• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

High End Munich 2025 - May 15-18

END WAY said:
I completely agree that GLM can be a useful tool, especially when combined with a good room. But like any tool, it has a defined scope.
Improving acoustics always adds value—that's not up for debate—but even with an optimized room, GLM still operates within the physical limitations of the system: the cabinet design, the behavior of the drivers, dispersion, diffraction, how the cabinet handles the rear wave, whether or not it has a lot of internal fill, temporal coherence, and resonances generated by the cabinet itself. Perhaps one of these variables made me more excited about a well-designed passive system.

It's not about disregarding GLM, but about not overestimating it. It can correct certain defects, but it can't produce qualities that aren't present in the original transducer design. And in many cases, the excitement generated by a well-resolved passive system without any digital processing is still unparalleled.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with passive vs active. Any passive speaker can be made better active. And in case you're wondering: Active doesn't neceassarily imply internal electronics.
 
END WAY said:
Genelec sounds good, it's precise, adaptable, but it lacks that organic naturalness and emotional three-dimensionality that I've heard in other very high-end passive systems without DSP.
Click to expand...
Have you heard the speakers in YOUR room?

You're going off the rails if you lump the music itself in with the speakers.
Yes, music can and should give you goosebumps in some moments.

But this is only possible with loudspeakers that are capable of reproducing this emotional acoustic information as accurately as possible.

These are two different issues.

However, I completely agree with you that flawless reproduction is not only possible with Genelec loudspeakers.

Furthermore, it is nowadays possible to measure loudspeakers completely and comprehensively.
The trick is to interpret the measurements correctly.

I can do it to some extent, but not completely.

More important than the measurements, however, is the interaction of the loudspeaker with the listening room.

As I've written before, the loudspeaker and the listening room are acoustically one unit and you can't really judge them separately.

The loudspeaker, the very good loudspeaker, must also match the listening room in order to sound perfect, to be able to create goose bumps.

On the other hand, a very good passive loudspeaker can also fail completely in an unsuitable listening room.

Active DSP concepts offer more possibilities.
 
Salt said:
Maybe we are a little derailing the thread's topic?
Perhaps a fork to "Why I Hate Generec" thread could be generated? :cool:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction. It's always helpful to have someone check your spelling. The interesting thing is that you get excited about this kind of thing, at least I don't.
 
Audionaut said:
Have you heard the speakers in YOUR room?

You're going off the rails if you lump the music itself in with the speakers.
Yes, music can and should give you goosebumps in some moments.

But this is only possible with loudspeakers that are capable of reproducing this emotional acoustic information as accurately as possible.

These are two different issues.

However, I completely agree with you that flawless reproduction is not only possible with Genelec loudspeakers.

Furthermore, it is nowadays possible to measure loudspeakers completely and comprehensively.
The trick is to interpret the measurements correctly.

I can do it to some extent, but not completely.

More important than the measurements, however, is the interaction of the loudspeaker with the listening room.

As I've written before, the loudspeaker and the listening room are acoustically one unit and you can't really judge them separately.

The loudspeaker, the very good loudspeaker, must also match the listening room in order to sound perfect, to be able to create goose bumps.

On the other hand, a very good passive loudspeaker can also fail completely in an unsuitable listening room.

Active DSP concepts offer more possibilities.
Click to expand...
I agree on several points. The room and the loudspeaker form an inseparable unit, and DSP can be a useful tool for managing that interaction, especially in challenging environments.
But I also believe there are designs that, even in moderately treated rooms, manage to excite without digital correction because their temporal coherence, resonance control, and physical linearity are already addressed by design.
 
END WAY said:
Thanks for the correction. It's always helpful to have someone check your spelling. The interesting thing is that you get excited about this kind of thing, at least I don't.
Click to expand...
You had the courage here to say that you didn't appreciate the Genelecs; worse, you said you prefer passive speakers... Unless you apologize immediately, your trial will begin, and the sentence will be severe!;)
 
fredoamigo said:
You had the courage here to say that you didn't appreciate the Genelecs; worse, you said you prefer passive speakers... Unless you apologize immediately, your trial will begin, and the sentence will be severe!;)
Click to expand...

No need for him to apologize. It's his preference. Not up to us to tell him his preference is wrong. Some people don't like neutral, and that's fine.
 
How do we know it's "neutral" he doesn't like?
What about aspects of the speaker plus room integration that doesn't make it neutral? Or is that an impossible thought here?
 
Keith_W said:
No need for him to apologize. It's his preference. Not up to us to tell him his preference is wrong. Some people don't like neutral, and that's fine.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the condescension disguised as respect. But I'd like to clarify: it's not that I don't like neutrality, it's that I don't confuse neutrality with a lack of dynamics.
A system can be flat in frequency and still sound dull, because neutrality isn't everything: temporal coherence, transient resolution, and microdynamics also count. And that's not always achieved with a DSP and a driver with average specs.

So no, it's not a question of emotional preference versus precision. It's a question of how well you understand what really makes a system reproduce music convincingly, not just correctly.
 
Keith_W said:
No need for him to apologize. It's his preference. Not up to us to tell him his preference is wrong. Some people don't like neutral, and that's fine.
Click to expand...
It was just a touch of humor, but you can love absolute neutrality while having the right not to enjoy the sound of a 'SOTA' active speaker. One does not prevent the other; I love the 8Cs, but I prefer my 4367s for the dynamics and SPL that others cannot reproduce, and I'm not crazy about Genelec. Where is the problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom