Genelec 8351B Review (Studio Monitor)

[Pearljam5000]

The studio version of the 8C costs around the same as the 8351B
Will probably have more bass and SPL
But I would still go for the Genelecs
Why?
Proven reliability above everything else, and also the aluminum cabinets.
and I could always add a sub down the road to come closer to the bass output of the 8C

 

[Purité Audio]

Choice of speaker does depend how you intend to use it, the 8351b works really well as a nearfield monitor, but for me once you sit more than two metres away you are looking at the sound rather than being immersed in the sound.
Home comparison is always best.
Keith

 

[Trell]

Choice of speaker does depend how you intend to use it, the 8351b works really well as a nearfield monitor, but for me once you sit more than two metres away you are looking at the sound rather than being immersed in the sound.
Home comparison is always best.
Keith

Have you experienced the same with a monitor like the 8350A or 8340A?

 

[Purité Audio]

Afraid not, the last Genelecs we had here were the 8260/7320 combination, I did sit further away from those simply because the rooms were arranged differently back then.
If I recollect we were around 2.5 metres away on this occasion,


Keith

 

[stevenswall]

Considering how many people on this very forum have had concerns with SPL capabilities of the Ones, and the fact that we already knew it was a real problem for Genelec's actual customers(studios), I'm not REALLY sure why you always feel the need to relitigate 8260 vs 83X1 in every other thread about Genelecs.

The studio argument I'm skeptical of: Studios have spent decades destroying a generation of art with dynamic range compression. I'm quite leery that they would need even more SPL, even for movies, which also seem to have quality issues with clarity and the audiences hearing seemingly sacrificed for loudness. (Interstellar and Tenet come to mind off the top of my head.)

I bring up the argument often because nobody shows me where in the measurements the newer ones are better (though I concede vertical dispersion is superior.)

I also bring it up because based on what people have posted here and what I've read in Genelec forum threads it does seem like bass extension and other things were sacrificed for SPL and I don't like that, see above. (If Genelec replied that SPL is needed because more, smaller speakers have to be placed further away for atmos mastering to get the same SPL, that makes sense.)

Maybe I'm wrong looking at the measurements though. From what I've gathered, wider, smooth off axis response and bass extension boost a speakers preference score. Not SPL, newness, or being used in a studio (PMC and ATC come to mind.)

I'll admit there is bias in owning speakers, and I think the best way to get over that is to show objective data. I have looked though the data dozens of times comparing the on and off axis response of the 8351, 8260, 8361, and now 8351B, and re-check when people assert that the newer models are better. I'm not seeing data to suggest that.

 

[EchoChamber]

Is feeding "The Ones" with a DAC-less digital AES/EBU input from a simple streamer (such as an AES/EBU hat onto a RoPieee running Rpi4, for example) instead of a high SINAD DAC's analog output expected to give similar results or not?

In other words, does anybody know how "The Ones" embarked digital to analog conversion compare with top rated DACs feeding them?

(Trying to find the best quality, simplest and most direct way to connect 8351B to a Nucleus.)

P.S. Very many thanks for the review!

My subjective preference has been to feed my Ones (and a pair of 8330A) with AES for a small edge on overall transparency (small only when compared to the Okto Dac8). It also makes it for a minimal sound system where you can hide the components out of sight...

I use the Matrix Audio X-SPDIF 2 to convert from USB to AES in both my systems. One using a Pi-3b+ running RoPieeeXL and the other a computer running Roon. Resolution limit is 24/192.

Both have GLM connected so I can control volume at the speaker per Genelec recommendation. I use the GLM app on the computer and the Genelec wireless remote on my Pi system.

 

[mkawa]

No plans yet, but this could lead to some interesting potential opportunities for a Salon2 vs 8351B shootout / blind test with a good number of listeners

i'm in

 

[caught gesture]

The studio argument I'm skeptical of: Studios have spent decades destroying a generation of art with dynamic range compression.

Is it the recording/mixing studio that has caused the loudness war, or is it at the mastering stage, under pressure from the label/artist, where the dr compression has been heavily applied?

 

[daftcombo]

Is it the recording/mixing studio that has caused the loudness war, or is it at the mastering stage, under pressure from the label/artist, where the dr compression has been heavily applied?

Welcome distinction, but both happen in the studio and generally by the same people.

 

[q3cpma]

The studio argument I'm skeptical of: Studios have spent decades destroying a generation of art with dynamic range compression. I'm quite leery that they would need even more SPL, even for movies, which also seem to have quality issues with clarity and the audiences hearing seemingly sacrificed for loudness. (Interstellar and Tenet come to mind off the top of my head.)

I bring up the argument often because nobody shows me where in the measurements the newer ones are better (though I concede vertical dispersion is superior.)

I also bring it up because based on what people have posted here and what I've read in Genelec forum threads it does seem like bass extension and other things were sacrificed for SPL and I don't like that, see above. (If Genelec replied that SPL is needed because more, smaller speakers have to be placed further away for atmos mastering to get the same SPL, that makes sense.)

Maybe I'm wrong looking at the measurements though. From what I've gathered, wider, smooth off axis response and bass extension boost a speakers preference score. Not SPL, newness, or being used in a studio (PMC and ATC come to mind.)

I'll admit there is bias in owning speakers, and I think the best way to get over that is to show objective data. I have looked though the data dozens of times comparing the on and off axis response of the 8351, 8260, 8361, and now 8351B, and re-check when people assert that the newer models are better. I'm not seeing data to suggest that.

You forget the smoother power response, which is quite important.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Afraid not, the last Genelecs we had here were the 8260/7320 combination, I did sit further away from those simply because the rooms were arranged differently back then.
If I recollect we were around 2.5 metres away on this occasion,


Keith

Hi Keith, do you think the d&d sound better pulled out into the room? Personally I've found that all speakers tend to have more 'air and life' to the sound, a spaciousness and depth that you just don't get if placed to the front wall. Perhaps its an optical illusion and I'm being tricked into it sounding more deep because there's more space visually behind the speaker. I understand that the d&d are supposed to be placed to the front wall but yea I'm still wondering if they exhibit those qualities I mentioned.

 

[Hephaestus]

The studio argument I'm skeptical of: Studios have spent decades destroying a generation of art with dynamic range compression. I'm quite leery that they would need even more SPL, even for movies, which also seem to have quality issues with clarity and the audiences hearing seemingly sacrificed for loudness. (Interstellar and Tenet come to mind off the top of my head.)

I bring up the argument often because nobody shows me where in the measurements the newer ones are better (though I concede vertical dispersion is superior.)

I also bring it up because based on what people have posted here and what I've read in Genelec forum threads it does seem like bass extension and other things were sacrificed for SPL and I don't like that, see above. (If Genelec replied that SPL is needed because more, smaller speakers have to be placed further away for atmos mastering to get the same SPL, that makes sense.)

Maybe I'm wrong looking at the measurements though. From what I've gathered, wider, smooth off axis response and bass extension boost a speakers preference score. Not SPL, newness, or being used in a studio (PMC and ATC come to mind.)

I'll admit there is bias in owning speakers, and I think the best way to get over that is to show objective data. I have looked though the data dozens of times comparing the on and off axis response of the 8351, 8260, 8361, and now 8351B, and re-check when people assert that the newer models are better. I'm not seeing data to suggest that.

One thing that you have missed when comparing 8361A and 8260A is the time domain performance. 8260 does not excel there - see Keith Holland´s measurements:
https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Genelec-8260A.pdf

Difficult to assess how much this makes difference in practise.

 

[Karu]

Is feeding "The Ones" with a DAC-less digital AES/EBU input from a simple streamer (such as an AES/EBU hat onto a RoPieee running Rpi4, for example) instead of a high SINAD DAC's analog output expected to give similar results or not?

In other words, does anybody know how "The Ones" embarked digital to analog conversion compare with top rated DACs feeding them?

(Trying to find the best quality, simplest and most direct way to connect 8351B to a Nucleus.)

P.S. Very many thanks for the review!

I do Nucleus via ethernet to an Eero base station, then different base station ethernet to miniDSP SHD Studio and then AES to Genelec. Works very fine, even the auto on/off. (edit, and I understand the SHD is basically a Pi implementation, so in general you should be good I guess)

 

[daftcombo]

One thing that you have missed when comparing 8361A and 8260A is the time domain performance. 8260 does not excel there - see Keith Holland´s measurements:
https://www.resolutionmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Genelec-8260A.pdf

Difficult to assess how much this makes difference in practise.

Amir doesn't care about time domain and, considering the number of speakers he has auditionned already, he is probably right.

 

[stevenswall]

You forget the smoother power response, which is quite important.

Hey, thanks for pointing that out, what makes that as important or more important than the off axis lines shown with it?

I understand that a listening window is incorporating reflections from an "typical room" and averaging them with direct response, but I can't find an explainer thread here for the different curves Amir shows which I think include power response as Sound Power.

I'll have to start looking at power response curves more if they correlate better with user preference scores.

 

[Hephaestus]

Amir doesn't care about time domain and, considering the number of speakers he has auditionned already, he is probably right.

Yeah - I am aware of that. Personally I consider the time domain performance as "Engineering P0rn".

 

[caught gesture]

Welcome distinction, but both happen in the studio and generally by the same people.

I think that you will find that it is a different process carried out by different people in different locations.

 

[HammerSandwich]

To my eye, the Salon2 looks just as smooth up until ~10kHz. 8C is smoother above 10kHz.

The trick I've learned is to look for off-axis flares in the back half of JA's plots. The negative angles reveal ridges more easily, and the Salon's plot provides an excellent example. Revel did a great job, but it does show a few bumps.

 

[MBI]

I think there is always an AD/DA loop when you feed the Ones with analog. No point to invest in an expensive dac, the built-in one will ruin it
I am pretty sure the builtin one is transparent. A AES hat on the on an RPi works well.

Merci Pierre. RPi4 with an AES output hat sounds such a cheap, handy and simple solution.

But should we just hope that "The Ones" internal DACs will at least be good enough not to make any audible difference on their active speakers, or does Genelec specify an estimated SINAD for the DACs or whatever it is they mount? (Can't seem to find anything about it, but I may have not google researched properly)

Another way to phrase it: a 120 SINAD dac will be wasted ; it can still be very very transparent. Overtime I do a blind test between 2 dacs I get convinced that dac doesn't matter at all.

Not sure what to understand here, did you actually test it, or are you going to, Pierre?

The analog signal will be converted to digital anyways. might as well avoid the additional conversion and feed the speakers directly with digital.

That's what I keep reading, and it sounds pretty logical too, but doesn't this beg further questions as embarked DACs may or may not limit Genelec's speakers output quality?

After reading so many interesting DACs tests on ASR, I must have missed something because nobody seems to raise this question here. We're talking about a DAC + preamp + amp + speakers system. I'm a bit lost without measurements for those parts, which is why I'm a little hesitant.

It is true with all speakers then, not only Genelec with GLM.

Well yes and no, as all speakers may have the "ability" to degrade some of the signal, but not all of them force that signal into their own built in DAC beforehand (ie. passive speakers).

There is a subtlety here that is perhaps being missed: An audibly transparent DAC is only referring to a single conversion pass. Every extra time you convert back and forth just keeps adding more and more distortion. In reality, you can probably do this quite a few times without getting audible. But if you pass a signal through any DAC > ADC > DAC > etc. enough times (even if each DAC/ADC is audibly transparent for a single pass), I think you’re eventually going to reach 100% distortion (it may have to be hundreds of passes to get there though)

But anyway, there’s no doubt that a high end DAC feeding Genelec 8351B’s is definitely at best wasted money, when that signal will just be converted back to digital then back to analog again once for each driver (since the 8351B is a digital active crossover design). Whether this qualifies as “ruining” the point of a high end DAC depends on how much you care about the fact that it’s a waste of money at best and a quality reduction at worst versus feeding the 8351B’s directly with a digital signal.

Thank you for this great explaination. Wouldn't that one loop loss be easy to calculate just knowing the SINAD of the embarked DAC?

 

[dfuller]

Yeah - I am aware of that. Personally I consider the time domain performance as "Engineering P0rn".

I think it's a useful thing to have because steady state FR doesn't always match impulse response behavior. But, good on-axis FR takes precedence over everything else, and they are certainly related to one another.