New Neumann MA 1 - Automatic Monitor Alignment

[hyperplanar]

It’s about time this came out! I’d be very interested in comparing the results to my manual calibration—spent quite a lot of time in REW to come up with the EQ/delay parameters for my KH750/KH120 setup and have them summing quite linearly. I settled for about a 3 dB bass rise, but I wonder what target response Neumann’s algorithm would suggest for my room.

Unfortunately I’m not sure there’s a good way to use this software with my existing mic (an old ECM8000 with the quite accurate Panasonic capsule inside AFAICT). It asks for the bundled mic’s serial number and calibration ID.

Also would be a major PITA to restore my handmade settings afterwards. The “presets” aren’t stored in the subwoofer itself but in the iPad app, and I had to borrow an iPad to configure it in the first place.

 

[boniek]

It's way too basic compared to GLM4. https://www.genelec.com/yoursonicreference

 

[richard12511]

Itis way too basic compared to GLM4. https://www.genelec.com/yoursonicreference

And then GLM4 is rather basic compared to Dirac. Was a waste of $200 for me, as I have Dirac for the 8351b, and the 8030c in my office can’t use it . I suppose it was kinda worth it for peace of mind. I’ll be testing an Audiolense software solution soon.

 

[boniek]

And then GLM4 is rather basic compared to Dirac. Was a waste of $200 for me, as I have Dirac for the 8351b, and the 8030c in my office can’t use it . I suppose it was kinda worth it for peace of mind. I’ll be testing an Audiolense software solution soon.

How's GLM4 basic compared to Dirac? If anything it is the other way around.

 

[richard12511]

How's GLM4 basic compared to Dirac? If anything it is the other way around.

I want to go into more detail, but I'm done with that. I tried twice to write a big write up comparing it to dirac a few weeks ago in another thread to respond to @Sancus, but both times my post was lost. FWIW, I think he uses both Dirac(for the bass) and GLM4 for correcting his 8351b.

Many of my issues are usability/UX related, could be personal preference and/or user error related. And, given that it's still in beta, I don't care so much about those:

- Lots of crashing(bricked my 8351B twice). Will likely be fixed before launch.
- Store to monitor function bugged(tried on one windows machine and two macos machines). Will likely be fixed before launch.
- Lack of separation between measurement and correction processes. With Dirac you do your 17 measurements once, and then you never have to measure again(just load the measurements and test different curve files that you feed it).
- No way to redo or stop and save the measurement process. This was really frustrating, as I'd get 8 measurements in and then my dog would start barking, or my neighbors dog would start barking, or a loud truck would drive by, and I'd have to start over from the beginning. After 15+ hours of this, it led to me mostly taking just 3-5 measurements and quitting out of fear after that. I suppose that could partly explain why the results were so poor(confirmed by ear and REW). That said, I did have a few projects that were 15+ measurements, and the results weren't all that much better.
- Default target curve is flat. I suppose this is ideal for studio use?
- No support for custom target curve files. You can adjust the individual filters manually, and the manual target does allow you to customize a bit, but it's no where near as customizable as Dirac. With Dirac you can see each measurement, and feed it a target curve file(which you can further customize with the GUI) to get the target that is best suited for each speaker.
- Only supports Genelec speakers/subs. Not a problem for the speakers, as they're SOTA, and after hearing the 8351b, I'm going all in with Genelec. Does kinda suck for the subwoofers though, as Genelec subs aren't very good for the money if you don't need all those connections. My RS2s(despite being cheaper) sound so much better than my 7370s. GLM only working with the latter is a real pain point.

The more concerning part, though, were the problems with the results:
- Lack of results consistency. Same target, same mic position(didn't touch it), drastically different results, confirmed with REW. The results were wildly different, to the point I don't even trust what it's telling me.
- Predicted response often looks nothing like actual resulting response(measured with REW). Dirac lies a lot here too, but it's closer, at least according to REW. I was able to drastically increase the measured and heard sound quality by applying additional filters post GLM via REW and miniDSP.
- No sophisticated handling of dips. Dirac seems to use the 17 measurements to determine the cause of the dips. It fixes the ones it can fix, partially fixes the ones it can partially fix, and ignores the ones that it can't do anything about. GLM4 seems to just ignore all the dips, no matter the cause, and then just crush the peaks.
- The sound. This was the main thing, and I could live with all the other stuff if GLM sounded better than Dirac. But, it took me just a couple hours of measuring and trying different targets with Dirac to beat the best results I was able to get with GLM after 30-40 hours of fiddling. 2 whole weekends(+ several days) of messing with GLM, and within a couple hours of starting Dirac, I already had something that sounded and measured(at least according to REW) better. I did also trying using both GLM and Dirac, and while it did sound better than GLM on its own, I couldn't get it to sound as good as Dirac on its own.

All that said, there is definitely something to be said for my lack of experience with GLM. I've had several years now to learn the quirks of Dirac and how to get better results. This is my first experience with GLM ever. Perhaps with equivalent GLM experience, I might get better results. Who knows. I was super enthusiastic about getting to use it, but not so much any more .

At some point I may give it another go, but probably not for awhile. I'm actually looking at replacing Dirac with a software based Audiolense solution now. From what I've been told by people I trust, it's even better than Dirac. I just installed it on my new machine today and started messing around .

Something I did like about GLM was the automatic phase alignment when I was still trying to use the 7370s. Dirac 3.0 does that now too, at least with 2 subs, but it does a poor job of pointing it out(which is something I like better with GLM).

If you've got a lot more experience with GLM, I'd be interested in learning. I still have the box and cables lying around .

 

[Sancus]

I want to go into more detail, but I'm done with that. I tried twice to write a big write up comparing it to dirac a few weeks ago in another thread to respond to @Sancus, but both times my post was lost. FWIW, I think he uses both Dirac(for the bass) and GLM4 for correcting his 8351b.

Many of my issues are usability/UX related, could be personal preference and/or user error related. And, given that it's still in beta, I don't care so much about those:

- Lots of crashing(bricked my 8351B twice). Will likely be fixed before launch.
- Store to monitor function bugged(tried on one windows machine and two macos machines). Will likely be fixed before launch.
- Lack of separation between measurement and correction processes. With Dirac you do your 17 measurements once, and then you never have to measure again(just load the measurements and test different curve files that you feed it).
- No way to redo or stop and save the measurement process. This was really frustrating, as I'd get 8 measurements in and then my dog would start barking, or my neighbors dog would start barking, or a loud truck would drive by, and I'd have to start over from the beginning. After 15+ hours of this, it led to me mostly taking just 3-5 measurements and quitting out of fear after that. I suppose that could partly explain why the results were so poor(confirmed by ear and REW). That said, I did have a few projects that were 15+ measurements, and the results weren't all that much better.
- Default target curve is flat. I suppose this is ideal for studio use?
- No support for custom target curve files. You can adjust the individual filters manually, and the manual target does allow you to customize a bit, but it's no where near as customizable as Dirac. With Dirac you can see each measurement, and feed it a target curve file(which you can further customize with the GUI) to get the target that is best suited for each speaker.

I'm using Audyssey, would love to do Dirac but it's not really practical. I need at least 11 channels, so 1 miniDSP won't do it, and if I'm paying for 2 of them and not even getting Bass Control, I might as well buy an HTP-1 and get a proper integrated 16-channel solution. But that's not in the budget for this year.

Yikes though. I didn't have any crashing issues at all, it was rock solid. I was on Windows. The rest I pretty much agree with. I never bothered to do more than 8 measurements though so needing to interrupt the process wasn't something I thought about.

The more concerning part, though, were the problems with the results:
- Lack of results consistency. Same target, same mic position(didn't touch it), drastically different results, confirmed with REW. The results were wildly different, to the point I don't even trust what it's telling me.
- Predicted response often looks nothing like actual resulting response(measured with REW). Dirac lies a lot here too, but it's closer, at least according to REW. I was able to drastically increase the measured and heard sound quality by applying additional filters post GLM via REW and miniDSP.
- No sophisticated handling of dips. Dirac seems to use the 17 measurements to determine the cause of the dips. It fixes the ones it can fix, partially fixes the ones it can partially fix, and ignores the ones that it can't do anything about. GLM4 seems to just ignore all the dips, no matter the cause, and then just crush the peaks.
- The sound. This was the main thing, and I could live with all the other stuff if GLM sounded better than Dirac. But, it took me just a couple hours of measuring and trying different targets with Dirac to beat the best results I was able to get with GLM after 30-40 hours of fiddling. 2 whole weekends(+ several days) of messing with GLM, and within a couple hours of starting Dirac, I already had something that sounded and measured(at least according to REW) better. I did also trying using both GLM and Dirac, and while it did sound better than GLM on its own, I couldn't get it to sound as good as Dirac on its own.

This is weird. I ran GLM twice the last time I used it and the results(and filters) were very similar each time. You could try asking for support -- there is a whole support functionality built into GLM where you can ask them for help with your setup. ("Help" >> "Get Support")

I agree the flat curve isn't ideal, but that's mostly to do with lack of bass -- for me GLM made no corrections at all to any of my speakers above 500hz. I know that intentionally rolling treble off with EQ is controversial, it's just supposed to be a result of longer listening distances and the natural absorption of HF energy. Regardless, I definitely want more bass than the default curve. This is all fairly moot IMO since you can modify each filter yourself if you wish, and I found the -1.0db/oct target curve option to sound pretty good.

I think it's fair to note that GLM is designed for use in studios, and aggressively correcting dips may not be considered the right thing to do there. These are typically heavily treated rooms after all, and I know some people think that too much room correction is not necessarily a good thing. So perhaps GLM is designed towards studio sensibilities in that case.

At some point I may give it another go, but probably not for awhile. I'm actually looking at replacing Dirac with a software based Audiolense solution now. From what I've been told by people I trust, it's even better than Dirac. I just installed it on my new machine today and started messing around .

Yeah I've heard this as well, but I don't know of any practical solution to integrate Audiolense into a 5.2.4 system. And I'm not doing anything like running all channels through ADC and a PC just for room correction. For stereo, it's a lot simpler.

- Only supports Genelec speakers/subs. Not a problem for the speakers, as they're SOTA, and after hearing the 8351b, I'm going all in with Genelec. Does kinda suck for the subwoofers though, as Genelec subs aren't very good for the money if you don't need all those connections. My RS2s(despite being cheaper) sound so much better than my 7370s. GLM only working with the latter is a real pain point.

My biggest complaint about GLM is still that the subs are wildly expensive, and yet GLM's bass management is nowhere near state of the art. For the prices Genelec is charging, they should have been ahead of Dirac on Bass Control-like functionality, but it seems like it's not even on their radar. And it's hardly a new concept either -- there's been stuff like SFM from Harman for decades and various other companies' more sophisticated approaches to bass management than "EQ the subs individually". Even Audyssey does better.

GLM is fine with 1 sub, for more than 1 sub I would strongly advise looking elsewhere.

 

[Mesh]

GLM is most definitely intended for studio use and professional work. This also coincides with how some of us prefer to listen to music, i.e. nearfield (maybe in some cases midfield) speakers a fully treated room and as flat response as possible. They even state it themselves right at the start of the link that @boniek provided: "...guide you through every stage required to setup, calibrate and control a studio monitoring system so that it provides a true ‘Sonic Reference’, helping you produce mixes that translate consistently to other rooms and playback systems."

 

[richard12511]

Yikes though. I didn't have any crashing issues at all, it was rock solid. I was on Windows. The rest I pretty much agree with. I never bothered to do more than 8 measurements though so needing to interrupt the process wasn't something I thought about.

I was mostly using MacOS, so maybe that has something to do with it. It did try briefly with an old Windows Surface Pro machine(to try and get the store to monitor function to work), and I didn't have any crashes in that environment. Though, like I mentioned, the store to monitor function still failed with the Windows machine.

This is weird. I ran GLM twice the last time I used it and the results(and filters) were very similar each time. You could try asking for support -- there is a whole support functionality built into GLM where you can ask them for help with your setup. ("Help" >> "Get Support")

I probably should have reached out. At one point I did write up a support ticket the second time it crashed and made my speakers non functional. The first time that happened, I was able to make them functional again by simply turning them off and on. That didn't work the second time they were bricked, but I was ultimately able to get them running again on my own, so I never submitted the support ticket.

I agree the flat curve isn't ideal, but that's mostly to do with lack of bass -- for me GLM made no corrections at all to any of my speakers above 500hz. I know that intentionally rolling treble off with EQ is controversial, it's just supposed to be a result of longer listening distances and the natural absorption of HF energy.

GLM, from what I saw, seems to be using mostly shelf filters to EQ the treble, which is the same as what Dirac does, and I personally think that's the correct approach.

Regardless, I definitely want more bass than the default curve. This is all fairly moot IMO since you can modify each filter yourself if you wish, and I found the -1.0db/oct target curve option to sound pretty good.

The problem I found with the customization is that I couldn't find a way to keep the same target curve, but just shift it up or down to avoid unnecessary shelf filters on the top end. With Dirac, I have 15 different versions of each target curve(Harman Ski Slope +0, +0.5, +1, +2, -1db/oct +0, +1, +2, etc.) I can use to match exactly the correct balance of overall treble and bass energy the speaker produces at a given position.

I think it's fair to note that GLM is designed for use in studios, and aggressively correcting dips may not be considered the right thing to do there. These are typically heavily treated rooms after all, and I know some people think that too much room correction is not necessarily a good thing. So perhaps GLM is designed towards studio sensibilities in that case.

Agreed, and I definitely don't expect GLM4 to cater to me, since I'm for sure in the minority use case(home pleasure listening).

Yeah I've heard this as well, but I don't know of any practical solution to integrate Audiolense into a 5.2.4 system. And I'm not doing anything like running all channels through ADC and a PC just for room correction. For stereo, it's a lot simpler.

Yeah this is what I'm currently researching, since I do like upmixing my stereo music.

My biggest complaint about GLM is still that the subs are wildly expensive, and yet GLM's bass management is nowhere near state of the art. For the prices Genelec is charging, they should have been ahead of Dirac on Bass Control-like functionality, but it seems like it's not even on their radar. And it's hardly a new concept either -- there's been stuff like SFM from Harman for decades and various other companies' more sophisticated approaches to bass management than "EQ the subs individually". Even Audyssey does better.

GLM is fine with 1 sub, for more than 1 sub I would strongly advise looking elsewhere.

Genelec subs are impressive from a size/performance perspective, but not so much from a price/performance perspective, at least imo. I suppose if you're using them professionally you may need all extra connectivity, and in that regard, they really are superb. The RS2's connection options are quite limited, by comparison. I tried to use the 7370s in my main room for a while, but the room is just too big. Main room, kitchen, entryway, and hallway to bedrooms are all one giant room, and given that I prefer the sound of my subs +6-8dB hot over the mains, the 7370s just couldn't keep up, and I was forced to switch back to the RS2s. I'm sure they would have held up better if I was going for a more flat curve. Not a huge deal anymore, as I've actually integrated my Genelec and JTRs in to one multichannel system, using the 8351b as mains and the 210RTs as side surrounds, and it's working really well right now.



I know Genelec reads these forums, so for them, my biggest piece of constructive feedback(UX related) would be to:

1. Add some way to stop taking measurements and save the project so that the measurements can be continued later.
2. Add some way to redo the last measurement. Even better, show each measurement as a separate entity in the UI, and allows users to redo any of the past measurements. Even Audyssey allows this.
3. Add support for custom target curves read from a text file.

Second issue is probably less important for professional studios, where it's quiet and controlled, but for us home users, it's incredibly frustrating to have to start over from the beginning when you get 11 measurements in and a neighbors dog ruins the 12th measurement by glitching out and barking for no reason .

 

[Pearljam5000]

I was mostly using MacOS, so maybe that has something to do with it. It did try briefly with an old Windows Surface Pro machine(to try and get the store to monitor function to work), and I didn't have any crashes in that environment. Though, like I mentioned, the store to monitor function still failed with the Windows machine.



I probably should have reached out. At one point I did write up a support ticket the second time it crashed and made my speakers non functional. The first time that happened, I was able to make them functional again by simply turning them off and on. That didn't work the second time they were bricked, but I was ultimately able to get them running again on my own, so I never submitted the support ticket.


GLM, from what I saw, seems to be using mostly shelf filters to EQ the treble, which is the same as what Dirac does, and I personally think that's the correct approach.



The problem I found with the customization is that I couldn't find a way to keep the same target curve, but just shift it up or down to avoid unnecessary shelf filters on the top end. With Dirac, I have 15 different versions of each target curve(Harman Ski Slope +0, +0.5, +1, +2, -1db/oct +0, +1, +2, etc.) I can use to match exactly the correct balance of overall treble and bass energy the speaker produces at a given position.



Agreed, and I definitely don't expect GLM4 to cater to me, since I'm for sure in the minority use case(home pleasure listening).




Yeah this is what I'm currently researching, since I do like upmixing my stereo music.




Genelec subs are impressive from a size/performance perspective, but not so much from a price/performance perspective, at least imo. I suppose if you're using them professionally you may need all extra connectivity, and in that regard, they really are superb. The RS2's connection options are quite limited, by comparison. I tried to use the 7370s in my main room for a while, but the room is just too big. Main room, kitchen, entryway, and hallway to bedrooms are all one giant room, and given that I prefer the sound of my subs +6-8dB hot over the mains, the 7370s just couldn't keep up, and I was forced to switch back to the RS2s. I'm sure they would have held up better if I was going for a more flat curve. Not a huge deal anymore, as I've actually integrated my Genelec and JTRs in to one multichannel system, using the 8351b as mains and the 210RTs as side surrounds, and it's working really well right now.



I know Genelec reads these forums, so for them, my biggest piece of constructive feedback(UX related) would be to:

1. Add some way to stop taking measurements and save the project so that the measurements can be continued later.
2. Add some way to redo the last measurement. Even better, show each measurement as a separate entity in the UI, and allows users to redo any of the past measurements. Even Audyssey allows this.
3. Add support for custom target curves read from a text file.

Second issue is probably less important for professional studios, where it's quiet and controlled, but for us home users, it's incredibly frustrating to have to start over from the beginning when you get 11 measurements in and a neighbors dog ruins the 12th measurement by glitching out and barking for no reason.

The monitors and GLM are designed for professional studios, you can't be mad at them for not being perfect for home use

 

[richard12511]

The monitors and GLM are designed for professional studios, you can't be mad at them for not being perfect for home use

I agree. I'm more just explaining my personal reasoning for going with Dirac Live 3.0 over GLM4.

Also, perhaps some of my suggestions/feedback could be useful, even for studio use.

 

[boniek]

My biggest complaint about GLM is still that the subs are wildly expensive, and yet GLM's bass management is nowhere near state of the art. For the prices Genelec is charging, they should have been ahead of Dirac on Bass Control-like functionality, but it seems like it's not even on their radar. And it's hardly a new concept either -- there's been stuff like SFM from Harman for decades and various other companies' more sophisticated approaches to bass management than "EQ the subs individually". Even Audyssey does better.

GLM is fine with 1 sub, for more than 1 sub I would strongly advise looking elsewhere.

From what I see Dirac Live Bass Control doesn't do anything more than GLM does in single or even in multi sub scenario. What do you lack in GLM as compared to Dirac or Audyssey? SFM is probably patented so nobody but Harman can use it.

 

[Sancus]

From what I see Dirac Live Bass Control doesn't do anything more than GLM does in single or even in multi sub scenario. What do you lack in GLM as compared to Dirac or Audyssey? SFM is probably patented so nobody but Harman can use it.

Not sure what you mean, since GLM literally only does two things: 1) Align phase of each subwoofer with a specific monitor and 2) Correct each sub as if no others existed. I've been back and forth with Genelec support about this and they've confirmed my understanding is correct.

This isn't very useful in a multi-channel setup, as per-channel bass is not really a thing. Consumer multi-channel sources treat bass below 120hz as a single summed output.

Thus the best results are achieved when you treat subwoofer response as an optimization problem with multiple variables(the EQ/phase/gain/etc of each subwoofer). The "naive" way to do this is what Audyssey does - just EQ sweeps from multiple subs together. Dirac Bass Control treats this as a mathematical optimization problem and automatically gives each sub a different crossover, phase alignment, and EQ so that the average response of all subs playing together at the listening position is as flat as possible.

GLM doesn't have anything remotely similar to this capability.

 

[boniek]

If you've got a lot more experience with GLM, I'd be interested in learning. I still have the box and cables lying around .

https://www.genelec.com/yoursonicreference
This is the link I posted earlier with their free online glm4 training. Gets through all the features.
My understandig of why dips aren't being corrected is because correction will drastically lower peak SPL performance of the speaker. You are supposed to correct them through room treatment.
I asked a Genelec employee about why there is no actual response measurement after calibration and he said there is no need for that because output can be predicted reliably from applying correcting filters to measured response captured when correcting speakers. I have no reason to not believe him.
As for the rest of your post it would be best to get in touch about your findings with Genelec. They won't fix anything if they don't know about it and considering how much you spend on those you deserve premium level support.

 

[boniek]

Not sure what you mean, since GLM literally only does two things: 1) Align phase of each subwoofer with a specific monitor and 2) Correct each sub as if no others existed. I've been back and forth with Genelec support about this and they've confirmed my understanding is correct.

This isn't very useful in a multi-channel setup, as per-channel bass is not really a thing. Consumer multi-channel sources treat bass below 120hz as a single summed output.

Thus the best results are achieved when you treat subwoofer response as an optimization problem with multiple variables(the EQ/phase/gain/etc of each subwoofer). The "naive" way to do this is what Audyssey does - just EQ sweeps from multiple subs together. Dirac Bass Control treats this as a mathematical optimization problem and automatically gives each sub a different crossover, phase alignment, and EQ so that the average response of all subs playing together at the listening position is as flat as possible.

GLM doesn't have anything remotely similar to this capability.

https://www.genelec.com/en/-/6-steps-to-creating-your-sonic-reference-step-3-glm-advanced-features
If you calibrate eq and phase correct at listening position every sub by itself (which is what GLM does) then all what you are left with is the SPL boost from multiple subs playing together which is correctable by GLM. You can set crossover frequencies per sub in GLM as well but only by hand (why would you want to set crossovers per sub to different values though? Honestly asking) Why would you need to EQ all subs playing at once as opposed to one by one - isn't this the same thing? Maybe it is just faster or more consumer friendly, but not any more or less correct? I'm missing something?
I read this link from Dirac. I still don't see why this all-pass AI magic filter is such a great thing because there is no comparison to anything else. Somebody would have to do it audiosciencereview style

 

[richard12511]

https://www.genelec.com/yoursonicreference
This is the link I posted earlier with their free online glm4 training. Gets through all the features.
My understandig of why dips aren't being corrected is because correction will drastically lower peak SPL performance of the speaker. You are supposed to correct them through room treatment.
I asked a Genelec employee about why there is no actual response measurement after calibration and he said there is no need for that because output can be predicted reliably from applying correcting filters to measured response captured when correcting speakers. I have no reason to not believe him.
As for the rest of your post it would be best to get in touch about your findings with Genelec. They won't fix anything if they don't know about it and considering how much you spend on those you deserve premium level support.

I went through that training before starting, actually . Thought it was really well done and helpful.

 

[Pearljam5000]

@Ilkka Rissanen
He's the top guy @ Genelec, maybe he'll read this and pass it on

 

[CtheArgie]

@boniek , Zbigniew?

 

[Sancus]

If you calibrate eq and phase correct at listening position every sub by itself (which is what GLM does) then all what you are left with is the SPL boost from multiple subs playing together which is correctable by GLM. You can set crossover frequencies per sub in GLM as well but only by hand (why would you want to set crossovers per sub to different values though? Honestly asking) Why would you need to EQ all subs playing at once as opposed to one by one - isn't this the same thing? Maybe it is just faster or more consumer friendly, but not any more or less correct? I'm missing something?

If you do daisy chain the subs to play one-channel bass with multiple subs using GLM you actually have to adjust the gain manually, it doesn't even do that automatically. You can find that info on pg74 of the GLM3 manual "Using Multiple Subwoofers."

And no, EQ on each sub individually isn't the same. The fundamental answer to all your questions is "it produces a better result." The detailed answer is extremely technical and tbh I don't think there is actually a comprehensive explanation of all the things Bass Control does, after all the algorithm is proprietary. This webinar is the best explanation I've seen, but it doesn't actually go into the optimization process in that much detail(not as long as it looks, interesting part starts at 20 minutes and goes to about 30 minutes).

The idea is that, if you want as close to a perfectly flat bass response across multiple listening positions as possible, you need 2-4 bass sources and with 4+ you can actually cancel standing waves directly. Bass Control also can use full range speakers as bass sources. I'm not totally sure what the effect of varying crossovers is, but my guess is that it depends on what room modes are excited by that source in that part of the room and it may be beneficial to move the crossover up or down to avoid exciting a mode or cancel one.

Dirac's not the only one doing this kind of stuff, there's also Multi-Sub Optimizer which is free software. It's definitely way more work to use though and I don't know how the results compare. Floyd Toole's Book also has several chapters on multiple subwoofers and their interactions with room modes that forms the basis of much of this work.

In general I doubt it's practical to mimic the results you get from DLBC/MSO with any sort of manual settings and experimentation, it's far too math intensive. But of course, when you're paying as much as you are for a Genelec sub, you shouldn't have to, IMO.

All that said, it's entirely possible there are good reasons Genelec hasn't built anything like this. Perhaps it's not in demand by studios, or it conflicts with a typical studio workflow in some way. I know practically nothing about the typical workflow of multi-channel studio mixing work so it's impossible to speculate on this. Home users aren't their primary market and it's entirely reasonable to say "GLM wasn't built for you so yeah go ahead and use Dirac". I certainly wouldn't return my 8351Bs just because GLM isn't perfect

 

[Mesh]

If you do daisy chain the subs to play one-channel bass with multiple subs using GLM you actually have to adjust the gain manually, it doesn't even do that automatically. You can find that info on pg74 of the GLM3 manual "Using Multiple Subwoofers."

GLM3? Typo, or are two different generations of GLM discussed?

 

[Sancus]

GLM3? Typo, or are two different generations of GLM discussed?

The multiple subwoofer procedure is the same in 3 and 4(I asked support). There is just no full GLM4 manual yet because it's still in beta, only a quick start guide.