• 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). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Genelec 8330A Review (Studio Monitor)

xaviescacs

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,316
Location
La Garriga, Barcelona
Im writing this so people not start to believe that the 8030c is better sounding than 8330 , just because it shows slightly better directivity in Amirms review. Theres a lot of things that matters and shows up in the sound of a loudspeaker.
I don't know if it's better or not, but Genelec's own data doesn't show any benefit from having a DSP crossover. Just to be clear, I was answering your statement, not saying the 8030 is better.
There is a digital active crossover in 8330 and an analog active crossover in 8030.
This is a real audible difference .
If someone can show that benefit to me in the plots it would be great. I'm sure more things can be done in the digital domain, but in this case it doesn't help the measurements to be better, they are slightly worse in fact, and I'm talking about Genelec's.
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
749
Likes
768
Location
Calabasas, CA
If someone can show that benefit to me in the plots it would be great.
Not in the plots, but you get a DAC and room correction as part of the 8330. That is one key area of value. Room correction is probably more important than the differences in the plots. The DAC saves money, but you have to by the GLM system which offsets that savings.
 

xaviescacs

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,316
Location
La Garriga, Barcelona
Not in the plots, but you get a DAC and room correction as part of the 8330. That is one key area of value. Room correction is probably more important than the differences in the plots. The DAC saves money, but you have to by the GLM system which offsets that savings.
We were talking about sonic differences. A non-configurable DAC only with AES input.... not sure about the value of this but not very high, specially if you need to buy an USB to AES convertor. I'm sure Genelec has invested a lot in the DSP - GLM, so not questioning the price and the potential benefit in a professional environment, specially if you have a lot of speakers, where you need to adjust the sound in a precise listening position quickly and reliably, and in a way it can be shared and proved to be in accordance to manufacturer's recommendations. In my stereo home setup however, all this has very little value and in fact takes away some of the fun, so I'll eventually go for the classical umik + REW approach with the 8030.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,319
Likes
5,853
Location
Canada
In Genelec's website, both, the 8030 and 8330 are said to have "Active crossovers". They don't use the term "DSP crossover". They are really different?
I'm 99.99% sure, yes. if you actually click on the active crossovers icon it pulls up a document that says, and I quote "Active crossovers come in both digital and analogue varieties. Genelec digital active crossovers include additional signal processing, such as driver protection, delay, and equalization."

You can always email [email protected] and ask though and then update this thread if they say something different.

It would be REALLY weird for them to include a DSP package and then not use it for the crossover, as that is one of the big reasons to use DSP in the first place.
 

xaviescacs

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,316
Location
La Garriga, Barcelona
if you actually click on the active crossovers icon it pulls up a document
Didn't notice that... :oops: there is a ton of information there...

What does this sentence from the same page means in terms of how the crossover works?

Genelec analogue active crossover filters contain electronic components that are operated at low signal levels suitable for power amplifier inputs. This is in contrast to passive crossovers that operate at the high signal levels of the power amplifier's outputs, having to handle high currents and in some cases high voltages.

Reading the page it looks like what I would guess is the description of a DSP crossover, do you think all points explained there correspond to both crossover versions?

The active crossover design offers multiple benefits:​

  • The frequency response becomes independent of any dynamic changes in the driver's electrical characteristics or the drive level.
  • There is an increased flexibility and precision to adjust and fine tune each output frequency response for the specific drivers used.
  • Each driver has its own signal processing and power amplifier. This isolates each driver from the drive signals handled by the other drivers, reducing inter-modulation distortion and overdriving problems.
  • The ability to compensate for sensitivity variations between drivers.
  • The possibility to compensate for the frequency and phase response anomalies associated with a driver’s characteristics within the intended pass-band.
  • The flat frequency response of a high-quality active loudspeaker is a result of the combined effect of the crossover filter response, power amplifier responses and driver responses in a loudspeaker enclosure.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,346
Likes
1,227
Location
Sweden
I'm 99.99% sure, yes. if you actually click on the active crossovers icon it pulls up a document that says, and I quote "Active crossovers come in both digital and analogue varieties. Genelec digital active crossovers include additional signal processing, such as driver protection, delay, and equalization."

You can always email [email protected] and ask though and then update this thread if they say something different.

It would be REALLY weird for them to include a DSP package and then not use it for the crossover, as that is one of the big reasons to use DSP in the first place.
Yes.
The crossover specs are also not the same - 8030c has a crossover of 3 kHz and the 8330 cross at 2,9 kHz . The 8330 goes 2 Hz deeper in the bass with the help of dsp eq.

The same difference ( even bigger ) can be seen with the analog 8040b and the dsp SAM 8340 . The 8340 have a crossover at 2,6 kHz ( 8040b at 3 KHz ) and has probably a slightly steeper crossover slope than the 8040b. This is easy to do in digital domain.
A dsp limiter can also be used cleverly so the speaker never breaks and also can play a bit louder within the speakers limits. With a dsp crossover , drivers can also be delayed so that they play absolutely in phase at the crossover region .
 
Last edited:

evansj57

New Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
3
Likes
2
Better still, sending the 8330 a crappy analog signal reaps even greater benefits from the GLM DSP thanks to room correction in addition to the active crossover.
So once the GLM calibration is done, the DSP is applied to the analog input as well? As the analogue signal is immediately converted to digital, this makes sense.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,346
Likes
1,227
Location
Sweden
So once the GLM calibration is done, the DSP is applied to the analog input as well? As the analogue signal is immediately converted to digital, this makes sense.
Yes, analog connection will benefit from GLM calibration and will sound great, but the sound will be somewhat clearer with a digital input with a good digital source.
 

evansj57

New Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
3
Likes
2
Yes, analog connection will benefit from GLM calibration and will sound great, but the sound will be somewhat clearer with a digital input with a good digital source.
However, it seems that all DSP is done at 48kHz. From Genelec support: "The internal signal processing of the 8330 will always be done at 48 kHz sampling rate whether you use analogue or digital inputs."

So although the 8330 will accept up to 24 bit / 192 Khz, it will re-sample to 48 kHz (don't know at what bit depth). Is that ideal?
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,346
Likes
1,227
Location
Sweden
However, it seems that all DSP is done at 48kHz. From Genelec support: "The internal signal processing of the 8330 will always be done at 48 kHz sampling rate whether you use analogue or digital inputs."

So although the 8330 will accept up to 24 bit / 192 Khz, it will re-sample to 48 kHz (don't know at what bit depth). Is that ideal?
Keeping the signal in digital domain as long as possible and doing the crossover with a dsp can give better sound result than using analog active crossovers, even if the digital signal is converted to 48 or 96 kHz internally.
The difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz is ONLY that the first option has a bandwidth of 24 kHz and the other 48 kHz.

Apparently there is a SRC inside every SAM monitor and the 8330 . The GLM 4.2.0 uses 64 bit floating point bit debth , but the DAC after the dsp crossover inside the 8330 is a 24 bit one. Volume regulation in GLM is done with dithering.

The Dutch&Dutch 8C operates internally with 48 kHz - so its apparently good enough.

An extra D/A and A/D can do more harm to the signal than a good SRC . A bad SRC can be terrible.
 
Last edited:

evansj57

New Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
3
Likes
2
Keeping the signal in digital domain as long as possible and doing the crossover with a dsp can give better sound result than using analog active crossovers, even if the digital signal is converted to 48 or 96 kHz internally.
The difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz is ONLY that the first option has a bandwidth of 24 kHz and the other 48 kHz.

Apparently there is a SRC inside every SAM monitor and the 8330 . The GLM 4.2.0 uses 64 bit floating point bit debth , but the DAC after the dsp crossover inside the 8330 is a 24 bit one. Volume regulation in GLM is done with dithering.

The Dutch&Dutch 8C operates internally with 48 kHz - so its apparently good enough.

An extra D/A and A/D can do more harm to the signal than a good SRC . A bad SRC can be terrible.
Thanks, understand your point that a well implemented SRC won’t degrade sound audibly.

But what about volume control?

I guess it is best to adjust volume within the 8330 using the GLM & wireless remote, as volume control would presumably be implemented as part of the DSP. But that means leaving the GLM daisy-chained to the two speakers.

Are there affordable options for separate digital volume control, now that the Yamaha WXC-50 is longer available, without significantly reducing dynamic range at low volumes?

If I go for the 8030, I would use my RME ADI-2 DAC and RPi-DigiOne streamer source, which would be a neat and convenient set-up.

I could use the ADI-2 and DigiOne with the analogue input of the 8330 and still benefit from the GLM room correction, but there would be that extra D/A and A/D process you referred to.
 

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
1,402
Likes
1,452
Thanks, understand your point that a well implemented SRC won’t degrade sound audibly.

But what about volume control?

I guess it is best to adjust volume within the 8330 using the GLM & wireless remote, as volume control would presumably be implemented as part of the DSP. But that means leaving the GLM daisy-chained to the two speakers.

Are there affordable options for separate digital volume control, now that the Yamaha WXC-50 is longer available, without significantly reducing dynamic range at low volumes?

If I go for the 8030, I would use my RME ADI-2 DAC and RPi-DigiOne streamer source, which would be a neat and convenient set-up.

I could use the ADI-2 and DigiOne with the analogue input of the 8330 and still benefit from the GLM room correction, but there would be that extra D/A and A/D process you referred to.
I use the RME ADI-2 DAC FS with my 8330A having a 7360A subwoofer and that sounds great. Volume control is from the ADI-2 with Auto Ref Level enabled, but I’ve reduced the volume in the monitors (same as adjusting input sensitivity) so that 0 dBr is very loud but does not blow me out of the room.

I doubt the extra AD-DA in the Genelec is even audible in a double blind test when using analogue input.

I got the SAM enabled monitors/subwoofer for the GLM room EQ.
 

juliangst

Active Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2021
Messages
157
Likes
128
I'm interested in the 8330 and 8030 now too. I'm still looking for a future upgrade over my LS50. My first choice was LS50 Meta but the Genelecs are probably better than those.

I'm still not sure if the 8330 are worth it over 8030.
The 8030 could be used with my balanced DAC and Raspberry Pi running volumio with PEQ filters or just at the PC with EQ APO.

The 8330 costs 200€ more per speaker, GLM and that volume knob are another 400€ and I would need a USB to AES converter for another ~120€ (audiophonics has a good one).

GLM would allow for easier subwoofer integration but for that price I would rather get a minidsp flex. The minidsp flex is also more flexible for future setups because I would not be bound to the GLM ecosystem.

Any thought on that?
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
1,960
Likes
1,460
I'm interested in the 8330 and 8030 now too. I'm still looking for a future upgrade over my LS50. My first choice was LS50 Meta but the Genelecs are probably better than those.

I'm still not sure if the 8330 are worth it over 8030.
The 8030 could be used with my balanced DAC and Raspberry Pi running volumio with PEQ filters or just at the PC with EQ APO.

The 8330 costs 200€ more per speaker, GLM and that volume knob are another 400€ and I would need a USB to AES converter for another ~120€ (audiophonics has a good one).

GLM would allow for easier subwoofer integration but for that price I would rather get a minidsp flex. The minidsp flex is also more flexible for future setups because I would not be bound to the GLM ecosystem.

Any thought on that?
First I declare I personally chose the path of 8030C with 7040A at my PC setup for music+gaming, then use UMIK mic and EQ APO to do in room correction.

if one is a bit geeky and know how to fiddle with EQ APO I do think not worth spending extra on the 8330 over 8030, if budget allows maybe go 8040 with the cost and do the correction.

GLM IMO is both for those who don't wanna use PC/a dac with EQ as a source to play around or have no idea of how to optimize it, more or less a lazy and powerful method. for USB->AES I won't bother to do so, as AD/DA process is practically lossless in audiablility front, just use the normal dac with XLR out and let the speaker do it's work. while I use EQ APO personally the only case I would spend more for the DSP/GLM version are the ones, where coaxial 3 way is the step up from the 80x0 2way, if by then I will use GLM to do all those troublesome work for me
 

Walter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
796
Likes
1,063
I'm interested in the 8330 and 8030 now too. I'm still looking for a future upgrade over my LS50. My first choice was LS50 Meta but the Genelecs are probably better than those.

I'm still not sure if the 8330 are worth it over 8030.
The 8030 could be used with my balanced DAC and Raspberry Pi running volumio with PEQ filters or just at the PC with EQ APO.

The 8330 costs 200€ more per speaker, GLM and that volume knob are another 400€ and I would need a USB to AES converter for another ~120€ (audiophonics has a good one).

GLM would allow for easier subwoofer integration but for that price I would rather get a minidsp flex. The minidsp flex is also more flexible for future setups because I would not be bound to the GLM ecosystem.

Any thought on that?
Unless you plan to buy a Genelec sub that also supports GLM, I agree completely with your assessment. And really, the only reason to buy a Genelec sub when there are so many that perform better for less money (although I have no knowledge as to whether they are as reliable) is if you specifically want to use GLM. So if you are already comfortable using REW and developing filters yourself, and you already have a balanced DAC so you don't need digital inputs, I don't really see the value in it. A few people have said that the 8330 sounds a little smoother in the crossover region but I've never seen a report saying it was a major difference.
 

juliangst

Active Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2021
Messages
157
Likes
128
Unless you plan to buy a Genelec sub that also supports GLM, I agree completely with your assessment. And really, the only reason to buy a Genelec sub when there are so many that perform better for less money (although I have no knowledge as to whether they are as reliable) is if you specifically want to use GLM. So if you are already comfortable using REW and developing filters yourself, and you already have a balanced DAC so you don't need digital inputs, I don't really see the value in it. A few people have said that the 8330 sounds a little smoother in the crossover region but I've never seen a report saying it was a major difference.
Good to see that I'm not the only one with that observation. I think GLM is more worth it for people that go for the 83X1 coaxial speakers.
The price of the GLM module and the premium price for Genelec subs shouldn't matter that much when you're spending 5-10K on mains.
 

YSC

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
1,960
Likes
1,460
Unless you plan to buy a Genelec sub that also supports GLM, I agree completely with your assessment. And really, the only reason to buy a Genelec sub when there are so many that perform better for less money (although I have no knowledge as to whether they are as reliable) is if you specifically want to use GLM. So if you are already comfortable using REW and developing filters yourself, and you already have a balanced DAC so you don't need digital inputs, I don't really see the value in it. A few people have said that the 8330 sounds a little smoother in the crossover region but I've never seen a report saying it was a major difference.
somehow I found the other pro for the Genelec subs, they are small in floor footprint compared to similarly performing subs, less squarish in footprint, with the 7040A under my desk in real tight space, extra 10cm makes the difference where I can sit comfortably vs the sub in my way. though it don't really extends low, it goes flat to in room 27-30db, so really enough for music listening
 

juliangst

Active Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2021
Messages
157
Likes
128
somehow I found the other pro for the Genelec subs, they are small in floor footprint compared to similarly performing subs, less squarish in footprint, with the 7040A under my desk in real tight space, extra 10cm makes the difference where I can sit comfortably vs the sub in my way. though it don't really extends low, it goes flat to in room 27-30db, so really enough for music listening
Good point. I already get enough bass out of my ls50 with my desk setup.
I would only get a sub in a living room setup but then the size of the the sub isn’t really important to me
 
Top Bottom