• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

How Loud: Genelec vs. Neumann

Curvature

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2022
Messages
1,083
Likes
1,365
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
index.php


Genelec
1694490647803.png


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

1694491191483.png
 
Last edited:

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,383
Likes
5,205
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

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
393
Likes
430
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...?
 
OP
Curvature

Curvature

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2022
Messages
1,083
Likes
1,365
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.

1694530432348.png
 

Ciobi69

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Messages
411
Likes
269
Thank you very much, are those measurements took at 1 meter with 1 single speaker or both?
 
OP
Curvature

Curvature

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2022
Messages
1,083
Likes
1,365
Thank you very much, are those measurements took at 1 meter with 1 single speaker or both?

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

Jon AA

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
465
Likes
905
Location
Seattle Area
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

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
1,012
Likes
1,421
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
 
Last edited:

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,383
Likes
5,205
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,926
Likes
7,635
Location
Canada
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.
 
OP
Curvature

Curvature

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2022
Messages
1,083
Likes
1,365
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:
1694556039159.png


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.
1694548377629.png

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:
1694556240999.png


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.
1694547763117.png

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

Etc.
 
OP
Curvature

Curvature

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2022
Messages
1,083
Likes
1,365
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.
 
Top Bottom