Rank studio monitors/active speakers you have heard

[jonfitch]

That is really interesting, I don’t think I heard the mains without the sub/glm or only very briefly, so the forward presentation really is a thing and not just my imagination.
The 8361B combo did remind me of my old 8260/7270 hugely impressive but quite an aggressive sound, I suspect though it would be easy to adjust that out.
Keith

Yeah when I listened to the 8331/8341 I found the lower mids pretty forward, causing vocals and percussion to sound separated from the rest of the instruments, not sure if you are referring to the same thing when you say aggressive. As I understand it, they use the 2nd generation waveguide, the 8351A uses the first generation, and the 8351B/8361A uses the 3rd generation.

To me looking at the first gen waveguide 8351A I would expect it to sound a lot more rolled off in-room, maybe similar to the Kef Reference 1 which is very laid back in the lower mids. It looks like in the Sound Power graph, the 8351A down nearly 10db at 300hz compared to 100hz. Whereas with the 8351B its closer to 4-5db. On the other hand the response is a lumpier above 1K, but it might be so rolled off that it's would be hard to tell the difference.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I'm still shocked that the 8361A(the flagship) is worst than 8351B

 

[liquidlino]

He basing that off the older ones or the newer ones? I've heard the gen 4 5" and it was actually really dang good, I could absolutely mix on them and the music pIayed on them sounded great. I hated the generations before this one though.

Not sure - whatever the current ones are. I always quite liked the look of them, but he was pretty clear they weren't for me given the criteria I'd given him... Either way, still super happy with my JBL 305p's. Now - just need to fix the acoustics in my crappy 2.5m x 2.5m room - utterly sucks the bass out at listening position.

 

[Deleted member 12642]

Now - just need to fix the acoustics in my crappy 2.5m x 2.5m room - utterly sucks the bass out at listening position.

Welcome to the No Bass Race, all are welcome lol.

 

[echopraxia]

The more I look at the 8260, the more it looks like a technical marvel. To my eye, the only One that (maybe?) looks to be an actual upgrade is the 8351, and only if you're crossing to subs. The 8361 has some weird off axis problems that I don't see in the 8260. Is the extra output, smoother vertical response and SP enough to overcome that?

Even comparing it to the 8351 + subs, there is the matter of dispersion width. We saw with the M2 vs Salon2 blind that wider dispersion is more important than a smoother LW and ER. Similar thing happened with @echopraxia in his comparison of the Salon2 and 8351b. Would a similar result not happen with the 8260 vs 8351? The 8260 is even wider dispersion than the Salon2, and unlike the Salon2, it doesn't sacrifice LW and ER smoothness to get it.

The Philharmonic BMR tower has me very intrigued for this reason. Could the BMR tower do to the Salon2 what the Salon2 did to the M2? It has even wider dispersion, and LW and ER smoothness look comparable. Extension is also similar. Would be amazing if it could, considering the price.

It certainly would be fascinating to listen to and compare the 8260 vs Salon2 some day. If the 8260 really does have an even greater (or even similar) beam width up to 5-10khz, then it would be a really great opportunity to test the hypothesis of beam width as an explanation for why the Salon2’s have a more “immersive” (but not as “pinpoint precise” soundstage) vs the relatively narrower (but still not narrow) beam of the 8351B’s.

 

[Hephaestus]

I'm still shocked that the 8361A(the flagship) is worst than 8351B

Worse in some ways and better in others. Subjectively I have not noticed anything disturbing in my 8361A midrange when compared to 8341A which seems to have smoother midrange on paper. Every loudspeaker is unfortunately a bunch of compromises. You just have to find the right compromises for you!

@jonfitch keeps mentioning here those "forward" mids in the Ones. Something that I dont understand at all. Maybe in a certain room setup they might sound that way? I have currently long distance to both side walls and the mids are not "forward sounding" here. I even checked my hearing while ago and it is still fine. I believe you that you experience it that way - it just amazes me that I have not heard such "quality" with these.

For some weird reason I have soft spot towards coaxial speakers....

Back to the topic.

Best studio monitors I have heard: 8c and 8361A. 8c for the bass and G-brand for the stereo image or whatever to call that thing

 

[jonfitch]

Worse in some ways and better in others. Subjectively I have not noticed anything disturbing in my 8361A midrange when compared to 8341A which seems to have smoother midrange on paper. Every loudspeaker is unfortunately a bunch of compromises. You just have to find the right compromises for you!

@jonfitch keeps mentioning here those "forward" mids in the Ones. Something that I dont understand at all. Maybe in a certain room setup they might sound that way? I have currently long distance to both side walls and the mids are not "forward sounding" here. I even checked my hearing while ago and it is still fine. I believe you that you experience it that way - it just amazes me that I have not heard such "quality" with these.

For some weird reason I have soft spot towards coaxial speakers....

Back to the topic.

Best studio monitors I have heard: 8c and 8361A. 8c for the bass and G-brand for the stereo image or whatever to call that thing

It's not that hard to understand IMO, all my claims are based on several dozen hours of painstaking side by side comparisons with multiple speakers corroborated by other listeners which I listened with, and are backed up by measurements published by Genelec. Not a single person has proven that Genelec's published sound power or off-axis measurements are false, which I refer to in my listening. Certainly people have different sound preferences, which is fine--remember, even with the best target curve we know of, only 50% of people prefer the standard Harman/Olive curve, the other 50% prefer a more forward or more rolled off sound. But I disagree with the methods of certain people who are engaging in motivated reasoning to discredit my observations while never addressing any of the measurements I post, since I believe in science, not tribal affiliation and just parroting popular beliefs.

 

[q3cpma]

It's not that hard to understand IMO, all my claims are based on several dozen hours of painstaking side by side comparisons with multiple speakers corroborated by other listeners which I listened with, and are backed up by measurements published by Genelec. Not a single person has proven that Genelec's published sound power or off-axis measurements are false, which I refer to in my listening. Certainly people have different sound preferences, which is fine--remember, even with the best target curve we know of, only 50% of people prefer the standard Harman/Olive curve, the other 50% prefer a more forward or more rolled off sound. But I disagree with the methods of certain people who are engaging in motivated reasoning to discredit my observations while never addressing any of the measurements I post, since I believe in science, not tribal affiliation and just parroting popular beliefs.

Sorry if I didn't see your post, but what official Genelec measurement of the 8341A supports you? The 8341A measurements I see are quite clean, including a smooth power response. The vertical dispersion's kink, maybe?

 

[richard12511]

It certainly would be fascinating to listen to and compare the 8260 vs Salon2 some day. If the 8260 really does have an even greater (or even similar) beam width up to 5-10khz, then it would be a really great opportunity to test the hypothesis of beam width as an explanation for why the Salon2’s have a more “immersive” (but not as “pinpoint precise” soundstage) vs the relatively narrower (but still not narrow) beam of the 8351B’s.

You're gonna have to get 8260s now to test it for us .

Really would be interesting way to test the theory, though. I've talked to a couple other folks on here who also own the Salon2 and 8351b, and their impressions are similar to yours.

Something else I've been wondering about lately is the idea of spreading your sound out over larger baffle to make it harder to determine where in space the sound is coming from. In Amir's recent review of the Triangle tower speaker, he said something that really intrigued me. He compared the Triangle Tower speaker to a couple Revel bookshelf speakers that measure quite a bit better. He noted that while the Revels did have better tonality, he still preferred the Triangle due to the fact that the drivers were more spread out vertically. He didn't like that the sound of the Revel bookshelves all sounded like it was coming from a single location. The whole concept of "The Ones" is getting the sound to sound like it's all coming from the same place, but what if that's the opposite of what is actually preferred...

Would also really love to just see 8260 vs 8351b. Was the ever so slight directivity improvements worth the considerably narrowed beamwidth.

 

[Sancus]

Would also really love to just see 8260 vs 8351b. Was the ever so slight directivity improvements worth the considerably narrowed beamwidth.

Genelec would probably argue that extremely wide dispersion isn't an advantage for a studio monitor, they wanted perfectly symmetrical vertical and horizontal dispersion, and that they needed higher SPL output in their 8260/8361A sized monitor to be competitive with eg KH420.

 

[richard12511]

@jonfitch keeps mentioning here those "forward" mids in the Ones. Something that I dont understand at all. Maybe in a certain room setup they might sound that way? I have currently long distance to both side walls and the mids are not "forward sounding" here. I even checked my hearing while ago and it is still fine. I believe you that you experience it that way - it just amazes me that I have not heard such "quality" with these.

I think it is probably just different subjective definitions of what "forward" means to us. I think he's talking more about soundstage than he is tonality.

Forward to me meant "more treble", opposite of "laid back". At first, that's what I thought he meant. This confused me a bit, as while it makes sense in the (his speakers) Genelec vs KEF comparison, it doesn't make sense in the Revel vs Genelec comparison. The Revels have wider treble dispersion than the Genelecs, and Genelecs are wider than KEFs.

Like I mentioned, though, I don't think he means tonally more forward. Taking "forward" to mean more "forward in the soundstage", I have to say I agree with him. Comparing the two side by side, the center image of the Genelec is closer to me in physical space. What in the measurements can explain this? I'm honestly not sure, but I definitely do hear it.

A couple ideas (I don't remember @jonfitch's ideas, so sorry if I'm repeating):

1. Better vertical dispersion in the 1.5-3kHz range. Main reason I throw this out is because it's by far the biggest difference I see between the two. I know vertical is thought to not matter all that much, but the Revel has a huge(8-10dB) dip in that area, whereas the Genelec is essentially flat.

2. Wider top octave dispersion for the Genelec. The Revel does have wider treble dispersion through the main audible band, but that changes above 10kHz. Look at the F328Be review vs the 8341 review, and look how much more the Revel drops off above 10kHz(this is even more pronounced in the Salon2). Above 10kHz doesn't affect tonality all that much(ime), but I'm wondering if it's not critical to our brain for determining distance. Something I notice with live music(that's usually much further away) is that it has a stronger bass tilt. Also, measuring my speakers at different distances, that last octave seems to be the octave that changes the most.

I've also found that it's greatly affected by GLM. Turning GLM on moves the center image closer to me in space. The main thing GLM does is reduce the relative levels of bass, which could be related to my second idea. Try turning GLM on and off and see if that changes the perceived distance of the center image. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

Note that @Purité Audio also noted something very similar in his 8361 vs 8C comparison on the previous page, so @jonfitch is not alone here.

 

[Hephaestus]

Thanks for your comments @richard12511 and @jonfitch

It seems that this is certainly something how we personally perceive sound. I think that it may be partially related with the room setup as well. Our new apatment´s living room is really wide and the side walls are well over 5 meters away. This means that side wall reflections are attenuated and delayed significantly.

 

[goldenears]

it makes sense in the (his speakers) Genelec vs KEF comparison

Can anyone link me to that comparison? Can't find it with a search.

 

[Frgirard]

Thanks for your comments @richard12511 and @jonfitch

It seems that this is certainly something how we personally perceive sound. I think that it may be partially related with the room setup as well. Our new apatment´s living room is really wide and the side walls are well over 5 meters away. This means that side wall reflections are attenuated and delayed significantly.

The ceiling and the floor have their contributions in the reflections creation.
Especially since audiophiles listen to their speakers much too far away.

 

[Hephaestus]

The ceiling and the floor have their contributions in the reflections creation.

Yes they do! That is why I like coaxials I guess

And what comes to listening distance I certainly agree. Many audiophiles seem to have very long listening distances. (Judging from the photos I have seen online)
I have always had mine in near/midfield distances.

 

[stevenswall]

personally I would rank the ME Geithain ML 811 K1 at the top.

I'd like to put it in second place at most, behind the Genelec 8260:
28 Hz ... 20 kHz ± 3 dB for the Gethain is too inaccurate. I'd like to see +/-1dB. Looks like it was made to go loud and has an archaic cabinet design.

 

[thewas]

I'd like to put it in second place at most, behind the Genelec 8260:
28 Hz ... 20 kHz ± 3 dB for the Gethain is too inaccurate. I'd like to see +/-1dB. Looks like it was made to go loud and has an archaic cabinet design.

The K MEG models provide a cardioid bass which can be a big advantage (and is the opposite to a high SPL target), on axis FR linearity isn't everything and nothing easier to achieve in times of DSP, in 1992 when I chose my first good Hifi loudspeakers I also chose them to the smallest ± x dB band, but now I know better.

 

[astcal]

on my computer desk which I spend almost all my time at home:

1. Neumann KH 80 (current)
2. Dynaudio BM5 mkii
3. Dynaudio BM5 mki

Accuracy and neutrality is what I am looking for and KH 80 delivers with no compromises! I don't need to try other speakers anymore. only add-on will be Neumann KH 750 DSP subwoofer with their MA-1 calibration kit to extend deeper in the low end.

 

[jsbrandon]

Would all of these speakers be ok for movies and games in a pc setup? I'm confused on if studio speakers are literally only meant for music creation?

 

[dfuller]

Would all of these speakers be ok for movies and games in a pc setup? I'm confused on if studio speakers are literally only meant for music creation?

It honestly depends! Some are probably a bit big for that, but others would be fine.