Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

[Mort]

But we like you anyway.

Ignore function is ideal for this use case.

 

[Mort]

Those speakers select certain frequencies? Please compare to KEF R3 (non meta) having a better score attached to it, with or w/o a sub, being a coax likewise, is way cheaper.
The Genelec is perfect, but the KEF is better--just kidding. I think at some point a speaker is just and simply fit for the job, all doubt is settled, and the music speaks as loud and clear as it gets.

When it comes to the eq/ module, I can't imagine to use a speaker of this caliber w/o little adjustments to taste--subjective preference. Maybe from record to record with tiny differences. But the proprietary solution from Genelec isn't the only way to do so. Automatic tuning isn't appropriate, see perfectly justifiably subjective assessment.

In short, the differences between speakers from some position on the score on are neglegible compared to subjective preferences, the differing record's tonality and arrangement, and room acoustics. You can praise a certain model, but that misses the point. Perfect is perfect, isn't that good enough?

Tautological nonsense. I mean really. Are you trolling?

 

[Joachim Herbert]

We are watching a review here of the speakers by themselves. Totally different things!

Two components: Measurements with Klippel plus Listening for an extended period. GLM is helpful to enjoy the latter most.

 

[traind]

Yeah he could have made it more interesting like by comparing the 8361 to the Blade 2 Meta or adding more subjective listening impressions

I too would like more subjective impressions along with the data. Why not, after so much effort and using speakers to listen to in your own room?

However, it does become a problem comparing to other speakers like the Blade 2 Meta because he reviewed those over a year ago and does not own them. So any comparison would be relying on memory, certainly ripe for bias and inaccuracy. Erin and other reviewers often do these historical comparisons and we have to view them with a grain of salt. I admit that they can reference their previous reviews so their recall is likely more accurate than my own. I am ok with hearing the historical comparisons but it's just not the same as if they were in the same room. And so others don't have to add it in, yes even then there can be sighted bias etc.

 

[Heinrich]

Tautological nonsense. I mean really. Are you trolling?

Quite a strong opinion, but paradoxical. Are you bullying?

Imagine a record is tuned in the studio to sound best over the celestial Gen/. Can I still play it back at home using Neumann‘s earthlings? That would mean, that the two are equivalent.

Yep, there‘s a lot of rejectable subjectivity around here. The KEF R3 are objectively better than perfect.

 

[Mort]

Do you feel bullied? Bringing up the kef r3 is a red herring, confirming troll.

 

[Martini]

The Father Genelec, his Son the Mains, the Holy Spirit GLM.

Ite missa est.

Yep, I was about to say Genelec has become his religion. I guess it could be called idolatry.

 

[Holmz]

…
What part of my writing did you not understand?

To be honest…most of it.

 

[Heinrich]

Do you feel bullied? Bringing up the kef r3 is a red herring, confirming troll.

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question ..." (wiki)

"... from a relevant or important question ..." they say, but I see strongly opinionated answers only. Confirming bully.

Reiterated, the R3s are introduced to illustrate the motivation for a question of mine, with all due respect. The R3s are ranked higher on the Olive score than the Genelec model, which latter is in affirmative debate here. If the Gen/ is perfect, the R3 is better than perfect. That's illogical. To the rescue I asked for equivalence of speakers from some point of excellence on. So that the enthusiast might show the same degree of excitement when listening to a record optimized in the studio with a Gen/ as the reference, while playback uses a Neumann. Or for the poor boys like me, a KEF R3.

 

[Mort]

Confirming bully.

You might be a little too sensitive for a no bullshit place like this.

 

[RobL]

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question ..." (wiki)

"... from a relevant or important question ..." they say, but I see strongly opinionated answers only. Confirming bully.

Reiterated, the R3s are introduced to illustrate the motivation for a question of mine, with all due respect. The R3s are ranked higher on the Olive score than the Genelec model, which latter is in affirmative debate here. If the Gen/ is perfect, the R3 is better than perfect. That's illogical. To the rescue I asked for equivalence of speakers from some point of excellence on. So that the enthusiast might show the same degree of excitement when listening to a record optimized in the studio with a Gen/ as the reference, while playback uses a Neumann. Or for the poor boys like me, a KEF R3.

Except neither the Kef R3 or R3 Meta have a higher Olive score than the 8361A…at least according to Spinorama.org.

 

[dj94030]

Guys can i have a tl;dr of what you were discussing for last 3-4 pages?

 

[Heinrich]

Except neither the Kef R3 or R3 Meta have a higher Olive score than the 8361A…at least according to Spinorama.org.

You’re dodging the question I asked. Then just write that you don’t have an answer, or that you’re not interested.

KEF R3 (non meta): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-r3-speaker-review.12021/post-349072
Genelec 8361A: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...361a-review-powered-monitor.28039/post-971241

Guys can i have a tl;dr of what you were discussing for last 3-4 pages?

See: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...61a-review-powered-monitor.28039/post-2462669

From what rating on the Olive scale can loudspeakers be considered essentially equivalent? And can there be any improvement beyond a de-facto perfect loudspeaker?

 

[Mort]

It's all bait from a troll who I have now ignored.

On access frequency response is not the only measurement of a perfect speaker. This has been discussed elsewhere on this forum including by the poster of this ridiculous claim.

 

[RobL]

You’re dodging the question I asked. Then just write that you don’t have an answer, or that you’re not interested.

KEF R3 (non meta): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-r3-speaker-review.12021/post-349072
Genelec 8361A: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...361a-review-powered-monitor.28039/post-971241

You’re right, I’m not interested.

From what rating on the Olive scale can loudspeakers be considered essentially equivalent? And can there be any improvement beyond a de-facto perfect loudspeaker?

Sean Olive indicated a granularity of ~1, I believe. Differences less than that are unlikely to show as statistically significant in a blind test…that still doesn’t make speakers with similar scores “equivalent” though.

 

[Heinrich]

It's all bait from a troll who I have now ignored.

On access frequency response is not the only measurement of a perfect speaker. This has been discussed elsewhere on this forum including by the poster of this ridiculous claim.

On axis, right? And no, it is the full score, including directivity artifacts (as predicted). Some may have a longer history in audio and might not realize that said implication of the standard CEA2034. Namely that the run for diminishing returns is over! The insight tickles firmly ingrained ideas, such as the belief that there is always something better.

Simple example: mix and arranged in studio optimized for KEFs, playback at home using Neumanns or Genelecs. If you've got the feel to miss out because of the mismatch, how to know what speakers to use? Sidenote: is it real that there's a speaker that even superseeds the studio's? What would be the benefit of such an "upgrade"? Let it sink in, it's worth it, granted.

 

[Heinrich]

You’re right, I’m not interested.

... still doesn’t make speakers with similar scores “equivalent” though.

Then please ignore me. Do not, please bend my question to fit your argument. I asked for a point very high on the score, from which on speakers may be equivalent. I never said that same ranking makes speakers equivalent regardless of the position on the score.

 

[NTK]

From what rating on the Olive scale can loudspeakers be considered essentially equivalent? And can there be any improvement beyond a de-facto perfect loudspeaker?

There had been earlier efforts. If you look at the top score (Genelec 8341A at the time), the 50% confidence interval (the box) spans more than +/- 0.5 to either side of the score. 7590% confidence (the thin lines) will span more than +/-1.

Master Preference Ratings for Loudspeakers

You could put bluetooth speakers into a 'Wireless' category with the color purple.

www.audiosciencereview.com

[Edit] Corrections.

 

[Marin]

Thank you Amir for the measurement, this is one great speaker. I am wondering how they have acheived that impulse response with ported design. Did they use phase eq to eq the port output? I also would like to see the indivisual driver contribution and see what the port noise looks like. That mid range has so low disotortion that is nearly impossible to get, the waveguide probably helps a bit on that too. The size is also crazy huge, don't know if everyone can accept that, but luckily people dont care height too much if they don't place something on the top.

What do you mean,this is my ported tower speaker and the there isn't much difference?

 

[Heinrich]

There had been earlier efforts. If you look at the top score (Genelec 8341A at the time), the 50% confidence interval (the box) spans more than +/- 0.5 to either side of the score. 7590% confidence (the thin lines) will span more than +/-1.

Master Preference Ratings for Loudspeakers

You could put bluetooth speakers into a 'Wireless' category with the color purple.

www.audiosciencereview.com

[Edit] Corrections.

I understand your point to mean that the ratings are equivalent if their measurement uncertainties overlap. But what I had in mind was more like one box deviating toward A in one parameter, while the second deviates toward Z in a different parameter, which leads to the same ranking but arises from completely different types of errors.

So does the band of tolerable reproduction errors become so narrow at higher scores that the deviations in A or Z each become irrelevant on their own?

Well, there’s also something to say to the fanboys, because they ignore this as well: we’re talking here about an effectively perfect loudspeaker, and the reason for all this is, w/o any irony, the truely amazing Genelec. Just think about that for a moment (or half a second longer).