Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

[G|force]

Well able enthusiasts may try swapping out their trial by fire 8361 for a more reasonable and relaxed pair of 8341. I want yours; wish I could share mine. ;-)

 

[waldo2]

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.

Of course you have seen some evidence: I just told you what I heard. I surely understand why you completely discount it. It is information, however, that is completely missing from Amir‘s Review. I think the spatial aspects of musical reproduction are important. Also, i went back and read much of the thread you cite and watched the video. I think it’s a bit of exaggeration to say “the research shows‘ like there’s a long established body of research, tested in peer reviewed journals and generated by disinterested scientists over a long period of time. No disrespect intended to Toole, but science is, at best, controversial and really not science at all. It is admittedly a commercial endeavor even if undertaken by an expert. It is designed to sell speakers, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I wouldn’t call it ”the research” and expect us all to acquiesce just be cause you utter the magic words. It’s not the theory of evolution and It’s not replicated or tested or repeated. Also, I thought many of the commenters in the thread you provided actually did an excellent job of explaining why stereo testing is necessary. In any event, I’m not too impressed by trying to end the argument by referring to research that is really not disinterested science at all. I’m not trying to run down Toole at all. I haven’t read his book and am sure that he is an excellent researcher and a true audio expert. But, I think it is a mistake to some Research done to sell speakers end the conversation and to use it as a cudgel to beat anyone who doesn’t want to drink the cool-aide. I understand that frequency response is king around here, and of course it is a critical part of speaker evaluation. But does anyone ever stop to question whether there may be other virtues as well, in this case the spatial performance of the speaker. It’s not enough to say that prefer for speakers with certain frequency response trumps everything else.

 

[pozz]

Of course you have seen some evidence: I just told you what I heard. I surely understand why you completely discount it. It is information, however, that is completely missing from Amir‘s Review. I think the spatial aspects of musical reproduction are important. Also, i went back and read much of the thread you cite and watched the video. I think it’s a bit of exaggeration to say “the research shows‘ like there’s a long established body of research, tested in peer reviewed journals and generated by disinterested scientists over a long period of time. No disrespect intended to Toole, but science is, at best, controversial and really not science at all. It is admittedly a commercial endeavor even if undertaken by an expert. It is designed to sell speakers, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I wouldn’t call it ”the research” and expect us all to acquiesce just be cause you utter the magic words. It’s not the theory of evolution and It’s not replicated or tested or repeated. Also, I thought many of the commenters in the thread you provided actually did an excellent job of explaining why stereo testing is necessary. In any event, I’m not too impressed by trying to end the argument by referring to research that is really not disinterested science at all. I’m not trying to run down Toole at all. I haven’t read his book and am sure that he is an excellent researcher and a true audio expert. But, I think it is a mistake to some Research done to sell speakers end the conversation and to use it as a cudgel to beat anyone who doesn’t want to drink the cool-aide. I understand that frequency response is king around here, and of course it is a critical part of speaker evaluation. But does anyone ever stop to question whether there may be other virtues as well, in this case the spatial performance of the speaker. It’s not enough to say that prefer for speakers with certain frequency response trumps everything else.

I can't think of what nonaudio analogy to use here, but for some reason you consider "spatial peformance" a separate property. It is wholly related to frequency response, i.e., the total character of 360 degree radiation around the speaker, how strong the outgoing energy, per frequency, is in a particular direction. This then bounces off the walls and surfaces of your room and reaches your ears to create "spatial performance".

So your comments read as uninformed at best. You only partially understand the technology you're using and yet openly criticize the speaker and the approach here.

Why not take time to read the research? Especially if you're not satisfied with the general views in the commentary, why not investigate their foundations?

 

[mightycicadalord]

This thing looks perfect, like bucket list listening for me for sure.

 

[NTK]

Of course you have seen some evidence: I just told you what I heard. I surely understand why you completely discount it. It is information, however, that is completely missing from Amir‘s Review. I think the spatial aspects of musical reproduction are important. Also, i went back and read much of the thread you cite and watched the video. I think it’s a bit of exaggeration to say “the research shows‘ like there’s a long established body of research, tested in peer reviewed journals and generated by disinterested scientists over a long period of time. No disrespect intended to Toole, but science is, at best, controversial and really not science at all. It is admittedly a commercial endeavor even if undertaken by an expert. It is designed to sell speakers, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I wouldn’t call it ”the research” and expect us all to acquiesce just be cause you utter the magic words. It’s not the theory of evolution and It’s not replicated or tested or repeated. Also, I thought many of the commenters in the thread you provided actually did an excellent job of explaining why stereo testing is necessary. In any event, I’m not too impressed by trying to end the argument by referring to research that is really not disinterested science at all. I’m not trying to run down Toole at all. I haven’t read his book and am sure that he is an excellent researcher and a true audio expert. But, I think it is a mistake to some Research done to sell speakers end the conversation and to use it as a cudgel to beat anyone who doesn’t want to drink the cool-aide. I understand that frequency response is king around here, and of course it is a critical part of speaker evaluation. But does anyone ever stop to question whether there may be other virtues as well, in this case the spatial performance of the speaker. It’s not enough to say that prefer for speakers with certain frequency response trumps everything else.

The research was done by Dr Toole and published when he was with the National Research Council of Canada, many years before he went to work for Harman, so it was not "done to sell speakers". Example:

AES E-Library » Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance

With adequate attention to the details of experiment design and the selection of participants, listening tests on loudspeakers yielded sound-quality ratings that were both reliable and repeatable. Certain listeners differed in the consistency of their ratings and in the ratings themselves. These...

www.aes.org

 

[waldo2]

The research was done by Dr Toole and published when he was with the National Research Council of Canada, many years before he went to work for Harman, so it was not "done to sell speakers". Example:

AES E-Library » Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance

With adequate attention to the details of experiment design and the selection of participants, listening tests on loudspeakers yielded sound-quality ratings that were both reliable and repeatable. Certain listeners differed in the consistency of their ratings and in the ratings themselves. These...

www.aes.org

You may be right, I was only relying on Amir’s statement in the video that the research was performed for national research council in Canada specifically to help develop Canadian speaker manufacturing and sell more speakers. If that is wrong, I apologize.

 

[preload]

I think it’s a bit of exaggeration to say “the research shows‘ like there’s a long established body of research, tested in peer reviewed journals and generated by disinterested scientists over a long period of time. No disrespect intended to Toole, but science is, at best, controversial and really not science at all. It is admittedly a commercial endeavor even if undertaken by an expert. It is designed to sell speakers, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I wouldn’t call it ”the research” and expect us all to acquiesce just be cause you utter the magic words. It’s not the theory of evolution and It’s not replicated or tested or repeated.

You need to lower your standards. You can't possibly compare research in audio engineering to research in other disciplines. The Harman papers were obviously funded by Harman. That is disclosed.

Replication? You're joking, right? We're lucky enough as it to get the primary papers published by Harman. No other company is supporting research and publication of findings that could be used by competitors. But hey if you control grant funds for audio research I'm sure there would be people lined up to replicate and expand on the work of Olive/Toole.

But, I think it is a mistake to some Research done to sell speakers end the conversation and to use it as a cudgel to beat anyone who doesn’t want to drink the cool-aide.

Ironically, I think it is a mistake to dismiss the findings of published, peer reviewed research because your opinion is that it was all fabricated in order to "sell speakers." You mention that you mean no disrespect to Toole and Olive, yet isn't that what you're basically saying? That their work was fabricated? Or do you have an issue with the8r methodology? Or the statistical analysis? Or what conclusions can be drawn from their studies?

I understand that frequency response is king around here, and of course it is a critical part of speaker evaluation. But does anyone ever stop to question whether there may be other virtues as well, in this case the spatial performance of the speaker. It’s not enough to say that prefer for speakers with certain frequency response trumps everything else.

I agree that there's more to SQ than the FR/directivity we typically measure and interpret, but I disagree that the spatial quality of stereo speakers is likely high that important. Otherwise nobody would ever listen to headphones.

 

[waldo2]

You need to lower your standards. You can't possibly compare research in audio engineering to research in other disciplines. The Harman papers were obviously funded by Harman. That is disclosed.

Replication? You're joking, right? We're lucky enough as it to get the primary papers published by Harman. No other company is supporting research and publication of findings that could be used by competitors. But hey if you control grant funds for audio research I'm sure there would be people lined up to replicate and expand on the work of Olive/Toole.


Ironically, I think it is a mistake to dismiss the findings of published, peer reviewed research because your opinion is that it was all fabricated in order to "sell speakers." You mention that you mean no disrespect to Toole and Olive, yet isn't that what you're basically saying? That their work was fabricated? Or do you have an issue with the8r methodology? Or the statistical analysis? Or what conclusions can be drawn from their studies?


I agree that there's more to SQ than the FR/directivity we typically measure and interpret, but I disagree that the spatial quality of stereo speakers is likely high that important. Otherwise nobody would ever listen to headphones.

In no way did I intend to imply fabrication. Only that it Could be wrong because it hasn’t been replicated or really subject to strict peer scrutiny in academic journals over a period of time, Also, that motivated by commerce, no matter the honorability of the researcher, deserves even a higher level of scrutiny. This seems uncontroversial.

also, I, really hate headphones. i am not alone in this. their spatial characteristics make them nearly unlistenable for music to me.

 

[YSC]

In no way did I intend to imply fabrication. Only that it Could be wrong because it hasn’t been replicated or really subject to strict peer scrutiny in academic journals over a period of time, Also, that motivated by commerce, no matter the honorability of the researcher, deserves even a higher level of scrutiny. This seems uncontroversial.

also, I, really hate headphones. i am not alone in this. their spatial characteristics make them nearly unlistenable for music to me.

I just wondered, as far as I understanding goes spatial quality is related to how the sound bounces off the walls to your position, and their relative time/latency of arrival to your ears combined to make you perceive the sound source. By this a accurate speaker should be best at being consistent in spatial perception, where reflections are controlled by the room

 

[Pearljam5000]

 

[Sancus]

Of course you have seen some evidence: I just told you what I heard. I surely understand why you completely discount it. It is information, however, that is completely missing from Amir‘s Review.

The problem is that sighted opinions from uncontrolled tests aren't worth much. Honestly, I even consider Amir's subjective impressions to be a limited data point. And I know I can trust that he not only A/B tests carefully level matched, but also uses EQ both to resolve bass issues and to narrow down anything he is hearing to an actual identifiable issue with the speaker, as often as possible. For me to actually take it seriously, an opinion of how a speaker sounds must be at LEAST that rigorous.

It's fine to be skeptical of the research. There's many aspects of it that I'm skeptical about it or that I wish there was more information about - dispersion width, vertical directivity, how different types of measured distortion correlate with audible flaws, etc. But only rigorous tests can actually advance our understanding. Endlessly discussing subjective opinions is not productive.

And yes, members do rigorous tests sometimes, heck, members have run actual blind tests! And that's great work which spawns actually interesting discussion!

 

[Frank Dernie]

But does anyone ever stop to question whether there may be other virtues as well, in this case the spatial performance of the speaker.

IME, which goes back messing about for over 50 years now, the position of the speakers and listener in the room, and the distribution of furnishings has a bigger effect on the spatial effect than the speaker itself.

I also accept that it is just that, an effect, since two definitely isn't enough channels for genuine accurate location and a surprising result of an experiment we did on noise over 20 years ago was that adding noise increased the apparent size, particularly depth, of the stereo image.

I am of the opinion that spatiality is at least in part a pleasing artifact rather than a key indicator of accurate reproduction.

Having written that I must point out that I have never bought speakers without listening to them myself and have found some highly regarded speakers on my short list to listen disappointing.

 

[fredoamigo]

In any case, thank you to waldo2
for bravely providing a dissonant voice in this chorus of praise. Not everything is black and white and there is always a grey area to explore and there is certainly grey with the 8361 as with others.
One learns from one's opponents, they help to strengthen and better understand one's own position by forcing one to produce a reasoning, or conversely, they modify it. The fact of forging an opinion through contradiction seems to me more enriching...

 

[Purité Audio]

The Gen 8351Bs had superb pin point imaging on a par with the Kiis.
Keith

 

[thewas]

I also accept that it is just that, an effect, since two definitely isn't enough channels for genuine accurate location and a surprising result of an experiment we did on noise over 20 years ago was that adding noise increased the apparent size, particularly depth, of the stereo image.

Just out of curiosity was the noise mono or "stereo" (uncorrelated)? I have the feeling that loudspeakers and headphones with higher pair imbalance also tend to sound more spacious.

 

[YSC]

In any case, thank you to waldo2
for bravely providing a dissonant voice in this chorus of praise. Not everything is black and white and there is always a grey area to explore and there is certainly grey with the 8361 as with others.
One learns from one's opponents, they help to strengthen and better understand one's own position by forcing one to produce a reasoning, or conversely, they modify it. The fact of forging an opinion through contradiction seems to me more enriching...

true, and one thing I can think of is Genelec didn't align the phases of the frequiencies, so maybe it's phase shift or something makes certain situation sounds unrealistic, but who knows

 

[dominikz]

I think it’s a bit of exaggeration to say “the research shows‘ like there’s a long established body of research, tested in peer reviewed journals and generated by disinterested scientists over a long period of time. No disrespect intended to Toole, but science is, at best, controversial and really not science at all.

In no way did I intend to imply fabrication. Only that it Could be wrong because it hasn’t been replicated or really subject to strict peer scrutiny in academic journals over a period of time,

These kind of comments sadden me.
There's probably close to 100 years of peer-reviewed published science available, and thousands of papers have lead to where we are with our current understanding of audio, acoustics and psychoacoustics. Thousands of researchers from various universities, companies and institutes have contributed to this body of work.
Sure, there is room for improvement - there always is in science - but that doesn't mean the very valid science that has been done should be dismissed.

 

[Elkios]

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

So the 15inch Kicker solo baric sub went lol.

 

[Sancus]

true, and one thing I can think of is Genelec didn't align the phases of the frequiencies

This was actually added in GLM4.1, they're phase linear down to 100hz now, if you accept an additional ~4ms of latency for a total of ~7-8 depending on the model. It also reduces the group delay.

Spoiler

 

[Frgirard]

These kind of comments sadden me.
There's probably close to 100 years of peer-reviewed published science available, and thousands of papers have lead to where we are with our current understanding of audio, acoustics and psychoacoustics. Thousands of researchers from various universities, companies and institutes have contributed to this body of work.
Sure, there is room for improvement - there always is in science - but that doesn't mean the very valid science that has been done should be dismissed.

Where are this 100 years ? All I have readed on the subject Toole inclued has more to do with psychology than engeenering.
Even the humanities use more mathematics than the audio world

The science called hard science has never been used in audio. A mix between woodwork, engeneering and auditory tasting.