Revel Salon2 vs Genelec 8351B - Blind Test Preparations

[Kachda]

If these conclusions are from sigted listening, how can we be sure this isn’t just expectation bias?

 

[q3cpma]

If these conclusions are from sigted listening, how can we be sure this isn’t just expectation bias?

While this is true, especially concerning the size of the speakers, I'd wager that the lack of subwoofer on the Ones' side is more jarring.

 

[echopraxia]

If these conclusions are from sigted listening, how can we be sure this isn’t just expectation bias?

It's obviously possible, and there's no way I can confirm that it's not (without a blind test, which this thread has shown is impossible to configure in way that will satisfy >50% of the population here).

But I think realistically, it's more likely that if anything is expectation bias here, it's various hypotheses attempting to explain the difference (like the directivity difference). All these hypotheses are very tenuous and just basically educated guessing.

I do think the actual sound difference heard are real, though I can't easily prove it to you. I own both these sets of speakers for the long run, and really love them both. They are audibly distinctly different when compared A/B (which I have done blind in the past), and that should not be surprising or particularly questionable. These comments are just me reflecting on the nature of those differences as an unbiased person who loves both speakers (and plans to keep them forever).

 

[Frank Dernie]

it's various hypotheses attempting to explain the difference

Herein lies the difficulty of drawing conclusions thus
I love the joke about the researcher testing a flea.
He said "jump" and the flea jumped.
He removed 2 legs and said jump again, and the flea jumped.
He removed 2 more legs, said jump and the flea jumped.
He removed the last pair of legs, said jump and the flea did not jump.
Conclusion, if you remove a flea's legs it goes deaf.

 

[echopraxia]

While this is true, especially concerning the size of the speakers, I'd wager that the lack of subwoofer on the Ones' side is more jarring.

Keep in mind in both these cases I am integrating them with two Rythmik F12 subwoofers in this room. But you're right -- as I have mentioned, the Salon2's still permit much better in-room bass response consistency, because I tend to run the Salon2's nearly full range plus subs, integrated in such a way that the effect is essentially similar to having four subwoofers (with only a bit of high pass for the Salon2's mostly as a paranoid mechanical protection when playing really loud bass).

 

[Ron Texas]

Some audiophiles say big speakers in small rooms are fine. For me the Salon 2's would be imposing in my room and besides, there's no way I would spend that much. The 8351's pack a lot in a small package even if the finish is a bit on the industrial side. Active speakers have a lot of things which can go wrong with them, but at least Genelec is a substantial company which can provide parts and service.

Then, I wonder are these big guns really better than LS50's with subs, assuming the room is small enough to reach reasonably loud SPL's? How about for a larger room M106's or JBL 708's with subs?

@echopraxia I doubt high pass for the Salon 2's is necessary but I agree it's easier to integrate subs with full range speakers. I can't offer a scientific explanation, but I suspect timing differences are a lot less critical when the low pass on the sub is set low.

 

[q3cpma]

Keep in mind in both these cases I am integrating them with two Rythmik F12 subwoofers in this room.

Oh.

 

[echopraxia]

Some audiophiles say big speakers in small rooms are fine. For me the Salon 2's would be imposing in my room and besides, there's no way I would spend that much. The 8351's pack a lot in a small package even if the finish is a bit on the industrial side. Active speakers have a lot of things which can go wrong with them, but at least Genelec is a substantial company which can provide parts and service.

Then, I wonder are these big guns really better than LS50's with subs, assuming the room is small enough to reach reasonably loud SPL's? How about for a larger room M106's or JBL 708's with subs?

I've heard LS50s in-store, and owned a KEF R3 briefly, and don't really find that their sound quality compares to either of these speakers. The KEF R3 is the closest contender (much better than the LS50 to my ears, except for the slightly 'boring' sound that was difficult to describe at the time but in retrospect is probably attributable to the now-known upper midrange dip seen in its measurements).

But yeah for a small-ish room, the Genelec 8351B (plus optional sub) are really quite perfect IMO. I use them as my home office speakers, to listen to music while working etc. As a result I probably have spent at least 10x of my 'ear hours' listening to the Genelec's than the Revel's. It would be curious to see how the Salon2's sound in my much smaller home office room, but it would be too much work lugging the Salon2's around to find out unless there's a really good reason. I don't think they'd necessarily sound bad, but definitely overkill.

 

[echopraxia]

Oh.

Without subwoofers to normalize, the bass differences are huge. With no EQ, the Genelec's sound quite bass shy compared to the Salon2's in the same position in this large room. I assume this is not just due to the Salon2's deeper bass extension, but the port and woofers of the towers being located closer to the floor to benefit from its boundary reinforcement.

The Genelec 8351B's can deliver super impressive bass on their own with no subwoofer, but I find this is mostly true in a smaller room and when they are positioned close to a wall (then EQ'ed of course so it doesn't sound bloated) to benefit from boundary reinforcement.

I think the bass benefits of towers (boundary reinforcement via port and woofers located near the ground plane) vs bookshelf speakers might be often underestimated or forgotten when looking just at anechoic frequency response data.

 

[q3cpma]

Without subwoofers to normalize, the bass differences are huge. With no EQ, the Genelec's sound quite bass shy compared to the Salon2's in the same position in this large room. I assume this is not just due to the Salon2's deeper bass extension, but the port and woofers of the towers being located closer to the floor to benefit from its boundary reinforcement.

The Genelec 8351B's can deliver super impressive bass on their own with no subwoofer, but I find this is mostly true in a smaller room and when they are positioned close to a wall (then EQ'ed of course so it doesn't sound bloated) to benefit from boundary reinforcement.

I think the bass benefits of towers (boundary reinforcement via port and woofers located near the ground plane) vs bookshelf speakers might be often underestimated or forgotten when looking just at anechoic frequency response data.

You're right about towers. What's strange to me, is that you didn't say that the image was fuzzy/blurry with the Salon 2, as that would be the cons that goes with wide dispersion; but I guess the lack of early reflections due to the room size might create more of an unrealistically grandiose and maybe diffuse soundstage than affect the image.

 

[echopraxia]

You're right about towers. What's strange to me, is that you didn't say that the image was fuzzy/blurry with the Salon 2, as that would be the cons that goes with wide dispersion; but I guess the lack of early reflections due to the room size might create more of an unrealistically grandiose and maybe diffuse soundstage than affect the image.

I did at one point experiment with my Ascend Sierra 2EX in a small room, and found that the soundstage did sound too fuzzy/diffuse versus my Neumann KH310s. But in a larger room, the Sierra 2EX soundstage was actually preferable (though the KH310 are still much better speakers in other ways, and still quite good with soundstage and certainly aren't narrow directivity speakers).

However, in this much larger and echo-ey room, while you might think wide dispersion is too fuzzy, I think the key observation is that the alternate is actually much worse -- it creates too much of a 'crisp' echo effect in how it interacts with the room. The 'echo' effect is too obvious and distracting in this case. When a room is unavoidably reflective like this, it's much better for the room's effect to be made fuzzy, than crisp.

Theoretically, this makes sense to me. Imagine a single reflection of the audio signal -- the audio superimposed on the original signal with a single fixed delay and attenuation -- this is very obviously audible as an 'echo' effect that colors everything in the same (usually undesirable) way. But in contrast, imagine 1000 such reflections each at 1/1000th the amplitude, but crucially with each at a slightly different time delay (such that the summed reflection signal is significantly blurred). The original signal in the latter case is actually better preserved, at least perceptually.

 

[q3cpma]

I did at one point experiment with my Ascend Sierra 2EX in a small room, and found that the soundstage did sound too fuzzy/diffuse versus my Neumann KH310s. But in a larger room, the Sierra 2EX soundstage was actually preferable (though the KH310 are still much better speakers in other ways, and still quite good with soundstage and certainly aren't narrow directivity speakers).

However, in this much larger and echo-ey room, while you might think wide dispersion is too fuzzy, I think the key observation is that the alternate is actually much worse -- it creates too much of a 'crisp' echo effect in how it interacts with the room. The 'echo' effect is too obvious and distracting in this case. When a room is unavoidably reflective like this, it's much better for the room's effect to be made fuzzy, than crisp.

Theoretically, this makes sense to me. Imagine a single reflection of the audio signal -- the audio superimposed on the original signal with a single fixed delay and attenuation -- this is very obviously audible as an 'echo' effect that colors everything in the same (usually undesirable) way. But in contrast, imagine 1000 such reflections each at 1/1000th the amplitude, but crucially with each at a slightly different time delay (such that the summed reflection signal is significantly blurred). The original signal in the latter case is actually better preserved, at least perceptually.

What I'm getting from that is that in such rooms, narrow directivity might be better than wide and average, but average is worse than wide.

 

[echopraxia]

What I'm getting from that is that in this room, narrow directivity might be better than wide and average, but average is worse than wide.

Why would narrow be better than average? Wouldn't that make the reflection even more crisp and distracting?

Maybe if it was so narrow (like a laser beam) that the entire signal is absorbed by the listener's body (if that were even possible), but at that point the sound system is useless for more than one person sitting in exactly the right spot (so you might as well be wearing headphones). Otherwise, any signal that keeps traveling beyond the listener is going to be reflected (in this room), and the narrower that beam is, the more 'crisp' (and distractingly 'echo-ey') that reflection will sound, right?

 

[HooStat]

Do you think that your distance from the speakers, or the distance between the speakers might explain some of the differences? I am not sure whether you changed those, or played with those. I imagine you did.

 

[q3cpma]

Why would narrow be better than average? Wouldn't that make the reflection even more crisp and distracting?

What reflection? That's a bit the point of narrow directivity, to avoid reflections. At best, you'll have the back wall to treat and nothing else; and I doubt our hearing isn't somewhat cardioid in the higher frequencies, which would make only the side and floor/ceiling reflections really important.

 

[echopraxia]

What reflection? That's a bit the point of narrow directivity, to avoid reflections. At best, you'll have the back wall to treat and nothing else; and I doubt our hearing isn't somewhat cardioid in the higher frequencies, which would make only the side and floor/ceiling reflections really important.

You’re going to have reflections no matter what in this room. The question is therefore regarding the character of those reflections: spread out over a wide variance of time delays, or focused around a single mean time delay without much variance (a crisp distracting echo). Maybe my physics intuition is wrong, but it seems to me the tighter the beam, the lower the variance of amplitude-weighted time delays among the set of reflection signals reaching the listener.

Acoustic treatments for walls is nice when you’re able to, but I’m not aware of how you would even begin to treat glass windows to be less reflective.

 

[Frank Dernie]

You’re going to have reflections no matter what in this room. The question is therefore regarding the character of those reflections: spread out over a wide variance of time delays, or focused around a single mean time delay without much variance (a crisp distracting echo). Maybe my physics intuition is wrong, but it seems to me the tighter the beam, the lower the variance of amplitude-weighted time delays among the set of reflection signals reaching the listener.

Acoustic treatments for walls is nice when you’re able to, but I’m not aware of how you would even begin to treat glass windows to be less reflective.

The narrower the dispersion the fewer reflections, think of the speaker as a flashlight and the windows and floor as mirrors. The narrower the flashlight beam the less the glare.
Bravo if you achieve an acceptable sound in a room like this!

 

[echopraxia]

The narrower the dispersion the fewer reflections, think of the speaker as a flashlight and the windows and floor as mirrors. The narrower the flashlight beam the less the glare.
Bravo if you achieve an acceptable sound in a room like this!

A flashlight or laser in a room of (perhaps partially frosted) mirrors is a good analogy. Imagine the painful glare from a flashlight with a tight beam glaring in your eyes from many directions in a room of mirrors, versus a softly diffused lamp globe casting light in all directions softly.

 

[q3cpma]

A flashlight or laser in a room of (perhaps partially frosted) mirrors is a good analogy. Imagine the painful glare from a flashlight with a tight beam glaring in your eyes from many directions in a room of mirrors, versus a softly diffused lamp globe casting light in all directions softly.

But to achieve a similar amount of energe at your position, you'll need to dump much more energy (be it sound or light) in the room.

 

[Frank Dernie]

A flashlight or laser in a room of (perhaps partially frosted) mirrors is a good analogy. Imagine the painful glare from a flashlight with a tight beam glaring in your eyes from many directions in a room of mirrors, versus a softly diffused lamp globe casting light in all directions softly.

Yes, diffuse but nearly all reflection and almost no direct sound.