Genelec 8361A vs 8351B

[richard12511]

it also fills the room better as the direct sound waves dominate over reflections. That is always a good thing.

Not sure I agree with this. Maybe for mixing that's true(no experience there), but for enjoyment listening, Toole's research showed that wider dispersion(more indirect sound) is generally preferred, and it's why he expected the Salon2 to beat the M2(as it did).

 

[thewas]

Not sure I agree with this. Maybe for mixing that's true(no experience there), but for enjoyment listening, Toole's research showed that wider dispersion(more indirect sound) is generally preferred, and it's why he expected the Salon2 to beat the M2(as it did).

Mind you the comparison was done with mono single speakers far from the side walls which like at the 1985 Toole tests showed the largest advantage for wide radiating loudspeakers. Toole himself rather recommends high directivity loudspeakers for multichannel so it can be argued that stereo is an ambiguous case in between. (anecdotally in my current too live listing room very wide radiating loudspeakers are not pleasant for me at all)

 

[richard12511]

Mind you the comparison was done with mono single speakers far from the side walls which like at the 1985 Toole tests showed the largest advantage for wide radiating loudspeakers. Toole himself rather recommends high directivity loudspeakers for multichannel so it can be argued that stereo is an ambiguous case in between. (anecdotally in my current too live listing room very wide radiating loudspeakers are not pleasant for me at all)

Does he really recommend high directivity for multichannel? I've read where he's said that wide directivity is much less advantageous in multichannel, but not that higher directivity was better. He uses very wide directivity speakers in his own Auro3D setup.

 

[thewas]

Does he really recommend high directivity for multichannel? I've read where he's said that wide directivity is much less advantageous in multichannel, but not that higher directivity was better. He uses very wide directivity speakers in his own Auro3D setup.

You are right, not directly, but for example for multichannel he is not against side wall absorption like he is for stereo. Also his own room is quite wide and still I personally wouldn't use the setup he uses, but that is also personal preference.

 

[Sancus]

Does he really recommend high directivity for multichannel? I've read where he's said that wide directivity is much less advantageous in multichannel, but not that higher directivity was better. He uses very wide directivity speakers in his own Auro3D setup.

I can't find a quote that specific, but he has said that reflections don't really matter in multi-channel, and that the direct sound always dominates due to the number of sources. However, in his book in the multi-channel section he does state that wide-dispersion bipoles(not dipoles) make good side surrounds because they cover a wider area, but that seemed based around the idea of a multi-row theatre. And with the same reasoning, that CBTs might be the real optimal solution since they allow for more even sound even over a larger row(pictured are 13 seats in 3 rows of 3/5/5). Absorption is also advised at first reflection points as @thewas stated, and on rear and front walls, but with diffusers further back on the side walls between the surround speakers. That absorption is optional if you use the room for stereo as well, of course. (p. 422)

While it's true he uses wide-ish dispersion speakers in his own home setup(though no bipoles), not only are the first reflection points heavily treated/nonexistent(one is an open wall) but they are replaced with speakers at the +/- 60 degree point(in addition to side and rear surrounds).I suspect they are Front Wides nowadays since that is a supported configuration by some AVRs. So his room only has direct sound from the normal first reflection points regardless.

I would guess that the directivity width of surround speakers is secondary to the setup design and room considerations themselves. If you're in a situation where you can't treat as heavily, it does seem like they may be helpful, especially if you don't have such a large room to cover. On the other hand, if you do, it seems like wide, even dispersion is the way to go, with "even" being the most important attribute, I suspect.

 

[BDE]

Following a S&R review of the Genelec 8361A:

Genelec 8361A – 3-Wege-Studiomonitor mit voll-koaxialer Treiberanordnung im Test | SOUND & RECORDING (soundandrecording.de)

 

[Hephaestus]

Those measurements have been posted here several times.

The complete review in German is available as a pdf file @ Genelec website.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

I can't find a quote that specific, but he has said that reflections don't really matter in multi-channel, and that the direct sound always dominates due to the number of sources. However, in his book in the multi-channel section he does state that wide-dispersion bipoles(not dipoles) make good side surrounds because they cover a wider area, but that seemed based around the idea of a multi-row theatre. And with the same reasoning, that CBTs might be the real optimal solution since they allow for more even sound even over a larger row(pictured are 13 seats in 3 rows of 3/5/5). Absorption is also advised at first reflection points as @thewas stated, and on rear and front walls, but with diffusers further back on the side walls between the surround speakers. That absorption is optional if you use the room for stereo as well, of course. (p. 422)

While it's true he uses wide-ish dispersion speakers in his own home setup(though no bipoles), not only are the first reflection points heavily treated/nonexistent(one is an open wall) but they are replaced with speakers at the +/- 60 degree point(in addition to side and rear surrounds).I suspect they are Front Wides nowadays since that is a supported configuration by some AVRs. So his room only has direct sound from the normal first reflection points regardless.

I would guess that the directivity width of surround speakers is secondary to the setup design and room considerations themselves. If you're in a situation where you can't treat as heavily, it does seem like they may be helpful, especially if you don't have such a large room to cover. On the other hand, if you do, it seems like wide, even dispersion is the way to go, with "even" being the most important attribute, I suspect.

Would omnidirectional be the ideal?

 

[Sancus]

Would omnidirectional be the ideal?

For what, large room surrounds? No, he pretty clearly suggests CBTs are the ideal probably because among other things they have half the SPL loss over distance compared to a point source. So they can produce much better uniformity from seat to seat.

It's hard to see the point of a speaker with dispersion wider than +/- 90 degrees for multichannel. The speakers are usually mounted on or near boundaries after all.

Maybe in some specialized application, like I said a lot depends on your room characteristics.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Shouldn't the 8361A had more powerful amps for the Midrange + tweeter than the 8351B?

 

[Hephaestus]

Shouldn't the 8361A had more powerful amps for the Midrange + tweeter than the 8351B?View attachment 110502View attachment 110503

The coaxial drive unit is same. The limiting factor is the bass anyways. I don’t see reason for higher amp power - I think that 8361A is very balanced design.

 

[Frank Dernie]

You will never need the amount of spl that a S360 delivers. And more direct sound will automatically give more indirect sound. You cannot overpower indirect sound with more direct sound.

For wide dynamic range classical I would, in fact the S360 is marginal, even though for well over 90% of the time the music isn't that loud missing the 125dB+ peaks is very noticeable after you have enjoyed a system that can deliver them.
Having a bigger contribution of direct sound gives more accurate reproduction of recordings with plenty of recording venue acoustics in the recording IME, again older, pre-huge track numbers classical.
With modern multi tracked compressed recordings lots of indirect sound probably makes a nicer sound

 

[Sancus]

For wide dynamic range classical I would, in fact the S360 is marginal, even though for well over 90% of the time the music isn't that loud missing the 125dB+ peaks is very noticeable after you have enjoyed a system that can deliver them.

One of the benefits of multi-channel classical I think is that spreading the load over a minimum of 5 speakers instead of 2 gives you much more dynamic capability without needing so much SPL output per speaker.

 

[Puddingbuks]

I always thought that above 120db sound can cause instant damage to your ears.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I always thought that above 120db sound can cause instant damage to your ears.

The peaks are very very short in the music I listen to and are such a short duration of the entire work that on commercial recordings they are compressed to get a normal average listening level.
I worked in motor racing and the unsilenced engines are very loud. I took my noise meter once to check and the engine idling in the (resonant) pit garage it was already on the end stop so >126dB.
That is certainly above my threshold of pain but unless you are unaware that the mechanic is about to warm it up (guess how I know it is above my threshold of pain...), you could stick your fingers in your ears.
Hearing damage is time and intensity limited. My hearing is better than average for my age despite working in noisy environment but taking precautions.
My wife's hearing is much worse than mine but she spent many hours at the piano, and the sound level there is surprisingly high, around 90dB sitting at the piano stool and the recommendation is for less than 2h30 at that level per day and for many years she practiced for way longer than that.

 

[Sancus]

I always thought that above 120db sound can cause instant damage to your ears.

125dBA yes, absolutely. 125dbC, maybe not depending on what frequency the peak is at. It is absurdly loud though and sounds like it doesn't happen with commercial recordings anyways. Personally I wouldn't want to regularly experience such levels at home. I can understand the attraction of having that capability... But I'm also the kind of person who wears musician's earplugs at concerts and in really any case where I'm likely to experience anything above 110dB or so.

 

[Spocko]

125dBA yes, absolutely. 125dbC, maybe not depending on what frequency the peak is at. It is absurdly loud though and sounds like it doesn't happen with commercial recordings anyways. Personally I wouldn't want to regularly experience such levels at home. I can understand the attraction of having that capability... But I'm also the kind of person who wears musician's earplugs at concerts and in really any case where I'm likely to experience anything above 110dB or so.

This is the number one reason why I dread the IMAX "experience" sometimes because in the extended action sequences the volume is simply excessive.

 

[daftcombo]

Isn't he sitting a bit close to them?

 

[Puddingbuks]

It looks ridiculous.

 

[Hephaestus]

Isn't he sitting a bit close to them?

Only in Finland....

These can be used as near fields too