Genelec W371A + The Ones : My quest for the Grail is over

[srrxr71]

Good points Fredygump.

The calibration was very repeatable even with minor changes in the positioning of the mic. However...

I noticed a couple of things. On entering room dimensions in GLM, I had not switched length and width when I changed where the speakers were (originally either side of the piano). The GRADE report is very different just from changing the room dimensions around this way with everything else the same, so I believe some of the parameters are partly calculated based on inputted room dimensions rather than directly measured. This includes early reflection level which was in the green zone without any treatment or speaker placement changes when the room dimension measurements had been entered incorrectly.

The other thing I noticed was some ringing in a couple of bass frequencies when moving back 0.5 - 1m. So I think I'll need to redo GLM using multiple measuring points.

I did not know early reflection level is calculated based on the dimensions. I know all the RT60 stuff is though

 

[srrxr71]

That is interesting. Does GLM create a single calibration to even out multiple locations at the same time? From what I have seen, it is just calibrated to a single point, and you have to switch calibrations if you switch listening positions....that is, if you want optimal sound quality.

You have a choice to do either single or multiple. Multiple is meant to be used in small zone to average out any errors or support 2 perhaps side by side sweet spots.

You can calibrate multiple single mic measurements too. For example if you have clients sitting in a different position. You can just hit the button and offer them their ideal calibration.

You can even calculate multiple multiple mic calibrations if you wish.

 

[srrxr71]

I wonder if there might be any advantage to a calibration strategy which has the mic at one ear position and then asks you to place it at the other ear position.

Then it would have data from each monitor and what exactly it is sending to each ear. Then calculations can be made and options given.

 

[Fredygump]

I wonder if there might be any advantage to a calibration strategy which has the mic at one ear position and then asks you to place it at the other ear position.

Then it would have data from each monitor and what exactly it is sending to each ear. Then calculations can be made and options given.

That is doubtful. If you listen to a high frequency tone, like 1,000hz, and move your head around, you will notice the tone will get dramatically louder and softer. You might move 1" and the sound nulls, and then another 1" and it sounds extremely loud. It'll be loud in 1 ear, but quiet in the other. This is caused by comb filtering and room interaction.

So in room response is highly location and frequency dependent. The dips and spikes can't be fixed with EQ, because it all changes if you move your head slightly.

I don't believe there is a fix for this. In live sound there are strategies to minimize comb filtering by "de-correlating" left and right channels, usually by using multiple mics on an instrument and mixing those mics together differently on each channel. Dave Rat (youtube channel) talks about stuff like this. It's a little off the beaten path, but I think he has some valuable insights.

 

[srrxr71]

That is doubtful. If you listen to a high frequency tone, like 1,000hz, and move your head around, you will notice the tone will get dramatically louder and softer. You might move 1" and the sound nulls, and then another 1" and it sounds extremely loud. It'll be loud in 1 ear, but quiet in the other. This is caused by comb filtering and room interaction.

So in room response is highly location and frequency dependent. The dips and spikes can't be fixed with EQ, because it all changes if you move your head slightly.

I don't believe there is a fix for this. In live sound there are strategies to minimize comb filtering by "de-correlating" left and right channels, usually by using multiple mics on an instrument and mixing those mics together differently on each channel. Dave Rat (youtube channel) talks about stuff like this. It's a little off the beaten path, but I think he has some valuable insights.

But in a point source system?

 

[Fredygump]

But in a point source system?

The speaker design doesn't matter, because it's a characteristic of sound waves, not the speakers.

 

[srrxr71]

The speaker design doesn't matter, because it's a characteristic of sound waves, not the speakers.

Of course it matters. The waves come from a single point. I mean did you not know that before talking about waves. I mean please.

 

[Fredygump]

Of course it matters. The waves come from a single point. I mean did you not know that before talking about waves. I mean please.

My challenge to you is to play a high frequency test tone and move your head around slightly. Maybe walk around a little.

"Point Source" is the new and trendy way to advertise "coaxial" speakers, without calling them coaxial. Coaxials have been around for a long time. Coaxials have always been a mixed bag with some advantages and some disadvantages, and the thing Genelec has done is solve the typical problems associated with coaxial drivers.

But a tone coming from a coaxial speaker design behaves exactly the same as a tone coming from any other speaker, or a tone coming from any device that isn't a speaker but happens to emit a tone!

I highly recommend that you attempt this test. Try it in mono or stereo. Try it on different types of speakers. You will get the same result, and I think it will surprise you!

 

[srrxr71]

My challenge to you is to play a high frequency test tone and move your head around slightly. Maybe walk around a little.

"Point Source" is the new and trendy way to advertise "coaxial" speakers, without calling them coaxial. Coaxials have been around for a long time. Coaxials have always been a mixed bag with some advantages and some disadvantages, and the thing Genelec has done is solve the typical problems associated with coaxial drivers.

But a tone coming from a coaxial speaker design behaves exactly the same as a tone coming from any other speaker, or a tone coming from any device that isn't a speaker but happens to emit a tone!

I highly recommend that you attempt this test. Try it in mono or stereo. Try it on different types of speakers. You will get the same result, and I think it will surprise you!

Yes there are differences even in coaxials. But it’s a far cry from the weird phase effects you will hear from a near field speaker with non coincident drivers.

But yes I’ll give it a try tonight. I suppose it just comes down to the shape of your earlobe and face. That cannot be avoided.

 

[srrxr71]

My challenge to you is to play a high frequency test tone and move your head around slightly. Maybe walk around a little.

"Point Source" is the new and trendy way to advertise "coaxial" speakers, without calling them coaxial. Coaxials have been around for a long time. Coaxials have always been a mixed bag with some advantages and some disadvantages, and the thing Genelec has done is solve the typical problems associated with coaxial drivers.

But a tone coming from a coaxial speaker design behaves exactly the same as a tone coming from any other speaker, or a tone coming from any device that isn't a speaker but happens to emit a tone!

I highly recommend that you attempt this test. Try it in mono or stereo. Try it on different types of speakers. You will get the same result, and I think it will surprise you!

So I did try it you’re right. So I understand the usefulness of creating a virtual center or even deriving a center channel in software.

You want to be able to enjoy music with some head shaking haha. I suppose it’s the amount of tolerance you have in actual music.

But yes it’s a real problem.

 

[Fredygump]

So I did try it you’re right. So I understand the usefulness of creating a virtual center or even deriving a center channel in software.

You want to be able to enjoy music with some head shaking haha. I suppose it’s the amount of tolerance you have in actual music.

But yes it’s a real problem.

Another way to think of it is it shows how good we are at interpreting sound! The field of psychoacoustics tries to understand how we are able interpret sound so accurately when sound waves themselves are so messy.

I don't know how much of a problem it is, because we typically don't notice it even though it is always there. But it does demonstrate why acoustic treatment is so important to improve sound quality! Absorption reduces the amount of reflected sound, reducing this effect. And the Genelecs are fairly narrow directivity, which also helps.

The fix is acoustic treatment. It reduces the problems at higher frequencies. And then the W371A step in and help fix the low frequency problems that are difficult to fix with acoustic treatment alone!

 

[srrxr71]

Another way to think of it is it shows how good we are at interpreting sound! The field of psychoacoustics tries to understand how we are able interpret sound so accurately when sound waves themselves are so messy.

I don't know how much of a problem it is, because we typically don't notice it even though it is always there. But it does demonstrate why acoustic treatment is so important to improve sound quality! Absorption reduces the amount of reflected sound, reducing this effect. And the Genelecs are fairly narrow directivity, which also helps.

The fix is acoustic treatment. It reduces the problems at higher frequencies. And then the W371A step in and help fix the low frequency problems that are difficult to fix with acoustic treatment alone!

Oh haha. You don’t understand how tightly i’m doing my acoustic treatment. To the point of blocking the edges of this TV. But yeah it helps a lot!

 

[Fredygump]

Oh haha. You don’t understand how tightly i’m doing my acoustic treatment. To the point of blocking the edges of this TV. But yeah it helps a lot!

Yeah, I didn't know! I assumed you probably had a "medium" level of treatment...as in a few absorbers here and there...which is a lot better than most.

 

[srrxr71]

Yeah, I didn't know! I assumed you probably had a "medium" level of treatment...as in a few absorbers here and there...which is a lot better than most.

It’s not a competition but I understood the importance. So I have a lot traps here. My entire back wall and side walls.

4 corners treated. I wonder about psi active bass trap. Maybe one day. Haha

 

[Impossible]

Do the W371A's need space around them to work properly?

Back wall space? If so what is recommended?