Genelec 8351B Review (Studio Monitor)

[Hmast]

It's weird because in my previous speakers changing the rotary control level impacted the hiss volume. Yet here, changing the level in GLM doesn't change the hiss at all.

It's like if GLM sets the level to the max and the act as a preamp by lowering the signal like a preamp would do.

 

[Adi777]

@amirm
How much will your results - using Klippel - measurements of speakers that can be described as neutral differ from the sound in standard rooms with no/minimal acoustic enhancement?
Unless I'm missing something?
Regards

 

[Hmast]

Hi everyone (and particularly @amirm as per my request below),

I see many people with Genelec SAM speakers using DACs (mostly topping here) and I don't understand the point of using such high end DACs with the analog input of the Genelecs without knowing the DAC measurments of the one inside the speaker.

Let's say Genelec's DAC has a 100db SINAC, then what would be the point of using a topping DAC upfront with 120+db SINAD?

So all of this leads to one thing: has anyone or will anyone test Genelec SAM's ADC+DAC to know how much of a waste it is to use super fine DACs?

 

[bodhi]

So all of this leads to one thing: has anyone or will anyone test Genelec SAM's ADC+DAC to know how much of a waste it is to use super fine DACs?

What would be the point when the speaker will convert analog to digital anyways?

 

[YSC]

Hi everyone (and particularly @amirm as per my request below),

I see many people with Genelec SAM speakers using DACs (mostly topping here) and I don't understand the point of using such high end DACs with the analog input of the Genelecs without knowing the DAC measurments of the one inside the speaker.

Let's say Genelec's DAC has a 100db SINAC, then what would be the point of using a topping DAC upfront with 120+db SINAD?

So all of this leads to one thing: has anyone or will anyone test Genelec SAM's ADC+DAC to know how much of a waste it is to use super fine DACs?

IMO it’s just a more convenient to use high quality dac to not hold back the speaker, and since the digital AES out isn’t as easily Available as a good dac or easy to use with the multi input device (say, pc, tv and avr, streamer) so use a dac not degrading the Sam speaker is goal

 

[Sokel]

Hi everyone (and particularly @amirm as per my request below),

I see many people with Genelec SAM speakers using DACs (mostly topping here) and I don't understand the point of using such high end DACs with the analog input of the Genelecs without knowing the DAC measurments of the one inside the speaker.

Let's say Genelec's DAC has a 100db SINAC, then what would be the point of using a topping DAC upfront with 120+db SINAD?

So all of this leads to one thing: has anyone or will anyone test Genelec SAM's ADC+DAC to know how much of a waste it is to use super fine DACs?

The speaker will convert the analog back to digital again,so nothing to gain.
Speaker's ADC,DAC and amps will define the SINAD anyway.

Edit: every time I chase some dbs of SINAD I remind myself of this:

(the nasty brown trace is my room's noise floor,everything else is below.So...)

 

[RobL]

Hi everyone (and particularly @amirm as per my request below),

I see many people with Genelec SAM speakers using DACs (mostly topping here) and I don't understand the point of using such high end DACs with the analog input of the Genelecs without knowing the DAC measurments of the one inside the speaker.

Let's say Genelec's DAC has a 100db SINAC, then what would be the point of using a topping DAC upfront with 120+db SINAD?

So all of this leads to one thing: has anyone or will anyone test Genelec SAM's ADC+DAC to know how much of a waste it is to use super fine DACs?

Any errors in the chain are cumulative, so depends how anal a person is I suppose.

 

[Hmast]

The speaker will convert the analog back to digital again,so nothing to gain.
Speaker's ADC,DAC and amps will define the SINAD anyway.

So... no need to buy a high end DAC to feed the speakers with an analog signal.

Yet, I'm still interested in GEnelec's DAC's SINAD. And I guess this could be measured.

 

[Sokel]

So... no need to buy a high end DAC to feed the speakers with an analog signal.

Yet, I'm still interested in GEnelec's DAC's SINAD. And I guess this could be measured.

I would rest on this:

Tells the story better than the calculated sum of the parts.
And at sensible levels they are exceptional.

 

[Trell]

Hi everyone (and particularly @amirm as per my request below),

I see many people with Genelec SAM speakers using DACs (mostly topping here) and I don't understand the point of using such high end DACs with the analog input of the Genelecs without knowing the DAC measurments of the one inside the speaker.

Let's say Genelec's DAC has a 100db SINAC, then what would be the point of using a topping DAC upfront with 120+db SINAD?

So all of this leads to one thing: has anyone or will anyone test Genelec SAM's ADC+DAC to know how much of a waste it is to use super fine DACs?

A device that also has AES out usually costs more, though one can use SPDIF coaxial as well if your DAC has it. Using digital input on the Genelec SAM monitors/subwoofers likely will make the auto standby (Genelec call it ISS - Intelligent Sensing Technology) not work as even though there is no audio playing there is still a digital bit clock active.

I use a MOTU M2 on one pair of Genelec 8330A (with a 7350A subwoofer) and a RME ADI-2 DAC FS on another pair of 8330A (with a 7360A). They both work great and none of the two devices has digital output (apart from USB, of course).

I do have a RME Fireface UCX II audio interface that have AES output, but then I'll loose functionality that I use in the ADI-2 DAC (dynamic loudness, tone controls, for instance) as well as having a non-working auto standby for the Genelec as long as the audio interface is powered on.

When I bought the ADI-2 DAC I did consider buying the ADI-2 Pro that has AES output, but it costs much more, so I ended up with the ADI-2 DAC.

 

[Hmast]

I’m also quite curious to hear if going full digital (AES) brings some audible improvement.
I have just ordered an SMSL PO100 Pro device to check but with no ABX testing I guess the difference may be so tight that every difference will be in my head.

 

[outfaced]

If the sound after using ext. dac is different from over straight digital connection, then this dac has a own sound, and is not neutral. Doesn't matter after all if you like it more, but the straight digital connection is in physical way the purest one.
Straight digital is also not completely straight also ... you still have some kind of interface, that theoretically can do harm over power supply / noise / jitter issues. But i hope genelec took care of such problems and also I try to use good digital interfaces.

 

[lappy]

A device that also has AES out usually costs more, though one can use SPDIF coaxial as well if your DAC has it. Using digital input on the Genelec SAM monitors/subwoofers likely will make the auto standby (Genelec call it ISS - Intelligent Sensing Technology) not work as even though there is no audio playing there is still a digital bit clock active.

I use a MOTU M2 on one pair of Genelec 8330A (with a 7350A subwoofer) and a RME ADI-2 DAC FS on another pair of 8330A (with a 7360A). They both work great and none of the two devices has digital output (apart from USB, of course).

I do have a RME Fireface UCX II audio interface that have AES output, but then I'll loose functionality that I use in the ADI-2 DAC (dynamic loudness, tone controls, for instance) as well as having a non-working auto standby for the Genelec as long as the audio interface is powered on.

When I bought the ADI-2 DAC I did consider buying the ADI-2 Pro that has AES output, but it costs much more, so I ended up with the ADI-2 DAC.

I can confirm that the auto standby in my 8351b and 7370a is very unintelligent when using a coax connection from a bluesound node. Otherwise incredible speakers.

 

[outfaced]

I had the opportunity the other day to hear the d&d 8c and indirectly compare with my 8351B. The comparison, besides being indirect, is also a bit unfair, because the 8c were in a perfectly treated room with dimensions well above mine and the speakers themselves were placed more than a meter and a half from the side walls and more than 2m from the back wall. But still ... it was interesting.
Actually, I'll start by saying that these speakers are very very different. Almost to say there is no basis for comparison. And saying that even without to take the price in consideration. They just have a completely different character and would be attractive to different listeners. For me, I would also say that even if they were the same price I would be pretty much wondering which one to get, because on the one hand I could enjoy both types of presentation, but on the other they show each other's flaws pretty clearly.

In a few words...
8351B is far more punchy, funky and expressive ... even to say more sharp and quick. Some could find such kind of presentation tad aggressive. On the other hand the 8c are very settle and calm, with more layering and faaar softer presentation of the hights. Some will say they almost sound dull or with more playfull music almost boring. Resolution is interesting tough. On first sight coming form 8351B thought 8c didn't get the details so much, but was wrong. They just do it on other way. Hights are not so present but like i said - layering and the settle nuances are better. Bass is on the other hand disappointing. Sure, they go lower and can load even so big room easy with bass, but i was missing the detail and speed from the genelcs. But the most remarkable with the 8c was the reproduction of voices ... jut wow - the body, the fullness, the even so slightly changes in timbre. I was blown away. That in combination with the overall calm presentation just push you to listen vocal parties ... jazz, wold, classical, soft pop/rock ... all sound impressive. The voices are just stealing the show. Only instrumental parts didnt sound nearly impressive. Didnt like the piano at all, violin so-so, trumpet/sax was interesting, marimba - no. Sadly haven't much time and was too busy to listen voices, so coudnt get real impressions with classical music. Didn't tray rock at all but on some way the speakers also didnt "invited" me to so. One more world also about the layering and overall soften presentation ... i found it at some point a little bit artificial for lack of better world. Like is some kind of effect ... impressive effect tough. That irritated after a while, because the sound was a combination of extremely natural voices and some other details sounding very natural but against some kind of artificial background/frame. But that is difficult to describe with words. I suspect sombody tried to do somthing fancy with the software becouse this is not a classical art of acoustic "deviation" of just a speaker system. Never the less surly a very interesting and impressive speaker. Cant say better or worse than 8351/61. Perhaps at the end more listeners will prefer the 8c for home listening becouse it sounds more relaxing and interesting. For me ... dont know. Surely not unhappy with the genelecs, but will enjoy to have the 8c for few weeks at home. And dont forget the GLM - is doing a extremely fine job with dealing with bad acoustics. 8c have also some tweaks and can be tuned with REW or with convolution filters over roon, but not sure if the result will be so good.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I had the opportunity the other day to hear the d&d 8c and indirectly compare with my 8351B. The comparison, besides being indirect, is also a bit unfair, because the 8c were in a perfectly treated room with dimensions well above mine and the speakers themselves were placed more than a meter and a half from the side walls and more than 2m from the back wall. But still ... it was interesting.
Actually, I'll start by saying that these speakers are very very different. Almost to say there is no basis for comparison. And saying that even without to take the price in consideration. They just have a completely different character and would be attractive to different listeners. For me, I would also say that even if they were the same price I would be pretty much wondering which one to get, because on the one hand I could enjoy both types of presentation, but on the other they show each other's flaws pretty clearly.

In a few words...
8351B is far more punchy, funky and expressive ... even to say more sharp and quick. Some could find such kind of presentation tad aggressive. On the other hand the 8c are very settle and calm, with more layering and faaar softer presentation of the hights. Some will say they almost sound dull or with more playfull music almost boring. Resolution is interesting tough. On first sight coming form 8351B thought 8c didn't get the details so much, but was wrong. They just do it on other way. Hights are not so present but like i said - layering and the settle nuances are better. Bass is on the other hand disappointing. Sure, they go lower and can load even so big room easy with bass, but i was missing the detail and speed from the genelcs. But the most remarkable with the 8c was the reproduction of voices ... jut wow - the body, the fullness, the even so slightly changes in timbre. I was blown away. That in combination with the overall calm presentation just push you to listen vocal parties ... jazz, wold, classical, soft pop/rock ... all sound impressive. The voices are just stealing the show. Only instrumental parts didnt sound nearly impressive. Didnt like the piano at all, violin so-so, trumpet/sax was interesting, marimba - no. Sadly haven't much time and was too busy to listen voices, so coudnt get real impressions with classical music. Didn't tray rock at all but on some way the speakers also didnt "invited" me to so. One more world also about the layering and overall soften presentation ... i found it at some point a little bit artificial for lack of better world. Like is some kind of effect ... impressive effect tough. That irritated after a while, because the sound was a combination of extremely natural voices and some other details sounding very natural but against some kind of artificial background/frame. But that is difficult to describe with words. I suspect sombody tried to do somthing fancy with the software becouse this is not a classical art of acoustic "deviation" of just a speaker system. Never the less surly a very interesting and impressive speaker. Cant say better or worse than 8351/61. Perhaps at the end more listeners will prefer the 8c for home listening becouse it sounds more relaxing and interesting. For me ... dont know. Surely not unhappy with the genelecs, but will enjoy to have the 8c for few weeks at home. And dont forget the GLM - is doing a extremely fine job with dealing with bad acoustics. 8c have also some tweaks and can be tuned with REW or with convolution filters over roon, but not sure if the result will be so good.

By layering you mean a bigger soundstage than 8351 and less focused sound?

 

[outfaced]

By layering you mean a bigger soundstage than 8351 and less focused sound?

more like a clear distinguishability of parts of the music that are prominent in front and a such that are background and all in between. Could say depth also but is not exactly like this, because depth in physical sence is combined with more reverberation and not only lower levels of soundpressure.
Really struggling with that to analyze it why is so and what is exactly happening. Genelec delivers the quiet and loud passages with equal presence regardless of the level ... hence sounding more "busy" and vivid. With the d&d is like there is masking applied on the different levels and the quiet notes are modified. It's definitely not natural, but I still have to admit that it sounds very interesting and enjoyable.

 

[Sokel]

I had the opportunity the other day to hear the d&d 8c and indirectly compare with my 8351B. The comparison, besides being indirect, is also a bit unfair, because the 8c were in a perfectly treated room with dimensions well above mine and the speakers themselves were placed more than a meter and a half from the side walls and more than 2m from the back wall.

No way to compare when differences in space are so massive as in an untreated vs treated room and smaller vs bigger plus the optimal placement.

 

[outfaced]

No way to compare when differences in space are so massive as in an untreated vs treated room and smaller vs bigger plus the optimal placement.fair enough

fair enough, the acoustics of the room is not something you can ignore or subtract. However, some specifics I think are felt regardless of it.
I got in terms of resolution better bass response from the genelecs in my more disadvantageous room (small and no bass traps) but on the other hand I couldn't feel the couch shaking from the lower notes like with the d&d in the far bigger room.
For the rest - my room is decently dampened (RT60 around 0.3-0.35), so I think I can draw some conclusions. The mid and especially treble response of the two speakers is so much different that it would make an impression in any situation. А big minus in my room is that is not symmetrical - has asymmetrical reflections. That certainly degrades the scene and negatively affects the presentation of the vocals.

Sure, all is just about sharing personal impressions Actually where I was they had the 8361 and also the KH420, but unfortunately all this was not planned and neither I had the time nor the dealer. If anyone is going to Munich, they are easy to find

 

[Purité Audio]

Fortunate enough to compare the very same speakers here, the Gens have a more horizontal target than the 8Cs, so they sound a little thin in comparison or equally you might consider them more detailed, they aren’t, Gens are just a smaller speaker physically and in terms of bass extension, their image is also smaller looking at the sound rather than being immersed in it, I was listening at about 3m distance so perhaps too far away for the Gens.
Keith

 

[Hmast]

Fortunate enough to compare the very same speakers here, the Gens have a more horizontal target than the 8Cs, so they sound a little thin in comparison or equally you might consider them more detailed, they aren’t, Gens are just a smaller speaker physically and in terms of bass extension, their image is also smaller looking at the sound rather than being immersed in it, I was listening at about 3m distance so perhaps too far away for the Gens.
Keith

Did you perform an ABX kind of comparison or were these speakers experimented in differents days and different rooms ?

I like having the sound in front of me just like real music at concerts. Being « in » the music sounds like I’m listening to the room rather than the direct sound of the speakers.

What strikes me the most with the Genelec is the transient response. Outstanding. It’s what I think gives that impression of agressiveness and analytical sound while the frequency response remains flat. The thing is that most real life instruments hurt your ears very easily and lots of people prefer listening to recordings with a smooth experience. Mastering engineers will usually compress the dynamics but some very good recordings will keep the transients quite loud. So are speakers with a more relaxed experience simply slower?

Otherwise how could we explain dish a difference between the two speakers while having a flat fq response?