Passive vs active DSP speakers KEF and Genelec

[watchnerd]

Most recordings are made to be played back on earbuds and car speakers

Indeed.

And little mono smart speakers.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Thing is, for an MTM with a C2C spacing like that, a 3kHz XO point would be a deal-breaker for me for anything but studio use.

Even putting aside the (nevertheless important) question of early reflections and room interaction, these speakers are going to be a full dB down just 5° vertically off-axis at the XO point, 3dB 10° off-axis, and 17+ dB down just 20° off-axis.

In other words, you'd need to stay within +/-5° to avoid gross and audible amplitude response aberrations, which would make staying in the sweet spot too stressful and bothersome for me in a home listening context (and probably a studio context too, TBH).

EDIT: perhaps it's not actually an MTM but rather a 3.5-way; XO frequencies are listed as 100/600/3000.

 

[Sancus]

Not as ugly as Genelec.

Aesthetics is purely down to taste, I think the barefoot monitors look like chunky, fisher price rubberized plastic boxes whereas white Genelecs look like high tech art pieces.

 

[watchnerd]

Aesthetics is purely down to taste, I think the barefoot monitors look like chunky, fisher price rubberized plastic boxes whereas white Genelecs look like high tech art pieces.

Well, I think they're both kinda ugly compared to many passive choices.

Neither one looks living room sexy.

 

[muad]

Well, I think they're both kinda ugly compared to many passive choices.

Neither one looks living room sexy.

Maybe in black it isn't. But the white one is pretty damn sexy

 

[watchnerd]

Maybe in black it isn't. But the white one is pretty damn sexy

No.

In white, it's passable.

Compare to:

 

[echopraxia]

I've owned the KEF R3, and now own the Genelec 8351B. The KEF R3 was a great speaker, but to my ear, it was not so exceptional vs other speakers I had, as I thought the measurements would predict. It lost a blind test I performed against my Sierra 2EX.

Yet so far, I find I enjoy the Genelec 8351B far more. In fact, I never really fell in love with the KEF R3, and ended up returning it (so with that said, my comparison is from memory).

To be honest, I'm not really sure why this is. I think there are probably two things that explain it. First, there is the frequency response in an extremely important region for music -- 40hz to 400hz:

Genelec 8341A:

KEF R3:

The Genelec is much flatter overall, but also extends flat all the way down to 40hz before seriously rolling off. In contrast, the KEF R3's has a hump around 120hz where it starts audibly rolling off, before the extreme roll-off begins again at 40hz -- pretty typical of a passive speaker, I suppose. This is something I imagine you might be able to fix with EQ, but we'd have to see normalized off-axis plots to really know.

Other than that, the KEF does seem to have relatively narrower and rougher horizontal dispersion (but still not bad). I've illustrated it here by coloring in -9db in purple, and adding horizontal lines for +-60 degrees:

KEF R3:

Genelec 8341A:

The R3 is still so good though, I honestly still don't fully understand why it didn't win the blind test against my Sierra 2EX (and I prefer both my Neumanns and my Genelecs to the Sierra 2EX). And I'm not sure why it didn't impress me the way my Neumanns or Genelecs have.

Probably my main complaint with the R3 is it felt like the dispersion was too narrow, and that unless my head was locked in exactly the sweet spot, either the left or right channel would become noticeably quieter and muffled. But also (perhaps as a result), the overall soundstage and spaciousness did not seem as good as my other speakers.

FWIW, I did not try the R3 in near-field, and I have not yet tried my Genelec 8351B's far-field in a large room. I suppose should try my Genelecs in a large room first before I can make any really comparable conclusions.

 

[echopraxia]

Regarding SPL capabilities, my Genelec 8351B are capable of more power than my ears can tolerate, even on bass-heavy songs, in my relatively small office room. If anyone wants, I can test them in a medium room and measure SPL to see if they can reach a desired SPL with a bass-heavy song.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Regarding SPL capabilities, my Genelec 8351B are capable of more power than my ears can tolerate, even on bass-heavy songs, in my relatively small office room. If anyone wants, I can test them in a medium room and measure SPL to see if they can reach a desired SPL with a bass-heavy song.

They can.

 

[richard12511]

Regarding SPL capabilities, my Genelec 8351B are capable of more power than my ears can tolerate, even on bass-heavy songs, in my relatively small office room. If anyone wants, I can test them in a medium room and measure SPL to see if they can reach a desired SPL with a bass-heavy song.

Can you please do that. My main concern with that speaker would be its max output at say 3-4m or so. Crossed to subs would be an even better test(for my selfish curiosity ), as I'll have subs to take care of the bass, so it should give a truer sense of max output. Good thing with those is you don't have to worry about damaging them.

 

[echopraxia]

I just carried one of the 8351B’s into a room next to the Neumann KH310... I can confirm the 8351B are significantly better (neither are EQ’ed, both running in analog mode). I am shocked, since I expected the 8351B’s would shine most clearly nearfield, and be harder to choose a winner in a larger room.

Unfortunately, this confuses me immensely. I had a running theory that broader dispersion is preferred in larger rooms. The Neumann KH310 has slightly broader horizontal dispersion, yet I prefer the Genelecs here too!

I honestly have no idea from the measurements why the Genelec 8351B sounds so amazing, while the KEF R3 were comparatively boring. To my ear, Genelec 8351B > Neumann KH310 > Revel F206 > KEF R3.

But I don’t understand why.

 

[echopraxia]

Can you please do that. My main concern with that speaker would be its max output at say 3-4m or so. Crossed to subs would be an even better test(for my selfish curiosity ), as I'll have subs to take care of the bass, so it should give a truer sense of max output. Good thing with those is you don't have to worry about damaging them.

Yeah definitely, I’ll give it a try. Might have to wait until tomorrow to avoid disturbing my wife though What kind of SPL are you hoping for?

Also, I’ll try 3-4 meters, but also what are your room dimensions? I’ll try to choose a room that matches them most closely. This matters because smaller rooms I assume have more room gain.

 

[Music1969]

I honestly have no idea from the measurements why the Genelec 8351B sounds so amazing, while the KEF R3 were comparatively boring.

Amplification differences?

For the Genelec's, driver amplification is optimised.

For the R3, it depends on amp used?

 

[HooStat]

I’ll give it a try. Might have to wait until tomorrow to avoid disturbing my wife though

I am also curious about this. And to understand whether they really need a sub in a medium room. Mine is 14 x 22 x about 9.5 (3,000 sq ft).

Your hypothesis about the 40-400 Hz regions between the KEF and Genelec is interesting too. Particularly since the Genelec is not using EQ in those graphs.

 

[echopraxia]

Particularly since the Genelec is not using EQ in those graphs.

How so? I had assumed these active speakers must be using EQ to achieve such flat and extended bass response.

Anyway yeah, I’ll definitely give a SPL test a go, probably tomorrow. It’s almost weird you say 14x22 feet, because I have a room *exactly* those dimensions. Slightly taller ceiling.

However, that room has concrete floors and some geometry that cause bass nulls that even my dual Rythmik F18 subwoofers have to fight to overcome. That might bias the SPL meter a bit downward vs what you would get if you don’t have the bass nulls I have in that room.

 

[echopraxia]

Amplification differences?

For the Genelec's, driver amplification is optimised.

For the R3, it depends on amp used?

I was using the Sonos Amp to power the KEF R3’s, which from Amir’s review is capable of delivering 200 watts per channel. It doesn’t seem like that should be an issue, but who knows? Yet another reason I find myself preferring active speakers.

 

[HooStat]

How so? I had assumed these active speakers must be using EQ to achieve such flat and extended bass response.

I thought Amir said he did the testing with nothing engaged. But maybe there is a default amount of EQ being implemented and the user can adjust it to his/her needs?

Being a high-end monitor, there are a lot of features which I will let you read on your own elsewhere. The configuration you see is how I tested it. I performed a factory reset and left all the switches to off.

My room is on the 2nd floor, so definitely not concrete (thought that might have been a good idea). My ceiling is actually vaulted and ranges from 8' to 11'. But anything you do is fine and appreciated. I am not a headbanger, and most of my music is not bass heavy.

 

[echopraxia]

I thought Amir said he did the testing with nothing engaged. But maybe there is a default amount of EQ being implemented and the user can adjust it to his/her needs?

My room is on the 2nd floor, so definitely not concrete (thought that might have been a good idea). My ceiling is actually vaulted and ranges from 8' to 11'. But anything you do is fine and appreciated. I am not a headbanger, and most of my music is not bass heavy.

That just meant that it wasn’t applying any room correction EQ. I did the same when I compared the Genelec against my Neumann KH310.

An active speaker with active DSP crossovers doesn’t really have any such thing as “no EQ”, depending on what you mean by “EQ”. Even when it’s performing in its default flat mode with no room correction, an active crossover means that each driver is being powered by a signal derived from DSP. Whether you call that EQ or not depends on what you mean exactly by “EQ”.

It you don’t have concrete, that’s generally a good thing for bass response. Anyway, since you say most of your music isn’t bass heavy, I’m sure you’ll have no problem at all reaching high SPL with those songs. The only thing you would potentially have any issue with is content with a lot of bass.

If you want, you can send me the names of a few songs you want me to test SPL on. I’d recommend one with the more bassy content you’d want to listen to loudly, and one with a balanced spectrum. I can test them both and let you know if it can reach e.g. 90/95/100db without issue.

 

[Music1969]

I was using the Sonos Amp to power the KEF R3’s, which from Amir’s review is capable of delivering 200 watts per channel. It doesn’t seem like that should be an issue, but who knows? Yet another reason I find myself preferring active speakers.

Maybe depends on levels you listen? And the actual music?

e.g. music with high transient peaks? So might then depend on transient performance of the Sonos amp?

 

[HooStat]

An active speaker with active DSP crossovers doesn’t really have any such thing as “no EQ”, depending on what you mean by “EQ”. Even when it’s performing in its default flat mode with no room correction, an active crossover means that each driver is being powered by a signal derived from DSP. Whether you call that EQ or not depends on what you mean exactly by “EQ”.

You are right, of course. I forgot about the DSP based cross-overs. When you think about what you get "out of the box" with the Genelec in terms of performance it is pretty incredible.