How Loud: Genelec vs. Neumann

[Curvature]

In an earlier thread, I posted a comparison of Neumann monitors using Sound & Recording data (and some Neumann sub data) for max SPL at 3% THD.

I decided to make the same comparison using Genelec data.

Neumann

Genelec

What's shocking is how similar the traditional huge mains monitors are vs. the 8361A.

 

[dfuller]

What's shocking is how similar the traditional huge mains monitors are vs. the 8361A.

I'm not too surprised by this - the 8361 is big. The only reason it's not a "main" is because it's not really flush mount capable. It has something like 700W for the woofers alone. Also, the 1238CF is the smallest of the Genelec mains. They're shallower but broader than the KH420, which is not particularly large as mains go. I'm not sure there's similar data about the 1237A, but that would be more comparable IMO.

 

[boxerfan88]

Why the 3% THD output falloff around 400Hz for the KH310?
Or the KH310 has higher SPL capability <400Hz, but the THD shoots upward above 3% THD?
I suppose the woofer is constrained by the sealed box...?

 

[Curvature]

Why the 3% THD output falloff around 400Hz for the KH310?
Or the KH310 has higher SPL capability <400Hz, but the THD shoots upward above 3% THD?
I suppose the woofer is constrained by the sealed box...?

You got it. Another major factor is that the box is very small. I'm excited to see the difference in results when the updated KH310 is released in a year or so.

In general there isn't much difference between 3% and 10% results.

Studiomonitor Neumann KH 310 im Test

Mit dem KH-120 gelang dem traditionellen Mikrofonhersteller Neumann ein fulminantes Debüt im Marktsegment der Nahfeldstudiomonitore. Der kleine Monitor konnte sich binnen kurzer Zeit an der Spitze der Verkaufslisten platzieren − völlig zu Recht hinsichtlich der Klangeigenschaften und des...

www.soundandrecording.de

 

[Ciobi69]

Thank you very much, are those measurements took at 1 meter with 1 single speaker or both?

 

[Curvature]

Thank you very much, are those measurements took at 1 meter with 1 single speaker or both?

Lautsprecher messen und Messdaten erklärt

Wie wichtig sind technische Daten und Messwerte? Wenn man das entsprechende Wissen für die Interpretation und Bedeutung der Messwerte hat, lassen Messwerte eine vollständige Bewertung eines Lautsprechers zu − was nicht heißen muss, dass einem damit das Probehören erspart bleibt...

www.soundandrecording.de

1m, free field (anechoic), single speaker.

 

[Jon AA]

Honestly, I find those graphs interesting from an Engineering standpoint, those who like to contemplate the minutia of driver design, etc, can stare at them all day and still be entertained. But I find them utterly useless from a practical standpoint for the end user.

If it's a flat measuring speaker and the end user wants to know (from the title of the thread) How Loud,? it's implicit he means "Will it play flat?" If a speaker can play 120 dB at 1K, that's great, but it's completely useless if it can only play 108 dB at 100 Hz. If it can only play 108 at 100 Hz, its useful limit is 108--it really doesn't matter if it can hit 140 dB at some other frequency. That's not useful.

I think simple compression tests, like those performed by Erin but at higher levels for larger speakers are infinitely more useful. And yes, distortion measurements at those levels would be useful as well. If one wants to be more "scientific" about it and include distortion, I don't think you'll do better than testing according to AES75.

That tells the end user "How Loud" a speaker will play without significantly changing its frequency response and without audibly objectionable levels of distortion. Isn't that what actually matters to the end user? The graphs above don't answer any of those questions.

 

[gnarly]

If it's a flat measuring speaker and the end user wants to know (from the title of the thread) How Loud,? it's implicit he means "Will it play flat?" If a speaker can play 120 dB at 1K, that's great, but it's completely useless if it can only play 108 dB at 100 Hz. If it can only play 108 at 100 Hz, its useful limit is 108--it really doesn't matter if it can hit 140 dB at some other frequency. That's not useful.

i agree. The max SPL spec that matters to me, is the one that is reached across the entire spectrum, (and includes +18dB headroom for peak vs average SPL).
Any excess SPL capability in any part of the spectrum above that is kinda use less imo... unless...

.....Unless it occurs in the sub/bass range where excess SPL is often called for by genre or preference.
A rare occurrence, as it's usually the range most likely to crap out first.

I think simple compression tests, like those performed by Erin but at higher levels for larger speakers are infinitely more useful. And yes, distortion measurements at those levels would be useful as well. If one wants to be more "scientific" about it and include distortion, I don't think you'll do better than testing according to AES75.

Me too again. Although I like the M-Noise method better for determining compression, vs sine sweeps.

That tells the end user "How Loud" a speaker will play without significantly changing its frequency response and without audibly objectionable levels of distortion. Isn't that what actually matters to the end user? The graphs above don't answer any of those questions.

Maybe what we want is the maximum average SPL, where response is still level across the entire spectrum, and distortion is below a certain threshold (3%?) across the entire spectrum.


PS...Curvature, thanks for posting this stuff

 

[dfuller]

Why the 3% THD output falloff around 400Hz for the KH310?
Or the KH310 has higher SPL capability <400Hz, but the THD shoots upward above 3% THD?
I suppose the woofer is constrained by the sealed box...?

Also that the driver is pushed way lower than it would normally go in a sealed box of that size by a Linkwitz Transform or similar. Notice where the SPL capability falls off a cliff below about 80hz? That's roughly where it would start rolling off without massive additive EQ.

 

[Sancus]

If it's a flat measuring speaker and the end user wants to know (from the title of the thread) How Loud,? it's implicit he means "Will it play flat?" If a speaker can play 120 dB at 1K, that's great, but it's completely useless if it can only play 108 dB at 100 Hz. If it can only play 108 at 100 Hz, its useful limit is 108--it really doesn't matter if it can hit 140 dB at some other frequency. That's not useful.

Yeah, the reality is for anything that isn't a truly massive PA speaker, you can just cut all SPL maximum graphs off at 300hz. Whatever's above that is guaranteed to be "enough that the woofer will give up long before". Maybe 500hz if you want to be generous.

There is some relevance of the values at 100-300hz due to the nature of sub crossovers.

 

[Curvature]

Honestly, I find those graphs interesting from an Engineering standpoint, those who like to contemplate the minutia of driver design, etc, can stare at them all day and still be entertained. But I find them utterly useless from a practical standpoint for the end user.

If it's a flat measuring speaker and the end user wants to know (from the title of the thread) How Loud,? it's implicit he means "Will it play flat?" If a speaker can play 120 dB at 1K, that's great, but it's completely useless if it can only play 108 dB at 100 Hz. If it can only play 108 at 100 Hz, its useful limit is 108--it really doesn't matter if it can hit 140 dB at some other frequency. That's not useful.

I think simple compression tests, like those performed by Erin but at higher levels for larger speakers are infinitely more useful. And yes, distortion measurements at those levels would be useful as well. If one wants to be more "scientific" about it and include distortion, I don't think you'll do better than testing according to AES75.

That tells the end user "How Loud" a speaker will play without significantly changing its frequency response and without audibly objectionable levels of distortion. Isn't that what actually matters to the end user? The graphs above don't answer any of those questions.

Interesting reaction. S&R publishes compression information as well, but not always.

Take this into account: we don't have all the data. We are put into a position where we have to infer performance indirectly. Consumers are made to do that all the time, and make poor inferences all the time based on we all know what. The chart above helps me because it presents all the data at once and shows, clearly, performance advantages. Interpreting those is another step.

Power compression and the attendant change in FR and audible distortion can inferred from this chart, too, sort of. I'll repeat again that these are, indeed, max SPL measurements because SPL does not rise, other somewhat in the LF, if you allow more distortion. the 10% traces are usually identical.

Here are the 3% vs. 10% max SPL traces for the 8361A:

Here we have the 8361A FR at 106dB measured by @amirm vs. the 3% trace. The comparison is fair since we are looking at SPL information.

Genelec 8361A Review (Powered Monitor)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Genelc 8361A studio monitor (powered active speaker). It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $4,995. The 8361A looks identical to the rest of the series except massively scaled up: It doesn't look it but it is extremely heavy. It has a...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The way I see it, if you ask the speakers to push beyond 100dB SPL you will have to expect some compression and some audible distortion. Not precise, but ok.

Now the 3% vs. 10% max SPL traces for the 8331A:

Here's the 8331 compression/linearity measured by Erin vs. the 3% trace. This is somewhat unfair since Erin's chart represents deviation, but sort of works if you take the flattest portion to represent the needed level given that the units still refer to dB SPL.

Genelec 8331A Powered SAM Studio Monitor Review

Genelec 8331A Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

So don't push it beyond 90-95dB SPL.

Etc.

 

[Curvature]

i agree. The max SPL spec that matters to me, is the one that is reached across the entire spectrum, (and includes +18dB headroom for peak vs average SPL).
Any excess SPL capability in any part of the spectrum above that is kinda use less imo... unless...

.....Unless it occurs in the sub/bass range where excess SPL is often called for by genre or preference.
A rare occurrence, as it's usually the range most likely to crap out first.


Me too again. Although I like the M-Noise method better for determining compression, vs sine sweeps.


Maybe what we want is the maximum average SPL, where response is still level across the entire spectrum, and distortion is below a certain threshold (3%?) across the entire spectrum.


PS...Curvature, thanks for posting this stuff

I think Erin uses 3% as a threshold, too. I think it's his informal limit. Amir uses around -40dB (1%).

I'd like to see AES75 information published more widely, too.

None of this stuff uses perceptual models, by the way. AES75 is just a better, more repeatable measurement approach. We still won't have the full picture even if it is adopted.