Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review

[pozz]

For sure, that’s just standard room treatment, but doesn’t that contradict the comment in the review? In which case isn’t one left with the choice of correct perceived frequency response or not treating acoustic issues which face nearly every room?

It helps to have some context. If you read Toole's book on this point he comments that the industry as a whole tends to misunderstand the role of reflections. Both studios and home listening rooms suffer given that the intent of treatment tends to be the elimination of indirect sound to one extent or another, with approaches like the reflection free zone, the nonenvironment room, live end/dead end. These approaches are based largely on physical measurements of room acoustics (frequency response, reverb time, noise) with incomplete psychoacoustical considerations. The net effect for consumers is that most companies offering treatment imitate these approaches and, due to a lot of factors, not the least of which is practicality, their products are usually based on broadband absorption (foam, mineral wool, fibreglass cores with questionable coverings) and are very thin (1 or 2 inches). These panels are increasingly less effective as you move down in frequency, rapidly dropping off in absorption below around 100Hz or 200Hz, depending on thickness. That slope in effective absorption modifies the spectral content of all indirect and reflected sound, which is more important than you'd think, besides showing inadequacy of the product.

Demonstrations of comb filtering, either measured or simulated, occur when the microphone is at a fixed position in the room. We, on the other hand, are always moving our heads. That movement samples a number of wavefronts which are sent individually to the brain. If we could measure these wavefronts separately they would of course show comb filtering, but it would be a highly statistically variable comb filtering that, in aggregate, would not produce strong spectral modes (apart from, of course, in the modal region of the room, with bass). Point being, the more spectrally similar these wavefronts are, the more they can be fused into a single event by the brain. The more different, the more processing has be done to determine whether or not they are need to be separated. This is one reason for listening fatigue.

A few thin panels in a room won't change much unless you are in a small space or position them in key locations like the first reflection points. That's easily audible and often pretty nice, and it's not uncommon to start piling on the treatment. The way to decrease detrimental effects (clarity really suffers, for example, if there's a large difference in total room absorption and reverb times across the audible region, excluding bass) is to ensure that the spectral content of reflections remains similar to the direct sound.

 

[iwantobelieve]

It helps to have some context. If you read Toole's book on this point he comments that the industry as a whole tends to misunderstand the role of reflections. Both studios and home listening rooms suffer given that the intent of treatment tends to be the elimination of indirect sound to one extent or another, with approaches like the reflection free zone, the nonenvironment room, live end/dead end. These approaches are based largely on physical measurements of room acoustics (frequency response, reverb time, noise) with incomplete psychoacoustical considerations. The net effect for consumers is that most companies offering treatment imitate these approaches and, due to a lot of factors, not the least of which is practicality, their products are usually based on broadband absorption (foam, mineral wool, fibreglass cores with questionable coverings) and are very thin (1 or 2 inches). These panels are increasingly less effective as you move down in frequency, rapidly dropping off in absorption below around 100Hz or 200Hz, depending on thickness. That slope in effective absorption modifies the spectral content of all indirect and reflected sound, which is more important than you'd think, besides showing inadequacy of the product.

Demonstrations of comb filtering, either measured or simulated, occur when the microphone is at a fixed position in the room. We, on the other hand, are always moving our heads. That movement samples a number of wavefronts which are sent individually to the brain. If we could measure these wavefronts separately they would of course show comb filtering, but it would be a highly statistically variable comb filtering that, in aggregate, would not produce strong spectral modes (apart from, of course, in the modal region of the room, with bass). Point being, the more spectrally similar these wavefronts are, the more they can be fused into a single event by the brain. The more different, the more processing has be done to determine whether or not they are need to be separated. This is one reason for listening fatigue.

A few thin panels in a room won't change much unless you are in a small space or position them in key locations like the first reflection points. That's easily audible and often pretty nice, and it's not uncommon to start piling on the treatment. The way to decrease detrimental effects (clarity really suffers, for example, if there's a large difference in total room absorption and reverb times across the audible region, excluding bass) is to ensure that the spectral content of reflections remains similar to the direct sound.

I agree with most, if not all, of this.

Thoughts: if comb filtering is randomly sampled out by small movements of the head while listening, this would be frequency dependent - e.g., small movements would affect higher frequencies more since the wavelength is shorter, so would the spectral balance be maintained? In my mind, it wouldn’t be, but has this been modelled/measured?

FWIW, in my own listening room, which is not ideal, most of my treatments aim to damp bass modes/ringing to a certain degree, but all absorbers are broadband. This is then helped along by DSP room correction only below 200Hz. I then have quite thick broadband absorbers at first listening points and on the rear wall, but not many of them. These absorb a bit more bass but also cut down the general reverb/slap echo in the room. There are also strategically placed bookshelves, with the books arranged in random sizes and jumbled distances on the shelves. There are a couple of diffusers up high. Various furnishings, some carpet (which I can’t move as in a rental).

It sounds quite good in the room (there is always room for improvement, but it is a lounge, not a dedicated listening room) - what I mean is, if I walk around with my wife with both of us talking, it sounds balanced and natural, not too bright and reverby, but not too dead either. I used to measure and still do for the RC filters if I change anything in the room, but have found over time that if there are any big spectral balance issues, the room just won’t sound ‘right’ and will be fatiguing, as you point out. I have at times found that an over damped or unevenly damped room is as fatiguing as quite a ‘live’ one.

 

[pozz]

Thoughts: if comb filtering is randomly sampled out by small movements of the head while listening, this would be frequency dependent - e.g., small movements would affect higher frequencies more since the wavelength is shorter, so would the spectral balance be maintained? In my mind, it wouldn’t be, but has this been modelled/measured?

Comb filtering is meaningful to the hearing system. It provides localization cues. The thing to note here is that the correlation of multiple arriving wavefronts affects localization. High decorrelation is perceived as diffuse and enveloping, then there are many intermediate states, while zero reflections and pure direct sound disrupts (to some extent) the ability to perceive distance and direction. Great imaging is in that intermediate space and requires some level of controlled reverberance, meaning that comb filtering shouldn't be fully avoided.

My main references are Jens Blauert and David Griesinger, if you want to look up their work. But as far as I know there haven't been many psychoacoustic studies about the effects of room treatment, especially not ones that lead to good, practical advice once you take Toole's and Olive's research into account. The problems of room treatment are more concerned with achieving physical targets (not perceptual ones), like accuracy of measurement, construction and simulation. Look up Peter D'Antonio and Trevor Cox.

Like you said it's the higher frequencies that show the most spectral differences directly related to head movement. The lower frequencies wrap fully around the head and we rely on timing differences for them, primarily. This does not exclude them from being affected by the room, of course.

 

[iwantobelieve]

Comb filtering is meaningful to the hearing system. It provides localization cues. The thing to note here is that the correlation of multiple arriving wavefronts affects localization. High decorrelation is perceived as diffuse and enveloping, then there are many intermediate states, while zero reflections and pure direct sound disrupts (to some extent) the ability to perceive distance and direction. Great imaging is in that intermediate space and requires some level of controlled reverberance, meaning that comb filtering shouldn't be fully avoided.

My main references are Jens Blauert and David Griesinger, if you want to look up their work. But as far as I know there haven't been many psychoacoustic studies about the effects of room treatment, especially not ones that lead to good, practical advice once you take Toole's and Olive's research into account. The problems of room treatment are more concerned with achieving physical targets (not perceptual ones), like accuracy of measurement, construction and simulation. Look up Peter D'Antonio and Trevor Cox.

Like you said it's the higher frequencies that show the most spectral differences directly related to head movement. The lower frequencies wrap fully around the head and we rely on timing differences for them, primarily. This does not exclude them from being affected by the room, of course.

Its ironic, isn’t it, that on a site devoted to reviewing what often amounts to the tiniest measured differences in distortion and frequency response, that when it comes down to it, the room has probably by far the biggest influence (I conflate within “the room“ a number of factors including dimensions, construction, number and placement of absorbing/reflecting/diffusing surfaces, speaker and listener placement, etc., etc). Whereupon one is actually best of relying on one’s ears (by which I mean the ear/brain perceptively, with all that implies psychoacoustically) to discern what sounds best.

Again, FWIW, my current system sidesteps some of the imaging issues as it uses, e.g., Trifield for stereo listening. In real world living rooms, it mitigates a lot of issues which would otherwise be very difficult to get right, and also widens the ‘sweet spot’ so that two or more people can enjoy the performance without feeling short changed in terms of an unbalanced soundstage.

 

[pozz]

Trifield for stereo listening.

What gear do you use for trifield?

Its ironic, isn’t it, that on a site devoted to reviewing what often amounts to the tiniest measured differences in distortion and frequency response, that when it comes down to it, the room has probably by far the biggest influence (I conflate within “the room“ a number of factors including dimensions, construction, number and placement of absorbing/reflecting/diffusing surfaces, speaker and listener placement, etc., etc). Whereupon one is actually best of relying on one’s ears (by which I mean the ear/brain perceptively, with all that implies psychoacoustically) to discern what sounds best.

Not to be harsh, but you can't do this accurately unless you've done some research and have developed some strategies for judging measurements and what you hear. Any discussion about small differences will seem fruitless or misplaced if context is lacking.

Most people come here because they can't get the data about the mechanics and performance anywhere else, wherein the question of accuracy comes up. The data and all of the resulting interpretations are in heavy question unless that question is satisfied, since it affects how the data should be situated, which perspectives are important, etc. Wherein you have all of the discussions about minutia. Honestly, it's rare to understand all of it, and most threads show evidence of ongoing learning as things come up. You may understand the fundamentals of more or less everything about speakers, but then someone asks how baffle shape should be judged, or something like that, and you're at kind of a loss unless you've studied that specific aspect and have a good answer ready.

 

[iwantobelieve]

What gear do you use for trifield?

Not to be harsh, but you can't do this accurately unless you've done some research and have developed some strategies for judging measurements and what you hear. Any discussion about small differences will seem fruitless or misplaced if context is lacking.

Most people come here because they can't get the data about the mechanics and performance anywhere else, wherein the question of accuracy comes up. The data and all of the resulting interpretations are in heavy question unless that question is satisfied, since it affects how the data should be situated, which perspectives are important, etc. Wherein you have all of the discussions about minutia. Honestly, it's rare to understand all of it, and most threads show evidence of ongoing learning as things come up. You may understand the fundamentals of more or less everything about speakers, but then someone asks how baffle shape should be judged, or something like that, and you're at kind of a loss unless you've studied that specific aspect and have a good answer ready.

I use a Meridian 5.1 setup. Stereo (music) listening is generally in Trifield. The system uses Meridian’s MRC for bass correction.

Re: the rest of your post, I’m not 100% sure what you’re getting at - are you talking about attempting to correlate measurements with listening preferences?

 

[localhost128]

It helps to have some context. If you read Toole's book on this point he comments that the industry as a whole tends to misunderstand the role of reflections. Both studios and home listening rooms suffer given that the intent of treatment tends to be the elimination of indirect sound to one extent or another, with approaches like the reflection free zone, the nonenvironment room, live end/dead end. These approaches are based largely on physical measurements of room acoustics (frequency response, reverb time, noise) with incomplete psychoacoustical considerations.

Toole's book and commentary on studio designs is in effect a "Circle of Confusion" unto itself - as so many i've interacted with seem to draw their "understanding of studio design" solely from Toole's commentary alone - when Toole's book(s) are not authoritative sources on studio design. and thus we see erroneous, misleading, and incomplete statements like that made above.

Live End Dead End, and by nature Reflection Free Zone (Peter D'Antontio's geometric approach to achieving the LEDE psycho-acoustic response) - in no way "eliminates indirect sound". they attenuate and delay the indirect specular sound-field such that it can be managed and reintroduced to the listening position at a later time, as a certain type, and from certain directions.

LEDE/RFZ create an effectively anechoic time period (ISD-gap) where-by no indirect room contributions (indirect specular reflections) are allowed to impede the listening position. ie, no high-gain sparse (focused) specular reflections are allowed that would skew accuracy of the direct signal with respect to localization, imaging, and speech intelligibility. this ISD-gap time-length in effect defines the perceived psycho-acoustic size of the bounded space, and is done so to be 2-5ms longer than the ISD of the tracking room (which allows the operator to hear the recording room indirect reflections/sound-field prior to any indirect reflections from within the control room masking on top). however in no way does this anechoic response completely extend infinitely (ie, the erroneous statement that they "eliminate the indirect sound"). instead, a REFLECTION-RICH indirect sound-field is eventually re-introduced to the listening position, being no more than -12dB down from direct signal, by nature of broadband 1-dimensional reflection phase grating diffusers on the rear/rear-side walls with the wells oriented vertically which provide the diffraction lobes in the horizontal plane. this provides a reflection-rich, dense, exponentially-decaying, laterally-arriving indirect sound-field for passive envelopment (emulating the natural reverberant sound-field that develops in Large Acoustical Spaces). the diffuse indirect sound-field creates MORE reflections with MORE closely spaced comb-filters to minimize the frequency-response anomolies as one moves about the room.

so in no way do these studio models aim to "eliminate indirect sound" - they simply manage it appropriately and delay and subsequently reintroduce it back to the listening position at a later, defined time and in a well-defined manner to achieve specific, pscyho-acoustic triggers on to the ear/brain system. and in effect, the "studio design indirect sound field" contains a significantly more "reflection-rich" response than an untreated room would.

only Non-Environment in effect "eliminates indirect sound" entirely (ie, an anechoic speaker-listener response) - but in no way is the room itself anechoic or lacking of indirect sound-field as experienced from the operator's perspective.

the fact you refer to these studio designs as "incomplete psychoacoustical considerations" is bewildering. LEDE is literally a psycho-acoustic response to achieve accurate direct signal as perceived at the listening position while hearing in totality the first indirect contributions from the recording room. the design has literally evolved with further understanding of psycho-acoustic effects as well as being put into practice by nature of how well mixes translate to a myriad of other rooms and system. it provides a non-destructive sense of the room, and allows more-even indirect sound field (minimizing frequency response variations) as one moves about the room (ie, a much larger "sweet spot").

with approaches like the reflection free zone, live end/dead end. These approaches are based largely on physical measurements of room acoustics (frequency response, reverb time, noise) with incomplete psychoacoustical considerations.

this is wildly inaccurate and misguided. LEDE/RFZ focus heavily on time-domain response and is entirely validated and thus certified via the Envelope Time Curve (ETC) response.

The net effect for consumers is that most companies offering treatment imitate these approaches and, due to a lot of factors, not the least of which is practicality, their products are usually based on broadband absorption (foam, mineral wool, fibreglass cores with questionable coverings) and are very thin (1 or 2 inches). These panels are increasingly less effective as you move down in frequency, rapidly dropping off in absorption below around 100Hz or 200Hz, depending on thickness. That slope in effective absorption modifies the spectral content of all indirect and reflected sound, which is more important than you'd think, besides showing inadequacy of the product.

a case of operator error. the modeling, behavior, etc of porous absorbers is well understood. if a user is deploying 1-2in porous absorbers an in effect creates a low pass filter (coloring or "eq'ing" the reflection instead of attenuating it entirely via the use of broadband, sufficiently thick treatments) - then that is simply user error and has nothing to do with studio design.

why would you bring light to a method of doing something wrong? it has no bearing on the actual design and criteria of which these studio models define.

 

[pozz]

Toole's book and commentary on studio designs is in effect a "Circle of Confusion" unto itself - as so many i've interacted with seem to draw their "understanding of studio design" solely from Toole's commentary alone - when Toole's book(s) are not authoritative sources on studio design. and thus we see erroneous, misleading, and incomplete statements like that made above.

Live End Dead End, and by nature Reflection Free Zone (Peter D'Antontio's geometric approach to achieving the LEDE psycho-acoustic response) - in no way "eliminates indirect sound". they attenuate and delay the indirect specular sound-field such that it can be managed and reintroduced to the listening position at a later time, as a certain type, and from certain directions.

LEDE/RFZ create an effectively anechoic time period (ISD-gap) where-by no indirect room contributions (indirect specular reflections) are allowed to impede the listening position. ie, no high-gain sparse (focused) specular reflections are allowed that would skew accuracy of the direct signal with respect to localization, imaging, and speech intelligibility. this ISD-gap time-length in effect defines the perceived psycho-acoustic size of the bounded space, and is done so to be 2-5ms longer than the ISD of the tracking room (which allows the operator to hear the recording room indirect reflections/sound-field prior to any indirect reflections from within the control room masking on top). however in no way does this anechoic response completely extend infinitely (ie, the erroneous statement that they "eliminate the indirect sound"). instead, a REFLECTION-RICH indirect sound-field is eventually re-introduced to the listening position, being no more than -12dB down from direct signal, by nature of broadband 1-dimensional reflection phase grating diffusers on the rear/rear-side walls with the wells oriented vertically which provide the diffraction lobes in the horizontal plane. this provides a reflection-rich, dense, exponentially-decaying, laterally-arriving indirect sound-field for passive envelopment (emulating the natural reverberant sound-field that develops in Large Acoustical Spaces). the diffuse indirect sound-field creates MORE reflections with MORE closely spaced comb-filters to minimize the frequency-response anomolies as one moves about the room.

so in no way do these studio models aim to "eliminate indirect sound" - they simply manage it appropriately and delay and subsequently reintroduce it back to the listening position at a later, defined time and in a well-defined manner to achieve specific, pscyho-acoustic triggers on to the ear/brain system. and in effect, the "studio design indirect sound field" contains a significantly more "reflection-rich" response than an untreated room would.

only Non-Environment in effect "eliminates indirect sound" entirely (ie, an anechoic speaker-listener response) - but in no way is the room itself anechoic or lacking of indirect sound-field as experienced from the operator's perspective.

the fact you refer to these studio designs as "incomplete psychoacoustical considerations" is bewildering. LEDE is literally a psycho-acoustic response to achieve accurate direct signal as perceived at the listening position while hearing in totality the first indirect contributions from the recording room. the design has literally evolved with further understanding of psycho-acoustic effects as well as being put into practice by nature of how well mixes translate to a myriad of other rooms and system. it provides a non-destructive sense of the room, and allows more-even indirect sound field (minimizing frequency response variations) as one moves about the room (ie, a much larger "sweet spot").



this is wildly inaccurate and misguided. LEDE/RFZ focus heavily on time-domain response and is entirely validated and thus certified via the Envelope Time Curve (ETC) response.




a case of operator error. the modeling, behavior, etc of porous absorbers is well understood. if a user is deploying 1-2in porous absorbers an in effect creates a low pass filter (coloring or "eq'ing" the reflection instead of attenuating it entirely via the use of broadband, sufficiently thick treatments) - then that is simply user error and has nothing to do with studio design.

why would you bring light to a method of doing something wrong? it has no bearing on the actual design and criteria of which these studio models define.

Look, I would normally respond, but I'm going to ignore you. I'll explain why.

I've seen you post before, and you tend to focus on those details you're interested in, ignore others, and enter the conversation as a contrarian. You give the impression that you don't want to adjust to the perspective of the person you're responding to. I remember one thread in particular about advice for room acoustics was going ok until you turned it into tens of pages of argument.

Here, with me, I'm not unaware of the points you raise or the history. You could have inferred that from the writers and researchers I mentioned and given me the benefit of the doubt and approached this differently. Instead you took my style of posting for a lack of knowledge or some deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues at hand. What's the point? What did you gain?

then that is simply user error and has nothing to do with studio design.

Case in point: the topic is treating living rooms.

See ya later.

 

[pozz]

Re: the rest of your post, I’m not 100% sure what you’re getting at - are you talking about attempting to correlate measurements with listening preferences?

Apologies, I probably misunderstood your comments.

There's a lot of criticism about ASR focusing too much on the small stuff (distortion and so forth) when there are bigger issues at hand. The irony as I see it is that ASR settled most of the concerns about distortion and device performance by providing the data, in so doing setting the stage for better informed discussion about other issues, like room effects.

I read your comment about listening to mean that, in the end, you should just use your ears when it comes to room/speakers, or something to that effect. I mean, you can, but beyond following rules of thumb it's quite difficult to accurately judge what you're hearing without a lot of deep study and work. In my experience the latter sharpen hearing more strongly than upgrading equipment. Books are amazing that way.

 

[localhost128]

Look, I would normally respond, but I'm going to ignore you. I'll explain why.

I've seen you post before, and you tend to focus on those details you're interested in, ignore others, and enter the conversation as a contrarian. You give the impression that you don't want to adjust to the perspective of the person you're responding to. I remember one thread in particular about advice for room acoustics was going ok until you turned it into tens of pages of argument.

Here, with me, I'm not unaware of the points you raise or the history. You could have inferred that from the writers and researchers I mentioned and given me the benefit of the doubt and approached this differently. Instead you took my style of posting for a lack of knowledge or some deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues at hand. What's the point? What did you gain?

Case in point: the topic is treating living rooms.

See ya later.

distraction and deflection from the fact that you made a fundamental and factually incorrect statement regarding LEDE and RFZ studio designs. they in no way "eliminate the indirect soundfield". only Non-Environment design accomplishes that - and even then the room itself is in no way anechoic to the operator.

this is exactly the "Circle of Confusion" Toole so thoroughly references. this is foundational-level knowledge of these studio models, considering LEDE and RFZ both provide a REFLECTION-RICH lateral indirect soundsound - not an "eliminated" one - via the use of broadband reflection phase gratings. and yet such misinformation continues to propagate as seen here.

you refer to these as "details you're interested in" when in fact it has nothing to do with me - these are simply well defined facts and requirements of said acoustical control room models.

Case in point: the topic is treating living rooms.

it doesn't matter if it's a home studio, a professional studio, or a living room - if a user is deploying thin porous absorbers, it is will known and established that one is simply EQ'in/coloring the reflection (LPF) instead of utilizing broadband treatments to fully attenuate the broadband specular reflection.

why do you need to bring so much attention to doing something wrong? this is simply a case of operator error.

 

[MBI]

It is often recommended to feed "The Ones" with a digital AES/EBU signal from a streamer, a PC or even a Mac instead of a DAC's analog output (to avoid an extra conversion from analog to digital), not to say a preamplifier but:
1. does it mean "The Ones" are expected to have a higher SINAD than any known DAC?
2. and how an AES/EBU connection could be best achieved while using a Nucleus, please?

EDIT: got some responses from the 8351B review thread. Don't bother responding here, thanks!

 

[Pearljam5000]

Is this guy also here?

 

[Pearljam5000]

He made some nice videos

 

[bo_knows]

Is this guy also here?

Yes he is, see post #1,310.

 

[Mikk]

An 8341 review with measurements. No affiliation, just thought it relevant. Apologies if it's already been linked to earlier in the thread.

Interesting in that it shows the same rising treble above 15k as my 8341's.

https://thenextweb.com/news/genelec-8341a-studio-monitor-review

 

[Sancus]

An 8341 review with measurements. No affiliation, just thought it relevant. Apologies if it's already been linked to earlier in the thread.

Interesting in that it shows the same rising treble above 15k as my 8341's.

https://thenextweb.com/news/genelec-8341a-studio-monitor-review

That's @napilopez's review, also here. You can just ask him, but I think weirdness above 15khz is common with the UMIK-1s and indeed his 8C review also showed a rising response up there for the D&D 8C whereas Erin's showed a falling response. So I am pretty sure it is a mic/setup artifact.

 

[testp]

i have a question,

what do people use up-stream with genelecs to stream digital aes/ebu into the speakers?

all i found was raspberry hat from audiophonics that has aes/ebu output... i would not want to hook up a computer all the time, if i would get pair of genelecs

thanks!

 

[stevenswall]

i have a question,

what do people use up-stream with genelecs to stream digital aes/ebu into the speakers?

all i found was raspberry hat from audiophonics that has aes/ebu output... i would not want to hook up a computer all the time, if i would get pair of genelecs

thanks!

Hosa makes some optical or coaxial to AES converters.

Or use an old Dolby DP564 that has balanced XLR and AES output (need impedance adaptors that change BNC to AES XLR is all.)

 

[testp]

Hosa makes some optical or coaxial to AES converters.

Or use an old Dolby DP564 that has balanced XLR and AES output (need impedance adaptors that change BNC to AES XLR is all.)

adaptors... does that not induce impedance issues/ reflections or such?

 

[Sancus]

i have a question,

what do people use up-stream with genelecs to stream digital aes/ebu into the speakers?

Anything with a SPDIF out can be used with a SPDIF -> AES cable. The impedance issue is not important on short runs but if it bothers you there are converters for that as well. So anything with a coaxial SPDIF output, or anything with a USB connection that you can plug a USB -> SPDIF converter into.

If you want a fancy all-in-one solution, MiniDSP SHD Studio also works but is on the expensive side.

There is not really any big quality reason to avoid analog outputs though, they work fine.