Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

[Purité Audio]

You need to look harder.

Uh-huh
keith

 

[preload]

Uh-huh
keith

Which speakers are the Classical Music Pros using?

I was reading a piece about BIS Records. At one point, the equipment is described and photos of the studios are shown. Interestingly all speakers are passives. Studio 1 - B&W 802 Diamond ... https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements Studio 2 - Quad ESL63 ...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Frgirard]

I have never seen any B&W speakers in any studio, except once at Abbey Road where one was being used to keep a door open.
Keith

It smacks of provocation at 2 cents.

 

[Sancus]

Who here has actually listened to acoustic (including violin and piano) music on theses speakers?

I listen to classical/acoustic music on my Genelecs daily. They sound great. I played piano for many years so I'm pretty sure I know what pianos sound like, though I probably listen to more jazz than classical. Hiromi's albums are some of my favourites. I also listen to other genres, and I have a +4dB @ 20hz, +0dB @ 1khz target curve EQed into my Genelecs and subwoofers, but I use very similar curves with other types of speakers as well.

There are easily 1000s(10,000s?) of multichannel classical albums and probably 100,000s of stereo ones out there so even assuming consistent overlap in recordings between listeners is a stretch. I don't really listen to any stereo recording of a piece if there's a multi-channel version of it available, with only 1 or 2 exceptions and those are mainly organ pieces where I like the particular organ used on the stereo recording. Stereo typically sounds far too much worse than multi-channel to bother with it when I don't have to.

If they don't have enough resolution i would assume they would sound crappy with pretty much everything and not just violins

Resolution(like speed) is a nonsense audiophile word that has no fixed definition in acoustic terms, but can mean any number of things depending on how the reviewer feels that day or what they had for lunch.

This is especially true with classical music, where we know a lot of recordings are mastered with B&W monitors.

I don't know of any monitor brand surveys of recording studios so I have no opinion on the majority. But the best acoustic recordings are mastered on Genelecs and personally if we are going with random subjective opinions(which I wouldn't) I trust Lindberg's over anybody in this thread, that's for sure.

 

[waldo2]

You insist on comparing live sound to a recording, they are completely different, I suspect you are for the first time actually hearing exactly what the recording sounds like and you don’t like it.
Keith

I understand what you are saying. I just disagree. The recording doesn’t actually sound like anything independent of its playback. There is no platonic form of playback. If one wants to listen to violins, shouldn’t one buy speakers that sound closest to violins on decent recordings of violins? Of course, I like some recordings better than others (preferably not so close), but the recordings are all we have. I don’t buy speakers to play test tones, but to play music.

 

[Purité Audio]

It is completely acceptable to enjoy distortion, many do, as long as you aware that it is merely distortion and not ‘musicality’.
Keith

 

[waldo2]

I listen to classical/acoustic music on my Genelecs daily. They sound great. I played piano for many years so I'm pretty sure I know what pianos sound like, though I probably listen to more jazz than classical. Hiromi's albums are some of my favourites. I also listen to other genres, and I have a +4dB @ 20hz, +0dB @ 1khz target curve EQed into my Genelecs and subwoofers, but I use very similar curves with other types of speakers as well.

There are easily 1000s(10,000s?) of multichannel classical albums and probably 100,000s of stereo ones out there so even assuming consistent overlap in recordings between listeners is a stretch. I don't really listen to any stereo recording of a piece if there's a multi-channel version of it available, with only 1 or 2 exceptions and those are mainly organ pieces where I like the particular organ used on the stereo recording. Stereo typically sounds far too much worse than multi-channel to bother with it when I don't have to.

Resolution(like speed) is a nonsense audiophile word that has no fixed definition in acoustic terms, but can mean any number of things depending on how the reviewer feels that day or what they had for lunch.

I don't know of any monitor brand surveys of recording studios so I have no opinion on the majority. But the best acoustic recordings are mastered on Genelecs and personally if we are going with random subjective opinions(which I wouldn't) I trust Lindberg's over anybody in this thread, that's for sure.

Thank you for the report that you like genelecs on classical music and that you actually listen to classical music and piano on them. You are the first person here who I have seen say they are classical listeners and that they actually listen regularly to the genelec Ones and that they like the speakers. Pianomwas problematic for me, but violins were the biggest issues for me. I do appreciate your report of your experience, and can only say that we like different presentations. I tried different curves, particularly cutting high frequencies, but never came around to the speakers. As I said earlier, maybe it’s at least partly the dispersion, but, for whatever reason, they didnt sound like music to me.

 

[waldo2]

It is completely acceptable to enjoy distortion, many do, as long as you aware that it is merely distortion and not ‘musicality’.
Keith

I don’t believe I enjoy distortion, thank you. When violins and cellos are played in my house, I don’t think they are distorted and yet I enjoy them very much. How many ways can you find to be condescending?

 

[RobL]

Thank you for the report that you like genelecs on classical music and that you actually listen to classical music and piano on them. You are the first person here who I have seen say they are classical listeners and that they actually listen regularly to the genelec Ones and that they like the speakers. Pianomwas problematic for me, but violins were the biggest issues for me. I do appreciate your report of your experience, and can only say that we like different presentations. I tried different curves, particularly cutting high frequencies, but never came around to the speakers. As I said earlier, maybe it’s at least partly the dispersion, but, for whatever reason, they didnt sound like music to me.

Toole commented in a prior thread about violins sounding poor in recordings. You might find it interesting. He is referring to B&W speakers btw.

Genelec on audio science

Blush! Yes, of course, ASR. I participate in both and my aging mind occasionally gets confused. Apologies! I appreciate a good discussion, wherever it originates. There is so much uninformed rubbish out there, it can be depressing. Speaking of depression, a new scientific report has just...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[preload]

In this thread, HairyEars reported that he preferred the mdf genelecs over the aluminum versions. He felt there were audible “resonances” that he found objectionable. The watefall plot of the 8361 does in fact show several resonances:

View attachment 168318

Do you think any of these resonances are what he was referring to?

Edit: prett strong resonances at 3k, 6k, and 12k….the bridge on the violin is shaped to emphasize 3k (a singers formant). Maybe this is related to @waldo2 ’s issue?

Hmmm interesting.

 

[preload]

Do they sound strident to you on the Genelecs? I see the mid/tweeter crossover is at 2800hz…right in the middle of the violins upper register.

I wonder if that has something to do with it. I had experimented with adding a BBC dip to my genelecs too and had some good results. This would explain it.

 

[tmtomh]

Your 3rd bullet point (circle of confusion) is perhaps the most important. It’s what prevents a single loudspeaker from being “accurate” for all recordings. This is especially true with classical music, where we know a lot of recordings are mastered with B&W monitors. Which begs the question of what “accurate” really means in terms of measurements.

The meaning of accurate is quite clear, and that is precisely part of @dshreter 's point. Accurate is not a standard that refers to precisely reproducing the sound waves that entered the microphone(s) during the recording. Accurate is a standard that refers to precisely reproducing the musical data (analogue or digital) that is contained in the musical source we are playing back.

So if you listen mostly to classical music mastered on B&W monitors and you feel that therefore your enjoyment is maximized by listening to your music on B&W speakers because they can basically "decode" the particular "encoding" that B&W monitors imparted to the recording when the mastering engineer used them, that's fine.

But that does not make B&W speakers more accurate than other speakers that have more linear frequency response, lower distortion, or whatever. If - and it's a big "if" - your B&W speakers very closely resemble the B&W speakers used for monitoring during the mastering sessions for most of the recordings you listen to, then your speakers might be better suited for your needs than some other, more accurate speakers.

But even there, I think there are limits. When we talk about speakers coloring what the mastering engineer hears, we usually have frequency response in mind. But if a mastering monitor also has, say, high distortion in the bass, then matching the the mastering monitors with the same brand/model of speaker isn't going to undo that or get you any closer to what the recording really should have sounded like - it's just going to add more distortion in the bass when you listen.

BTW, my current speakers are B&Ws, so I'm not bashing the brand by any means.

 

[Sancus]

As I said earlier, maybe it’s at least partly the dispersion, but, for whatever reason, they didnt sound like music to me.

For what it's worth, we had very different setups and vastly different rooms, most likely. And I rarely listen to unmodified stereo anymore, it's usually Auro3D upmixed to the 11 channel system in my signature. I do occasionally switch to pure stereo just for comparison sake but it never lasts very long.

I feel like people assume when I(or others) say "subjective listening reports aren't good data points" that means I distrust the people making the reports, or think they're the problem, but that's rarely the case. Rather, it's because there's too many uncontrolled variables and it's so much work to make sure you're controlling for them, few people bother.

It's entirely possible for one person to say "I don't like how the speakers sounded for me, in my space" and another "I loved how they sounded for me, in my space" and for both to be correct. It just doesn't generalize that well to others.

 

[Pdxwayne]

RME adi-2

What is your typical volume level of RME to get satisfactory volume level from the speakers? 50%?

If RME volume level is low, I wonder if this would make violin sound a bit better:
Lower the volume level of speakers accordingly, maybe 30% or more lower.
Increase volume level of RME to like 80% of max until you reach your typical listening level.

 

[Purité Audio]

I don’t believe I enjoy distortion, thank you. When violins and cellos are played in my house, I don’t think they are distorted and yet I enjoy them very much. How many ways can you find to be condescending?

You still don’t appear to appreciate the difference between the sound of a live instrument and a recording of that instrument, but let’s leave it there, little point in having loudspeakers you don’t enjoy.
Keith

 

[waldo2]

You still don’t appear to appreciate the difference between the sound of a live instrument and a recording of that instrument, but let’s leave it there, little point in having loudspeakers you don’t enjoy.
Keith

Is it the goal of a recording of classical or Other acoustic music to sound like the performance?

 

[caught gesture]

Life is complicated. Imagine deciding what wine to drink based on chemical analysis formulated by someone trying to sell wine and ignoring your own taste or the taste of experts who have spent their lives learning what good wine is.

Strange that in the production of wine it is all about chemical analysis. When to harvest for example, is the level of sugar, acid and pH of the grapes, analysis done in a lab. That is just the start of a process that is very much dictated by chemistry and science. Its the wine tasting “experts“ who get caught out in the blind tastings. White wine coloured red with food dye, etc. Label design, advertising, promotion and the taste of “experts” is very much about marketing and induced biases.

 

[preload]

The meaning of accurate is quite clear, and that is precisely part of @dshreter 's point. Accurate is not a standard that refers to precisely reproducing the sound waves that entered the microphone(s) during the recording. Accurate is a standard that refers to precisely reproducing the musical data (analogue or digital) that is contained in the musical source we are playing back.

Thanks for clarifying what you mean by "accurate" because the word means different things to different people (unfortunately its denotative meaning is not as universal as one might think). Here's the issue:

When we use this definition of "accurate" to refer to solid state devices like DACS and amps, it is easy to measure and verify, in the way that you describe. But with loudspeakers, it's different. The original/amplified signal is being reproduced as another "signal." Rather, it's being radiated into 3-d space with different transfer functions depending on the off-axis angle, with complex phase interactions, and time-delay interactions due to reflections off the walls of the room. The 3-d radiated sound then becomes a complex vector of sounds at various degrees of delay and angles of incidence to the pinna. We greatly simplify (understatement) the loudspeaker's reproduction of sound by recapturing it with a single measurement mic and smoothing it into various charts, and we further dumb everything down by eyeballing the smoothed charts and pretending like we can interpret them.

This is why I'm having trouble following what might be meant by accuracy referring to the "precise reproduction of musical data that is contained in the musical source" by a loudspeaker.

So if you listen mostly to classical music mastered on B&W monitors and you feel that therefore your enjoyment is maximized by listening to your music on B&W speakers because they can basically "decode" the particular "encoding" that B&W monitors imparted to the recording when the mastering engineer used them, that's fine.

Well to be fair, I only slightly prefer my B&W set up to my Genelec set up. I think the HD800s, DCA Stealth, and Denon D9200 all do a much better job reproducing musical instruments, at least on the recordings I listen to (ignoring size of the soundstage, of course)

 

[preload]

Strange that in the production of wine it is all about chemical analysis. When to harvest for example, is the level of sugar, acid and pH of the grapes, analysis done in a lab. That is just the start of a process that is very much dictated by chemistry and science. Its the wine tasting “experts“ who get caught out in the blind tastings. White wine coloured red with food dye, etc. Label design, advertising, promotion and the taste of “experts” is very much about marketing and induced biases.

To clarify, are you saying that the blind taste preferences of wine can be predicted based on chemical analysis alone? Or are you saying that chemical analysis is used to make decisions during the winemaking process?

 

[Purité Audio]

Is it the goal of a recording of classical or Other acoustic music to sound like the performance?

The recording is the only artefact of the performance it is what it is, but it is not the live performance.
Keith