Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

[markstein]

One of the comments in that link state that the 8361A (or The Ones in general) have a harshness to the sound that doesn't show up in measurements and thus cannot be corrected/EQ'd. Any thoughts on this? And this is not the first time I am hearing that The Ones are harsh sounding.

Look at the early reflections DI @ 1,5-3kHz and the tweeter H3 distortion @ 96dB, compared e.g. with the Neumann KH420. Could this be a possible explanation?

 

[Kain]

Look at the early reflections DI @ 1,5-3kHz and the tweeter H3 distortion @ 96dB, compared e.g. with the Neumann KH420. Could this be a possible explanation?

Could be.

In the Genelec S360A thread here on ASR, someone got to compare the 8361A to the S360A. Here are his comments:

So, my day job is demoing a set of S360s in one of the studios.

In short: these things blow the 8361s out of the water subjectively. They're damn good speakers. Great apparent dynamics, and they get loud. They sound much smoother than the 61s also, much less fatiguing. Stereo imaging is excellent, as is detail.

I would put these up there with KH420s in the ~10,000/pr rankings.

Genelec S360 Review (Studio Monitor)

I wish I was still able to regularly (daily) compare different speakers with the knowledge I have acquired in recent years and past experience of demonstrating so many speakers (admittedly lower cost ones than current high end). It seems that dispersion/directivity can make or break a domestic...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[markstein]

Yes, I know this thread.

The question is, how different all these speakers sound in a "typical" non treated room when equalized to the same on axis response. The S360 e.g. has a bass boost, so may sound less "lean" than the 8361. Of course, strongly depending on the room.

Also noticeable that Anselm Goertz highlights the smooth highs in his Sound & Recording review of the S360 (low H3 and high H2 distortion typical for a compression driver) while his review of the 8361 is positive but very neutral.

Have to listen to KH420 and 8361 (and maybe S360?) next to each other some day!

 

[AudioJester]

Could be.

In the Genelec S360A thread here on ASR, someone got to compare the 8361A to the S360A. Here are his comments:

Genelec S360 Review (Studio Monitor)

I wish I was still able to regularly (daily) compare different speakers with the knowledge I have acquired in recent years and past experience of demonstrating so many speakers (admittedly lower cost ones than current high end). It seems that dispersion/directivity can make or break a domestic...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Its going to come down to individual preference. I found the point source capability of the 8361a to be much better for my tastes than the s360 at about 2m listening distance in my room.

I dont get why people rave that one is better than the other - dont trust these people. Measurements tell us a lot, and then you need to judge for yourself. Either way you end with an almost perfect speaker system! GLM is amazing.

 

[Pearljam5000]

S360 is pretty cool but I'd take the 8361 for the aluminum cabinet and obviously coaxial design
S360 is kind of too similar to the JBL style for me

 

[Kain]

S360 is pretty cool but I'd take the 8361 for the aluminum cabinet and obviously coaxial design
S360 is kind of too similar to the JBL style for me

Just because it has a similar design to JBL, doesn't mean it sounds the same. Have a look at the following thread on Gearspace where someone compared the Neumann KH420, Genelec S360A, and JBL 708P. In short, the Genelec and Neumann destroyed the JBL.

Test of new speakers for HT Atmos stage - Gearspace.com

We're right now testing the LCR candidates for our new Dolby certified HT Atmos room: Neumann KH420, Genelec S360, JBL 708p will keep you updated how we decide..

gearspace.com

 

[jonfitch]

One of the comments in that link state that the 8361A (or The Ones in general) have a harshness to the sound that doesn't show up in measurements and thus cannot be corrected/EQ'd. Any thoughts on this? And this is not the first time I am hearing that The Ones are harsh sounding.

Could it be port noise? They do have some unorthodox slot ports.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I wonder if Erin will like the 8361 more than the KEF Blade 2 Meta

 

[dfuller]

One of the comments in that link state that the 8361A (or The Ones in general) have a harshness to the sound that doesn't show up in measurements and thus cannot be corrected/EQ'd. Any thoughts on this? And this is not the first time I am hearing that The Ones are harsh sounding.

There are a few things going on:

1. The radiation pattern doesn't have any sort of vertical narrowing around the crossover (because it's coaxial) and actually broadens ever so slightly in the presence region. So that doesn't help.

2. The beam width is very even and doesn't narrow meaningfully so the in room slope is pretty shallow. ETA: See below. This is absolutely a lot of it. The 8361 has a rising off-axis response.

3. It's a little lean in the bass.

4. There are a few low-level resonances around 2khz that could maybe present as harshness.

Ultimately: I think the 8351s sound better but the 8361s get like, titanically louder.

Could it be port noise? They do have some unorthodox slot ports.

Unlikely; they're not ports per se.

Could be.

In the Genelec S360A thread here on ASR, someone got to compare the 8361A to the S360A. Here are his comments:

Genelec S360 Review (Studio Monitor)

I wish I was still able to regularly (daily) compare different speakers with the knowledge I have acquired in recent years and past experience of demonstrating so many speakers (admittedly lower cost ones than current high end). It seems that dispersion/directivity can make or break a domestic...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Yes, that was me. It pops out pretty clearly looking at a normalized CEA2034. The 8361 has a rising off axis treble response vs the S360, which is certainly going to explain a lot of it sounding kinda harsh. And, yeah, rising off-axis response around 2.5-3KHz.

 

[tmtomh]

There are a few things going on:

1. The radiation pattern doesn't have any sort of vertical narrowing around the crossover (because it's coaxial) and actually broadens ever so slightly in the presence region. So that doesn't help.

2. The beam width is very even and doesn't narrow meaningfully so the in room slope is pretty shallow. ETA: See below. This is absolutely a lot of it. The 8361 has a rising off-axis response.

3. It's a little lean in the bass.

4. There are a few low-level resonances around 2khz that could maybe present as harshness.

Ultimately: I think the 8351s sound better but the 8361s get like, titanically louder.

This is not in any way a criticism directed at you - I just have to note that I find this hilarious, because items 1, 2, and 3 suggest the complete opposite of the drum Arindal has been beating about how the Genelecs are "inherently bloated" in certain bands of the bass region, how their directivity index makes them "dull/silky," and how their radiation pattern overemphasizes the lower midrange at the expense of upper-mid and treble clarity.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

This is not in any way a criticism directed at you - I just have to note that I find this hilarious, because items 1, 2, and 3 suggest the complete opposite of the drum Arindal has been beating about how the Genelecs are "inherently bloated" in certain bands of the bass region, how their directivity index makes them "dull/silky," and how their radiation pattern overemphasizes the lower midrange at the expense of upper-mid and treble clarity.

Yeah, Arendal has extremely strong conviction about this and I really hope one day he responds to the (many) calls for some substantiating evidence to back up his views.

 

[dfuller]

This is not in any way a criticism directed at you - I just have to note that I find this hilarious, because items 1, 2, and 3 suggest the complete opposite of the drum Arindal has been beating about how the Genelecs are "inherently bloated" in certain bands of the bass region, how their directivity index makes them "dull/silky," and how their radiation pattern overemphasizes the lower midrange at the expense of upper-mid and treble clarity.

Oh I definitely didn't take it that way. It's funny as hell.

 

[AudioJester]

Oh I definitely didn't take it that way. It's funny as hell.

You made some excellent points!

 

[Pearljam5000]

I have a feeling Erin will like them

 

[Marc v E]

One of the comments in that link state that the 8361A (or The Ones in general) have a harshness to the sound that doesn't show up in measurements and thus cannot be corrected/EQ'd. Any thoughts on this? And this is not the first time I am hearing that The Ones are harsh sounding.

I heard the 8351 and they are anything and everything but harsh.
They are stunningly realistic and clear.

Sure, a bad recording or mistake will show up, but ime for instance 1950's rock 'n roll recordings were super enjoyable. Brass and saxophone instruments to die for and percussion very natural.

Pop music was ok, but showed up to be a bit boring for lack of real instruments and composition. Some were stunningly good, though.

It all depends on the recording and your preference for a music style with real instruments/voices or not.
Oh and lets not forget the room the speakers are playing in.
If that has a lot of reflective surface, no curtains and a strange shape, it can make a clear speaker sound harsh.

 

[dj94030]

One of the comments in that link state that the 8361A (or The Ones in general) have a harshness to the sound that doesn't show up in measurements and thus cannot be corrected/EQ'd. Any thoughts on this? And this is not the first time I am hearing that The Ones are harsh sounding.

Brother life is too short to address random comments on random links

 

[jonfitch]

I don't think Genelec The Ones are harsh, but I do think all of them sound like they have a constrained soundstage with limited depth due to all of them having some weird sudden rise in the power response in the 400-1000Hz range. The only speaker on the lineup that I would say is least affected by this is the 8341A, which is pretty smooth save for a random spike at 400Hz, and the 8331 is the worst out of the lineup with huge gap up in power response from 600-1000Hz. I think this combined with the wider radiation pattern causes this weird soundstage effect. TAD's ME-1 coaxial speakers sound very similar to the Genelec The One's IMO, they also have a similar wider radiation pattern for a coaxial driver along with some random spikes in the percussion range that make the sound stage seem pushed right up to you and have less depth than they should.

 

[Arindal]

Could it be port noise? They do have some unorthodox slot ports.

You mean reflex port or frontal bass slots? The former is unlikely due to the though-over shape of the port, the latter would rather contribute to bass compression or distortion, maybe some chuffing noise at extreme SPL (all of which is noticeable with the smaller models). Harshness as an outcome is rather unlikely, as this would be associated with higher frequency bands than the bass drivers produce.

The 8361 has a rising off axis treble response vs the S360, which is certainly going to explain a lot of it sounding kinda harsh.

Would call this very subtle, and it does not explain anything, certainly not harshness, except maybe the intention to partly compensate for a decreasing overall level in the room at higher frequencies.

Note that the graphs shown are normalized to on-axis response.

It's a little lean in the bass.

Have you listened to it under home or untreated conditions? It is anything but lean in the bass.

items 1, 2, and 3 suggest the complete opposite of the drum Arindal has been beating about how the Genelecs are "inherently bloated" in certain bands of the bass region, how their directivity index makes them "dull/silky," and how their radiation pattern overemphasizes the lower midrange at the expense of upper-mid and treble clarity.

While I don't subscribe to the statement that they sound harsh (which anyways has to be further defined by naming the frequency band), nor do they sound ´silky´, the points made are either unrelated to that claim from acoustic perspective, or there is not contradiction. There are in fact speakers which would be described as ´harsh´ just because of the freq bands in the 1-4K region, for various reasons, like distortion, or one band dominant in the indirect soundfield over the higher neighboring one.

As mentioned, I never found any of the current Genelecs to show such problem, but under certain conditions like a wooden room with midrange-heavy reverb decreasing in level somewhere in the aforementioned band, this might be happening.

Arendal has extremely strong conviction about this and I really hope one day he responds to the (many) calls for some substantiating evidence to back up his views.

I have named several examples and explained in detail what is happening with off-axis response over several frequency bands. If you don't believe me, I suggest you undergo an A/B experiment, comparing a speaker with significantly increasing D.I. to one with constant directivity (like a cardioid-loaded model), correcting them to identical on-axis response under home conditions and conducting the experiment with reverb-heavy recordings (such as sacred music). I am pretty confident it is easy for you to identify the difference and describe it.

I do think all of them sound like they have a constrained soundstage with limited depth due to all of them having some weird sudden rise in the power response in the 400-1000Hz range. The only speaker on the lineup that I would say is least affected by this is the 8341A, which is pretty smooth save for a random spike at 400Hz,

Exactly my experience with current Genelec models. We should note that discontinued 8260A was similarly balanced off-axis, maybe the best Genelec model I have worked with.

I think this combined with the wider radiation pattern causes this weird soundstage effect.

Experience is telling me that such effects usually happen, if one of the bands telling our brain something about the direction from which sound reflections and reverb are coming in, is overrepresented over neighboring bands. I found it to be most noticeable in case 0.8K-2K band (which signals our brain that reverb is coming from behind) is overrepresented compared to 2.5K-5K (which is typical for sound coming from frontal angles). Most of Genelecs don't have a significance imbalance or step up in D.i. in this region, similar effects might be an outcome of overall increasing directivity.

What you call ´constrained soundstage´ is in either case very much depending on the reverb in the room they are playing in. Particularly in some (older) studio control rooms with overdamped lower midrange, neither dull reverb nor reverb appearing to be detached from phantom localizations, really show up.

TAD's ME-1 coaxial speakers sound very similar to the Genelec The One's IMO, they also have a similar wider radiation pattern for a coaxial driver along with some wiggles in the percussion range that make the sound stage seem smaller and have less depth than they should.

My practical experience with this model is limited, but some others by TAD I know well. While the overall tonality might appear to be similar to some Genelec Ones, this picture usually changes once you have done a full room correction. Reason being the TADs have more of a recessed brillance band on-axis (2-5K typically), so you can easily bring back the ambience, proximity and envelopment of phantom sources.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I have named several examples and explained in detail what is happening with off-axis response over several frequency bands. If you don't believe me, I suggest you undergo an A/B experiment, comparing a speaker with significantly increasing D.I. to one with constant directivity (like a cardioid-loaded model), correcting them to identical on-axis response under home conditions and conducting the experiment with reverb-heavy recordings (such as sacred music). I am pretty confident it is easy for you to identify the difference and describe it.

Guess I'm still waiting. "Do the test yourself" ain't it.

 

[Naturlyd]

Thank you for your thoughtful response—there’s much I appreciate in your observations, especially your recognition of the perceptual impact of the 200–250 Hz region. That masking effect is something I’ve encountered before, and it’s reassuring to hear it echoed from another listener with a keen ear.

You’re absolutely right that a 2 dB boost at 200 Hz is not revolutionary in itself, and that such adjustments can be found through conventional research or trial and error. But, for me, the value of AI here wasn’t in suggesting something novel—it was in helping me converge on the most effective intervention with precision, restraint, and comparative speed..

To reiterate, the process involved:

• Parsing REW and GRADE data alongside subjective listening goals.
• Navigating GLM’s notch constraints and group architecture.
• Iterating through multiple candidate groups with documented feedback loops.

In the end, yes, the final group involved only three changes. But those changes were distilled from a much broader field of possibilities, and the AI helped me to avoid overcorrection, preserve linearity, and maintain tonal coherence. It wasn’t about chasing dramatic shifts—it was about refining the system’s response to better reflect my listening priorities (in a way that is more delicate/refined than what SCP offers).

As for the 90 Hz cut: I agree that 0.5 dB is subtle, but in my room it helped soften a low-end bloom that was perceptually distracting. The Q was broad enough to act as a gentle contour, not a surgical notch. And the 2800 Hz placeholder was a deliberate non-intervention—anchoring the notch architecture while preserving upper-mid neutrality.

Ultimately,, I found the AI a valuable companion—not for its novelty, but for its clarity, its ability to contextualize, and its support in arriving at a voicing that feels both personal and grounded.

Warm thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully.

This is pure AI speak, is there any human interaction at all?