Looking for a worthwhile upgrade from Genelec 8030c

[theshade]

Is the Genelec 8030c good enough or is the Genelec 8341a or Neumann 310a worth it to upgrade to? The $3000 genelec is probably the highest I can go in price. The lengths we go to to have good objective sound. Naturally cheaper would be better. Any other recommendations? I also have a question as to why the genelec 8030c has a higher rating than the 8341a with sub. I remember reading here that the 8030c rating with sub was updated and the 8341a rating with sub was still not updated.

My in room measurements (mmm) of the Genelec 8030c belies its great anechoic measurements and I am somewhat disappointed by the measurements. They sound better than my previous speakers though. I don't need something that can play louder cause I have not even once reached the limiter. I cross them over at 100hz and listen somewhat nearfield. They are 65 inches apart and 96 inches from the front wall. The left tweeter axis is 20 inches from side wall and the right is 19 inches from the side wall. The listening position is 59 to 63 inches from the speakers depending on the tilt of the recliner.

Left Speaker

Right Speaker

Left Right

What do you guys think of the measurements? Where do you think the transition frequency is so I can equalize below it. I don't want to equalize above the transition frequency based on my reading of Dr. Toole's book. And if I equalize using the Klippel measurements provided here, isnt the eq for that particular speaker measured by Amir and not representative of all genelec 8030c.

 

[Tangband]

You are measuring the table and the room .
Put your Genelec on a loudspeaker stand in the middle of the room , with only one loudspeaker active. Bring a big thick carpet on the floor.
Use a microphone thats flat within +- 1 dB 100-20000 Hz and do the measurement from 70 cm distance on axis with the tweeter, using a microphonestand. Use pulse with 5 ms gating. Now, your measurements will be as flat as Amirms.

If you measure the power response from the room, at the listening position, only one speaker should be active. Otherwise you get comb filtering effects.

…and the measurement will tell you almost nothing, because the brain and the microphone works in different ways.
After 5 ms sound travel, ( more than 1,7 meter ) the brains starts to select sounds, while the mic monitors all sounds.

At the listening position, you are gonna measure about 70 % roomreflections, and 30 % direct sound from the speaker.
And your brain is gonna hear things differently than the measurement mic. Dont waste your time with measurements from the listening position.

 

[theshade]

You are measuring the table and the room .
Put your Genelec on a loudspeaker stand in the middle of the room , with only one loudspeaker active. Bring a big thick carpet on the floor.
Use a microphone thats flat within +- 1 dB 100-20000 Hz and do the measurement from 70 cm distance on axis with the tweeter, using a microphonestand. Use pulse with 5 ms gating.

If You measure the power response from the room, at the listening position, only one speaker should be active. Otherwise You get comb filtering effects.

…and the measurement will tell You almost nothing, because the brain and the microphone works in different ways.
After 5 ms sound travel, the brains starts to select sounds, while the mic monitors all sounds.

They are on speaker stands. There is no carpet but I think a bed or mattress on the floor in between the speakers would more than suffice as this is also a bedroom. I think the ripples are boundary issues with the side walls as they are less than 1 foot and more than 2 feet away. Am I right in saying this? Genelec recommends it to be very close to the wall or very far. Yes I am measuring the speakers and the room. Would not the moving mic method be more representative of what I hear? And there are already measurements using klippel here in the forum. Yes I measured it separately left only and right only. I did not post a summed measurement. I included both measurements in one pic to compare. From what I read in Dr. Toole's book the measurements below the transition frequency tells a lot and should be equalized or corrected by either positioning and multi sub. Above transition it should not be touched and the room curve is just what a good speaker would measure in room. He stressed that above the transition frequency get a good speaker. That is why I was asking if the transition frequency can be inferred from the measurements above. Dr. Toole just gave a range in his book and I do not know how to determine my transition frequency.

 

[Tangband]

Go for corrections only at the fundamental room resonances. In a normal rectangular room there are only three. You can calculate just measuring your room to do it. No need for measurements with mic. Those fundamental room-resonances are totaly independent of where you have put your loudspeakers- its all depending on the room dimensions.

Dont try to compensate for reflections above 80 Hz .
Do you have to much bass in the area 80-500 Hz - use shelving filter instead of correcting reflection peaks. Its called bass-tilt on Genelec.

I dont want to be rude by asking, but I guess that you know the difference between fundamental resonances in a room ( depending only on the room dimensions ) and reflections ( depending on loudspeaker placement in the room, listening position and the distance from loudspeaker to walls, floor, roof ) ?

 

[Tangband]

Use bass-tilt on your Genelec if they are near the wall , -2 or -4 dB .
then equalize only peaks at fundamental room resonances. Dont compensate fully ( the mic will say over 10 dB ! ) , just use -3 dB for each fundamental resonance in the room.

if you crossover to subs at 100 Hz then all correction with eq will be for the subs.

 

[LightninBoy]

Go for corrections only at the fundamental room resonances. In a normal rectangular room there are only three. You can calculate just measuring your room to do it. No need for measurements with mic.

Dont try to compensate for reflections above 80 Hz .
Do you have to much bass in the area 80-300 Hz - use shelving filter instead of correcting reflection peaks.

I dont want to be rude by asking, but I guess that you know the difference between fundamental resonances in a room ( depending only on the room dimensions ) and reflections ( depending on loudspeaker placement in the room and the distance from loudspeaker to walls, floor, roof ) ?

I'm no expert, but the above is stated in absolutes that seem to be contradicted by other advice in the forum. Many of us have had good success in EQing room and speaker corrections using the "moving mic method" and other techniques. Here's a recent thread to get you started.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/rew-first-timer.23129/#post-773316

 

[muad]

LightninBoy is right. The moving mic method will give you a better representation of what the speakers are doing in room. You should not be trying to correct single point measurements. Even if you sit in one position, you want an average of where your head can move. The MMM over a larger area will get you closer to the predicted in room measurements in amir's reviews. Just remember, if your room is more reflective your overall slope will have less of a decline.

Looking at your measurement the speakers will sound bright. You CAN and should equalize above the transition frequency but not to make the speaker linear (not trying to make a straight line). You just want to keep the Q very low so that you are making broad tonal changes. I only use one filter in my room to bring my curve to the harman target slope, which fixes all the tonality issues but doesn't "EQ" the speaker to be perfectly linear linear.

The 8030c is a great speaker, and I wouldn't give up on it. Buying a more expensive speaker will not make your in room measurement better.

 

[theshade]

Go for corrections only at the fundamental room resonances. In a normal rectangular room there are only three. You can calculate just measuring your room to do it. No need for measurements with mic. Those fundamental room-resonances are totaly independent of where you have put your loudspeakers- its all depending on the room dimensions.

Dont try to compensate for reflections above 80 Hz .
Do you have to much bass in the area 80-500 Hz - use shelving filter instead of correcting reflection peaks. Its called bass-tilt on Genelec.

I dont want to be rude by asking, but I guess that you know the difference between fundamental resonances in a room ( depending only on the room dimensions ) and reflections ( depending on loudspeaker placement in the room, listening position and the distance from loudspeaker to walls, floor, roof ) ?

No. I do not know about fundamental room resonances. I also don't understand shelving filter. You are not being rude. In fact I appreciate being able to learn. Thanks! Can you enlighten me? It is close to one boundary just the side walls. I tried using the bass -4db dip switches on the genelec and I get better measurements with using rew and autoeq below 200 hz then import the filters in minidsp than the -4db bass switch.

 

[theshade]

I'm no expert, but the above is stated in absolutes that seem to be contradicted by other advice in the forum. Many of us have had good success in EQing room and speaker corrections using the "moving mic method" and other techniques. Here's a recent thread to get you started.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/rew-first-timer.23129/#post-773316

Thanks. I understand using the moving mic method and the measurements above are using it. I want to know what is my transition frequency so I can autoeq below it in rew and import in minidsp. I also watched a different youtube video wherein charles sprinkle used mmm for kali in an audio engineers studio. They used minidsp and autoeq from 50 to 600. However, I also read Dr. Toole saying that you should not equalize above the transition frequency.

 

[theshade]

LightninBoy is right. The moving mic method will give you a better representation of what the speakers are doing in room. You should not be trying to correct single point measurements. Even if you sit in one position, you want an average of where your head can move. The MMM over a larger area will get you closer to the predicted in room measurements in amir's reviews. Just remember, if your room is more reflective your overall slope will have less of a decline.

Looking at your measurement the speakers will sound bright. You CAN and should equalize above the transition frequency but not to make the speaker linear (not trying to make a straight line). You just want to keep the Q very low so that you are making broad tonal changes. I only use one filter in my room to bring my curve to the harman target slope, which fixes all the tonality issues but doesn't "EQ" the speaker to be perfectly linear linear.

The 8030c is a great speaker, and I wouldn't give up on it. Buying a more expensive speaker will not make your in room measurement better.

I used the moving mic method with me seated in the listening position with 90deg calibration file like I saw in an Erin's Audio Corner video. I do not know why my measurements look tilted up and bright. It does not sound bright though. Maybe because I am about 5 feet away nearfield? I am just worried about the peaks and dips in the 200 to 600 region in the measurements and I would put more weight on Dr. Toole saying that you should not mess above the transition frequency and that should be taken care of by good measuring speakers which the 8030c's certainly are as can be seen from spins. If I understand correctly from his book is that the brain can listen through the room above the transition frequency. What is good anechoically will sound good whatever the room above the transition frequency. However, I also do not know what my measurements say compared to what I am hearing as it sounds great. I do not know how to keep the q low. I just know how to use autoeq. But I guess I am learning. My first measurements are single mic position. Then it became moving mic. Then it became moving mic with me in the seated position.

I guess when looking at the posted in room measurements thread, I somewhat compared what I am getting and what I am getting is not as good given that I have great measuring speakers according to klippel measurements. Maybe it is my room.

 

[Tangband]

It took me 4 years of measurements and listening tests to understand how everything is connected. Toole is right about that a ”flat” speaker like Genelec 8030c with god directivity does not need any reflection correction above transition frequency. A mild shelving is of much better use between 80-500 Hz. You have that in dip switches on the Genelec 8030c.

What you CAN correct and the sound will be better is the fundamental room-resonances. Trying to correct reflections above 80 Hz will measure good ONLY at one fixed listening position. Moving the listening position 30 cm and the correction will sound worse than without correction.

I hope everyone who reads this thread is aware of the difference between resonances and reflections. Theres much confusion.

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.

 

[muad]

Your measurements are tilted up and bright because your listening distance is short and likely you have the speakers toed in? You are right about not fixing the peaks and dips in the 200 to 300 hz range. The low Q filters i was recommending was just to give you the right slope in your listening position, essentially using EQ as a tone control. You would not be using it to linearize the response which autoeq would do. I would guess they sound bright based on your measurements, maybe slightly sibilant. But if you say you're happy then I would just leave it alone

 

[dshreter]

I'm skeptical that there's any real issue with the 8030c requiring an upgrade. But if you want to take the guess work out of room calibration, you could trade up to the 8330A or 8340A and use it with GLM. I'm no expert in speaker calibration, and you could probably get a great result with the advice here and REW as well, just pointing it out as an option.

Genelec GLM SAM Loudspeaker Management System | Sweetwater

 

[Tangband]

I'm skeptical that there's any real issue with the 8030c requiring an upgrade. But if you want to take the guess work out of room calibration, you could trade up to the 8330A or 8340A and use it with GLM. I'm no expert in speaker calibration, and you could probably get a great result with the advice here and REW as well, just pointing it out as an option.

Genelec GLM SAM Loudspeaker Management System | Sweetwater

I own 8340 and have done a lot of experiments with GLM . The 8030C sounds the same but can not play as loud.

 

[theshade]

It took me 4 years of measurements and listening tests to understand how everything is connected. Toole is right about that a ”flat” speaker like Genelec 8030c with god directivity does not need any reflection correction above transition frequency. A mild shelving is of much better use between 80-500 Hz. You have that in dip switches on the Genelec 8030c.

What you CAN correct and the sound will be better is the fundamental room-resonances. Trying to correct reflections above 80 Hz will measure good ONLY at one fixed listening position. Moving the listening position 30 cm and the correction will sound worse than without correction.

I hope everyone who reads this thread is aware of the difference between resonances and reflections. Theres much confusion.

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.

Thanks. What do you mean by a mild shelving filter ? Can you guide me step by step regarding the switches or how to do it in rew and minidsp.

 

[theshade]

Your measurements are tilted up and bright because your listening distance is short and likely you have the speakers toed in? You are right about not fixing the peaks and dips in the 200 to 300 hz range. The low Q filters i was recommending was just to give you the right slope in your listening position, essentially using EQ as a tone control. You would not be using it to linearize the response which autoeq would do. I would guess they sound bright based on your measurements, maybe slightly sibilant. But if you say you're happy then I would just leave it alone

Thanks. They are pointed straight at me. Should i not toe them in ? Can you help me how to implement the low q filters in rew and minidsp ?

 

[theshade]

I'm skeptical that there's any real issue with the 8030c requiring an upgrade. But if you want to take the guess work out of room calibration, you could trade up to the 8330A or 8340A and use it with GLM. I'm no expert in speaker calibration, and you could probably get a great result with the advice here and REW as well, just pointing it out as an option.

Genelec GLM SAM Loudspeaker Management System | Sweetwater

I am also skeptical on implementing glm as dr. Toole in this forum stressed that glm target response is flat which would make the speaker tilted upright anechoically. If ever i get higher genelec models i probably would not use glm.

 

[theshade]

I own 8340 and have done a lot of experiments with GLM . The 8030C sounds the same but can not play as loud.

This is great to know. That means i dont have to upgrade to the 83x0 series cause the 8030 gets loud enough. What do you think of the 8341 or the 8331 and the neumannn 310a compared to the 8030c ? What do you think about the preference ratings ? The genelec 8030c rates higher. Are they not an accurate representative of guality once you hit a certain rating threshold ? I find it somewhat unbelievable that a speaker in a lower series rates higher than that of a higher series especially in science based companies like genelec, neumann, harman and the like.

 

[onion]

Best way to assess the 8341 would be a demo in your room, maybe with some blind A/B testing of 8341 vs 8030C

 

[theshade]

Best way to assess the 8341 would be a demo in your room, maybe with some blind A/B testing of 8341 vs 8030C

Yeah in room demo would be best. Unfortunately i have to pay for them then wait for about 2 to 3 months before they arrive. My 8030c's arrived after 2 and a half months after I paid for them.