Looking for a worthwhile upgrade from Genelec 8030c

[theshade]

Thanks for the link. The current GLM 4.1 released a few weeks ago still targets a flattish bass, and Genelec has caved in a little by allowing a slight bass-tilt as well as boosting a few PEQ slightly (depending on monitor/subwoofer capability) compared to GLM 4.0.

I'm using the RME ADI-2 DAC FS and the dynamic loudness feature for added bass at lower listening levels. The DAC even has tone control knobs for quick adjustments.

That is good to know with new GLM. Probably the dac/headphone amp/eq I would buy if I ever buy a dac/headphone amp/eq. It needs an accompanying hd800s though.

 

[richard12511]

Wouldn't that be for nearfield use though? Nearfield response should be flat.

It's pretty close to correct for super near field. My problem with it is that it's that way for all distances, and they don't allow positive bass boost. I do like the effect GLM has on timing and imaging, but I have to go in afterwards and provide additional bass boost (via .wav file) to get it to sound neutral again(like it does out of the box) at 3.5m. I really wish it would allow positive filters, so I could do it all with GLM. In my thinking, an EQ system that only allows negative filters below 500Hz ensures an anechoically bright speaker sound when the speaker itself is neutral(as Genelecs are).

 

[YSC]

It's pretty close to correct for super near field. My problem with it is that it's that way for all distances, and they don't allow positive bass boost. I do like the effect GLM has on timing and imaging, but I have to go in afterwards and provide additional bass boost (via .wav file) to get it to sound neutral again(like it does out of the box) at 3.5m. I really wish it would allow positive filters, so I could do it all with GLM. In my thinking, an EQ system that only allows negative filters below 500Hz ensures an anechoically bright speaker sound when the speaker itself is neutral(as Genelecs are).

um~ no idea for that, so in super nearfield of say <1m it should really be in room neutral to sound right?

 

[hege]

My problem with it is that it's that way for all distances, and they don't allow positive bass boost.

Haven't followed the news huh? GLM 4.1 specifically introduced positive notch and bass tilt filters.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/glm-4.14955/page-3#post-846685

 

[theshade]

Found out something that tilted up my high frequency response measurements. If I used the 90deg calibration and pointed up the umik mic I get tilted up high frequency response as opposed to regular calibration pointed directly at the speakers.

 

[Chromatischism]

If you are doing listening position measurements from meters away, ie "in-room", you should use the 90 degree and point the mic up.

 

[theshade]

If you are doing listening position measurements from meters away, ie "in-room", you should use the 90 degree and point the mic up.

All of my measurements are 90deg except for the one above. Can you pint me to a reference that says to use the 90deg cal file? Why do you think my response is tilted upwards for 90deg? I have a 111 inches or 9.25 feet high bare concrete ceiling. On the floor between the speakers and flush with the recliner listening position I have a mattress which is probably better than a carpet. I also have a bed with a frame behind the recliner listening position. Thanks.

 

[YSC]

If you are doing listening position measurements from meters away, ie "in-room", you should use the 90 degree and point the mic up.

sorry, so may I ask if I am measuring it at close distance like literally in front of a table at ~0.8m? would it be better to point the mic towards where my head would be facing or it will be better to point up the mic with 90 degree file?

 

[dominikz]

sorry, so may I ask if I am measuring it at close distance like literally in front of a table at ~0.8m? would it be better to point the mic towards where my head would be facing or it will be better to point up the mic with 90 degree file?

I find that for in-room measurements (i.e. including reflections) it is always more accurate to use vertical mic orientation with the 90° calibration file. Here's my reasoning in another thread.

EDIT: Just to add that when measuring at the desktop in the very nearfield it may be interesting to test with both upward and downward mic orientation - to see if there is a significant difference due to the dominant desk reflection.

 

[Trell]

It's pretty close to correct for super near field. My problem with it is that it's that way for all distances, and they don't allow positive bass boost. I do like the effect GLM has on timing and imaging, but I have to go in afterwards and provide additional bass boost (via .wav file) to get it to sound neutral again(like it does out of the box) at 3.5m. I really wish it would allow positive filters, so I could do it all with GLM. In my thinking, an EQ system that only allows negative filters below 500Hz ensures an anechoically bright speaker sound when the speaker itself is neutral(as Genelecs are).

Wtih GLM 4.1, released a few weeks ago, you can have positive filters (including positive bass shelf) for monitors/subwoofers that supports it. The amount of positive increase depends on HW capabilities.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/glm-4.14955/page-3#post-846685

 

[Tangband]

It's pretty close to correct for super near field. My problem with it is that it's that way for all distances, and they don't allow positive bass boost. I do like the effect GLM has on timing and imaging, but I have to go in afterwards and provide additional bass boost (via .wav file) to get it to sound neutral again(like it does out of the box) at 3.5m. I really wish it would allow positive filters, so I could do it all with GLM. In my thinking, an EQ system that only allows negative filters below 500Hz ensures an anechoically bright speaker sound when the speaker itself is neutral(as Genelecs are).

My experience with GLM 4 and Genelec 8340 is that if I correct half of the numbers the program does, the result is sounding better. If the program shows a correction dip thats -12 dB at 44 Hz , then I go in manually and do - 6 dB.
I always set all corrections above 80 Hz at zero, - its much better to manually use shelving filter in GLM at frequencys between 80-500 Hz. You cant correct for reflections without worsening the sound somewhat.
And yes, a flat curve in a room is gonna sound thin because the eyes expect the sound to be affected by the room.

edit: richard12511 - You can use shelving filtering in GLM 4 to lower everything above 150 Hz , for example, and that way boosting the bass area. That way you can also tilt down the treble area , lowering everything from 3 kHz , for example.

 

[richard12511]

edit: richard12511 - You can use shelving filtering in GLM 4 to lower everything above 150 Hz , for example, and that way boosting the bass area. That way you can also tilt down the treble area , lowering everything from 3 kHz , for example.

Unfortunately, none of the shelving options they give are equivalent to the needed bass boost to split the difference between peaks and troughs.

Fortunately GLM 4.1 fixes this outright!!! 4.1 allows for positive shelf filters in the bass. I couldn't be happier. It also comes with the added benefit of offering perfect phase linearity down to 100Hz for The Ones.

 

[GearAudio]

Have fun with your measurements, read about the HAAS effect and the precedence effect and you will soon learn that the microphone is very different than the ear/brain. To have a good correlation between mic and listening, you have to measure with the mic rather close to the loudspeaker. You can then measure with the ”average” function at on axis, 15 degrees of axis and 30 degrees of axis.

You can also read ”measuring loudspeakers” by John Atkinsson at stereophile,- thats good reading, as good as Tooles books.

I am of the opinion that despite having specific equipment available for this purpose and which have their undeniable usefulness the human ear remains the only precision instrument that can rebalance a calibration equation carried out in an automated way, and therefore not perfectly similar with our way of perceiving sounds in such a specular way as to fully satisfy our imprinting, however a calibration via Hardware-Software is useful to squeeze up to the last bit of information and shape the sound according to our needs, it can also simplify the process of installation and first commissioning, gradually allowing us to find a better convergence between the response in the room and the listening point