• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Looking for a worthwhile upgrade from Genelec 8030c

OP
T

theshade

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
78
Likes
12
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

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,220
Likes
6,176
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

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
1,467
Likes
1,015
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

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
266
Likes
384
Location
Finland
OP
T

theshade

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
78
Likes
12
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.

90deg.jpg
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
2,710
Likes
2,004
If you are doing listening position measurements from meters away, ie "in-room", you should use the 90 degree and point the mic up.
 
OP
T

theshade

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Messages
78
Likes
12
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

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
1,467
Likes
1,015
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

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
233
Likes
892
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.
 
Last edited:

Trell

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
561
Likes
528
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

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
585
Likes
596
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.
 
Last edited:

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,220
Likes
6,176
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

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2021
Messages
6
Likes
3
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
 
Top Bottom