Soo? how is the low end decay on these here monitors, because on Sound & Recording it is quite bad on the 8351?? I plan to mix audio on them, so how would that affect my mixing decision? Im coming from KRK Expose e8b, Sound & Recording has a analysis and decay on them is quite lovely indeed.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
1231rq32r1qw32r
Active Member
Terrible. They are really bad speakers and should be avoided. Definitely not good enough for mixing.
1231rq32r1qw32r
Active Member
I was joking.
S&R doesnt even have a review of the current version of the 8351. And anyway, low end decay is far more a function of your room than of the speaker. So not sure how you'd even evaluate that.
RobL
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2021
- Messages
- 949
- Likes
- 1,619
You have a link? S&R has a review of 8351A but not 8351B. I can’t find the review of the Expose.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,943
- Likes
- 17,133
With the Avantones you cannot really judge low end as they simply don't reproduce it. Also its low group delay is just a result because of that, see also https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...aker-review-a-joke.34783/page-53#post-1517494
Do you have a link to the Sound & Recording measurements - I'm frankly shocked that any sort of distortion can be described as "quite bad" on any Genelec speaker? I'm curious to see how decay was measured and evaluated, and which frequency range was "bad" as decay is very frequency specific. My assumption is that decay is a function of the speaker box reverberations excited by specific frequencies but the 8351B (and all Genelec pro speakers) was engineered specifically in an all metal box designed to eliminate these sort of interactions!
I have used the 8331A and 8351B (and many other Genelec models in the 83X0 range) and it is always my room that creates issues - even after spending thousands of dollars treating my editing room with professional absorption, diffraction & diffusor pads, my 10x9x9 room still has deep nulls that can never be eliminated by treatment alone but simply the room "is what it is" and I'd need to move as this null would affect any and all professional speakers positioned thusly here.
Also, at some point you have to trust the collective wisdom of the crowd (expert crowd that is)! Diving deeply into every publication and owner review of these speakers prior to buying them for myself, I have yet to find mention of issues relating to "decay" and only read about objections relating to subjective preferences akin to "they sound great but I'm not in love with them like the [insert competing model here]".
Given your technical prowess why there is no waterfall plot?? Is it not that important too see those results? I'm just asking questions is all? I'm sure you'll have a good answer, and thank you.
That is why I am here to learn.
Waterfall plots are often misleading, depending on the X, Y axis, dB scale and methodology. Sometimes they show things that seem to be inaudible or don't even appear in any other measurement and other times they merely reinforce what is already obvious from the other measurements(resonances and such).
I would say trying to compare waterfalls across different sources is a fool's errand, don't even bother.
I can't find this review, can you link it or provide a photo of the graph? Not going to spend a lot of time trying to find it.
But anyway, lets look at the KH150, a brand new monitor that everyone agrees is state of the art, vs the 8361A which is using a similar woofer design as the current 8351B.
What does any of this mean? The KH150 is a bit smoother because it doesn't have a woofer crossover. Mind the X-axis scale, they're not the same. I don't see many/any significant differences at all. The 8351 is better in some places, the KH150 in others.
At most we see variations of like 2-3ms. What are the decays in your actual room? Because even in a treated room, they're often 100ms+ below 200hz and 50ms from 200-500hz. So 10x or more of the decay time of the speaker itself. And if your room isn't treated, then it's much longer than that.
I have never seen any evidence that decay times of speakers correlate with audible decay times in rooms to any meaningful degree. *Sometimes* the waterfall reveals resonances but there's none of that in Genelec Ones.
RobL
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2021
- Messages
- 949
- Likes
- 1,619
I think what @carlosatl is referring to is energy storage in the cabinet/drivers. I kinda wish Amir would extend the time axis on his waterfall plots out further as it would better show this energy decaying. I have some examples here ploted out to 100ms. You can see that ported speakers generally measure worse here:
Right but it's like reading tea leaves. What correlates to what audible change in an actual room? I've never seen anyone explain that nor have I seen any quality source suggest waterfalls are actually useful for anything.
I mean, longer is worse IF THE FR IS THE SAME ONLY(!!), but if your room is not heavily treated for LF to the levels of a professional studio, then you're optimizing an attribute that has minimal effect on the end result. Room modes and reverberation in the room are going to dominate and it's not even going to be close.
Roger that sir, this is the kind of informative answer I was looking for!! I am most greatful for the response!Waterfall plots are often misleading, depending on the X, Y axis, dB scale and methodology. Sometimes they show things that seem to be inaudible or don't even appear in any other measurement and other times they merely reinforce what is already obvious from the other measurements(resonances and such).
I would say trying to compare waterfalls across different sources is a fool's errand, don't even bother.
I can't find this review, can you link it or provide a photo of the graph? Not going to spend a lot of time trying to find it.
But anyway, lets look at the KH150, a brand new monitor that everyone agrees is state of the art, vs the 8361A which is using a similar woofer design as the current 8351B.
What does any of this mean? The KH150 is a bit smoother because it doesn't have a woofer crossover. Mind the X-axis scale, they're not the same. I don't see many/any significant differences at all. The 8351 is better in some places, the KH150 in others.
At most we see variations of like 2-3ms. What are the decays in your actual room? Because even in a treated room, they're often 100ms+ below 200hz and 50ms from 200-500hz. So 10x or more of the decay time of the speaker itself. And if your room isn't treated, then it's much longer than that.
I have never seen any evidence that decay times of speakers correlate with audible decay times in rooms to any meaningful degree. *Sometimes* the waterfall reveals resonances but there's none of that in Genelec Ones.
and I will keep in mind all of the above, and worry about something that physically cannot be fixed. :/Yes ive seen this list for years I and always thought it had some realistic merit, but ultimately everyone here with much technical knowhow responds that waterfall decay plots do not matter in the grand scheme of things because the rooms hold resonance much longer than the speaker anyway. So yeah thanks Gearsplace(Gearslutz) for the confusion in this matter. lol
Id figured it was one less gremlin to deal with :/
Last edited:
Well to be clear I'm not saying you can't do anything about decay times. I'm saying that you should look at things like heavy room treatment(rockwool absorbers, bass traps, membrane traps, etc) and multiple software-optimized subwoofer systems to achieve low-decay bass and midrange. If you're not doing those things, then I don't see how the speaker can help.Roger that sir, this is the kind of informative answer I was looking for!! I am most greatful for the response!
And of course, the first line of defense is room EQ to knock down peaks, which Genelec GLM does automatically.
If you ARE doing those things already, then it might matter a little bit? Hard to say, I'm not aware of any tests like this, but maybe someone has done it and measured. You'd have to be very careful with your methodology.
Pearljam5000
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 5,313
- Likes
- 5,556
So the 8351 is not worth the extra $$$ over KH150?Waterfall plots are often misleading, depending on the X, Y axis, dB scale and methodology. Sometimes they show things that seem to be inaudible or don't even appear in any other measurement and other times they merely reinforce what is already obvious from the other measurements(resonances and such).
I would say trying to compare waterfalls across different sources is a fool's errand, don't even bother.
I can't find this review, can you link it or provide a photo of the graph? Not going to spend a lot of time trying to find it.
But anyway, lets look at the KH150, a brand new monitor that everyone agrees is state of the art, vs the 8361A which is using a similar woofer design as the current 8351B.
What does any of this mean? The KH150 is a bit smoother because it doesn't have a woofer crossover. Mind the X-axis scale, they're not the same. I don't see many/any significant differences at all. The 8351 is better in some places, the KH150 in others.
At most we see variations of like 2-3ms. What are the decays in your actual room? Because even in a treated room, they're often 100ms+ below 200hz and 50ms from 200-500hz. So 10x or more of the decay time of the speaker itself. And if your room isn't treated, then it's much longer than that.
I have never seen any evidence that decay times of speakers correlate with audible decay times in rooms to any meaningful degree. *Sometimes* the waterfall reveals resonances but there's none of that in Genelec Ones.
Similar threads
- Poll