Genelec 8351B Review (Studio Monitor)

[kimmosto]

But are you saying that live piano is paintful to hear?

Yes and no. Piano is not the most painful, but at least my ear would mind listening grand piano too close. Actual pain requires also adequate SPL.
Other possible problem sources for very dynamic & well timed speakers are for example location of mic too close to instrument and instruments recorded without acoustical microphone. Assumptions about listening distance, room acoustics and weaknesses of speakers reflect to recording techniques, and are not necessarily correct / compatible.
Anyway, I usually try to sense force and pressure hit of piano's hammer, and difference between left and right hand notes. Feelings on the skin and eye balls could be stronger than in a live event, but reveal possible problems in timing, dynamics and frequency response. Typically simple 2-way with high XO performs better than 3-way with 8th order XO slopes and steep subsonic.

 

[EchoChamber]

Hmm, one thing I just realized. Since Genelec is in the business of selling powered speakers. Would it kill them if they included a proper suite of digital inputs for goodness sake? I don't believe they have digital bypass when going Analogue In (would this also kill them to have?).

I don’t think it is possible to bypass the digital circuits. Everything happens in the digital domain. The analog input’s first stage is A to D conversion.

There are other options 100% analog, but not a 3 way coax from Genelec AFAIK.

 

[Pearljam5000]

There isn't much info about the tweeter, is it the same as the 8000 series?

 

[stevenswall]

There isn't much info about the tweeter, is it the same as the 8000 series?

It's their newer 1" tweeter with more SPL compared to their prior 3/4" tweeter in the old 8351.

 

[Pearljam5000]

It's their newer 1" tweeter with more SPL compared to their prior 3/4" tweeter in the old 8351.

Yes
But the 8050/8350 also has a 1 inch tweeter, so I'm wondering if it's the same

 

[stevenswall]

I don't think so. In emails back and forth it was explained to me by a Genelec rep that there was a redesigned tweeter for the 8361 which is also used in the 8351B:

"The decision to make a larger 8361 meant we had to make a new driver mid tweet based on the research that went into the smaller 8341/31 coax. The biggest improvement was SPL output which was clearly lacking in the 8260 which was mostly limited by the 3/4” tweeter.

The new larger coax shares a lot in design ethics as the 8341/31. We also are using a Genelec 1” tweeter to lower distortion and increase output. We are using this new driver in the 8351B as well."

 

[Moonhead]

Can we assume that 8341/31 SPL is lacking since they also use 3/4 tweeter?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Can we assume that 8341/31 SPL is lacking also since they also use 3/4 tweeter?

Also a smaller mid driver.

 

[Moonhead]

Also a smaller mid driver.

Surely, so 8351 should surpass 8341 and not by are small margin.

 

[daftcombo]

Yes and no. Piano is not the most painful, but at least my ear would mind listening grand piano too close. Actual pain requires also adequate SPL.
Other possible problem sources for very dynamic & well timed speakers are for example location of mic too close to instrument and instruments recorded without acoustical microphone. Assumptions about listening distance, room acoustics and weaknesses of speakers reflect to recording techniques, and are not necessarily correct / compatible.
Anyway, I usually try to sense force and pressure hit of piano's hammer, and difference between left and right hand notes. Feelings on the skin and eye balls could be stronger than in a live event, but reveal possible problems in timing, dynamics and frequency response. Typically simple 2-way with high XO performs better than 3-way with 8th order XO slopes and steep subsonic.

Interesting thoughts. Do you have any measurements or listening tests to back them? Otherwise such things (less true maybe) can be read on subjective fora.

 

[stevenswall]

Can we assume that 8341/31 SPL is lacking also since they also use 3/4 tweeter?

I'd look at the specs on their site. Genelec publishes SPL specs, on and off axis measurements, power response, dispersion plots, etc. The 8351B and 8361 are the current models of The Ones with the highest SPL.

Relatively it might be lacking, or if you are far away in a very large room, but in absolute terms I wouldn't worry.

 

[mononoaware]

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.

This.

I recall reading about this very debate (XLR analog input vs AES/EBU digital input) regarding the Adam Audio S-series.
Professionals simply stated the ADC is more than competent and they are both equally audibly transparent, with everything equal there is no audible difference between the two inputs (Source>DAC>XLR>MONITOR, Source>AES>MONITOR).
So the final recommendation was - use whichever connection you prefer.
(maybe it is convenient for professionals in one particular setup to use one connection over the other)
(maybe you need the extra inputs/features of a particular DAC)

The benefits of using AES/EBU will more likely be a slightly lower noise floor (only noticeable when silence), and some have reported lower "self-noise" from the monitors, and possibly more SPL since there is less chance of having the limited gain from the use of external DAC outputs.

Of course this is all information based on the Adam S-series, but I would expect a model like the "Ones" from Genelec brand to perform similarly.
Sorry no source link.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

The measurements here on ASR of DACs pretty much confirm that we have long since reached peak DAC. At almost any price there is no excuse for a DAC not to be perceptibly transparent. Everything else is just bragging rights. ADCs are a symmetrical technology to DACs, there isn’t the market so they probably lag a bit, but not by much. Again, no reason to think they are not for all useful intents perfect. Moreover, if the entire digital chain is run from the same sample clock, which it will be in an active speaker sucking on an analog source, you can pretty much guarantee that jitter is a non-issue.
Amplifiers are way more of a limiting factor than the digital chain, and again, except for bragging rights, a properly sized and designed amp will be essentially imperceptible in its effect.
From the point of view of cost effective sound, the days of seperate components and passive speakers has passed. Market inertia and Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) are the big impediments. Plus an intrenched industry that is not able to bridge the gap and continues to push outdated solutions.

 

[kimmosto]

Interesting thoughts. Do you have any measurements or listening tests to back them? Otherwise such things (less true maybe) can be read on subjective fora.

I leave science to professionals. For example: Audibility of Loudspeaker Group-Delay Characteristics by Liski, Juho; Mäkivirta, Aki; Välimäki, Vesa.
https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19404

That study is done with special generated signals, and not necessarily "listened" with skin and eye ball sensors, but I trust that my findings don't take anything away from their results.

 

[Frank Dernie]

But are you saying that live piano is paintful to hear?

It is certainly very loud!
An instrument which can fill a large concert hall without amplification sounds extremely loud nearby. My wife is a pianist and even with the lid closed I find it uncomfortable when she is practicing - and her hearing is damaged, worse than mine which has had 40 years of open pipe motor racing noise to put up with.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I really do wonder what a more "practically" audible sinad would be for more normal listeners under normal conditions.

IMO you can get an idea for yourself of how loud a particular distortion artefact is by simply playing your system at your normal highest listening level then turning down the volume by the appropriate number of dBs. That way you will be listening to sound at the actual loudness that artefact will have in the room at the same time as the music is playing. You can then judge for yourself whether you think you would be able to hear something like that whilst the music was playing at the same time or whether it is likely to be drowned out.

I have done this on myself, it is easy in my system since I have a gain control calibrated in dBs - maybe a bit harder if one hasn't got that.

I strongly recommend it since getting an idea of what the numbers actually mean in terms of sound and loudness makes it much easier to make sense of measurements.

 

[kimmosto]

ETC is one possible analysis to visualize energy smoothing due to excess group delay. Here is graph with one 3-way with steep slopes and other three are 2-ways with XO 2-3 kHz (probably 4th order). All commercial speakers ~200...4000 €/pcs. Not very high quality measurement conditions and response shape could interfere the result, but 5-10 dB difference is visible until reflections. Affordable 2-ways are small, thin and light so there are some mechanical noise, but envelope is still lower than due to excess delay.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

Other possible problem sources for very dynamic & well timed speakers are for example location of mic too close to instrument and instruments recorded without acoustical microphone. Assumptions about listening distance, room acoustics and weaknesses of speakers reflect to recording techniques, and are not necessarily correct / compatible.

Recording of piano is a difficult and fraught issue. There are a number of approaches, each with its pros and cons. The problem is that the piano sound for a listener in the audience is mostly determined by the sound board, and that radiates from both sides, and isn't symmetric in the way it does. A real piano sound develops into the acoustic space it is in, and this is very difficult to capture and reproduce in a satisfactory manner. So much piano is recorded with a pair of microphones set across the line of hammers. Sometimes a pair just next to the piano facing the mid point of the lid. Sometimes adding a mic under the sound board to try to add a bit breadth and ambience. Turning that into a representative sound field in your home is a very tall ask. So we can be thankful it works as well as it does. But of the instruments I rate the piano as one of the hardest to get a really satisfactory sound of. We put up with a manufactured sound that is of itself good to listen to, but isn't the real deal.
I doubt and tweaking of the current practices or further development of two channel sound reproduction will help. I think this is an instrument where multichannel sound and new recording practices are likely the only way to make significant progress.

 

[kimmosto]

^Acoustic guitar with metal strings is also difficult. Captured too close could be painful with horns or deep wave guides - with or without timing problems.

 

[Frank Dernie]

ETC is one possible analysis to visualize energy smoothing due to excess group delay. Here is graph with one 3-way with steep slopes and other three are 2-ways with XO 2-3 kHz (probably 4th order). All commercial speakers ~200...4000 €/pcs. Not very high quality measurement conditions and response shape could interfere the result, but 5-10 dB difference is visible until reflections. Affordable 2-ways are small, thin and light so there are some mechanical noise, but envelope is still lower than due to excess delay.

For domestic use do you think this group delay thing will be more audible than the lack of loudness capability of 2-ways with dynamic big orchestral music?