing studios and control rooms. However, the science does not support this position IMHO.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Likes
8,940
#31
Also @Dominik Kißkalt, just in case it's not clear, don't get too concerned about this "downward slope" - it will follow naturally from any conventional flat on-axis speaker in a normal room. Indeed I can see it to one extent or another in all the measurements you've already posted. The gradient of the slope will depend on the speaker's directivity and the room's acoustics. There is no single "correct" slope for all rooms and speakers. The more important thing is that the speaker has a flat-ish on-axis response and reasonably well-controlled off-axis response, and that they are set up appropriately in the room. Some room treatment is a bonus.

You could move each speaker into the centre of the room and take quasi-anechoic measurements if you want to put in a bit more time/effort. That would tell you more about your speakers (although we already know everything we need to know about the Genelecs).

But before you do that, I'd follow @napilopez's guidance in his previous post and take some more useful in-room measurements.

BTW, you never mentioned why you were taking these measurements. What's the goal?
 

thewas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
2,113
Likes
4,535
#32
Last edited:
OP
D
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
9
Thread Starter #33
@napilopez @andreasmaaan @thewas_ Thanks for the great input, I really appreciate it! I will read, think, measure and report back this evening (i am in europe).

BTW, you never mentioned why you were taking these measurements. What's the goal?
The goal is to test which loudspeaker is objectively and subjectively more capable at reproducing music closest to the source / recording in my room setup (4.38m x 3.5m; 2m listening distance; 1.8m distance between LS; not symmetric positioning in room).

Subjectively they sound equally good to me - the higher pitch of the Canton can sound better or worse dependent on the material + a taste for this type of sound or the other can be learned (I think like taste for specific foods) + at the end I can always equalize it via the MiniDSP.

Objectively I conducted since the start of this tread multiple measurements: Sweep with both LS at MLP (seems to be of garbage information value ;) ) + Sweep with only one LS at 1 m on axis. Beside the mainly discussed SPL curve the Canton hold up (or was better) in all measurements. The measurements suggested by napilopez will get interesting since the also take the dispersion behavior into consideration. I started the thread since I was so surprised to see the older and cheaper Canton loudspeakers right on with the so well tested Genelec 8030C. I really want the genelecs to win since I bought them not long ago :,D

Are there other quantifiable metrics beside the spl curve which have a considerable impact on how good the loudspeaker will sound? I looked at distortion - for both its at 81 db @ 1m quiet low with a slightly edge towards the canton (I will go louder this evening). Maybe something in the time domain? Impulse Response, Group delay, ... I am asking since these are metrics which can't be corrected by equalizing (well maybe group delay can also be corrected by dirac).
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Likes
8,940
#34
Are there other quantifiable metrics beside the spl curve which have a considerable impact on how good the loudspeaker will sound? I looked at distortion - for both its at 81 db @ 1m quiet low with a slightly edge towards the canton (I will go louder this evening). Maybe something in the time domain? Impulse Response, Group delay, ... I am asking since these are metrics which can't be corrected by equalizing (well maybe group delay can also be corrected by dirac).
Time domain measurements are not going to directly translate into audible differences. We don't hear phase shifts of the relatively small magnitude your speakers produce, assuming the crossovers integrate the drivers correctly (and if they don't, this will show up in the frequency domain anyway).

If I were you, my next step would be to take gated (aka quasi-anechoic) measurements of the Canton both on- and off-axis (ideally both horizontal and vertical, too). You'll need to get them out into the middle of the room and onto stands (and preferably put the mic on a proper stand, too). You'll then see whether the relatively boosted high frequencies are the result of the speaker measuring non-flat on-axis or because they have wider directivity in the high frequencies. My guess is that they probably measure reasonably flat on-axis, but have wider directivity in (or at least at the bottom of) the tweeter's passband. But you won't know until you measure.

Since Amir has already measured the 8030, when you measure that you'll have the luxury of a reference set of measurements to compare yours to, to verify that your measurements are reasonably accurate.

FWIW, your in-room measurement of the 8030 do track reasonably well with the predicted in-room response measured by Amir, although the dip you're seeing around the crossover point is a little broader (possibly related mostly to the angle at which you took the measurements?):

1603110756373.png
 
OP
D
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
9
Thread Starter #35
Time domain measurements are not going to directly translate into audible differences. We don't hear phase shifts of the relatively small magnitude your speakers produce, assuming the crossovers integrate the drivers correctly (and if they don't, this will show up in the frequency domain anyway).

If I were you, my next step would be to take gated (aka quasi-anechoic) measurements of the Canton both on- and off-axis (ideally both horizontal and vertical, too). You'll need to get them out into the middle of the room and onto stands (and preferably put the mic on a proper stand, too). You'll then see whether the relatively boosted high frequencies are the result of the speaker measuring non-flat on-axis or because they have wider directivity in the high frequencies. My guess is that they probably measure reasonably flat on-axis, but have wider directivity in (or at least at the bottom of) the tweeter's passband. But you won't know until you measure.

Since Amir has already measured the 8030, when you measure that you'll have the luxury of a reference set of measurements to compare yours to, to verify that your measurements are reasonably accurate.

FWIW, your in-room measurement of the 8030 do track reasonably well with the predicted in-room response measured by Amir, although the dip you're seeing around the crossover point is a little broader (possibly related mostly to the angle at which you took the measurements?):

View attachment 88556
Reporting back. I conducted the gated measurements proposed. Loudspeaker and microphone in the middle of the (small) room. Tweeter at ~1m height. All Measurements at 1m distance with 81 db. Measured on axis, 30° horizontally, 30° vertically and -30° vertically.
Here the results:

canton gated.jpg


genelec gated.jpg


So the genelecs overall dispersion is better as expected. The sensitivity of the cantons for vertical angles at ~ 3kHz is interesting.
Also the distortion value are this time better for the genelecs.

You'll then see whether the relatively boosted high frequencies are the result of the speaker measuring non-flat on-axis or because they have wider directivity in the high frequencies.
It seems to be the former.

Edit: replaced the spl curves with ones from gated measurements (without room reflections)
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Likes
8,940
#36
Reporting back. I conducted the gated measurements proposed. Loudspeaker and microphone in the middle of the (small) room. Tweeter at ~1m height. All Measurements at 1m distance with 81 db. Measured on axis, 30° horizontally, 30° vertically and -30° vertically.
Here the results:


View attachment 88622

View attachment 88623

So the genelecs overall dispersion is better as expected. The sensitivity of the cantons for vertical angles at ~ 3kHz is interesting.
Also the distortion value are this time better for the genelecs.



It seems to be the former.
Well done. It looks like these measurements are not gated though. Is that the case?

BTW, the vertical off-axis dips around 2.5-3kHz are to do with the drivers being located at different points in the Y-plane, and are expected.
 
OP
D
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
9
Thread Starter #37
Hi @Dominik Kißkalt, I see you are quite new to the forum, welcome =]

There are a few things I'd like to point out that I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned yet. Measuring speakers can be confusing, but unless you have an absolutely bonkers room, the end results should not be so different from that predicted from the spinorama.

First thing: How are you measuring the speakers? Are you performing a single sweep at the measurement position? If so, this is very unlikely to be useful. I also notice that you are measuring on top of the middle of a table -- this is a significant problem as you will get a bounce. While yes, this will be audible as well, chances are it's not quite as audible as it looks in your measurements.

In my opinion, the most useful+easy way to measure speakers at the listening position is using the moving microphone method or MMM for short.. See my post here with a video of the method and brief a description of how I personally use this method. You can decide how wide you want the "listening area" to be, I personally like using a cube about 2x2 feet, or cover a large section of your sofa.

This will help minimize the effects of reflections at a single point that are unlikely to be significantly audible, and help point out the things that might actually be an issue.

Alternatively, you could use a spatial average of say, 7 measurements in a rough area around your LP.

I also second everything @andreasmaaan said. Most speakers that measures "flat" in an anechoic chaamber or at about 1m should tilt down at 2m or greater.

To be clear, you are definitely free to enjoy whatever speaker you prefer, but I'm trying to help you get a more useful in-room measurement to figure out what's really going on.

As an aexample, here's how the dutch and dutch 8c, one of the best measuring speakers on the market measures when i did a single sweep of the left and right speakers together:

View attachment 88448

Not too great. And here it is with a proper spatial average around my listening position.

View attachment 88449

The latter is much more indicative of how it actually sounds in room.
I followed your instructions for the moving microphone measurements with the rta tool of rew on the linked thread. I measured on the mlp @ 2m listening distance with only one loudspeaker playing the full spectrum pink noise. I moved the microphone in circular movements over both seats (like in the video). Both measurements exist of ~50 averages. These are the results:

canton vs genelec mmm.jpg


What could cause the huge dip at 1 kHz for the genelecs?
 
OP
D
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
26
Likes
9
Thread Starter #38
Well done. It looks like these measurements are not gated though. Is that the case?

BTW, the vertical off-axis dips around 2.5-3kHz are to do with the drivers being located at different points in the Y-plane, and are expected.
You are correct - they are not gated. I will redo tomorrow.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,651
Likes
8,940
#39
You are correct - they are not gated. I will redo tomorrow.
No need to redo the measurements :) You can just manipulate the measurements you've already taken in REW to get the gated responses. Let us know if you can't work it out, I'm sure we can help.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom