Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review

[MZKM]

Can you show the spinorama with 50dB graph settings?
Would be nice if 50dB interval could be the default for your spinorama graphs.

Use my Spins to satisfy that want.

 

[andreasmaaan]

It does monitor the voltage that will be going to sent to speaker after all DSP and volume setting, and then take preemptive adjustment. It's largely marketing speak the way they write it, but there are elements of truth in it.

Sure, it monitors output vloltage, not driver exursio, and than it adjusts LF filter to extend or to reduce based on pre-measured driver excursion done with laser. It is a good concept to draw maximum LF response driver can provide at any given volume.

Indeed, and please don't get the impression I think it's a bad system, it's actually a great idea. Just a lot of BS and ambiguity in their marketing, which I find very frustrating for a device that is essentially a dynamic EQ.

 

[MZKM]

So if this went louder and had more bass, it would score better?

Sounds like an 8260 would knock it out of the park. Curious how the 8361 would compare.

Not as good, the 8351B is their only speaker with better FR than this 8341A.

 

[MZKM]

That said I would every time prefer it to quite some other speakers with more perfect directivity but not having such a fantastic midrange driver, but since here the measurements only look at FR it wouldn't be graded as high as the 8341.

What aspects of performance do you think lead to that midrange supposedly sounding better?

 

[edechamps]

I know you said your friend is very particular about minimizing cabinet resonances so perhaps you can provide some insight. If the resonance doesn't show up in the frequency response at any angle after EQ, how audible could that resonance possibly be?

I think the crucial thing here is that standard speaker measurements are always made in the far field. If the entire cabinet is a significant sound source, then it can potentially increase the minimum "far field" distance for the speaker, meaning that one will need to listen to it from farther away to get the true far field response. I would imagine that for large speakers, such as floorstanders, the far field distance would become so huge as to be impractical.

If I remember correctly, one of the unique features of the NFS is that it can tell you the far field minimum distance for a given speaker. It would be great if @amirm could include this information as part of his reviews, because that directly translates to minimum listening distance which is useful information for a prospective buyer.

 

[QMuse]

A better method would be to load up REW and do an averaged RTA.

Yup, using stepped sine THD measurement with Blackman-Harris 7 windowing.

 

[ctrl]

The front in front of the woofer seems to have a big disadvantage. Others have already mentioned it and on Amir's CSD it can also be seen in hints (unfortunately, the scaling is not set to the usual 30dB and the 3D display can hardly be evaluated quantitatively):

The front leads to considerable resonances, which only fade away slowly. To get an impression of the decay of the resonances, the comparison of the decay behaviour of the Genelec 8350 and Genelec 8351 should serve as an example (for this purpose there are 2D representations of the decay behaviour on Sound&Recording, which can be quantitatively evaluated).

In fact, the 8350 with the 8'' woofer should actually be slightly worse than the 8351 with the two 8''x4'' woofers.

But due to the front, the 8351's decay behaviour is significantly worse in the 2kHz to 50Hz range.

The 8351 needs 3ms longer until one tone at 400Hz has decayed by -12dB. At 150Hz the decay time is even increased by 5ms.

This is longer than the Genelec 8350 needs to decay at these frequencies.
So the decay time of the 8351 is more than twice as long at these frequencies.

Source: https://www.soundandrecording.de

 

[Ron Texas]

I don't understand why this monitor with 550W of power and no losses through passive crossovers has output too limited for large rooms.

 

[andreasmaaan]

The front in front of the woofer seems to have a big disadvantage. Others have already mentioned it and on Amir's CSD it can also be seen in hints (unfortunately, the scaling is not set to the usual 30dB and the 3D display can hardly be evaluated quantitatively):
View attachment 51555

The front leads to considerable resonances, which only fade away slowly. To get an impression of the decay of the resonances, the comparison of the decay behaviour of the Genelec 8350 and Genelec 8351 should serve as an example (for this purpose there are 2D representations of the decay behaviour on Sound&Recording, which can be quantitatively evaluated).

In fact, the 8350 with the 8'' woofer should actually be slightly worse than the 8351 with the two 8''x4'' woofers.

But due to the front, the 8351's decay behaviour is significantly worse in the 2kHz to 50Hz range.

The 8351 needs 6ms longer until one tone at 400Hz has decayed by -12dB. At 150Hz the decay time is even increased by 9ms.

This is longer than the Genelec 8350 needs to decay at these frequencies.
So the decay time of the 8351 is more than twice as long at these frequencies.

View attachment 51558
Source: https://www.soundandrecording.de

It's also contributed to by the coaxial midrange, presumably due to compromises in the suspension to accommodate the tweeter (a very worthwhile tradeoff though IMO).

 

[QMuse]

I think the crucial thing here is that standard speaker measurements are always made in the far field. If the entire cabinet is a significant sound source, then it can potentially increase the minimum "far field" distance for the speaker, meaning that one will need to listen to it from farther away to get the true far field response.

Cabinet resonance would have to generate SPL of no less than 10dB compared to the woofer+port generated SPL in order to affect far-field distance. Do you really think that is the case?

 

[andreasmaaan]

I don't understand why this monitor with 550W of power and no losses through passive crossovers has output too limited for large rooms.

I'd speculate that the woofers are inefficient and in a box that is smaller than optimal, thus requiring significant low bass EQ to achieve the F3 point this speaker does.

 

[Ron Texas]

I'd speculate that the woofers are inefficient and in a box that is smaller than optimal, thus requiring significant low bass EQ to achieve the F3 point this speaker does.

That's probably it. The limiting factor is 250W on an inefficient woofer. They say 110db max, but who knows what that means.

A JBL 708P or the recently tested (here) Adam are safer bets and more reasonable @4k per pair.

 

[QMuse]

That's probably it. The limiting factor is 250W on an inefficient woofer. They say 110db max, but who knows what that means.

250W would be more than sifficient if woofers would have an average efficiency, but in a small box that is not possible. I can hardly imagine they can produce 104dB (110dB, -6dB) at 38Hz at 1m distance (?).

 

[ctrl]

It's also contributed to by the coaxial midrange, presumably due to compromises in the suspension to accommodate the tweeter (a very worthwhile tradeoff though IMO).

Another explanation would be that the resonances created behind the front and their overtones extend into the midrange (although the crossover frequency to the midrange is already at 320Hz).

 

[LTig]

Still impressive for a speaker design first released in 2006 (as the Klein + Hummel O300 D).

As a happy owner of a K&H O300D I second that.

The Genelec 8050A/8050B/8250A/8350A (2005+) would be in the same production year and price ranges (their 3-ways seem to be far more expensive) and could make for an interesting comparison / history lesson.

True, although the KH310 is almost a completely new design with different drivers and optimized waveguide.

Yep. I've read somwhere that Markus Wolff (chief designer of both O300D and KH310) stated that the woofer of the KH310 has 7 dB higher SPL capacity (meaning it can play 7 dB higher than the O300D at the same distortion level). This is quite an achievement.

If I had no subs I would consider an upgrade - alas I have one and so the shortcomings of the woofer in the O300D plays no role in my setup. Without a sub the O300D becomes boomy when driven hard in low bass region, with sub it sounds very clean even when playing loud.

Imho and non-blinded and biased opinion the 2 way Genelec with the large woofer would have no chance in the cleanness and "finesse" of the mids and that is said by me who is a Genelec owner. The Harman spinorama is of course very important too, but when it comes at best of the best comparison also other things matter that otherwise are buried behind tonal problems.

Yep. Me thinks also that when the spinorama is good enough other parameters like max SPL and distortion start to play a role which should not be dismissed.

 

[Soniclife]

Indeed, and please don't get the impression I think it's a bad system, it's actually a great idea. Just a lot of BS and ambiguity in their marketing, which I find very frustrating for a device that is essentially a dynamic EQ.

Their marketing does them no favours, I bought their product despite it, not because of it.

The real USP of Sam is the work they did to measure a lot of loudspeakers to create the transform, not a trivial effort.

 

[Sancus]

Another explanation would be that the resonances created behind the front and their overtones extend into the midrange (although the crossover frequency to the midrange is already at 320Hz).

8341a crossover is 500hz. 8351b/8361a are 320hz. If you compare the whole lineup it's pretty obvious that the 8351b and 8361a each remove substantial limiting factors on the output of the smaller models.

 

[Soniclife]

A better method would be to load up REW and do an averaged RTA.

But more work, I think he is doing enough, I'd rather he kept the informal part as simple as possible, or it will go entirely, and this low output discussion would not be happening at all

 

[MZKM]

But more work, I think he is doing enough, I'd rather he kept the informal part as simple as possible, or it will go entirely, and this low output discussion would not be happening at all

Yeah, I wasn't endorsing the suggestion, just stating a better method.

 

[stevenswall]

Anyone know why the 83x1 series has ridges on the midrange driver? Is that what made them +/-1.5dB across their frequency range instead of +/-1dB like the 8260? Genelec specifically mentions having as smooth as transition from tweeter to mid to chassis waveguide as possible, but all their newest stuff doesn't follow that, and even the 8351 isn't that accurate with the same midrange/tweeter... Maybe it's the slot woofers are just slightly less accurate?