Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

[preload]

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

Thanks @RobL for finding this. Here's what Toole wrote:
"I agree that close mic'ed recordings can be problems, and if they are, it is an indication of differing tastes (or hearing performance) between the recording staff and the listener, or, equally likely, monitoring through spectrally colored loudspeakers - compensating errors. Excessive brightness may also be the result of non-optimum mic placement. This happens in concert performances with elevated mics picking up more high frequencies from violins than is heard in the audience. There is a loudspeaker that is preferred for "classical" recordings by some experienced recording engineers - it has a sagging frequency response in the upper midrange/lower treble and makes the strings sound more natural. This is a case of the monitor loudspeaker being deliberately incorporated into the recording - dumb. Listeners will not hear what they heard unless they have the same idiosyncratic loudspeakers."

Translation: For classical music recordings mastered on B&W loudspeakers, "listeners will not hear what the [mastering engineers] heard unless they also have B&W loudspeakers."

 

[Pearljam5000]

Fortunately i don't listen to a lot of music with violins
How do Cellos sound on the 8361A? lol

 

[Newman]

Translation: For classical music recordings mastered on B&W loudspeakers, "listeners will not hear what the [mastering engineers] heard unless they also have B&W loudspeakers."

The same B&W speakers. It would be a big assumption that they all have the same dip.

 

[preload]

The same B&W speakers. It would be a big assumption that they all have the same dip.

The B&W 800/801/802 (which are the ones commonly used in studios) all have a very similar BBC dip and overall response, even from generation to generation, at least for the past couple of decades. More importantly, any B&W 800/801/802 is going to be closer to the mastering engineer's B&W than a loudspeaker that follows a different design philosophy (i.e. no BBC dip, like, such as, for example, the Genelecs).

 

[caught gesture]

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?

I would say, given enough data points, that any preference could be determined by chemical analysis. I’m also saying, outside of such scientific analysis, that there is a massive amount of bias in professional wine tasting that quickly gets revealed when blind tasting conditions are used.

 

[preload]

I would say, given enough data points, that any preference could be determined by chemical analysis. I’m also saying, outside of such scientific analysis, that there is a massive amount of bias in professional wine tasting that quickly gets revealed when blind tasting conditions are used.

I think the same could be a said about a lot of things - if we just had more data and infinite analytical resources.
But so far, as I think you're confirming, it isn't possible to predict blind wine tasting preferences based on chemical analysis alone, except to perhaps exclude wines that taste like vinegar.

 

[caught gesture]

I think the same could be a said about a lot of things - if we just had more data and infinite analytical resources.
But so far, as I think you're confirming, it isn't possible to predict blind wine tasting preferences based on chemical analysis alone, except to perhaps exclude wines that taste like vinegar.

Not quite what I’m saying. In blind tastings “experts” reveal that they are not able to distinguish the differences that they pontificate on when they can see a label. Anyone can always have a preference irrelevant of science or data. Just be well aware that cognitive biases certainly can create differences that will disappear under strict testing conditions.

 

[Newman]

The B&W 800/801/802 (which are the ones commonly used in studios)

No such thing as an 800 precursor to 801, AFAIK

all have a very similar BBC dip

Show me on this B&W published response of the original 801:-

I don't see it.

cheers

 

[Newman]

Not quite what I’m saying. In blind tastings “experts” reveal that they are not able to distinguish the differences that they pontificate on when they can see a label. Anyone can always have a preference irrelevant of science or data. Just be well aware that cognitive biases certainly can create differences that will disappear under strict testing conditions.

Example: "When I listen to my B&W speakers and I know they are much the same as the B&W speakers used in the studio, suddenly everything sounds just right."

 

[dshreter]

Genelec used at home with its superior dispersion characteristics but EQed like B&W probably sounds more like what studio engineers hear from B&W in their well treated mastering space than bringing home a B&W.

 

[waldo2]

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

Yes, but you are just ignoring the issue you raised. Is the goal of a good recording of acoustical music in real space to sound like the music performed there? Or is it something else? If it something else, what is it please? Do you have any idea?

 

[q3cpma]

No such thing as an 800 precursor to 801, AFAIK

Show me on this B&W published response of the original 801:-
View attachment 170532

I don't see it.

cheers

Isn't the BBC dip off-axis (maybe power response, too)? Or are we talking about the obsolete mechanism to get a smooth sound power without waveguide entailing an on-axis dip to compensate for the woofer/tweeter directivity mismatch? From my understanding, it was purposedly made for the OB van environment where the 2~4k range could get painful due to reverberation. Which makes it a complete mistake outside of said environment.

My take is that if you listen almost exclusively to classical music, in a room treated similarly to a studio and think that most sound engineers never double-check with more neutral gear (headphones, nearfield speakers), it does make sense to take part in the "circle of confusion".

 

[thewas]

For some people here, if you told them you really enjoyed a glass of the 63 Lafite, but they found out that the pH/temperature/sugar measurements of that vintage were poor, they would tell you that you don't have good taste in wine.

Mind you this is not a matching analogy as the wine taste is the "original event" and loudspeaker an "event reproduction" device, so the more sensible analogy would be if we wanted to see how close the "2021 lab made 1963 Lafite repro" is, a measurement (in this case chemical) comparison, would make more sense and not whether the tester himself prefers it or a Lambrusco instead. On the other hand some people prefer the TV demo mode instead of the filmmaker one, this is where personal taste comes into play. Discussions about individual taste anyway don't bring though anything, even less when they are not blinded, there are also endless examples where wine, violin etc experts failed when tasting blindly.

Here's what Toole wrote:
"I agree that close mic'ed recordings can be problems, and if they are, it is an indication of differing tastes (or hearing performance) between the recording staff and the listener, or, equally likely, monitoring through spectrally colored loudspeakers - compensating errors. Excessive brightness may also be the result of non-optimum mic placement. This happens in concert performances with elevated mics picking up more high frequencies from violins than is heard in the audience. There is a loudspeaker that is preferred for "classical" recordings by some experienced recording engineers - it has a sagging frequency response in the upper midrange/lower treble and makes the strings sound more natural. This is a case of the monitor loudspeaker being deliberately incorporated into the recording - dumb. Listeners will not hear what they heard unless they have the same idiosyncratic loudspeakers."

Translation: For classical music recordings mastered on B&W loudspeakers, "listeners will not hear what the [mastering engineers] heard unless they also have B&W loudspeakers."

This is true, if the majority of your listened recordings were mastered on non-equalised B&W loudspeakers than the same(! - as they quite vary between models and series) B&W would be the most neutral reproduction device as the only "original" reference of the artificial product called recording is what the mixing and mastering engineers heard during its creation. On the other hand this possibility is rather rare and continues the audio circle of confusion and also is not very practical, more practical it is to use a neutral loudspeaker and tune it for such "circle of confusion different recordings" individually with EQs and tone controls like Toole writes instead of having dozens of different loudspeakers at home, even more since for most recordings we don't know with which monitors they were mastered with. Also I would be very interested to know how many of the studios that use B&W leave their recessed presence region and enhanced highs though fully uncorrected, but I don't think we will ever find out.

 

[AdamG]

Thread Notice: This is a product review Thread. Let’s keep the conversation directly related to the subject product review. Future off topic posts will get a chunk of coal for a Christmas present.

Please and thank you.

 

[Tonygeno]

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.

Evidently you didn’t see my post several pages ago. I listen to classical on 8361s, attend live concerts often at Symphony Hall, Boston and think the Genelecs do classical beautifully.

 

[preload]

No such thing as an 800 precursor to 801, AFAIK

Show me on this B&W published response of the original 801:-
View attachment 170532

I don't see it.

cheers

Like the Genelecs, the B&W 800/801/802 speakers are fairly linear on-axis. The BBC dip comes from the off-axis response, where the large 6" midrange starts to roll off faster with rising off-axis angle. It seems like a common error here to attempt to characterize the overall FR of a speaker by simply looking at the on-axis response and not bothering to consider the other components of the spinorama.

Also, the 800/801/802 designations refer to the series (i.e. 802D, 802D2, 802D3, and so on). Yes, there is an 800D. The fact that you thought that I could possibly be referring to the original 801 from the 1980's!? (which, btw, was not produced in the last couple of decades which I was specific about), suggests that you're simply trying to google information that you're not familiar with because for some reason you couldn't figure out that I know my way around B&W's.

The Genelec Ones differ from the B&W's in that their off-axis response is also fairly similar to the on-axis, and there is no overall BBC dip.

 

[Newman]

The BBC dip comes from the off-axis response, where the large 6" midrange starts to roll off faster with rising off-axis angle.

Linkwitz quotes Harwood: "H. D. Harwood from the BBC Research Department talks in this landmark Wireless World article from 1976 about observations and unresolved issues related to loudspeaker design. On page 48 he questions the optimum on-axis frequency response and mentions a shallow dip between 1 kHz and 3 kHz. On page 54 he pleads for a non-uniform axial frequency response." link

But not in the B&W response I posted....

 

[Pearljam5000]

Waiting for 8361B- violins edition

 

[AdamG]

You guys were warned. Multiple off topic posts deleted and reply bans handed out! The Elves are now debating putting a few of you on the Naughty List! Please go start a separate thread. No more warnings now. Play time is over!

 

[Newman]

Also, the 800/801/802 designations refer to the series (i.e. 802D, 802D2, 802D3, and so on). Yes, there is an 800D. The fact that you thought that I could possibly be referring to the original 801 from the 1980's!? (which, btw, was not produced in the last couple of decades which I was specific about), suggests that you're simply trying to google information that you're not familiar with because for some reason you couldn't figure out that I know my way around B&W's.

No, I was trying to address the idea that we benefit from home speakers with a dip (for classical music) because it matches the presumed dip in the recording studio speakers (that, another thread has suggested, use B&W speakers widely). B&W themselves claim that the release of the original 801 led to its widespread adoption in studios, too.

If the circle of confusion is closed, to some degree, then I agree it is a great thing, but far greater if it has been that way in the studios over an extended time, so we could close the circle for decades of classical recordings. You even said,

the ones commonly used in studios) all have a very similar BBC dip and overall response, even from generation to generation, at least for the past couple of decades.

Since the BBC dip dates way back to the 70's, and you mention decades past, why shouldn't I think we are discussing something that is consistent over time? It would be very promising and very interesting if it were indeed true. An opportunity to reduce the circle of confusion for decades of classical recordings.

Turns out the dip is not there after all, though, in B&W speakers. Not the dip that Harwood/BBC was talking about, in the axial FR.

Which brings the Genelec 8361A back into play. (Meaning, not disadvantaged in its ability to minimize the circle of confusion for classical).

cheers