• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 6 0.9%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 4 0.6%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 28 4.1%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 638 94.4%

  • Total voters
    676

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
I disagree with how you've used the phrase "very few differences" and "quite close results" to describe the variation in treble and bass preferences across gender, listening experience, and country of residence. In this situation, I'll simply provide the direct quote from Olive and Welti for the sake of clarity.

"3. Younger listeners (15-25 years) on average preferred about 1.6 dB more bass and 0.6 dB more treble in their headphones than the older listeners....The oldest listeners (56+ years) preferred the least amount of bass, and more treble than any other younger age group.
4. Listening experience had a significant effect on the preferred levels of bass and treble. Less experienced listeners tended to prefer higher levels of bass and treble than more experienced listeners...
5. Female listeners preferred about 1 dB less bass and 2 dB less treble in their headphones compared to their male counterparts...
6. The German listeners, on average, preferred slightly less (< 1 dB) bass and treble compared to the listeners from Canada, USA, and China."
S. Olive, and T. Welti, "Factors That Influence Listeners’ Preferred Bass and Treble Levels in Headphones," Paper 9382, (2015 October.)
So much to unpack, and I'm wondering if these issues were addressed:
#3. the oldest listeners 56+ years may have required more treble due to hearing loss - did the study investigate the relative hearing loss at higher frequencies? This may explain the preference not so much that they enjoyed more treble but rather required an EQ bump in order hear the treble at all!
#5. my understanding is that female hearing is more attuned and hyper sensitive to the frequencies corresponding to the cries of a baby (aka treble) so I can see why they would prefer less treble - if such is the case, shouldn't the Harman preference curve be gender specific then?
 

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
#5. my understanding is that female hearing is more attuned and hyper sensitive to the frequencies corresponding to the cries of a baby (aka treble) so I can see why they would prefer less treble - if such is the case, shouldn't the Harman preference curve be gender specific then?
You're lucky there's no feminists in here;)
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,491
You're lucky there's no feminists in here;)

There's at least one feminist in here, I can attest to that personally! :)

Studies have indeed shown that overall women have more sensitive hearing than men, and that the increased sensitivity appears to be located in the higher frequencies. Of course there are billions of us humans on the planet and so this is just a general finding about each sex in the aggregate. And as for the reasons for this hearing sensitivity, I have no idea. Could be an evolutionary adaptation related to child rearing, but it could also be a neurological, physiological, or mechanical phenomenon that's related to some aspect of human sex differences (body size, hormone levels, and so on).
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
There's at least one feminist in here, I can attest to that.

Studies have indeed shown that overall women have more sensitive hearing than men, and that the increased sensitivity appears to be located in the higher frequencies. Of course there are billions of us humans on the planet and so this is just a general finding about each sex in the aggregate. And as for the reasons for this hearing sensitivity, I have no idea. Could be an evolutionary adaptation related to child rearing, but it could also be a neurological, physiological, or mechanical phenomenon that's related to some aspect of human sex differences (body size, hormone levels, and so on).
Thanks for the save - that's what I meant to say ;) But you are absolutely right about the "aggregate" as the average does not define the individual, nevertheless, our individual sensitivities to higher frequencies do require that convenience of EQ adjustment whether that's the GLM or simple tone controls - raise the bass by 2dB or lower the treble but this flexibility is way WAY preferable than speaker shopping for that perfect design to fit your listening preference. LONG LIVE TONE CONTROLS!
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,491
That whole thing about age or sex related hearing is a red herring.
People use the same ears to listen to real life as they do to a hifi so no compensation is appropriate or necessary.
I am amazed how often this stupid idea crops up.

Yes, very good point - our hearing is remarkably adaptive and most of us don't even notice the gradual hearing changes/loss until much later in life when the cumulative loss becomes really significant.

At the same time, though, if in the aggregate women's hearing is more sensitive than men's, and if that sensitivity is not linear/uniform across the audible spectrum, it does raise an interesting question: if the prototypical woman is perceiving a bit more amplitude in the upper-mid or treble than the prototypical man is, how does that difference impact listener preferences? Assuming for the moment that historically men have disproportionately been among those who have designed equipment and been test subjects for things like the Harman curve research, then it does raise a question of whether or not the curve might be slightly more tipped-down in the treble if women had been the majority of test subjects instead of men. Or, following your point that we all live and hear in the same world with the same sounds, perhaps a majority of subjects being women would result in the exact same consensus preference, with most women simply hearing a little more mids/treble than men but being just as okay with that experience as men are with their experience of perceiving slightly less in those frequencies. It's an interesting question - although perhaps someone has already researched it?
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
Yes, very good point - our hearing is remarkably adaptive and most of us don't even notice the gradual hearing changes/loss until much later in life when the cumulative loss becomes really significant.

At the same time, though, if in the aggregate women's hearing is more sensitive than men's, and if that sensitivity is not linear/uniform across the audible spectrum, it does raise an interesting question: if the prototypical woman is perceiving a bit more amplitude in the upper-mid or treble than the prototypical man is, how does that difference impact listener preferences? Assuming for the moment that historically men have disproportionately been among those who have designed equipment and been test subjects for things like the Harmon curve research, then it does raise a question of whether or not the curve might be slightly more tipped-down in the treble if women had been the majority of test subjects instead of men. Or, following your point that we all live and hear in the same world with the same sounds, perhaps a majority of subjects being women would result in the exact same consensus preference, with most women simply hearing a little more mids/treble than men but being just as okay with that experience as men are with their experience of perceiving slightly less in those frequencies. It's an interesting question - although perhaps someone has already researched it?
It doesn't matter.
However 2 people hear differently they both hear both real and reproduced sound equally differently so "accurate" will be accurate for both.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
That whole thing about age or sex related hearing is a red herring.
People use the same ears to listen to real life as they do to a hifi so no compensation is appropriate or necessary.
I am amazed how often this stupid idea crops up.
If you think it's stupid, you are more than welcome to comment on the published research. Otherwise, "stupid" is a simply an opinion (yours).

Harman's published findings clearly show that there are preferences for levels of treble and bass on playback headphones vary across gender, age, years of experience, age, and country of residence.
 

Tonygeno

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
192
Likes
248
Location
Massachusetts
If you think it's stupid, you are more than welcome to comment on the published research. Otherwise, "stupid" is a simply an opinion (yours).

Harman's published findings clearly show that there are preferences for levels of treble and bass on playback headphones vary across gender, age, years of experience, age, and country of residence.
And how does that translate to live, unamplified music heard in a concert hall?
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,491
It doesn't matter.
However 2 people hear differently they both hear both real and reproduced sound equally differently so "accurate" will be accurate for both.

I agree with you there. I was referring to research about listener preference rather than a relationship between real-life sounds and musical reproduction.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
It doesn't matter.
However 2 people hear differently they both hear both real and reproduced sound equally differently so "accurate" will be accurate for both.
It does matter, and it's obviously not that simple.

Consider the fact that the typical recording is not live. A vocalist is recorded in a sound booth. Instruments, bass drums, synthesized sounds, etc. are all recorded elsewhere. Everything is mixed together. The recording engineer makes decisions about how much bass drum to dial in and what EQ adjustments are to be made based on what he hears on his monitors based on what he thinks sounds right. Then it gets finalized in a digital file, and played back on the end-listener's headphones or speakers. Unless the end-listener has the exact same preferences as the recording engineer in terms of bass and treble quantities, the end-listener may or may not agree that the bass and treble quantities are correct sounding.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept, unless people here think that every audio file in existence is a binaural recording of a live event made using calibrated binaural mics and played back on calibrated reference IEMs so that the entire chain reproduces the exact same FR.
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
That’s why contemporary loudspeakers allow you to adjust the sound to your taste.
Keith
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
So much to unpack, and I'm wondering if these issues were addressed:
#3. the oldest listeners 56+ years may have required more treble due to hearing loss - did the study investigate the relative hearing loss at higher frequencies? This may explain the preference not so much that they enjoyed more treble but rather required an EQ bump in order hear the treble at all!
#5. my understanding is that female hearing is more attuned and hyper sensitive to the frequencies corresponding to the cries of a baby (aka treble) so I can see why they would prefer less treble - if such is the case, shouldn't the Harman preference curve be gender specific then?
The oldest listeners (56+ yrs old) only preferred 0.5dB more treble than the youngest listeners (15-25). The biggest difference was that they preferred 2.3dB less bass than the youngest group.

Regarding whether to have different preference curves for different "groups," I believe the Harman response was simply say "hey there's a target curve, if people don't like it, they can adjust the tone controls themselves." It's semantics. It's much easier than saying "there is variation in human preferences, and instead of a precise target curve, we're providing a target "region" that 95% of preferences fall within." The problem is that people see a precise target curve (displayed without error bars, nonetheless), and assume that's what every human being should like, and if they don't like it, the human is defective (i.e. is inexperienced, doesn't know what live music sounds likes, is someone of unrefined/poor audio taste, is a musician that doesn't care about audio, etc.).
 
Last edited:

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
The oldest listeners (56+ yrs old) only preferred 0.5dB more treble than the youngest listeners (15-25). The biggest difference was that they preferred 2.3dB less bass than the youngest group.

Regarding whether to have different preference curves for different "groups," I believe the Harman response was simply say "hey there's a target curve, if people don't like it, they can adjust the tone controls themselves." It's semantics. It's much easier than saying "there is variation in human preferences, and instead of a precise target curve, we're providing a target "region" that 95% of preferences fall within." The problem is that people see a precise target curve (displayed without error bars, nonetheless), and assume that's what every human being should like, and if they don't like it, the human is defective (i.e. is inexperienced, doesn't know what live music sounds likes, is someone of unrefined/poor audio taste, is a musician that doesn't care about audio, etc.).
It's funny about the bass - I definitely used to like more bass when I was a kid (turned bass up on all my cars) but this definitely changed as I got older, I think I turned the corner when I was 30
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,747
Likes
16,182
It's funny about the bass - I definitely used to like more bass when I was a kid (turned bass up on all my cars) but this definitely changed as I got older, I think I turned the corner when I was 30
Yes, most of us can confirm from their audio history what the Harman studies show, that the younger and less experienced we were the more we liked pronounced bass and highs.
 

waldo2

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
94
Is it an audio virtue if speakers do stereo well (ie create a nice stable image between the speakers)?
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,338
Likes
5,053
Is it an audio virtue if speakers do stereo well (ie create a nice stable image between the speakers)?
Yes, though it can largely be defined by its directivity behavior. Generally the more channels you add the narrower you want the dispersion to be.
 

waldo2

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
49
Likes
94
I agree that creating a stable center image is an important part of speaker evaluation for stereo. I ask here because Amir listened to only one speaker and so cannot know how well they do stereo. From my my experience, the answer is not very well, particularly compared to those outdated, cottage industry bbc monitors. The lack of a stereo image was not my biggest problem with them, but I don’t undestand how one can evaluate a speaker’s worth by only listening to one of them.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
I agree that creating a stable center image is an important part of speaker evaluation for stereo. I ask here because Amir listened to only one speaker and so cannot know how well they do stereo.

The research indicates that people mostly become less discerning as you add speakers, and there just isn't any 'special attribute' that works in stereo but not mono. But we've been through this one at least a dozen times. Not really worth re-arguing.

I haven't seen any evidence that 83x1s don't do stereo well. They are not the widest dispersion out there, and many prefer the additional effect added by extremely wide dispersion, but this isn't universal, some people consider it an artificial addition not present on recordings and therefore undesirable.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
Is it an audio virtue if speakers do stereo well (ie create a nice stable image between the speakers)?
Definitely pleasant and effectively masks problems that are audible only when listening in "mono", so in this case, two wrongs do make a right!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CMB
Top Bottom