Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review

[Andreas007]

Klippel have clearly failed here. Significant reflections from their own device have unfortunately sullied and rendered all your previous tests suspect, and it is only the fact that so many measurements have been presented on different speakers, in such a short time, that a clear pattern was observed early on. Imagine some company toiling away trying to produce a perfect speaker and their Klippel rig is giving them erroneous data they can't seem to correct?

A significant re-design of the contact limit switching arrangement for the microphone and/or an increase in distance between the actual mic element and the rig mount itself should be investigated to enable quality measurements at the short distances to speakers you are employing. A extremely small proximity sensor using IR could be a better option?

When you talk about "I added tons of padding around the speaker" what do you mean? Padding to stop the mic hitting the speaker? How can that be acoustically consistent for all sizes and shapes of speakers going forward? What about side ported, side/top firing speakers? Speakers with rear tweeters etc?

Anyway, I'm glad the issue has been identified and investigated earlier rather than later. It was patently obvious there were some issues with the high frequencies in the presented speaker tests.

I would also like to know more about the padding. Any other influence than eliminating the ripples?

 

[tomtoo]

Klippel should pay @armirm for debugging there system. At least they should give there other modules for free. So they can also get debugged.

 

[napilopez]

Yes the cardio pattern will show in the pattern, but the “room coupled” features in 8c won’t show. (In 8c one need to provide the distance from the side and front wall) . Not sure does such feature worth anything when compares with a perfect speaker like The One

The 8C's advantage is in minimizing room boundary interference. The speaker is cardioid down to 100Hz.

 

[StevenEleven]

Klippel should pay @armirm for debugging there system. At least they should give there other modules for free. So they can also get debugged.

As you likely know, a lot of software and tech companies, including the biggest of the big, do offer “bug bounties,” if you write it up and they are grateful enough. I think maybe Klippel should give @amirm some kind of financial recognition or special bennies.

 

[Wombat]

I would also like to know more about the padding. Any other influence than eliminating the ripples?

It seems to have been done to protect the speaker diaphragm and/or compensate for a Klippel NFS microphone system physical design/placement shortcoming.

The acoustic effect of the padding does not appear to be critically analysed wrt effects of root cause.

There is a seemingly functional gap between user and Klippel, here.

 

[amirm]

When you talk about "I added tons of padding around the speaker" what do you mean?

I meant the fixture, not the speaker. Since the wavelength is quite small in that frequency range, it doesn't take a lot of thickness to absorb it. Best performance is without the protection but I can't operate it that way with people's expensive speakers.

 

[amirm]

I would also like to know more about the padding. Any other influence than eliminating the ripples?

There is nothing in the path of the speaker and microphone. There is no way for it to have a negative impact other than it looks like hell.

 

[Wombat]

As you likely know, a lot of software and tech companies, including the biggest of the big, do offer “bug bounties,” if you write it up and they are grateful enough. I think maybe Klippel should give @amirm some kind of financial recognition or special bennies.

You mean find the problems that they should have eliminated before releasing the product? This seems to be the software mindset creeping into hardware.

 

[StevenEleven]

You mean find the problems that they should have eliminated before releasing the product? This seems to be the software mindset creeping into hardware.

Actually big tech software companies will have alpha and beta stuff out in the public in perhaps three different channels of development and if you write up a valuable bug report they will send you a real nice check, IME.

 

[Wombat]

I meant the fixture, not the speaker. Since the wavelength is quite small in that frequency range, it doesn't take a lot of thickness to absorb it. Best performance is without the protection but I can't operate it that way with people's expensive speakers.

Post #11: You said, "I added tons of protection around the speaker". "So that is what I will go with".

Accuracy in reporting method and results is imperative for credibility.

At least an explained edit of the previous post is required.

 

[TungstenC]

I'd like to see a tear down on these guys... what class D amp do they use?

From what I recall Genelec custom design their amplifiers in house.

 

[Hephaestus]

^ Amps are Genelec’s own design indeed.

Big thanks Amir for this review - it seems that I did an excellent choice when purchesed these speakers a little while ago. In a small room and listening distance of 1.5m I have had no issues with max SPL.

 

[tomtoo]

You mean find the problems that they should have eliminated before releasing the product? This seems to be the software mindset creeping into hardware.

Without the sharp eyes of the experienced and sceptical forum members it wouldnt be easy. So thx to all the members that do great work. Many good thinks that come togeter in this place. Klippel should read here.

 

[Wombat]

Let's put a hold on loudspeaker testing until the problem is worked out.

 

[KSTR]

Klippel should pay @armirm for debugging there system. At least they should give there other modules for free. So they can also get debugged.

Oh, c'mon!
Klippel is not responsible for user errors. Klippel sells to industry professionals which are assumed to already know that a piece of wire near the mic causes diffraction, as does any sketchy mounting of the mic body. Also, the protection cage is to be used for setup test runs, not for the final measurement when ultimate precision is required, isn't that blatantly obvious? Finally, publishing result without sufficient learning curve and without double-checking is another sort of user error here. Ok, such things happen, now the root cause is addressed and a correction might even be applied to the previous measurements if somebody is wanting to go that deep.

IHMO the issue is overrated anyway. This site is more about consistency between measurements of different DUTs, much less about absolute precision (Amir sure is wanting to achieve that as well but additional effort has to be spent to make sure it is actually happening). A few dB of consistent HF ripple from the wire frame is irrelevant. You guys freak out about minute details on magnitude frequency responses whereas, for example, phase issues (except tilted main lobes at XO) are off the radar, as is relevant distortion (which isn't single tone distortion for very obvious reasons).

 

[Wombat]

Oh, c'mon!
Klippel is not responsible for user errors. Klippel sells to industry professionals which are assumed to already know that a piece of wire near the mic causes diffraction, as does any sketchy mounting of the mic body. Also, the protection cage is to be used for setup test runs, not for the final measurement when ultimate precision is required, isn't that blatantly obvious? Finally, publishing result without sufficient learning curve and without double-checking is another sort of user error here. Ok, such things happen, now the root cause is addressed and a correction might even be applied to the previous measurements if somebody is wanting to go that deep.

IHMO the issue is overrated anyway. This site is more about consistency between measurements of different DUTs, much less about absolute precision (Amir sure is wanting to achieve that as well but additional effort has to be spent to make sure it is actually happening). A few dB of consistent HF ripple from the wire frame is irrelevant. You guys freak out about minute details on magnitude frequency responses whereas, for example, phase issues (except tilted main lobes at XO) are off the radar, as is relevant distortion (which isn't single tone distortion for very obvious reasons).

First para rules on a science based forum.

Second para needs to be clarified in terms of publication.

The test results reflect upon manufacturers of varied credentials, claims and in-house design processes and parameters.

An outlier making claims re their products needs to be better than they in that regard and can(afford to) prove it.

The Harman model is not universally accepted as the 'model' for performance.

One successful lawsuit and Amir's Klippel rig is up for auction.

 

[tomtoo]

Oh, c'mon!
Klippel is not responsible for user errors. Klippel sells to industry professionals which are assumed to already know that a piece of wire near the mic causes diffraction, as does any sketchy mounting of the mic body. Also, the protection cage is to be used for setup test runs, not for the final measurement when ultimate precision is required, isn't that blatantly obvious? Finally, publishing result without sufficient learning curve and without double-checking is another sort of user error here. Ok, such things happen, now the root cause is addressed and a correction might even be applied to the previous measurements if somebody is wanting to go that deep.

IHMO the issue is overrated anyway. This site is more about consistency between measurements of different DUTs, much less about absolute precision (Amir sure is wanting to achieve that as well but additional effort has to be spent to make sure it is actually happening). A few dB of consistent HF ripple from the wire frame is irrelevant. You guys freak out about minute details on magnitude frequency responses whereas, for example, phase issues (except tilted main lobes at XO) are off the radar, as is relevant distortion (which isn't single tone distortion for very obvious reasons).

I didnt read the manual. If it is like you say it should be in the manual that the cage has to be removed for final measurement? How should i know?

 

[MZKM]

Here are correction added to all of them and think many will agree its a linear one that will benefitl all of them, by the way great thanks this new Genelec review amirn and if if you ask me @MZKM will get some work update preference rating list for all of them ...in dirty quick calibration filtered blues animation below they are:

001-a_JBL_305P_Mark_ii
001-b_JBL_Control_1_Pro (has not a released zip folder with spin data)
002_NHT_Pro_M-00 (has not a released zip folder with spin data)
003_Kali_Audio_IN-8
004_Revel_C52 (has not a released zip folder with spin data)
005_Yamaha_HS5
006_Neumann_KH_80 (sample 1)
007_JBL_One_Series_104
008_Harbeth_Monitor_30
009_KEF_LS50
010_Emotiva_Airmotiv_6s
011_Selah_Audio_RC3R
012_Micca_RB42
013_Realistic_MC-1000
014_Pioneer_SP-BS22-LR
015_Dayton_Audio_B652-AIR
016_ADAM_S2V_Studio_Monitor
017_Elac_Adante_AS-61
018_Klipsch_R-41M
019_Genelec_8341A_SAM

Animation is a 2 second toogle x3 one can see correction filter in the three missing Spinorama, 1) original review 2) amirm's new catch of Klippel hardware 3) microphone calibration added and btw @amirm could it be for SV2 and 8341A you have active used mic calibration and then kind of forgot about it .....
View attachment 51499



EDIT should it be case operator had used mic calibration for SV2 and 8341A and forgot detail about it then their animation is as below, same 2 second toogle x3 of 1) original review 2) amirm's new catch of Klippel hardware 3) microphone calibration added.
View attachment 51507

Unless I missed something, the difference the padding made is not a fixed difference that can be applied universally. We need both versions to be done on a handful of future speakers to be sure.

 

[Wombat]

Unless I missed something, the difference the padding made is not a fixed difference that can be applied universally. We need both versions to be done of a handful of future speakers to be sure.

Leave it to the experts - Klippel, at least.

 

[BYRTT]

Unless I missed something, the difference the padding made is not a fixed difference that can be applied universally. We need both versions to be done of a handful of future speakers to be sure.

Your the experts no problem but find it bit good argument that common calibration file make them all look benefit a relative smoother response, know each Spinorama in that overview is scaled down to keep it web friendly but if you viewed each as normal scales are on my panels i'm shure you agree that calibration looks a no brainer for example look how KH 80 sample 1 and LS50 behave, know it probably is a little bit less precise calibration than was it calculated upon original txt-file output from NFS but still it looks make sense.