New Genelec Main Monitor

[thewas]

Nice is one thing, DAC''s electrical response alike chart is another, we're talking a miracle here, 25 years ago,
It would go without saying that rest are pristine as well, check the measurements.

No directivity measurements and like Blockader wrote above the configuration of the drivers and step response don't forecast a great vertical directivity.

 

[Frank Dernie]

It certainly looks a bit nicer (to me) than the 8361 or 8351 with W371.
I have an 8341 centre channel which looks OK, as does the 8351 but both the 8361 and W371 fail on the "would I want to look at these at home" test which is probably a good thing since I would have bought them if not!

 

[thewas]

I am guessing:

View attachment 485859

I also would guess so, hope the 8380 full spin will be also measured soon and be included in your database for direct comparison.

It would be interesting to compare both in terms of SPL, vertical directivity of the Genelec doesn't have the issues of the conventional Aalto (although its also well engineered for its configuration).

 

[Sokel]

No directivity measurements and like Blockader wrote above the configuration of the drivers and step response don't forecast a great vertical directivity.

I can only think of Erin going up to the herculean task of measuring a 240 kilos wonder IF he can get so lucky to convince an owner to lend it.

Edit: (have a look at Kef Muon, no virgins at this hobby)

 

[Pearljam5000]

@2 meters distance
Which is better 8361 or 8380?

 

[Behrelec 37]

Pearljam5000.

The 8381a definitely offers a much richer sound experience with stereo recordings. The sound is much more faithful and pleasant, as no specific frequency ranges are missing. When I listened to the new 8380a model a few weeks ago while I was away from the forum, innocently punished for correcting other people's misconceptions, I thought while listening to them that the 8380a would need a subwoofer for home use, just like the older 1238a.

The only exception is if your room is a bit small, but not a walk-in closet. Or if the back wall of these 8380a models has hard concrete or other hard wall material to reinforce the bass, in which case a subwoofer is no longer needed at all. In other words, it depends on the room where the music is played. And what kind of building materials in the room weaken or amplify the bass. Of course, with the help of GLM software, excessive emphasis can be removed, and the sound is suitably rich and deliciously honeyed in the end.


Oh. Pearljam5000 was actually comparing the ONES 8361a here. In that case, the 8380a provides a larger sound field and is definitely better. It also plays louder and gives the recordings energy and movement on an emotional level, meaning that the rhythm flows better when playing louder.

 

[Blockader]

At a two way, completely, at a three-way, less.
This one is four-way and famous about its symmetrical pattern, both vertical and horizontal.

Again, it's 25 years old.

No one can really question Dunlavy’s engineering skills. Those speakers were seriously well designed, built on solid research that goes back decades. Just because people talk down on Dunlavy designs today doesn't mean they were bad, not at all.

Vertical reflections can usually be absorbed and doing that often helps with overall sound quality (the floor reflection case is still up for debate, though). Big speakers with woofers placed at the top and bottom actually handle standing waves better and are less affected by floor bounce compared to designs that keep the woofer closer to ear level.

Such large MTM designs can have extremely large soundstage when designed around it and that was the case with Dunlavy's. With a lot of effort, Dunlavy's can still match with today's well designed speakers. Yet, that doesn't mean that first order crossover was a good idea. Dunlavy was talking about using DSP to phase correct before he passed away. He was a good engineer and aware of the compromises first order crossovers bring.

 

[Blockader]

@2 meters distance
Which is better 8361 or 8380?

Nobody is giving you a satisfying answer and you keep repeating ghe same question. I should maybe chime in and give you a satisfying answer, hopefully.

Front wall SBIR(and generally SBIR) is a big issue, PearlJam5000. There are a few ways to deal with it:

-Use speakers that can be flush-mounted and have deep low end extension.
-Go with a cardioid design.

The 8380 is definitely a step up (small but noticeable) from the 8361 when it comes to directivity, especially in a flush-mounted setup. It’s very clear the 8380 was designed with flush mounting in mind. Its low end directivity is noticeably wider compared to its mid/treble pattern, and once flush-mounted, the low-bass directivity tightens up, letting the mids, bass, and treble blend almost perfectly.

The 8361s come close for setups where flush mounting isn't an option when they are paired with W371. Even with the cardioid bass extension kit, I'd still say a flush-mounted 8380 slightly outperforms the 8361 + W371 combo. That said, if I couldn’t embed the 8380s into the wall, I’d absolutely go with the 8361 + W371.

When you flush-mount them, I’d say the 8380 is easily one of the best speakers Genelec has ever made. (maybe the best?) If soffit mounting is not an option, I think they are too expensive for what they can provide.

if I could flush mount, I myself would not go for 8380's though, 1235/1234's would be my preference, just because they look badass.

 

[Korppi12]

I wonder how they manage to get so low group delay from ported 15"

8ms at 50hz extented phase linearity on

11ms at 50hz phase linearity off

Those numbers seem quite low

 

[olegtern]

I wonder how they manage to get so low group delay from ported 15"

By limiting the scale to 50Hz?

 

[patoulol]

.View attachment 485508

So what is your opinion?

 

[blutfink]

Then you loose SPL, not gain it because those woofers work against each other.

This is a misconception. There is no energy loss, the radiation pattern just changes shape depending on woofer distance and phase shift. Cancellation in one direction corresponds to twice the amplitude in the other.

 

[kimmosto]

I am guessing:

I also would guess so

I have no particular desire to own or listen to them. I just designed them to a concept chosen by someone else - and that's it.

But, topic is 8380. I was just wondering why it is (said to be) loose/soft and significantly weaker and than 1238, and why it's designed so directive above mid that flush mounting is needed to compensate unbalanced directivity index. I'll probably never hear it though it's interesting product imo too.

 

[Behrelec 37]

kimmosto.

This new 8380a model sounds only slightly less dynamic than the 1238 a, but goes a little lower to 29Hz and reproduces up to 40kHz beautifully and clearly, whereas the 1238 a only went up to around 22kHz, if I remember correctly.

The idea here is that, after listening to them, I noticed that the 8380 a sounds fuller, and above all more accurate, while the 1238a's dynamic accuracy only really comes into its own when the volume is turned up a little higher. This new 8380 a also sounds consistently clear when listened to from closer range, whereas the old series required a distance of at least 2-3 meters to be able to listen to them properly.

There are differences, of course, and if we look at the sound image, the new series is more spacious precisely because of the large horn-like baffle. The 1238 a thus sounds slightly darker in its overall sound image, which is difficult to define/delineate more clearly in verbal terms, and in our opinion, the 1238 a worked better than this new series, at least with rock and heavy metal music.

 

[Jonazkur]

I am guessing:

View attachment 485859

That aalto 9 speaker really sounded amazing tho. But blade 2 meta seems to have better/smoother directivity at higher still, i havent heard blade 2 meta.

 

[Moti]

Genelec and local reseller provided nice afternoon/evening in Helsinki, Finland.