I think that the Genelec blurb about flattening the in-room response is in complete contradiction to what was being recommended by Dr. Toole in this thread earlier (and my rants on many occasions in other threads!).
There you have it: the speaker is being set up wrongly (in the opinion of some of us) yet being used as a "reference" in the recording industry. I do wonder if this is responsible for some of the recordings over the years that I have heard that are mysteriously unsatisfying at the top end, with the engineers compensating for the over-bright sound (for as long as they can bear to listen to the 'reference setting') by shaving off the top end.
And after they've had enough, the 'science' is overridden with some ad hoc arbitrary tweaks that may make the sound more bearable:
Clearly they are confused by the awfulness of the sound of their own automated 'room correction' system, but they continue to sell it it.
@Cosmik , I read your funny tease and thought I should tease back.
You wrote: "
I do wonder if this is responsible for some of the recordings over the years that I have heard that are mysteriously unsatisfying at the top end, with the engineers compensating for the over-bright sound (for as long as they can bear to listen to the 'reference setting') by shaving off the top end".
Then you go on an imply that Genelec is part of the problem which you formulate as shaving off top-end frequencies due to using wrong in-room curves.
Let's look at the data to replace your confusion and prejudices with facts and science. Take a look at figures 33, 34 and 35 on pages 96, 97 and 98 in this excellent master thesis (figures are posted below as well) from 2012:
www.makingsciencenews.com/catalogue/papers/394/download
This thesis is excellent in my eyes due to its empirical nature. In my view, there's too little empirical analysis around and too much theorizing (however, only measurements without theory is not satisfying either, so there needs to be a mix of empirical data and theory in a good research program). The master thesis by Rudolf Matthis Ortner, is based on a vast empirical database of 10.000 recordings in the past 60 years. The clever student has analysed the tracks and looks at things like average (median) frequency response etc.
What the empirical record (sic!) tells us is that the low frequencies have been pumped up for decades. Additionally, the lower frequencies are clustered a bit differently in modern times as compared to the 1950s. The high frequencies have been increased as well. But the bass frequencies have increased more than high frequencies. From 1982-1984 to 2006-2008, low frequencies (122 Hz) increased by 12 dB. High frequencies (8318 Hz) increased by 8,5 dB from 1979-1981 to 2003-2005. Hence the title of the thesis: "Je lauter desto mehr Bumm" (the louder the boomier).
In other words: You are sort of right in your remark that the high end may be a bit missing on recordings compared to the norm of yesteryear, relative to the low frequencies. However, this trend - boosting the low frequencies more than boosting the high frequencies - is so massive and clear that it would be conspirative to use Genelec's speakers to explain this phenomenon.
Instead of launching esoteric conspiration theories on room curves, the master student concludes that the empirical data is evidence of the loudness war; and in this decades long process the bass frequencies have increased the most.
To conclude, as you do, that Genelec and broadcast specifications is the explanation of the loudness war is a bit off I guess. I have never seen that argument before; that Genelec and others, making products that can be applied according to broadcast specifications, are the culprits in the loudness war debate.
In other words, it seems like your problem with the modern sound is attributable to the loudness war. Going from there to conclude that the loudness war is due to pro monitor producers and the frequency curve of such monitors seems confused.
Your comments on Genelec monitors are the product of invention and phantasy. GLM, and before that dip switches (all Genelec monitors still have dip switches), would let the user have the anechoically flat sound if he wanted to. Genelec never made monitors that are coloured. And the changing of the monitor characteristics due to room influences or to avoid listening fatigue was always voluntary, just a switch or click away from anechoically flat.
What remains of your comment is that you tried to put the blame for the loudness war on Genelec. And instead of criticizing EBU and those that make the standards, you criticize Genelec. So I guess your comment is a good example of the "Love hate relationship" people have with Genelec. As in other walks of life, hate is often the result of ignorance. And in pursuing hate, science loses.
Having said that, what strikes me in this discussion is that you so often use the opportunity to point out that people listen through the room. This means, implicitly, that people know what a good loudspeaker sounds like in-room. So far so good and in full compliance with established research by Toole, Genelec and others. And then, forgetting your prior stated scientifically supported view that people can separate good from poor speakers, you speculate that audio engineers in studios are different; as if they wouldn't hear if dip switches or DSP room software harmed the sound instead of improving it. In other words, in your world, audio engineers are different; they have poor ears. However, since you can't prove that audio engineers have significantly poorer ears than the rest of the population, this is another example of your starting with an interesting first principle (good speakers are anechoically flat and people like neutral sound, etc.) that you push too far, which then leads to false conclusions.
Teasingly (!!!) yours,
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------