Genelec vs Neumann: ime there is a different sound signature

[Marc v E]

This morning I went out to listen to the Neumann kh-150, because they seem the ideal monitor for a desktop setup for a reasonable price. And a serious upgrade over the Genelec 8030 I currently have.

It turned out they only had the Neumann 80, 120 and 310, so that's what I listened to. I noticed they had some Genelec monitors too, the 8030, 8040 and the 8331.

What really surprised me is that the Neumanns had a sound signature that was quite different than the Genelec one I am accustomed to.

Switching back and forth between Neumann and Genelec I would say Neumann sounds clearer with an emphasis on small details like the drummer making ritmic sounds on the high hat; bass vs lead guitar and different voices in a mix. To a point ime and imo that these details were more obvious than the lead singer. The downside is, imo, that it sounds less full, less phat, less rock and roll, more analytic.

The Genelecs sounded less detailed but more coherent, like all musicians were playing together to support the lead singer. Less detailed but more a whole ensemble, fuller sound. This was especially apparent with rock and roll, electric guitar sounds.

As a result I would never change from Genelec to Neumann. And I can well imagine that anyone used to Neumann would never be satisfied with any Genelec monitor, no matter how high end.

Imo Genelec are better suited to a home environment and Neumann to a studio, where detailed analysis is key. Ymmv, just my opinion.

I know at ASR we rely on the measurements. But this experience was so obvious to me that I wanted to write and share.

 

[dfuller]

Well, there's the thing, right? They measure well, but they don't measure that similarly. Genelecs as a general rule radiate a bit wider than Neumanns - most of those are about +/-50 degrees from on-axis for the -6dB beam, Genelec is usually +/-60 degrees or so, and the directivity curves are a bit different. Genelecs trend brighter in-room.

 

[AudioJester]

You only really notice these subtle things in a side by side comparison.
Otherwise Neuman or Genelec sound brilliant on their own. Owning both - I can not say I would pick one over rhe other because of "house" sound. I also could not say one was better than the other for home listening.
Even Genelecs sound different, my 8040 and 8361a have different presentations, accounting for bass output and extension. The Ones really are a significant step up.

 

[unpluggged]

Acoustical differences between the speakers aside, did you listen at exactly the same settings (i.e. flat controls) and exactly the same output level?

 

[Sokel]

My experience is probably the exact opposite with 8361 vs KH420.
It was the Neumanns that had the fuller sound and the Genelecs that sounded more detailed (I know it's a sacrilege but not in a nice way to my weird ears) .

To my taste,out of the box,I could live forever with the KH420 but not with the Genelecs.
Good thing is that both can be EQ'd up high,so...

 

[AudioJester]

My experience is probably the exact opposite with 8361 vs KH420.
It was the Neumanns that had the fuller sound and the Genelecs that sounded more detailed (I know it's a sacrilege but not in a nice way to my weird ears) .

To my taste,out of the box,I could live forever with the KH420 but not with the Genelecs.
Good thing is that both can be EQ'd up high,so...

Thankfully we have speaker choices for everyone

 

[dfuller]

My experience is probably the exact opposite with 8361 vs KH420.
It was the Neumanns that had the fuller sound and the Genelecs that sounded more detailed (I know it's a sacrilege but not in a nice way to my weird ears) .

To my taste,out of the box,I could live forever with the KH420 but not with the Genelecs.
Good thing is that both can be EQ'd up high,so...

Mine as well, Genelecs have a bit of a zing to them.

 

[test1223]

Good observation. At a certain performance level of speakers the sound signature is way more important than most people think. There is a wide agreement on strengths and weaknesses of some speakers but there is no universal agreement to rank these and on the final conclusion.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

At the same listening distance, you should also notice signature sound differences between each of the Neumann (against each other); same for Genelec.

This is fundamentally and intentionally built into the core engineering design of each of their products. Which is why those vendors suggests minimum / maximum distances for each of their models; though there are overlaps in some of the products at some distances.

One implication: you should only do the comparison between speakers in your listening environment and from your main listening position. That will be also be bit difficult since the odds are very high that the ideal placement of the speakers you are comparing will most likely overlap. And any change away from the ideal placement will have potentially profound impact on the sound signature just on its own.

 

[Marc v E]

Acoustical differences between the speakers aside, did you listen at exactly the same settings (i.e. flat controls) and exactly the same output level?

Same settings and decibels measured at the seating position. Not ideal, and it wasn't double blind if anyone wants to know, but the difference was quite obvious over the whole range of Neumann and Genelec. The 8331 sounded somewhat different but still easily recognisable as a Genelec.

As an aside, I thought out of the 3 Genelec monitors the 8040 was a real upgrade over the 8030 and fuller sounding than the 8331, especially with drums. (The 8351 is the best I heard of all Genelecs. I just wanted to mention the 8040 because I thought it was a great performer for relatively little money.)

From the Neumanns, the 310 was far and away the best monitor imo.

 

[DVDdoug]

Not ideal, and it wasn't double blind if anyone wants to know,

With speakers you can usually hear a difference anyway, so blind you'll still know which is which. It's still good to level-match to take-out that variable. (If you are reviewing speakers or evaluating speakers for purchase it's best if you don't know the brand, model, or price. But that's almost never the case.)

For monitoring (audio production) you don't want "bad" monitors but the main thing is that you learn what a good mix sounds like on your monitors in your room. You don't need "the best" or "perfect" monitors.

For hearing "little details" or "little defects" headphones may be better.

 

[dfuller]

For monitoring (audio production) you don't want "bad" monitors but the main thing is that you learn what a good mix sounds like on your monitors in your room. You don't need "the best" or "perfect" monitors.

Correct. And, at the end of the day, most speakers used as monitors are by and large "good enough". Even the brands that are given a lot of grief here are used successfully day-to-day by people actually working with audio.

 

[dshreter]

To a point ime and imo that these details were more obvious than the lead singer. The downside is, imo, that it sounds less full, less phat, less rock and roll, more analytic.

I’m not really sure what could account for this. It’s interesting to compare Neumann and Genelec, but any Neumanns are still amongst the most neutral speakers available on the market. That details are jumping out of the mix and overpowering the lead singer makes no objective sense. The speakers don’t know what they’re playing, whether it is details or vocals. If the “details” were in the treble and vocals in midrange, there’s still nothing to account for this as Neumanns are not tuned bright unless EQed that way.

 

[Marc v E]

I’m not really sure what could account for this. It’s interesting to compare Neumann and Genelec, but any Neumanns are still amongst the most neutral speakers available on the market. That details are jumping out of the mix and overpowering the lead singer makes no objective sense. The speakers don’t know what they’re playing, whether it is details or vocals. If the “details” were in the treble and vocals in midrange, there’s still nothing to account for this as Neumanns are not tuned bright unless EQed that way.

There is only one way to know what I mean, and that is to listen for yourself. You will probably notice the differences too. I suspect it has to do with personal preference and what you're accustomed to, but I'm pretty sure you'll prefer one presentation over the other.

Years ago I listened to the Kii Three, expecting it to sound wonderfull. They sounded neutral up to a point that I was first puzzled and after half an hour trying all my favourites, came to the conclusion that I just don't care for their sound signature. At all. The three's are really the marmite from the high end speaker world imo. Contrary to that experience, the Genelec 8351 to me sound absolutely wonderfull, stunning even. They both measure well and neutral.

It's hard for me to pinpoint it exactly why I prefer certain monitors. I would venture a guess it has to do with me preferring a somewhat stronger bass and downward slope than the more straight frequency in room response. And my music preference for rock 'n roll, pop and simple arrangements with guitars, like songs from Jack Johnson or Feist. Some of that material may not be that well recorded. I noticed that with the 8351 too. But with their presentation it didn't bother me.

 

[Halbknapp]

I had Neumann KH120A for a long time and now KH150, Genelec 8341 with the 7360 Sub and 8330. I too would say there is a Genelec and Neumann Sound signature. The 2 way Neumanns have a in room lower mid emphasis and the Genelec a wider high frequency radiation.

Still I would say that the room corrected similar sized genelec and Neumann nearfield sounds very much alike (the Neumann may sound more like the Genelec then the uncorrected neumann).

Even then Neumann Ma1 room and Genelec correction apply a bit different principles that would always result in slightly different sound (example Neumann Ma1 default suggests a slight bass boost while Genelec Glm5 only lowers bass modes)

 

[Ziltoe]

"Genelec vs Neumann: ime there is a different sound signature"


Yes, there is a difference in sound signature between both of the best studio monitor manufacturer products.

Perhaps you can make it a "poll" to look at what people prefer? No need for a poll whether or not they are different, they are.

Many people here, with reasonable argues, prefers Neumann [professionals, mixing and producing], on the other hand, Genelec folks
do either. A kind of battle?

I'm just wondering and being amused.

Hej, by the way, I would choose Genelec

 

[Marc v E]

The longer I think about it, and thanks to your posts above, the more I am inclined to think it is just the tilt of the frequency curve. Which could be changed with eq applied. I will play around with eq on my genelecs and see what impression they give me when bass is less strong, and the frequency curve flatter.

 

[holdingpants01]

Many people here, with reasonable argues, prefers Neumann [professionals, mixing and producing], on the other hand, Genelec folks
do either. A kind of battle?

I went from Klein+Hummel O96, through Neumanns KH120, KH310, KH310 with sub, to 8351B, 8351B with sub, then two subs and now finally to 8351B+W371A, with some other brands in between. All are good and aren't limiting the final outcome. What I like about the Genelecs that I ended up with them? GLM software, atmos integration, digital inputs, upgrade path (to W371A). Also there are good people working at Genelec and they have a great service if anything ever happen. Could I work on KH310? Sure, I did for two years, just like on KH120. Would I go back to Neumanns? If I had to downsize and could flush mount them - sure, I would just get KH420 with minidsp+dirac, as I don't really like using subs. I'm not in any camp other than using monitors as monitors, not some magical translation devices, but there's a lot of fashion and tribalism in the pro audio world, especially when there's any mention of ATCs lol
They can sound more different in terms of perceived sound in the room than they actually seem based on the measurents, but it mostly boils down to different dispersion that can result in different tilt, calibration software, sub integration, headroom, port placement etc. so in the end one would say Neumanns are brighter and other say Genelecs are. In specific situation, listening position, room and calibration profiles both are possible.

 

[Marc v E]

Ok, this is embarrassing, but important: it was most likely the tilt of the frequency curve.

When I apply a bass reduction in my Genelecs, I get a similar effect.
Lack of body, bass guitars get to the background, almost dissappearing and small details in the treble become more apparent.

All in all a good lesson how important eq is for speakers. Without it I could not know how a speaker would sound in my room. Which is what makes objective data important because then I know if I can succesfully apply eq to the speakers of my choice.

Which is probably why there is so much discussion on objective vs subjective...

 

[roog]

I've been thinking of going active for a while and these brands are my main candidates. I will be using them in a modest sized room 20 x 10.5 ft.
Is there a good full range model I should consider from this stable please?

I currently have medium sized floor standing speakers of infinite baffle design.