Genelec GLM Review (Room EQ & Setup)

[Ellebob]

In a nutshell, since I do this for a living. You need EQ whether using one sub or multiple. Very difficult to get a flat response even with multiple subs. What you want is a response you can equalize, meaning no dips that can't be fixed with EQ.

If you are mixing music for instance and you only sit in one spot all the time, one sub is fine as a long as your seat and sub are positioned in good locations. You will still need EQ.

If you are doing this for home theater or multiple listening locations multiple subs help get a more consistent response in the various seats. You still need to have your seats in good locations as some locations you won't be able to fix. With acoustics like real estate it is all about location, location, location. Location of seating, subs, speakers and acoustic treatments are very important to get the best possible sound. Identifying those locations is a more in depth topic

 

[Kervel]

Regarding multiple subs, there's this on the Genelec site, which I interpret as meaning that it is possible to position additional subs so as to fill in dips but you're on your own to figure out the placement.

https://support.genelec.com/hc/en-u...enefits-of-having-one-or-multiple-subwoofers-

Trial and error of all the placement combinations of two subs is a ton of work. Especially awkward since all the necessary hardware to run a multisub optimization is already present--its just the software lacking this function.

 

[Thomas Lund]

To faithfully reproduce great acoustic recordings, a flattish frequency response of perceived-direct sound is just one of the goals. More importantly, to me, the monitoring room and sound system need to convey moving patterns of sound latent in the recording, especially between 40 and 200 Hz. This is where to hear the soul of a concert hall or church, in case it has been recorded.

Collapsing discrete channels to a single sub channel should therefore be a last resort, e.g. if the reproduction room/placement is difficult and/or to accommodate multiple listeners.

Taking advantage of discrete channel reproduction at low frequency has even spread outside acoustic recordings. Top pop/rock productions now also make use of such perceptual excitement, which will remain a secret to “collapsers”

 

[tifune]

, especially between 40 and 200 Hz.

Collapsing discrete channels to a single sub channel should therefore be a last resort, e.g. if the reproduction room/placement is difficult and/or to accommodate multiple listeners.

Any creative ways you've seen this done on a lower budget? Without a dedicated room, it sounds like you're describing at least a 5.1 of W371+8351s. Which, of course, sounds awesome (literally and figuratively - I've heard them in the London experience center) but WAY beyond reasonable price for non-pro users.

I've tried to do it routing all respective channels of L/R to L/R-dedicates 7350s, then crossed over at 40Hz to 7370. I liked the result, but I suspect it's not exactly what you're describing (and still $$$$)

 

[Hmast]

Id Genelec can read this, GLM 4.3 can be a very attractive update with dual sub guidance.

To faithfully reproduce great acoustic recordings, a flattish frequency response of perceived-direct sound is just one of the goals. More importantly, to me, the monitoring room and sound system need to convey moving patterns of sound latent in the recording, especially between 40 and 200 Hz. This is where to hear the soul of a concert hall or church, in case it has been recorded.

Collapsing discrete channels to a single sub channel should therefore be a last resort, e.g. if the reproduction room/placement is difficult and/or to accommodate multiple listeners.

Taking advantage of discrete channel reproduction at low frequency has even spread outside acoustic recordings. Top pop/rock productions now also make use of such perceptual excitement, which will remain a secret to “collapsers”

I'm surprised to read this but opened to know more.

Aren't frequencies below ~100hz nearly impossible to locate? If so, with subs covering the 20-80hz what are the benefits of giving each of them a right or left channel?

To me, a single sub with both channels' bass, place between the front speakers should not provide any cons compared to a sub placed to each speaker. But if I'm wrong I'm excited to know I can improve my current setup

 

[Kervel]

To faithfully reproduce great acoustic recordings, a flattish frequency response of perceived-direct sound is just one of the goals. More importantly, to me, the monitoring room and sound system need to convey moving patterns of sound latent in the recording, especially between 40 and 200 Hz. This is where to hear the soul of a concert hall or church, in case it has been recorded.

Collapsing discrete channels to a single sub channel should therefore be a last resort, e.g. if the reproduction room/placement is difficult and/or to accommodate multiple listeners.

Taking advantage of discrete channel reproduction at low frequency has even spread outside acoustic recordings. Top pop/rock productions now also make use of such perceptual excitement, which will remain a secret to “collapsers”

Thank you for your response. I happily use Genelecs in my living room--poorly treated and wanting good sound for multiple listeners, so yes I am a collapser I would much appreciate Genelecs guidance here, also in view of competitors offering multisub DSP solutions.

 

[Thomas Lund]

Any creative ways you've seen this done on a lower budget? Without a dedicated room, it sounds like you're describing at least a 5.1 of W371+8351s. Which, of course, sounds awesome (literally and figuratively - I've heard them in the London experience center) but WAY beyond reasonable price for non-pro users.

I've tried to do it routing all respective channels of L/R to L/R-dedicates 7350s, then crossed over at 40Hz to 7370. I liked the result, but I suspect it's not exactly what you're describing (and still $$$$)

Considering multichannel, it's only in demanding applications I would suggest more than two subs, i.e. L and R, with C and LFE channel feeding both.

Id Genelec can read this, GLM 4.3 can be a very attractive update with dual sub guidance.

I'm surprised to read this but opened to know more.

Aren't frequencies below ~100hz nearly impossible to locate? If so, with subs covering the 20-80hz what are the benefits of giving each of them a right or left channel?

To me, a single sub with both channels' bass, place between the front speakers should not provide any cons compared to a sub placed to each speaker. But if I'm wrong I'm excited to know I can improve my current setup

It's not primarily about localization, more about reproducing the swirling LF patterns a fine concert hall generates when music is being played. With acoustical summation in a reproduction room, there is a chance of hearing them, while electrical summation surely kills such joy. Also, we actually localize all the way down to a static pressure change (DC). It's indoor conditions messing up our senses

Thank you for your response. I happily use Genelecs in my living room--poorly treated and wanting good sound for multiple listeners, so yes I am a collapser I would much appreciate Genelecs guidance here, also in view of competitors offering multisub DSP solutions.

No worries, but I tried not to be brand specific However, there are quite a few ways two or more Genelec subs may be used, though sometimes involving manual adjustment, besides from frequency response compensation.

 

[Trell]

Considering multichannel, it's only in demanding applications I would suggest more than two subs, i.e. L and R, with C and LFE channel feeding both.


It's not primarily about localization, more about reproducing the swirling LF patterns a fine concert hall generates when music is being played. With acoustical summation in a reproduction room, there is a chance of hearing them, while electrical summation surely kills such joy. Also, we actually localize all the way down to a static pressure change (DC). It's indoor conditions messing up our senses


No worries, but I tried not to be brand specific However, there are quite a few ways two or more Genelec subs may be used, though sometimes involving manual adjustment, besides from frequency response compensation.

GLM could offer the option to “Collapsing discrete channels to a single sub channel”, though. Most content is mixed/mastered that way as well, be it multichannel or not.

 

[Thomas Lund]

GLM could offer the option to “Collapsing discrete channels to a single sub channel”, though. Most content is mixed/mastered that way as well, be it multichannel or not.

Genelec 73 series subs include the capability to collapse (or not to collapse) bass managed channels. Mastering studios, from stereo to immersive, IMO should be able to listen without low frequency collapse, or you cannot hear what's in the source.

 

[HairyEars]

SAM speakers and the GLM kit should be mandatory if you're buying Genelec... Once you get rid of coaxial drivers and GLM, there's less reason to go with Genelec unless you're in Europe where it's cheaper or if you need the mounting options. Going to their box shaped speaker series I'd say there is zero reason because then you're simply buying a generic active speaker without the cabinet, room correction, or coaxial advantages.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. First off, the Genelec boxes have room correction onboard, without exception. 1032C and upward. As for their sound, nothing generic about it, as you can deduce from the first 18 years of the company existence, when MDF boxes where their only ware. During that time, Genelec grew in leaps and bounds, building up a sizable and appreciative customer base. Only in 1996 did they introduce the first aluminum enclosures.

I own several of their old and modern MDF boxes and a couple of coax pairs. For recreational, to my ears, the boxes trump the coax hands down. The former is lush and creamy, while the latter sterile and analytical, with a slit design radiating unpleasantly to my ears.

If you’re going to wave measurement charts to counter my points, then know that those charts are much more simplistic and limited than you’re led to believe; surely not telling the entire story.

If you have the opportunity, audition some Genelec mains in a well-treated room. You’ll be in for a treat.

 

[Ecksbocks]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. First off, the Genelec boxes have room correction onboard, without exception. 1032C and upward. As for their sound, nothing generic about it, as you can deduce from the first 18 years of the company existence, when MDF boxes where their only ware. During that time, Genelec grew in leaps and bounds, building up a sizable and appreciative customer base. Only in 1996 did they introduce the first aluminum enclosures.

I own several of their old and modern MDF boxes and a couple of coax pairs. For recreational, to my ears, the boxes trump the coax hands down. The former is lush and creamy, while the latter sterile and analytical, with a slit design radiating unpleasantly to my ears.

If you’re going to wave measurement charts to counter my points, then know that those charts are much more simplistic and limited than you’re led to believe; surely not telling the entire story.

If you have the opportunity, audition some Genelec mains in a well-treated room. You’ll be in for a treat.

Interesting, could you name some of the models you like for recreational use? I am a sound designer and work at a big film post production company with many control rooms. In some of the smaller rooms we still have 1031A, and they might sound smoother in some ways than the 80 series, but I miss the midrange that the 80 series produce and I also think that the bass have less definition.

 

[onion]

To faithfully reproduce great acoustic recordings, a flattish frequency response of perceived-direct sound is just one of the goals. More importantly, to me, the monitoring room and sound system need to convey moving patterns of sound latent in the recording, especially between 40 and 200 Hz. This is where to hear the soul of a concert hall or church, in case it has been recorded.

Agree with this - so much easier to hear the acoustics of the space where the the source was recorded with W371a compared to multi-sub. The sound is also 'bigger'

 

[HairyEars]

Interesting, could you name some of the models you like for recreational use? I am a sound designer and work at a big film post production company with many control rooms. In some of the smaller rooms we still have 1031A, and they might sound smoother in some ways than the 80 series, but I miss the midrange that the 80 series produce and I also think that the bass have less definition.

A cool job...

My stable includes the 1030A, 1032C and 1238DF. The former and is what got me into Genelec 22 years ago. Surprisingly capable for its size and lavished me with many years of pleasure.

The 1032C was a major step-up. A tight bass and adequate mids. A great value too. But it only whetted my appetite.

For me, the 1238DF is a dream-come-true, I spend an hour or two every day, haunting the deep recesses of SoundCloud for well mixed tracks, always excited anew. I won’t go hi-if flowery, only say it’s delicious.

From my experience, to extract what those monitors have to offer, a well treated room is a must. The calibration is merely the cherry on the pie. The mix also makes a big difference.

 

[Thomas Lund]

For recreational, to my ears, the boxes trump the coax hands down. The former is lush and creamy, while the latter sterile and analytical, with a slit design radiating unpleasantly to my ears.

Interesting comment worth a systematic study with in-room shufflers. Based on anecdotal listening, I have also heard recreational rooms/systems where coaxial radiation with controlled directivity in both planes wasn't the most pleasant, even compared to uncontrolled "Christmas-tree" loudspeakers. Maybe the "spatial blur" of traditional designs can sometimes be more forgiving or lively.

 

[sarantapodarousa]

Whats the typical lowest dBSPL that you see from the GML Mic in your room? I cant see anything below 46dB back usually its around 49-52. (No PC tower fan or other gear running, only a macbookpro m1, 5ft away from the mic)

 

[Esprit]

Now in the silence of the room GLM measures 33dB which is not very different from the measurement of my sound level meter.

 

[sarantapodarousa]

Now in the silence of the room GLM measures 33dB which is not very different from the measurement of my sound level meter.

hmm... is there anyting I need to do? There is no noise around my room too. No road, nothing..

 

[Esprit]

hmm... is there anyting I need to do? There is no noise around my room too. No road, nothing..

I don't think there is a level to adjust in GLM.
Get a sound level meter (or an app even if it won't be very accurate) and compare the data. Obviously the weighing will be different but to understand if your GLM works badly it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Esprit]

Using only one pair of monitors (no subs) what are the "most correct" settings to set for the measurement?

 

[sarantapodarousa]

When using analog signal do you leave GLM4 on 0.0db (the GUI volume slider)? In terms of SNR seems 'correct'?!?