Genelec 83x0 vs 83x1

[q3cpma]

USD, 8260 monitors for under $6,000

New?

But the audible difference ports make is usually allowing air to move without chuffing, which the flared ports on the 8260 also does well. the LSE is more or less a streched out version of the ports that Genelec uses on their monitors, flared at both ends of the constricted space, but in the case of the LSE port, it's a larger surface area.

Well, if you read Genelec's literature, the goal of LSE is to allow for an extremely long port. The fact that the air flow is optimal probably helps at high SPL, too.

I'm curious what you mean about losing coaxial advantages. Are you talking about the dual woofers in the 83x1 range being acoustically coaxial and allowing the directivity to be controlled at lower frequencies?

Didn't say lose. But it's obvious that vertical dispersion will suffer under and around 500 Hz, as the woofer isn't mounted coaxially. Quite visible in the measurements given: vertical is mostly smooth after 1.2 kHz.

The dispersion on the 8260 is similar to The Ones, as it's their progenitor, and measurements show the dispersion to be close. The 8361 seems to be a little closer to 45 degrees off axis before it's 3dB down, and the 8260 and 8351 are similarly close to the 30 degree mark.

Hmmm, comparing the 8351B and 8260, I see:
* 45°: 8351: -6 dB, 8260: -3 dB
* 60°: 8351: -10 dB, 8260: -5 dB
Generally, it looks like it's more "omni".

The power response is way smoother on the 8351, though.

I wish I had a plot for the JBL M2 dispersion. Wouldn't be surprised if Genelec beat them at their own game, and with 1/3 of the physical volume too.

Wouldn't be surprised, but the max SPL of the M2 competes more with the 1237/8 than the 8260.

Not bashing the Ones, as I think they are well engineered, but I think it's important to recognize where they are better (more controlled directivity in the larger models, and better vertical dispersion,) vs where they aren't quite as good, (bass extension, and dispersion in the models that are smaller than the 8260.)

Don't worry, I understand. The fact that a subwoofer is needer to even match the 8260 is quite a testimony by itself. While the boy inside me wants to see a 8260B, I know that it's worse than separate subs; unless you consider total volume, of course.

Also, hiss: I've heard the class D in the 8240, and they did a really good job getting rid of hiss. Anyone with "The Ones" know if they hiss even less? I should dig for the self noise measurements, as those might show it, but another concern with the newer 83x1a models is the larger, perhaps more efficient tweeter having a bit more hiss, which to me isn't worth it because the "advantage" of the larger tweeter is loudness, and I don't play any speakers at max volume or even close unless I unlock them to show off to friends.

Well, the specs of is the same for every model using their class D amps: 5 dB(A) at 1 m, which is very low.

 

[stevenswall]

New?

Well, if you read Genelec's literature, the goal of LSE is to allow for an extremely long port. The fact that the air flow is optimal probably helps at high SPL, too.


Didn't say lose. But it's obvious that vertical dispersion will suffer under and around 500 Hz, as the woofer isn't mounted coaxially. Quite visible in the measurements given: vertical is mostly smooth after 1.2 kHz.


Hmmm, comparing the 8351B and 8260, I see:
* 45°: 8351: -6 dB, 8260: -3 dB
* 60°: 8351: -10 dB, 8260: -5 dB
Generally, it looks like it's more "omni".

The power response is way smoother on the 8351, though.


Wouldn't be surprised, but the max SPL of the M2 competes more with the 1237/8 than the 8260.


Don't worry, I understand. The fact that a subwoofer is needer to even match the 8260 is quite a testimony by itself. While the boy inside me wants to see a 8260B, I know that it's worse than separate subs; unless you consider total volume, of course.


Well, the specs of is the same for every model using their class D amps: 5 dB(A) at 1 m, which is very low.

Page three of this shows how Genelec does bent ports in the 8000 series. The LSE port is about 1.3 of the circumference of the woofer, so for an 8" woofer the port is ~8.3". The port in 8000 series monitors looks to be about 2/3 of the height, so 14.6 for the 8260. The LSE port does allow for a very large amount of air to pass though, but I think that's because of how wide it is.

https://www.fullcompass.com/common/files/11294-8030ADataSheet.pdf

Yes, the 8351 and 8360 control dispersion better in general. The 8260 is more comparable to those than the 8341/31 except when it comes to vertical directivity. The "in no way comparable" and "omni" sound doesn't seem to hold true unless you're looking at specific areas of the vertical dispersion, and the tradeoff is the bass extension, which I think more people would notice.

And yeah, the M2 seems like it just goes louder. I wonder if it controls the directivity better than the Genelec monitors. (8260 and 8361.)

I'd rather see an improved 8361 that goes deeper than the 8260 and, for the sake of reaching for the best of what's possible, matches or bests the +/-1dB spec of the 8260. Heck, maybe if they use HP's metal 3D printers, they could make a port like the LSE but folded several times in the back of the speaker and have the slot run vertically along the back side, or have two slots on each side in front but hidden by the baffle which would 'float' even more than it already does.

Power response wise, are you talking about the blip around 700hz for the 8260? Other than that, if that graph is supposed to drop off more steeply, I suppose the 8351 is better.

 

[q3cpma]

Page three of this shows how Genelec does bent ports in the 8000 series. The LSE port is about 1.3 of the circumference of the woofer, so for an 8" woofer the port is ~8.3". The port in 8000 series monitors looks to be about 2/3 of the height, so 14.6 for the 8260. The LSE port does allow for a very large amount of air to pass though, but I think that's because of how wide it is.

Well, it is indeed very long on the classics, but the sub's is also very thin. It just doesn't seem mad to me that a dedicated subwoofer would be better than a big woofer sharing the enclosure of a speaker when it comes to optimal design. And 4-way is probably better than 3.

Power response wise, are you talking about the blip around 700hz for the 8260? Other than that, if that graph is supposed to drop off more steeply, I suppose the 8351 is better.

Well, there's the 700 Hz peak, but the fall from 200 Hz is quite steep too. The goal is to be linear, I think.

I just think that the desire to keep the subwoofer and speaker stuck together non coaxially at a frequency where directivity counts isn't really a good idea. The only advantage is that no speaker that size can give you as good of a performance.
On the subject of linearity, it's indeed sad that the Ones can't match the 8260. I do wonder why, because it looks like the 8351B goes outside the +/-1 dB in the highs.

 

[stevenswall]

8361 is the upgrade/successor for 8260. 10 years of driver and amp improvements, plus much larger waveguide. Constant directivity to 60hz with W371 add on.

Yes, it's the replacement model. Driver and amp improvements are to serve transparency... Amps are already transparent when it comes to frequency response and distortion, so I don't think that is a factor for my ears. Drive improvement I think has regressed if the updated coaxial with ridges is causing the less tight frequency response figure. The large waveguide is certainly nice on the 8351 and 8361, though the smaller ones don't seem to control directivity as low as the older 8260.

Back to the OP though if we're looking at the 8341 vs 8260 used it looks like on and off axis is better on the latter, plus bass response.

I concede the point about the power response curve, but need to understand what that is. If it's just power consumption at specific frequencies, it seems irrelevent, as if a speaker measures flat but every other frequency takes 1000x the power as the frequency right before it, so long as the frequency response is flat, that doesn't seem to matter, but I hope that's not what it is.

Explanation would be useful:

 

[q3cpma]

Back to the OP though if we're looking at the 8341 vs 8260 used it looks like on and off axis is better on the latter, plus bass response.

I don't see it that as "better". Wider, yes.

I concede the point about the power response curve, but need to understand what that is.

See https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...mkii-and-control-1-pro-monitors-review.10811/, power response is the same as sound power: the sum of sound radiated in all directions from the speaker.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

Yes, it's the replacement model. Driver and amp improvements are to serve transparency... Amps are already transparent when it comes to frequency response and distortion, so I don't think that is a factor for my ears. Drive improvement I think has regressed if the updated coaxial with ridges is causing the less tight frequency response figure. The large waveguide is certainly nice on the 8351 and 8361, though the smaller ones don't seem to control directivity as low as the older 8260.

5 dB higher peak SPL above 100hz and smoother frequency response.

 

[stevenswall]

Well, it is indeed very long on the classics, but the sub's is also very thin. It just doesn't seem mad to me that a dedicated subwoofer would be better than a big woofer sharing the enclosure of a speaker when it comes to optimal design. And 4-way is probably better than 3.


Well, there's the 700 Hz peak, but the fall from 200 Hz is quite steep too. The goal is to be linear, I think.

I just think that the desire to keep the subwoofer and speaker stuck together non coaxially at a frequency where directivity counts isn't really a good idea. The only advantage is that no speaker that size can give you as good of a performance.
On the subject of linearity, it's indeed sad that the Ones can't match the 8260. I do wonder why, because it looks like the 8351B goes outside the +/-1 dB in the highs.

True, a four way would be better. I'd go for an 8260+subs though since the directivity is more controlled with the picture above, or if price is no object then add the W371 to the 8361 since that should do everything better, including bass. As far as sharing an enclosure though, the mid and tweeter are sealed in their own area, so consider it a large box for the 10" woofer, just with less port area.

Also, if the goal is to be linear, can that even be heard? If it's truly measuring electrical power required at a frequency relative to other frequencies, I don't see how it's useful, but I'm not sure what that is. If it's sound power output, then I don't understand how it can be outputting more power at some frequencies but still measure and sound flat.

 

[stevenswall]

5 dB higher peak SPL above 100hz and smoother frequency response.

I listen -16 or -20dB down with GLM, and turning the source up all the way with those settings is loud enough for me. Not sure about smoother frequency response, as it seems arguable even off axis with the picture posted above, and on axis the 8260 spec is better. Probably costs more but I'd rather see the f3 be 5hz lower than to have 5dB more peak volume.

Also on smoother frequency response: The 8260 looks more jagged like a less smoothed measurement with the 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 greaphs above. Not sure how to line things up to show the off axis but they look close and I'd give the lead to the 8260 which might be personal bias.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

I listen -16 or -20dB down with GLM, and turning the source up all the way with those settings is loud enough for me. Not sure about smoother frequency response, as it seems arguable even off axis with the picture posted above, and on axis the 8260 spec is better. Probably costs more but I'd rather see the f3 be 5hz lower than to have 5dB more peak volume.

Also on smoother frequency response: The 8260 looks more jagged like a less smoothed measurement with the 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 greaphs above. Not sure how to line things up to show the off axis but they look close and I'd give the lead to the 8260 which might be personal bias.

Spinorama and early reflection measurements would be best way to interpret frequency response.

 

[stevenswall]

Spinorama and early reflection measurements would be best way to interpret frequency response.

Yeah. I'm just going by the on and off axis measurements Genelec provides along with the polar response ones. I'd love to send my 8260 in to be measured, but got them used and would have to buy the original packaging too, to ensure they made it there and back without too many issues. Especially curious because "with ideal sub" seems to increase the score a lot, so I think the extra bass extension would help boost the score on these to be first on the leaderboard until an 8C or Kii Three are measured... Or the 8361. Or honestly the Devialet Phantom Reactor.

 

[q3cpma]

Yeah. I'm just going by the on and off axis measurements Genelec provides along with the polar response ones. I'd love to send my 8260 in to be measured, but got them used and would have to buy the original packaging too, to ensure they made it there and back without too many issues. Especially curious because "with ideal sub" seems to increase the score a lot, so I think the extra bass extension would help boost the score on these to be first on the leaderboard until an 8C or Kii Three are measured... Or the 8361. Or honestly the Devialet Phantom Reactor.

C'mon, these are Genelecs, harder than rock. A simple cardboard box with some foam would probably work (anything that can't enter the port). I used a LOT of crumpled paper sheets to recycle my old university courses, personally.

 

[stevenswall]

C'mon, these are Genelecs, harder than rock. A simple cardboard box with some foam would probably work (anything that can't enter the port). I used a LOT of crumpled paper sheets to recycle my old university courses, personally.

The original box in a box packaging rubbed the finish wrong in some places already, and the shell would survive, but the internals and exposed foam diaphragm are what I worry about. Plus they are expensive to ship and insure.

 

[soundwave76]

Now that you have had more time with them, do you think the difference going from the 8330 to 8331 is worth all the extra money?

For me, yes. Two reasons:

1. I use these in a ultra near field setup and the benefits to 8330 are clear to me, though not huge
2. These took away the 'upgrade itch' and gave me a piece of mind. Huge plus!

As noted earlier, these sound very easy and transparent and I don't think about them nor do I need to adjust the volume as often as earlier with the 8330. There were some aspects of the 8330 sound that made me pay attention the them and then think about adjusting the sound.

 

[temps]

Related GLM question - will it integrate a non-Genelec subwoofer? I have a sub here that out-performs pretty much anything Genelec has to offer. I don't expect GLM would calibrate the sub, but can it calibrate the monitors correctly (bass correction & high pass filter) so that I could use REQ and my sub's onboard DSP to calibrate the low bass?

 

[stevenswall]

Related GLM question - will it integrate a non-Genelec subwoofer? I have a sub here that out-performs pretty much anything Genelec has to offer. I don't expect GLM would calibrate the sub, but can it calibrate the monitors correctly (bass correction & high pass filter) so that I could use REQ and my sub's onboard DSP to calibrate the low bass?

No, it sends the test tones from an external sound card through ethernet cables to the speakers, and talks with their internal components to calibrate things.

Personally, I'm waiting until the Dirac bass management comes out, and then I will use that along with glm.

 

[hege]

Related GLM question - will it integrate a non-Genelec subwoofer? I have a sub here that out-performs pretty much anything Genelec has to offer. I don't expect GLM would calibrate the sub, but can it calibrate the monitors correctly (bass correction & high pass filter) so that I could use REQ and my sub's onboard DSP to calibrate the low bass?

You can set high pass filter for individual speakers with GLM. But only 50-100hz is available in 5hz steps and slope can't be choosed (I think it's around 24dB/oct), so it's slightly limited.

That's what I do, I use 50hz in GLM and my subs are handled with DCX2496.

 

[jinithin]

@boniek did you ever make your decision?
i'm currently having the exact same question.

 

[boniek]

@boniek did you ever make your decision?
i'm currently having the exact same question.

Nope. Covid situation did not help. I'm also considering something like minidsp shd power + elac dbr62. Total cost is similar to genelec 8330 with glm kit (and something like https://www.neutrik.com/en/product/naditbnc-m), but I can use my own cheaper subs. Too bad we don't have measurements for 8330, then I would be more certain what to do

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

I'm sending in the 8030C soon

 

[q3cpma]

I'm sending in the 8030C soon

Thanks a lot.