Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review

[jonfitch]

Looking at the freq graph on #1 can you explain what honky means?

Not sure, just a perception I get from listening to Genelecs. A lot of other people seem to believe so too.

I believe honky is typically described as extra thickness in the mids, usually an issue between 400hz and say 1.5K. If It were to speculate, it's probably a sound power issue. Genelecs have a slightly declining sound power from 400 hz - 1.5k range, whereas if you look at other speakers, say the Kef R3 it seems to dip much faster, an extra 3-4 db down in the same range.

I would say Revel's PerformaBE also sound honky to me (some others have commented on this), and they also seem to exhibit the same behavior as the Genelecs in the sound power in the range that's normally associated with honkiness. So I personally own most of the Revel lineup, and comparing M105 to M126Be, thing that stands out most to me is the honkiness in the mids in the latter. Performa3 drops off in the sound power in this range much more rapidly than the PerformaBE. So that's a possibility.

 

[Pearljam5000]

It's weird because I prefer a thin or "flat" sounding midrange, I hate thick midrange and very sensitive to it, and most people would usually describe the Genelec sound as flat and (somewhat) bright, the last thing I would say about Genelec is thick mids.

 

[jonfitch]

It's weird because I prefer a thin or "flat" sounding midrange, I hate thick midrange and very sensitive to it, and most people would usually describe the Genelec sound as flat and (somewhat) bright, the last thing I would say about Genelec is thick mids.

Well then it's probably just expectation bias because I have speakers with more rolled off lower mids like Performa3 or KEF Reference to compare them to. My comments should not be taken as a judgement on an absolute scale. When you are doing 1 to 1 comparisons with speakers that are all very good, the only thing you can focus on are the small differences.

 

[aarons915]

The LS50 Meta has a BBC dip from 2-3k according to the review thread here so it seems like it can be tuned out if the designers want to. Otherwise you can look at the Reference range for a more rolled off sound in the highs (although being 6-7 years old now they may be looking to refresh it at some point).

I'm listening to a 8341 right now and will do some Dirac/REW/GLM measurements later on. I have a Kef Reference 1 as well that I will compare it to. I watched Zeos old video before and I think I'm gonna agree that the default FR doesn't seem amazing, and probably won't open up until you do full range FR correction. Out of the box it has that honky Genelec sound signature that I can also hear from my 8020 and 8010s that makes the mids sound really thick.

Ultimately I don't think any speaker is going to be perfectly flat on all axis's. There's always a trade-off that has to be made on-axis vs off-axis and the designers simply focus on what they think is more important.

That's true but if you look at the whitepaper and see the early reflections broken down the ceiling reflection has a peak in the 1-2k region while the sidewall is smoother, it's odd considering the coaxial design. The Reference ones are actually why I wanted to try out the KH 120, the off-axis smoothly declines in much the same way. Definitely interested in your thoughts of the 8341 compared to the Reference One. All speakers need EQ under the transition frequency but it is surprising if you think above that they don't sound quite right since they seem to measure just about perfectly as far as speakers go.

 

[jonfitch]

Did some quick sweeps on my speaker stands of two speakers. I would say immediately off the bat while switching between the Reference 1 and the Genelec 8341, I feel like the 8341s are "clearer" especially in the mids in the sense I'm listening to more of the direct sound, whereas with the KEFs I can hear more of the reflected sound. To me the KEFs sound a lot more laid back and it's better for casual background listening with mids that sound more recessed, while the Genelec sound more in your face in the mids, due to my perception of hearing more of the direct sound--I guess in Harman tradition, I would describe the KEFs as sounding more "spacious". Also the mids are more nasally/honky on the Genelecs like I mentioned earlier, similar to the Revel M126BE being more nasally/honky than the Revel M105s. I think it's probably the difference in sound power in the 400-1K range. Obviously in my room you can see some bass nulls at 50, 70, and 90hz.

Both before and after Dirac correction (default curves), I slightly prefer the Reference 1s for the more laid back sound. The Genelecs sounded really wooly in the bass before correction, bass presentation reminds me of Sennheiser HD820 (Genelec) vs HD800 (KEF), as in the rising amplitude in the bass causes the bass to lose some definition, definitely needed to lower it somewhat with EQ. Might be because I'm pretty close to the backwall (about 9 inches away). While the Genelec's by default have much higher bass amplitude by their measurements, by ear the Kef's sound like they have a lot more dynamic slam to them in bassier tracks. This shouldn't be surprising--the KEF Reference 1s are twice the size of the 8341s. The 8341s have really impressive bass extension for their size, but I guess when you equalize for extension you do give up some dynamics.

Other small nitpicks, the Genelecs have a pretty noisy noise floor using XLR inputs. When switching to AES the amplitude of the hiss is much lower, but it's still not in the same ballpark as using passive speakers + amp. (With AES the hiss sounds the same as with nothing connected. So this appears to be a baseline noise generated by the amp). At a ultra nearfield listening distance (say 1.5') it's still audible with nothing playing, but your mileage may vary due to your room's ambient noise conditions.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Did some quick sweeps on my speaker stands of two speakers. I would say immediately off the bat while switching between the Reference 1 and the Genelec 8341, I feel like the 8341s are "clearer" especially in the mids in the sense I'm listening to more of the direct sound, whereas with the KEFs I can hear more of the reflected sound. To me the KEFs sound a lot more laid back and it's better for casual background listening with mids that sound more recessed, while the Genelec sound more in your face in the mids, due to my perception of hearing more of the direct sound--I guess in Harman tradition, I would describe the KEFs as sounding more "spacious". Also the mids are more nasally/honky on the Genelecs like I mentioned earlier, similar to the Revel M126BE being more nasally/honky than the Revel M105s. I think it's probably the difference in sound power in the 400-1K range. Obviously in my room you can see some bass nulls at 50, 70, and 90hz.

Both before and after Dirac correction (default curves), I slightly prefer the Reference 1s for the more laid back sound. The Genelecs sounded really wooly in the bass before correction, bass presentation reminds me of Sennheiser HD820 (Genelec) vs HD800 (KEF), as in the rising amplitude in the bass causes the bass to lose some definition, definitely needed to lower it somewhat with EQ. Might be because I'm pretty close to the backwall (about 9 inches away).

Other small nitpicks, the Genelecs have a pretty noisy noise floor using XLR inputs. When switching to AES the amplitude of the hiss is much lower, but it's still not in the same ballpark as using passive speakers + amp. (With AES the hiss sounds the same as with nothing connected. So this appears to be a baseline noise generated by the amp). At a ultra nearfield listening distance (say 1.5') it's still audible with nothing playing, but your mileage may vary due to your room's ambient noise conditions.

Do you have the GLM kit?

 

[jonfitch]

Do you have the GLM kit?

Yeah I havent run it yet, I didn't want to export anything to the monitors before running other measurements. I'll try it out later.

 

[aarons915]

Did some quick sweeps on my speaker stands of two speakers. I would say immediately off the bat while switching between the Reference 1 and the Genelec 8341, I feel like the 8341s are "clearer" especially in the mids in the sense I'm listening to more of the direct sound, whereas with the KEFs I can hear more of the reflected sound. To me the KEFs sound a lot more laid back and it's better for casual background listening with mids that sound more recessed, while the Genelec sound more in your face in the mids, due to my perception of hearing more of the direct sound--I guess in Harman tradition, I would describe the KEFs as sounding more "spacious". Also the mids are more nasally/honky on the Genelecs like I mentioned earlier, similar to the Revel M126BE being more nasally/honky than the Revel M105s. I think it's probably the difference in sound power in the 400-1K range. Obviously in my room you can see some bass nulls at 50, 70, and 90hz.

Both before and after Dirac correction (default curves), I slightly prefer the Reference 1s for the more laid back sound. The Genelecs sounded really wooly in the bass before correction, bass presentation reminds me of Sennheiser HD820 (Genelec) vs HD800 (KEF), as in the rising amplitude in the bass causes the bass to lose some definition, definitely needed to lower it somewhat with EQ. Might be because I'm pretty close to the backwall (about 9 inches away). While the Genelec's by default have much higher bass amplitude by their measurements, by ear the Kef's sound like they have a lot more dynamic slam to them in bassier tracks. This shouldn't be surprising--the KEF Reference 1s are twice the size of the 8341s. The 8341s have really impressive bass extension for their size, but I guess when you equalize for extension you do give up some dynamics.

Other small nitpicks, the Genelecs have a pretty noisy noise floor using XLR inputs. When switching to AES the amplitude of the hiss is much lower, but it's still not in the same ballpark as using passive speakers + amp. (With AES the hiss sounds the same as with nothing connected. So this appears to be a baseline noise generated by the amp). At a ultra nearfield listening distance (say 1.5') it's still audible with nothing playing, but your mileage may vary due to your room's ambient noise conditions.

The interesting thing is that the Genelecs are the wider dispersion speaker according to measurements but your subjective opinion is that the KEFs sound more spacious. When I auditioned the Reference One it was in a bad setup in a huge room that was open to one side and they still sounded huge so I understand your impressions, it's just a bit odd since they are technically narrow dispersion. The KEF R3 also have a flattish in room response in the highs and they can sound a bit aggressive in my opinion.

 

[jonfitch]

The interesting thing is that the Genelecs are the wider dispersion speaker according to measurements but your subjective opinion is that the KEFs sound more spacious. When I auditioned the Reference One it was in a bad setup in a huge room that was open to one side and they still sounded huge so I understand your impressions, it's just a bit odd since they are technically narrow dispersion. The KEF R3 also have a flattish in room response in the highs and they can sound a bit aggressive in my opinion.

Yeah, I can confirm dispersion is wider on the Genelecs than the KEFs interestingly enough, when I just walk around from side to side the drop off in output is a lot less. Maybe it's caused by additional reflections off the flat cabinet versus the more focused sound of the Genelecs in which the entire front baffle is a waveguide or it could be nothing to do with that, I just feel like the Kefs end up sounding a lot more mellow for some reason. Maybe I'm incorrectly pointing at the reflected sound/direct sound ratio and it might be something else. I mean it could be the FR response alone is causing the laid back/mellow and more diffuse sound I'm hearing from the KEFs and I'm incorrectly thinking it's a result of reflections.

 

[Puddingbuks]

I can get a 7172a sub for about 1500 €. Is it still a good sub and does it work with GLM and my upcoming 8341a or 8351b?

Is this also a SAM sub, or is this an older system which is not compatible?

 

[madchillunited]

Any alternatives to the 7360A you guys would recommend to match a pair of 8341A? Potentially spending less for better quality must have balanced inputs though.

 

[pierre]

I can get a 7172a sub for about 1500 €. Is it still a good sub and does it work with GLM and my upcoming 8341a or 8351b?

Is this also a SAM sub, or is this an older system which is not compatible?

View attachment 112224

genelec website tells support glm https://www.genelec.com/previous-models/7271a
the price lgtm. Be mindfull of the size and weight.

 

[q3cpma]

I can get a 7172a sub for about 1500 €. Is it still a good sub and does it work with GLM and my upcoming 8341a or 8351b?

Is this also a SAM sub, or is this an older system which is not compatible?

View attachment 112224

Even if this is a very good price for a 2x12" Genelec subwoofer (and subwoofer in general), I do think you'll need a second sub to smooth things later on. Comparing the 72x0 and 73x0 serie, I don't see any major changes except the much larger amplifiers and the 7360 having a lower 3rd harmonic (2% vs 3% at 90 dB SPL); probably more DSP horsepower, though.

 

[jonfitch]

Gonna do some listening tests today, see if I can figure out which one I prefer the most here. Will upload some impressions later.

 

[Pearljam5000]

View attachment 112594

Gonna do some listening tests today, see if I can figure out which one I prefer the most here. Will upload some impressions later.

Can't wait

 

[richard12511]

View attachment 112594

Gonna do some listening tests today, see if I can figure out which one I prefer the most here. Will upload some impressions later.

All fantastic speakers. At first I didn't like the white driver look, but I think those Revels actually look a little better than my Walnut M105s. The white is a nice contrast.

 

[jonfitch]

I listened to these at 10 foot listening distance. The Genelecs sound like a pair of headphones. You can walk around from one speaker to the other, turn your head from side to side and up or down, it didn't really matter, the sound was nearly completely uniform regardless. It sounded like they basically took the room out of the equation, which is either a pro or con depending on whether you like the sound presentation of a headphone (studio-recording like presentation), or whether you prefer to hear a more livelier presentation (perhaps a euphemism for less uniform dispersion).

Whereas the Revel M126BE and Kef Reference 1 sounded more similar to each other--the mids were more recessed and recordings sounded more "live" and diffuse. Between the two, the M126BE was more consistent between multiple (wide angle) listening positions in maintaining the same output, whereas the Reference was more consistent when turning your head and changing the listening angle within a given position. Either way, it was scary how uniform the sound was from the Genelec 8341 compared to these two which are already considered among the best in passive speakers in terms of uniformity.

On the downside, this made the sound really "in your face" with the Genelecs, like you were sitting in the front row. Whereas both the Revels and KEFs sounded more like listening in the backrow with a more mellow sounding presentation. With vocals especially, it's kind of jarring in some ways when it sounds like no matter where you moved or how you shifted your head, the singer sounded like they were still standing right in front of you. But maybe this is in a technical sense, a more accurate portrayal of the input, with it's headphone-like presentation, instead of the vocals being more obscured and sounding further away like with the other two speakers.

All three speakers have a pretty flat response on axis. The main difference I think ends up being the sound radiating pattern of the speakers giving slightly different presentations. The M126Bes have very good vertical axis dispersion for a dome and cone, but its definitely audibly changes tone and output drops significantly once you go more than 15 degrees above the speakers whereas there's very little tonal change with either the KEFs or Genelecs even at extreme angles above and below the speakers. Other than that, the M126BE doesn't really have much bass to speak of compared to the other two. In room its about -5db at 40hz, the Kef's are +10db at 40hz , the Genelecs are about +17 db at 40hz. The Kefs sound the most dynamic and the most tonally clean in the bass, the Genelecs sound like they are over-EQed--the bass lacks a bit of definition and sounds a little boomy, and a bit dynamically constrained compared to the other two.

So technically, I think the Genelec 8341 is likely a better speaker than either the M126BE or the Kef Reference 1 (minus the excessive bass EQ which I suggest equalizing down--it ends up opening up the sound quite a bit). But whether or not you will like this kind of presentation will depend on the listener.

I'm going to say, whether you like the sound presentation of the Genelecs or not, they are amazing speakers at low listening levels. The intelligibility is just off the charts and so they would make a great speaker for listening to vocals from audibility standpoint. I would imagine especially for watching television or movies, they clearly are a step above either the Kefs or Revels.

 

[Puddingbuks]

@jonfitch which speaker delivers the best stereo image (3D)?

 

[pierre]

...
I'm going to say, whether you like the sound presentation of the Genelecs or not, they are amazing speakers at low listening levels. The intelligibility is just off the charts and so they would make a great speaker for listening to vocals from audibility standpoint. I would imagine especially for watching television or movies, they clearly are a step above either the Kefs or Revels.

I concur. The kid's mess is obviously to control diffraction on the floor. The plant on the right is subwoofer best friend.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I listened to these at 10 foot listening distance. The Genelecs sound like a pair of headphones. You can walk around from one speaker to the other, turn your head from side to side and up or down, it didn't really matter, the sound was nearly completely uniform regardless. It sounded like they basically took the room out of the equation, which is either a pro or con depending on whether you like the sound presentation of a headphone (studio-recording like presentation), or whether you prefer to hear a more livelier presentation (perhaps a euphemism for less uniform dispersion).

Whereas the Revel M126BE and Kef Reference 1 sounded more similar to each other--the mids were more recessed and recordings sounded more "live" and diffuse. Between the two, the M126BE was more consistent between multiple (wide angle) listening positions in maintaining the same output, whereas the Reference was more consistent when turning your head and changing the listening angle within a given position. Either way, it was scary how uniform the sound was from the Genelec 8341 compared to these two which are already considered among the best in passive speakers in terms of uniformity.

On the downside, this made the sound really "in your face" with the Genelecs, like you were sitting in the front row. Whereas both the Revels and KEFs sounded more like listening in the backrow with a more mellow sounding presentation. With vocals especially, it's kind of jarring in some ways when it sounds like no matter where you moved or how you shifted your head, the singer sounded like they were still standing right in front of you. But maybe this is in a technical sense, a more accurate portrayal of the input, with it's headphone-like presentation, instead of the vocals being more obscured and sounding further away like with the other two speakers.

All three speakers have a pretty flat response on axis. The main difference I think ends up being the sound radiating pattern of the speakers giving slightly different presentations. The M126Bes have very good vertical axis dispersion for a dome and cone, but its definitely audibly changes tone and output drops significantly once you go more than 15 degrees above the speakers whereas there's very little tonal change with either the KEFs or Genelecs even at extreme angles above and below the speakers. Other than that, the M126BE doesn't really have much bass to speak of compared to the other two. In room its about -5db at 40hz, the Kef's are +10db at 40hz , the Genelecs are about +17 db at 40hz. The Kefs sound the most dynamic and the most tonally clean in the bass, the Genelecs sound like they are over-EQed--the bass lacks a bit of definition and sounds a little boomy, and a bit dynamically constrained compared to the other two.

So technically, I think the Genelec 8341 is likely a better speaker than either the M126BE or the Kef Reference 1 (minus the excessive bass EQ which I suggest equalizing down--it ends up opening up the sound quite a bit). But whether or not you will like this kind of presentation will depend on the listener.

I'm going to say, whether you like the sound presentation of the Genelecs or not, they are amazing speakers at low listening levels. The intelligibility is just off the charts and so they would make a great speaker for listening to vocals from audibility standpoint. I would imagine especially for watching television or movies, they clearly are a step above either the Kefs or Revels.

Amazing description of the Genelecs
I wonder if the 8351B or adding a sub to the 8341 solves that bass problem you described