• 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 8351B Review (Studio Monitor)

Senior NEET Engineer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
538
Likes
591
Location
San Diego
Thank you @amirm

It appears these speakers would benefit from subwoofers to increase the maximum volume. Just my preference, but for 8k I would prefer some floor standing Revel's, subs and a decent amp. Part of this is due to there being no Genelec dealer in the Houston area, the other is the common aversion to expensive integrated speaker systems. I do recognize Genelec is far more likely to have parts, but after 7 years, there is no obligation.

At least in my room, another weakness is that the bass drivers are close to ear level. I have dips in 100-200hz region that can only be resolved by moving the speakers closer to floor. Subwoofer with 80hz crossover is not enough. The W371A unit addresses this, but it's extremely expensive and not ideal height for home listening.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,916
At least in my room, another weakness is that the bass drivers are close to ear level. I have dips in 100-200hz region that can only be resolved by moving the speakers closer to floor. Subwoofer with 80hz crossover is not enough. The W371A unit addresses this, but it's extremely expensive and not ideal height for home listening.

A suck-out in the 100-200 Hz region is often caused by quarter wave cancellation. My fix with LS50's and Rythmik L12 subs is to use a 160 Hz crossover. This requires 2 subs placed on the floor near the mains without the LF summed. Diego Estefan who writes for Soundstage Network had a similar experience.
 

Senior NEET Engineer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
538
Likes
591
Location
San Diego
A suck-out in the 100-200 Hz region is often caused by quarter wave cancellation. My fix with LS50's and Rythmik L12 subs is to use a 160 Hz crossover. This requires 2 subs placed on the floor near the mains without the LF summed. Diego Estefan who writes for Soundstage Network had a similar experience.

Yeah I think that is the cause. Moving the speaker lower helped with it.
 

Mikk

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
12
Likes
13
At least in my room, another weakness is that the bass drivers are close to ear level. I have dips in 100-200hz region that can only be resolved by moving the speakers closer to floor. Subwoofer with 80hz crossover is not enough. The W371A unit addresses this, but it's extremely expensive and not ideal height for home listening.
My 8341's had a similar dip, and moving them lower did indeed help remove this. They're also a minimum of 1.4m away from all walls.
Genelecs monitor placement guide is great, but possibly written with the intention that the monitors would be around 1200mm high so not as appropriate for home setups?
 

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
2,752
Likes
3,285
For some strange reason, they can't provide the Ones anymore. Perhaps something about Genelec reducing the number of French dealers, I didn't undertsand the reason and they have absolutely no idea if the Ones will come back on their list. Instead, they proposed the 8050, which seems to be a very good speaker too, much cheaper and with deeper base but without SAM or even coax. Amir did an interesting review with the 8050 (lacked power in his opinion, and has a dip that may need eq, but a very well behaved speaker too).

I’d still try to get a SAM if you can. I went from 8030C to 8330A in my office setup and having room correction is big in an untreated room like mine.

I second getting a SAM enabled monitor along with the GLM Kit. In my very small office, with 8330A and 7360A, GLM knocked down some 15+ dB peaks and the bass is so much better without that booming.
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,687
Likes
4,068
Isn't GLM overated? REW (free), Rephase (free) and a Umik microphone let you knock down all the peaks you want.
 

Olius

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
31
Likes
123
Location
Sweden
Isn't GLM overated? REW (free), Rephase (free) and a Umik microphone let you knock down all the peaks you want.

It depends on who you ask I think. For me, who constantly switches between having a mac and a pc connected to my monitors, having the corrections stored in the speakers themselves is very appealing. I haven't looked into EQ software that much but I haven't yet heard of one that is compatible with both mac and pc. I would be happy to be shown otherwise though.
 

EchoChamber

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
673
Likes
925
Isn't GLM overated? REW (free), Rephase (free) and a Umik microphone let you knock down all the peaks you want.
I used REW with an Umik before going SAM. GLM works much better, for one it is all automated, very little effort on the user end. And the GLM kit works as a volume control as well at the speaker. Genelec recommends that approach as providing the best audio quality. And my subjective impressions confirm that.
 
Last edited:

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
2,752
Likes
3,285
Isn't GLM overated? REW (free), Rephase (free) and a Umik microphone let you knock down all the peaks you want.

The calibration is stored in the speakers so no need to use software on my PC (except for doing the actual calibration) or having an extra external appliance. For me this is great for desktop usage.
 

Sprint

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
455
Likes
304
I used REW with an Umik before going SAM. GLM works much better, for one it is all automated, very little effort on the user end. And the GLM kit works as a volume control as well at the speaker. Genelec recommends that approach as providing the best audio quality. And my subjective impressions confirm that.
@EchoChamber I can only agree. I too have the same opinion. The GLM wireless volume controller works great especially when I have a digital AES feed from my RPI4 + Topping D10s. I keep my Qobuz volume from my IPAD to max volume and control the Genelec volume with the wireless controller. I get a better resolution using this Genelec recommended way.
 

echopraxia

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
1,109
Likes
2,696
Location
California
@EchoChamber I can only agree. I too have the same opinion. The GLM wireless volume controller works great especially when I have a digital AES feed from my RPI4 + Topping D10s. I keep my Qobuz volume from my IPAD to max volume and control the Genelec volume with the wireless controller. I get a better resolution using this Genelec recommended way.
The problem with GLM-controlled volume is that you need to keep GLM controller powered up and all the network cables connected to each speaker, which complicates things. One of the conveniences of Genelec "SAM" speakers is the ability to store the calibration to the speaker, so you can reduce this clutter.

I use GLM-controlled volume too on my 8351B, but only because I intended already to keep the GLM connected to it. In many situations it may not be desirable or even possible. In that case, I don't see any problem with just digitally attenuating the digital input signal. That's how I have the Genelec 8330C's connected, and I don't notice any issues.

I don't see why there should be any quality difference between GLM-controlled volume and digital input attenuation, as long as your digital inputs are using a 24 bits per sample mode (the maximum supported according to the manual), and your 'digital volume control' doesn't do anything extremely sketchy. (24 bits of dynamic range is more than enough for human hearing, and is also likely more than any DAC/amps are actually capable of preserving anyway.)
 

EchoChamber

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
673
Likes
925
The problem with GLM-controlled volume is that you need to keep GLM controller powered up and all the network cables connected to each speaker, which complicates things. One of the conveniences of Genelec "SAM" speakers is the ability to store the calibration to the speaker, so you can reduce this clutter.

I use GLM-controlled volume too on my 8351B, but only because I intended already to keep the GLM connected to it. In many situations it may not be desirable or even possible. In that case, I don't see any problem with just digitally attenuating the digital input signal. That's how I have the Genelec 8330C's connected, and I don't notice any issues.

I don't see why there should be any quality difference between GLM-controlled volume and digital input attenuation, as long as your digital inputs are using a 24 bits per sample mode (the maximum supported according to the manual), and your 'digital volume control' doesn't do anything extremely sketchy. (24 bits of dynamic range is more than enough for human hearing, and is also likely more than any DAC/amps are actually capable of preserving anyway.)
I think the main argument is that you are sending a non atenuated digital signal to be processed, so less loss when it comes out of DSP before converting to analog. That’s where volume attenuation happens, at the last digital stage before amplification on SAM speakers (per Genelec’s explanation). I did some subjective comparisons and indeed preferred that setup.

In my office setup I power the GLM kit from the wall using an iPad charger and control the volume with the wireless remote. Room correction settings are stored in the speakers. It makes for a really minimal system.

PS: The Schiit gear in the photos below are only needed for headphone listening and are bypassed when listening to the speakers. I physically disconnect the X-SPDIF from the speakers and connect it to the Modius.

BB191609-CA4A-46FF-955B-7C7095AE520C.jpeg
E23DFA4F-59B6-4CBC-B7B2-31144A7CCBB6.jpeg
 
Last edited:

EchoChamber

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
673
Likes
925
@EchoChamber I can only agree. I too have the same opinion. The GLM wireless volume controller works great especially when I have a digital AES feed from my RPI4 + Topping D10s. I keep my Qobuz volume from my IPAD to max volume and control the Genelec volume with the wireless controller. I get a better resolution using this Genelec recommended way.
And it also makes for a minimal non intrusive audio system. A big plus for going SAM is you can have a light weight system, no “boat anchors” required ;-)

BECB7022-AC97-480C-9361-5667475242B5.jpeg
 

echopraxia

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
1,109
Likes
2,696
Location
California
In my office setup I power the GLM kit from the wall using an iPad charger and control the volume with the wireless remote. It makes for a really minimal system
What I mean is you still need to keep the network cables connected, right? That totals to 5 cables in a single speaker for speakers in the middle of a chain (AES in, AES out, GLM in, GLM out, AC power in). That's what I mean by clutter. It would be nice if there was a way to somehow consolidate these into a single cable, so that the back of the speaker doesn't look like the back of a desktop PC :) It's not a huge deal admittedly, and isn't a problem for me either, but it is a complication.

I think the main argument is that you are sending a non atenuated digital signal to be processed, so less loss when it comes out of DSP before converting to analog. That’s where volume attenuation happens, at the last digital stage before amplification on SAM speakers (per Genelec’s explanation). I did some subjective comparisons and indeed preferred that setup.
That's interesting but IMO not a very great design simply because it speaks to either a deficiency in the internal DSP hardware or software. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to apply the internal DSP and active crossovers on top of an already-attenuated signal and achieve a result of equal quality versus attenuating at the end, even if it means using higher bit depths for the intermediate DSP operations.

And 24 bits per sample from the digital input should definitely be sufficient, since I think even the best performing DACs measured by ASR barely manage to exceed 20 bits of real dynamic range. (The intermediate DSP operations can be performed at higher bit depths sufficient to guarantee 100% bit-identical results independent of whether the attenuation is applied before or after the other DSP filters, if there indeed is any chance for an audible difference otherwise.)

It would be interesting if you compared the audible differences you heard blindly, and see if they remain. Out of curiosity, what kind of differences did you think you heard?
 
Last edited:

EchoChamber

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
673
Likes
925
What I mean is you still need to keep the network cables connected, right? That totals to 5 cables in a single speaker for speakers in the middle of a chain (AES in, AES out, GLM in, GLM out, AC power in). That's what I mean by clutter. It would be nice if there was a way to somehow consolidate these into a single cable, so that the back of the speaker doesn't look like the back of a desktop PC :) It's not a huge deal admittedly, and isn't a problem for me either, but it is a complication.
Yes, I agree it could be more minimal for sure. In my main set up with the 5351B’s, I also have the analog connections for non computer sources that are converted by a DAC. That’s the main reason I bought the design stands so I can hide all the cables inside the tube. You could argue why not just use the DAC for everything? And that was my initial setup, but going full digital gave me an edge on transparency.

Ideally the GLM circuitry could be built in the speakers (no need for an extra box). And having Bluetooth and WiFi would in theory allow us to control and stream hi res to the speakers. I guess that’s the price to pay when going the pro audio route... Functionality and durability comes first. Maybe that’s being developed by Genelec’s R&D...
Ideally the GLM circuitry could be built in the speakers (no need for an extra box). And having Bluetooth and WiFi would in theory allow us to control and stream hi res to the speakers. I guess that’s the price to pay when going the pro audio route... Functionality and reliability come first. Maybe that’s being developed by Genelec’s R&D...
 
Last edited:

EchoChamber

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
673
Likes
925
Out of curiosity, what kind of differences did you think you heard?
With the 8351B’s:
Using a DAC with digital attenuation (Okto Dac8) to the analog inputs versus digital straight from my computer to the speakers (passing through the X-SPDIF to convert from USB to AES), I heard more transparency overall, the overall experience was more involving, I felt more connected to the performance. More obvious with accounting instruments on well recorded pieces.

With the 8330A’s:
Controlling the volume in Roon vs using GLM and having Roon output fixed, it was subtle, but I felt the sound was a little “pasty” with the Roon volume. I felt I lost some detail and vibrancy.

Of course, this is all very subjective. I went back and forth casually for a few days and settled for the all digital setup with GLM volume on both setup. It is a fairly easy experiment if you have the GLM kit. To me, in both cases the differences were fairly obvious though.
 

JustJones

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
1,726
Likes
2,391
With the 8351B’s:
Using a DAC with digital attenuation (Okto Dac8) to the analog inputs versus digital straight from my computer to the speakers (passing through the X-SPDIF to convert from USB to AES), I heard more transparency overall, the overall experience was more involving, I felt more connected to the performance. More obvious with accounting instruments on well recorded pieces.

With the 8330A’s:
Controlling the volume in Roon vs using GLM and having Roon output fixed, it was subtle, but I felt the sound was a little “pasty” with the Roon volume. I felt I lost some detail and vibrancy.

Of course, this is all very subjective. I went back and forth casually for a few days and settled for the all digital setup with GLM volume on both setup. It is a fairly easy experiment if you have the GLM kit. To me, in both cases the differences were fairly obvious though.

Do you have any problems with the remotes response? I find I need to push volume up or down about a dozen times before it works, or on/off the same.
 

EchoChamber

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
673
Likes
925
Do you have any problems with the remotes response? I find I need to push volume up or down about a dozen times before it works, or on/off the same.
Yes, it is not as responsive as consumer IR remotes... A little sluggish...

If the 2 systems are being used, the remote in the attic will change the volume of the system in the living room. I need to see if there’s a way to have the GLM kits set to respond to different frequencies...
 
Top Bottom