Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

[terryforsythe]

Poor as well.

I guess after having measured so many speakers it's kinda boring even for himself

Typically, the less Erin says about a speaker, the better it is.

He has shown more enthusiasm for certain speakers, but to me it seems that he does so when they represent a really good value for the price. The only exception that I recall is the Blade II meta. But, he was really looking forward to getting his hands on those speakers, and to some (including me) they look like a work of art, which may have had an impact on his enthusiasm.

 

[Exprymer]

It’s like comparing two PCs in the 90, and one has a turbo button, but you choose not to enable it because of apparent “consistency”

Again, the GLM is a room correction software, it makes zero sense to use it in a Nearfield Scanning and if this is reasonable, props to neumann for having such a flat response on the KH120 MK2s (reviewed here) without any room correction to help. By the way, how can a GLM compensates for anything while being tested in a NFS that *removes* the room?

All these High End monitors are factory calibrated with a set of IIR filters or with an FIR filter, before leaving the building. GLM likely just applies a new one on top of it or substitutes with a new one.

At the first page of this thread there's a review that doesn't mention GLM. I don't get why suddenly is so needed.

 

[kyuu]

At the first page of this thread there's a review that doesn't mention GLM. I don't get why suddenly is so needed.

Agree, this whole rigamarole about GLM is silly. GLM is great, don't get me wrong, but it's obviously irrelevant to characterizing a speaker's anechoic response and it doesn't make sense to compare this speaker with it to other speakers without similar room correction systems. We're interested in the speaker here, not the room correction.

It would make a lot of sense to get GLM if you purchased these speakers, but I also wouldn't feel any qualms about skipping it if I was using these downstream of, say, an AVR/AVP with Dirac Live or even Audyssey.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Agree, this whole rigamarole about GLM is silly. GLM is great, don't get me wrong, but it's obviously irrelevant to characterizing a speaker's anechoic response and it doesn't make sense to compare this speaker with it to other speakers without similar room correction systems. We're interested in the speaker here, not the room correction.

It would make a lot of sense to get GLM if you purchased these speakers, but I also wouldn't feel any qualms about skipping it if I was using these downstream of, say, an AVR/AVP with Dirac Live or even Audyssey.

It's meant to be used with GLM there isn't probably one 8361 buyer that doesn't have GLM.
So I disagree
Because it's a system not just speakers

 

[tmtomh]

Typically, the less Erin says about a speaker, the better it is.

He has shown more enthusiasm for certain speakers, but to me it seems that he does so when they represent a really good value for the price. The only exception that I recall is the Blade II meta. But, he was really looking forward to getting his hands on those speakers, and to some (including me) they look like a work of art, which may have had an impact on his enthusiasm.

Yes, I think this is correct - Erin has made no secret of the fact that he's a hi-fi/audiophile enthusiast. I mean, look at those McIntosh amps he has. He doesn't let that impact his subjective evaluation of how speakers sound (let alone his objective measurements of course), but it does seem to impact his enthusiasm and he has periodically mentioned it when he talks about the subjective-review aspects that he describes as personal preference. For example, I seem to recall that he really liked the Wharfdale Linton 85th Anniversary speaker, and if I'm remembering correctly the vintage/retro look was something he enjoyed, and he said that despite one particular area of nonlinearity that was audible to him he still really enjoyed them and didn't mind their warm or whatever voicing he felt that nonlinearity gave them.

Conversely, I remember when he reviewed the Genelec 8331 a couple(?) years ago, he said they were excellent for what they were and I think his top-line comment was something like, "A really linear little speaker!" But he was not especially enthusiastic about them, and I always assumed that's because they're near field studio monitors and they're ugly from a traditional audiophile perspective.

Agree, this whole rigamarole about GLM is silly. GLM is great, don't get me wrong, but it's obviously irrelevant to characterizing a speaker's anechoic response and it doesn't make sense to compare this speaker with it to other speakers without similar room correction systems. We're interested in the speaker here, not the room correction.

It would make a lot of sense to get GLM if you purchased these speakers, but I also wouldn't feel any qualms about skipping it if I was using these downstream of, say, an AVR/AVP with Dirac Live or even Audyssey.

I love the simplicity and integration of GLM, but yes, in terms of what they actually do, it's not rocket science. Other 3rd party room correction software/devices can achieve essentially the same result. Conceptually one of the things I like about GLM is actually that it's more limited than some other systems, in that it doesn't auto-calibrate/correct above about 800Hz, because really, what's the point? The speakers themselves are highly linear; the room has less impact on in-room linearity at the higher frequencies; The Sound Character Profiler (or an equivalent target curve function in another company's software) can take care of broad preferences and different degrees of room reflectivity in the higher frequencies; and if you have some particular problem spot in the treble, that's what manually adding a single PEQ filter is for.

 

[kyuu]

It's meant to be used with GLM there isn't probably one 8361 buyer that doesn't have GLM.
So I disagree
Because it's a system not just speakers

If it was included, then maybe. But it's not, and the notion that there isn't one buyer who doesn't have GLM is almost certainly false. Particularly for the (likely small) market of those using these in a home setting rather than a studio.

 

[Matias]

Should he also test all other speakers with Dirac or other room correction software? And then remove the room with the NFS? Makes no sense to review like this.

GLM is essential... for end users in a room. We are watching a review here of the speakers by themselves. Totally different things!

 

[Pearljam5000]

If it was included, then maybe. But it's not, and the notion that there isn't one buyer who doesn't have GLM is almost certainly false. Particularly for the (likely small) market of those using these in a home setting rather than a studio.

Yeah I doubt it that people that spend $10K on monitors will cheap out on $300 room correction

 

[Karmacoma]

Erin said that if Genelec was to send him the 8380's for a review, he would use the GLM.
There's an interest here if he can test with & without and show us what it does in his room.
Testing them with GLM isn't antagonistic to the interest to test them raw.

 

[Mort]

Definitely not included in the US.

 

[Esprit]

When I asked for prices here in Italy, GLM was always included.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

We are watching a review here of the speakers by themselves.

I think this is the confusion. Erin is doing two different things:

1. objective measurements of the speakers by themselves with the Klippel system.
2. subjective assessment of the speakers in his room

for 1., obviously GLM would be dumb and shouldn't be used. for 2., though, it's more debatable, since people who buy this speaker are, afaik, almost invariably going to use GLM.

I don't have a slug in this race, but I hate to see people arguing at cross purposes.

 

[terryforsythe]

Also, from Genelec's website:

"Our intelligent Genelec Loudspeaker Manager (GLM) software, for Mac and Windows, works with Genelec Smart Active Monitors (SAM) to offer the finest possible calibration solution in any space – automatically minimising the effect of unwanted room acoustic influences to provide tailored audio monitoring you can fully trust. With their help, you'll hear exactly what's happening in your projects, so you can quickly make the right engineering decisions and create consistently balanced audio that listeners will enjoy with any kind of system."

In my opinion, asking the speaker to be tested with GLM is like asking a speaker to be tested with Dirac Live, or some other room correction software. Why only do that for Genelec speakers and not every other speaker? Moreover, GLM it is not in the speakers themselves; it is separate software that runs on a computer. Not everyone is going to connect a Windows or Mac computer up to their audio system.

 

[Matias]

I think this is the confusion. Erin is doing two different things:

1. objective measurements of the speakers by themselves with the Klippel system.
2. subjective assessment of the speakers in his room

for 1., obviously GLM would be dumb and shouldn't be used. for 2., though, it's more debatable, since people who buy this speaker are, afaik, almost invariably going to use GLM.

I don't have a slug in this race, but I hate to see people arguing at cross purposes.

One can argue that all speakers are also meant to be listened with room correction software too, and all subjective listening without them is useless... Again, consistency is key here.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

One can argue that all speakers are also meant to be listened with room correction software too, and all subjective listening without them is useless... Again, consistency is key here.

Of course you can argue that, but in this case, the room correction software is both made by the speaker manufacturer and bundled with the speakers. Or at least it is where I live, although according to some in this thread it is sold separately in the US??)

 

[Esprit]

In my opinion, asking the speaker to be tested with GLM is like asking a speaker to be tested with Dirac Live, or some other room correction software.

With GLM, once calibrated for your room, the data is loaded into the speakers, this means that it will be calibrated regardless of the source you use (even a turntable) with the other sw you are forced to have a computer on and use a DAC and that's it.

 

[dshreter]

Also, from Genelec's website:

"Our intelligent Genelec Loudspeaker Manager (GLM) software, for Mac and Windows, works with Genelec Smart Active Monitors (SAM) to offer the finest possible calibration solution in any space – automatically minimising the effect of unwanted room acoustic influences to provide tailored audio monitoring you can fully trust. With their help, you'll hear exactly what's happening in your projects, so you can quickly make the right engineering decisions and create consistently balanced audio that listeners will enjoy with any kind of system."

In my opinion, asking the speaker to be tested with GLM is like asking a speaker to be tested with Dirac Live, or some other room correction software. Why only do that for Genelec speakers and not every other speaker? Moreover, GLM it is not in the speakers themselves; it is separate software that runs on a computer. Not everyone is going to connect a Windows or Mac computer up to their audio system.

It would be reasonable to do so with any speaker sold as a solution as standard practice. The settings from GLM are even stored within the speaker.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what Erin did either. But this is not a science experiment that requires an identical basis of comparison.

 

[tmtomh]

For me the decisive factor is that GLM is for room correction, sub integration, a preference (target) curve, and phase alignment between or among speakers. All of which are great features, all of which can significantly improve the sonic experience depending on your setup - and none of which has anything to do with the intrinsic performance and capabilities of the speaker.

The fact that GLM is made by Genelec itself; that the calibration and target curve settings can be stored in the speakers and GLM then turned off and disconnected, and even the fact that apparently it's sold bundled with the speakers by some vendors in some markets is all great - but IMHO it doesn't change the fact that reviewing the sonic performance of Genelecs with GLM is not an apples-to-apples comparison with all the passive speakers Erin has reviewed, or with lower-end actives he's reviewed that don't have their own integrated room correction system.

As a practical matter I think I agree with the spirit of @dshreter 's comment just above: there's nothing wrong with what Erin did, and there wouldn't have been anything wrong with him listening to them with GLM. It seems the best overall solution would have been for him to have calibrated them with GLM (after testing them uncalibrated on the Klippel of course), and then done his subjective in-room listening with GLM calibration enabled and disabled. That would have given him the apples-to-apples to compare with all the uncorrected passive speakers he's reviewed, while also allowing him to comment on the difference he experienced with calibration enabled.

My guess is that if he does end up getting the 8380, that's exactly what he'll do.

 

[Mort]

GLM kit is another $400 retail and sold separately in the US. Although common, it's not used in a few applications like a home theater or where integrating a non-glm subwoofer.

I've run my 8631/7380 combo with GLM and Dirac and much preferred GLM although not on all points. It is still a compromise, like everything. It has weaknesses too.

DSP is worthy of more review. I wish there was more reviews of DSP but it's difficult to produce for a variety of reasons. Most of it seems to be here on this site, anecdotally.

GLM can't be suddenly mixed into a standardized test as a new variable. We're lucky we get the testing as it is. Did he even do the review in stereo?

 

[Tisca]

FYI, every dealer I asked for a quote threw the GLM in "for Free". One could argue it's in the final price but every quote said [free GLM + discount on list price].