Rank studio monitors/active speakers you have heard

[badboygolf16v]

This post sure showed the people here that have delicate sensibilities

I've not got delicate sensibilities I just don't like blowhards.

 

[thewas]

Right, because North America = America

Well, its an US based forum here, USA is the probably the biggest monitor market and in three posts you didn't manage to write your country but just "clearly I don't live in Europe - using a dollar sign was a clear indication of that" and my clairvoyant sphere is unfortunately for service at the dealer.

Funny doing weird shit like ranking Adam T5V ahead of the S2V or including Kef LS50s on a list of studio monitors got no comment

You got some wondering comments like this but at least you admit now you were just doing "weird shit" which was also not what was asked in the original post to include in the ranking the value for money.
Also it doesn't make sense to discuss about individual tastes, so I only commented on some facts opposite to your claims like that they measure at a very similar level and are also priced in some of the biggest markets (EU & US) very similarly.

but the KH 120 fanboy army showed up like always

Funnily I even sold my KH120, same as I did with my Genelec, so much about fanboys...

But by all means guys keep defending an indefensible product all you want. Three entire semi-tones more bass extension, eight parametric EQs and two shelfs less, for 50% more than a KH 80... LOL

The only thing that is indefensible are your claims which were proven wrong, like also using a KH80 as better alternative for the KH120 ignoring its significant SPL limitation in comparison.

 

[Doodski]

I think that the B&W 801 series 1 (I'm pretty sure they where series 1) have been the best "studio monitor" if we can refer to them as such that I've heard. I blew a woofer (smashed the voice coil former) in one but it was covered under warranty. Otherwise I thought the Infinity Kappa 9 sounded more fun when I was in the sound room but they where so power hungry.

 

[ctrl]

And fwiw; by hearing only I would never have estimated these monitors measure so alike.. they sound very different to me..

If it's still a matter of comparing the KH120 and 8030C, your hearing didn't fool you, the two speakers measure totally differently.
I have already tried to show here that both speakers are not at all similar if you pay attention to the details.
No idea how this rumor could have started - it's speaker mobbing

 

[mjvbl]

my friend that has Genelec 8341 with sub also has Geithain rl944k1’s with subs. howcome the Geithains provide more information without being harsh? The Genelecs sound less clear, provide less info, but are bright and fatiguing.

Based on the FR published on the product page for the Geithain RL-944K, what I'm seeing is that the Geithain RL-944K has two not very narrow dips of 2dB or so above 5kHz, whereas the Genelec 8341A has flatter FR in the treble on- and off-axis.

Geithain RL-944K

Genelec 8341A

Also above 10kHz, at 50deg off-axis the Genelec 8341A is still flat, whereas the Geithain RL-944K is rolling-off. Also the the Geithain RL-944K appears to have a somewhat broad dip centered around 3kHz at 45deg off-axis.

Maybe these could result in the impression of a softer treble versus the flat response of the Genelec 8341A?

Some further speculation on my part: the perceived brightness of constant directivity designs came up in the DIY forum: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/constant-directivity-2-way-à-la-geddes.18685/post-861874

And inserting the referenced comment by Earl Geddes here:

Of all the things that I do, this is one of the only ones based on experience. A flat on listening axis just seems to sound bright with a CD speaker. I do believe it is the DI that is doing this when compared to the very narrow HF response from the direct radiator.

I am not the only one to find this, Toole also suggest a subtle downward tilt to the listening axis response. HFs are just not that prevalent in our environment and too much of them can sound un-natural. We can easily generate 10+ kHz directly into someone's ears but in nature these frequencies just do not travel very far (air absorption skyrockets above 10k), our environment is basically devoid of them.

Remember that we are not talking about extreme values here - 3 dB @ 10 kHz tops.

I think it's fair to say the Geithain's design is more like a flat baffle and direct radiating tweeter design, and the Genelec is closer to a constant directivity design. So maybe this could also be part of the explanation. (More so than assertions about the tweeter driver.)

 

[Martin]

Since I’ve only heard the two I have owned:

1. JBL 306P MKII
2. KRK Rokit 6 RPG2

Martin

 

[beefkabob]

I got home after a few months and listened to a couple tracks from 2001 soundtrack. Blue Danube and that horn one from the start. I laughed.
JBL 708P
SVS PB16
Dirac through SHD Studio.

 

[richard12511]

Yes I believe so too.

edit: I believe so too that everybody hears differently.
But imo Genelec makes very good monitors in their price range. I also own Neumann KH 310 with KH 750 sub. Imo that is more something Genelec can be compared with (at least the 8341 / 7360 setup i know)..

But they do not compete well with the best solutions available (for example Geithain, PSI, ATC). I am aware that these are more expensive. But also different league imo..

Maybe if they would get rid of this piercing high-end they would..

I think you may be conflating you and your friends subjective preference with objective truth. Objectively, we know that better measurements correlate with better subjective preference under blind conditions.

Of all the monitors you mentioned (MEG, Neumann, PSI, ATC, Genelec), the Ones measure the best, Neumann second best, then MEG(the others measure considerably worse, from what I’ve seen). This means that on average (with subs), most people will like the Genelec the most under blind conditions. The fact that you and your friends prefer the Genelec the least doesn’t negate the research that says they are the best. The research is only good for saying what is best on average. There is always room for subjective preference, especially true under sighted conditions.

I do think there is an objective X factor in favor of the MEGs, though, and that is the cardioid mid bass (I see cardioid bass as a negative), that the research misses. I do think speakers like MEG, Kii, D&D, and Ones + W371 would do better under blind conditions than the research would suggest they should.

 

[olivier salad]

I think you may be conflating you and your friends subjective preference with objective truth. Objectively, we know that better measurements correlate with better subjective preference under blind conditions.

Of all the monitors you mentioned (MEG, Neumann, PSI, ATC, Genelec), the Ones measure the best, Neumann second best, then MEG(the others measure considerably worse, from what I’ve seen). This means that on average (with subs), most people will like the Genelec the most under blind conditions. The fact that you and your friends prefer the Genelec the least doesn’t negate the research that says they are the best. The research is only good for saying what is best on average. There is always room for subjective preference, especially true under sighted conditions.

I do think there is an objective X factor in favor of the MEGs, though, and that is the cardioid mid bass (I see cardioid bass as a negative), that the research misses. I do think speakers like MEG, Kii, D&D, and Ones + W371 would do better under blind conditions than the research would suggest they should.

I wonder if someone outside Harman has done blind speaker tests with a substantial number of participants.

 

[Martijn W]

Based on the FR published on the product page for the Geithain RL-944K, what I'm seeing is that the Geithain RL-944K has two not very narrow dips of 2dB or so above 5kHz, whereas the Genelec 8341A has flatter FR in the treble on- and off-axis.

Geithain RL-944K

Genelec 8341A

Also above 10kHz, at 50deg off-axis the Genelec 8341A is still flat, whereas the Geithain RL-944K is rolling-off. Also the the Geithain RL-944K appears to have a somewhat broad dip centered around 3kHz at 45deg off-axis.

Maybe these could result in the impression of a softer treble versus the flat response of the Genelec 8341A?

Some further speculation on my part: the perceived brightness of constant directivity designs came up in the DIY forum: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/constant-directivity-2-way-à-la-geddes.18685/post-861874

And inserting the referenced comment by Earl Geddes here:



I think it's fair to say the Geithain's design is more like a flat baffle and direct radiating tweeter design, and the Genelec is closer to a constant directivity design. So maybe this could also be part of the explanation. (More so than assertions about the tweeter driver.)

 

[Martijn W]

I think you may be conflating you and your friends subjective preference with objective truth. Objectively, we know that better measurements correlate with better subjective preference under blind conditions.

Of all the monitors you mentioned (MEG, Neumann, PSI, ATC, Genelec), the Ones measure the best, Neumann second best, then MEG(the others measure considerably worse, from what I’ve seen). This means that on average (with subs), most people will like the Genelec the most under blind conditions. The fact that you and your friends prefer the Genelec the least doesn’t negate the research that says they are the best. The research is only good for saying what is best on average. There is always room for subjective preference, especially true under sighted conditions.

I do think there is an objective X factor in favor of the MEGs, though, and that is the cardioid mid bass (I see cardioid bass as a negative), that the research misses. I do think speakers like MEG, Kii, D&D, and Ones + W371 would do better under blind conditions than the research would suggest they should.

good post! I have both Neumann and Geithain 3-way nearfield with sub (so actually 4-way).

I know Neumanns measure better but relatively Neumanns sound analytical and artificial. Or the Geithain sound more natural and lively.

I think both deliver incredible detail, but on Neumann you never get the experience of the music happening in real life right in front of you like with Geithain.

Geithains are more colored, but I would not say that the Neumanns provide more detail. In the end the Geithains are more detailed, especially in the midrange. I would say Neumann does sound ‘tighter’ in the bass but a little ‘veiled’ in the midrange in comparison.

I guess it depends on what you want from speakers which is the best.

 

[Purité Audio]

My experience is that the better a speaker measures the more transparent it is, whether you enjoy that transparency is of course personal choice, many older listeners have become used to colouration and enjoy it.
Keith

 

[Martijn W]

Well for transparancy you also would prefer Geithain. For me this is very clear. For example reverb tails are ‘lost’ in the sound earlier on the Neumanns. On the Geithains I can hear a reverb descending all the way down. I can hear the slightest sound still clearly.

Also when putting the volume up high I can whisper and you can still understand me when you are sitting next to me. When I do this in the Neumanns I have to raise my voice otherwise you will not hear what I am saying.

I am assured that 9 out of 10 users who worked on both Neumann and Geithain monitoring solutions will prefer Geithain. If the steep price difference is worth it is another question. Personally I find the price/quality of Neumann products outstanding.

I am 36 years old by the way, which i like to think is not old!

 

[TopQuark]

It's surprising how varied the preferences are. It's likely how they are used, the distance from where you are on the speakers, system chain, and type of genre one listens to. For jazz, new age, smooth jazz, and some pop and for desktop use, the following are my preferences so soundstage, imaging, and transparency are my main criteria. List are includes matching subwoofer:

1. Adam A5X - Never ranked them as high until paired with TT2 and M-scaler. Imaging and transparency can't be beat.
2. Genelec 8030C - Sounds woody to me on some songs.
3. Neumann KH 120 - Too diffused, imaging not as defined.

I also had monitors with larger drivers like Focal Solo6 Be and Adam A7X but I didn't like them for desktop. I think 5-6" drivers are best for desktop.

 

[richard12511]

good post! I have both Neumann and Geithain 3-way nearfield with sub (so actually 4-way).

I know Neumanns measure better but relatively Neumanns sound analytical and artificial. Or the Geithain sound more natural and lively.

I think both deliver incredible detail, but on Neumann you never get the experience of the music happening in real life right in front of you like with Geithain.

Geithains are more colored, but I would not say that the Neumanns provide more detail. In the end the Geithains are more detailed, especially in the midrange. I would say Neumann does sound ‘tighter’ in the bass but a little ‘veiled’ in the midrange in comparison.

I guess it depends on what you want from speakers which is the best.

I do think Geithains have that bit of x-factor with the cardioid midbass(similar to D&D and Kii). There is evidence that beam shaping like that is subjectively preferred. So, even if it doesn't measure quite as perfect, it still may be preferred in part due to that.

 

[Martijn W]

I do think there is an objective X factor in favor of the MEGs, though, and that is the cardioid mid bass (I see cardioid bass as a negative), that the research misses. I do think speakers like MEG, Kii, D&D, and Ones + W371 would do better under blind conditions than the research would suggest they should.

Of all the monitors you mentioned (MEG, Neumann, PSI, ATC, Genelec), the Ones measure the best, Neumann second best, then MEG(the others measure considerably worse, from what I’ve seen).

That really makes me wonder; have you ever heard PSI A25 or ATC-SCM50ASL PRO?

 

[Purité Audio]

I have and owned them, both decent designs, but more coloured than the latest loudspeakers, also larger boxes but less bass extension, very little or no adjustment ( in the case of the ATCs) as I mentioned in a previous post you may enjoy the added distortion that they bring but objectively they are not as transparent as the latest designs, cardioid/constant directivity/eq etc etc.
Keith

 

[honkytonkwillie]

Fascinating thread! Makes me wonder what you all do for a living. It looks like many peoples' day job involves listening.

I'm more of a gear nut who just enjoys music and sound. The monitors I have are:

JBL LSR 308
JBL LSR 305
JBL 4430

The LSR speakers are nice little tools, bought to make noise with my synthesizers. For that they're fantastic. I rarely play around with synths these days, and since COVID the 305's are on my home office computer.

The 4430's live in the bedroom.

 

[Doodski]

The 4430's live in the bedroom.

If the building is rocking then don't bother knocking sorta bedroom speaker. Those are some healthy bedroom speakers.

 

[Yamaoka86]

Well for transparancy you also would prefer Geithain. For me this is very clear. For example reverb tails are ‘lost’ in the sound earlier on the Neumanns. On the Geithains I can hear a reverb descending all the way down. I can hear the slightest sound still clearly.

Also when putting the volume up high I can whisper and you can still understand me when you are sitting next to me. When I do this in the Neumanns I have to raise my voice otherwise you will not hear what I am saying.

I am assured that 9 out of 10 users who worked on both Neumann and Geithain monitoring solutions will prefer Geithain. If the steep price difference is worth it is another question. Personally I find the price/quality of Neumann products outstanding.

I am 36 years old by the way, which i like to think is not old!

May I ask you if you used the Neumann in combination with some sort of DSP to correct the room response? I'm on the KH310/750 combo and used the 750 onboard DSP for the KH310. What I noticed is the KH310 mids got way more clearness shown on long reverb tales as you mentioned. I had a MEG listening session and while they were better in every term than Neumann the KH310 really need a treated room or at least DSP for their mids to show clarity.