Visible gap between the coaxial assembly and enclosure on my Genelec 8351B — does this look normal?

[illusonic]

Reminds me of this. Poster was quite upset and got 18 likes for his quality rant. Comments were far less in favor of the product than in this thread. Guess Genelec is too expensive to fail ;-)

Tweeter is approximately 0.5mm off-center.

Manufacturer response:
"This does indeed look wrong and definitely outside our tolerances. I’m sorry to see that.
We would like to replace the speaker for you and get this one back to have a better understanding how this could happen.
Could you please write us a quick mail at [email protected]? The colleagues are informed and will take care of it."

PS: I think that Genelec coax looks much better from the back than the front. Technical details are beautiful.

 

[tmtomh]

Reminds me of this. Poster was quite upset and got 18 likes for his quality rant. Comments were far less in favor of the product than in this thread. Guess Genelec is too expensive to fail ;-)

Tweeter is approximately 0.5mm off-center.

Manufacturer response:
"This does indeed look wrong and definitely outside our tolerances. I’m sorry to see that.
We would like to replace the speaker for you and get this one back to have a better understanding how this could happen.
Could you please write us a quick mail at [email protected]? The colleagues are informed and will take care of it."

View attachment 535793View attachment 535792View attachment 535791

PS: I think that Genelec coax looks much better from the back than the front. Technical details are beautiful.

Based on the final photo, that driver is mounted far more off center than any of the Genelecs whose images have been shared in this thread.

 

[illusonic]

Based on the final photo, that driver is mounted far more off center than any of the Genelecs whose images have been shared in this thread.

0.5mm can look quite dramatic when zooming in close enough. The lines are to scale and exact length is known from powerpoint.
There is also some perspective distortion which can be seen on the plastic ring. So actual offset may be even less.
But your comment kind of misses the point anyways.

 

[AudioJester]

After reading the replies, I have taken some time to think more clearly about what my concern actually is.

I understand the technical explanations given here. I understand that this may be normal manufacturing tolerance, that the driver is mounted and sealed from the rear, and that the acoustic impact is likely very small or negligible.

So my question is not only whether this is a functional fault. Of course, that was my first concern, and Genelec has answered that they do not consider it a fault.

My remaining concern is about the tolerance boundary for a flagship reference monitor.

If my pair is representative of the typical finish for The Ones, then I can accept that my expectation may have been wrong.

But if my pair is closer to the outer edge of Genelec’s acceptable visual tolerance, then I think it is fair to ask whether that is a reasonable tolerance boundary for a product at this level.

For me, this would be easier to accept in either of two ways:

1. if many other 8351B / 8361 / The Ones owners show a similar level of visible gap, or
2. if Genelec provides non-confidential measurement data or a test summary showing that this level of gap has no measurable acoustic or performance difference compared with a smaller-gap unit.
   

Genelec told me that my monitors are within their accepted limits and that no measurable acoustic issue was found. I understand that position. However, no measurement graph, tolerance value, or non-confidential test summary was shared with me.

I also understand the point that a 0.4 mm gap is very small compared with the wavelength at 20 kHz. My point is not to claim a proven audible defect from this gap.

My point is that customers who buy a monitor at this level are often paying not only for audibility, but also for engineering precision, consistency, and trust in the product as a reference tool.

If this level of visible gap is within tolerance, then I think the useful question for current and future buyers is:

Is this a reasonable tolerance boundary for a flagship reference monitor?

Just checked my 8361a - no noticeable gap.

The big coloured font parts of your post are concerns unique to you, I dont think I have ever seen anyone else with similar issues. The point being, is its something you will have to resolve and not a broader problem with Genelec.

If you are unhappy, lost confidence with Genelec, the only suggestion I have is to return the speakers and try something else - lots of options these days.

 

[tmtomh]

0.5mm can look quite dramatic when zooming in close enough. The lines are to scale and exact length is known from powerpoint.
There is also some perspective distortion which can be seen on the plastic ring. So actual offset may be even less.
But your comment kind of misses the point anyways.

View attachment 535806

I didn’t miss the point - I just don’t agree with the point you were trying to make and didn’t think it was worth engaging with. Still don’t.

 

[Andreas007]

Once your mind has fixated on a small detail and you keep thinking about it, it becomes difficult to let it go again.
I guess the only way forward is either to accept it (apparently there are even marketing photos showing the gap) or, if you simply can't get past it, to remove the "offending item" altogether. Though that probably wouldn't do much to improve one's future tolerance for manufacturing tolerances.

In the end, there have to be manufacturing tolerances. Your sample is a pick out of a normal distribution.
It depends on luck which one you get. I guess Genelec will have limits for what is acceptable or not which may not fit to your expectations.
Tightening down these limits would basically mean increasing costs by pre-selecting, tolerance chain matching, supplier parts spec tightening or even throwing away technically working products. Offering "visually flawed" monitors for a lower price could be an option, but I guess this is not Genelec way. And honestly, would you buy?

 

[illusonic]

Offering "visually flawed" monitors for a lower price could be an option, but I guess this is not Genelec way. And honestly, would you buy?

I'm sure many people would take that opportunity and buy them at lower cost as long as acoustics are not affected. Genelecs are not meant to look pretty. These are tools where form follows function. Looking at this assembly of different color rings with visual edges in between, I don't see how the slight gap makes a considerable difference in overall appearance.

The beauty lies in the acoustic optimization. From my experience with waveguide design, even small steps affect frequency response in the top octave if close to the tweeter like in case of the Orbits. Although the latter is mainly a cosmetic issue in measurement plots, the perfectionist in me still got to love the smooth surface of the Genelec coax without acoustically effective steps in the audible range.

 

[Sokel]

Here's your favorite most superficial member ever (me) that counts premium feel and visible flaws a little lower than function itself:

I see NO fault whatsoever, tolerance is well within reason and knowing the internal structure is easy to see why the gap is there.

I wouldn't worry at all, they look as nice as it gets, no cheap feeling about them, not by a long shot.

 

[marin.weigel]

The course of this discussion seems to be driven more by OCD, rather than wanting to understand real world economical engineering decisions.
What's important, is that the music is reproduced gapless.

 

[WhiteBear]

Just checked my 8361a - no noticeable gap.

The big coloured font parts of your post are concerns unique to you, I dont think I have ever seen anyone else with similar issues. The point being, is its something you will have to resolve and not a broader problem with Genelec.

If you are unhappy, lost confidence with Genelec, the only suggestion I have is to return the speakers and try something else - lots of options these days.

Even after comparing dozens of images I have collected, I still do not see a gap like mine. The examples shared by members here also do not look as pronounced as mine to me.

Since I raised this concern here, at least this case is now visible to others.

For those whose units do not show this level of gap, I can only say that your units are much closer to what I expected to receive as well. I had naturally assumed that my pair would look like that too.

I also hope that, if you ever need service or replacement parts in the future, you continue to receive units with the same clean finish and without a visible gap that bothers you.

I say this because I do not want other users to experience the same concern I had.

I will also take the advice shared here into consideration.

 

[WhiteBear]

I'm sure many people would take that opportunity and buy them at lower cost as long as acoustics are not affected. Genelecs are not meant to look pretty. These are tools where form follows function. Looking at this assembly of different color rings with visual edges in between, I don't see how the slight gap makes a considerable difference in overall appearance.

The beauty lies in the acoustic optimization. From my experience with waveguide design, even small steps affect frequency response in the top octave if close to the tweeter like in case of the Orbits. Although the latter is mainly a cosmetic issue in measurement plots, the perfectionist in me still got to love the smooth surface of the Genelec coax without acoustically effective steps in the audible range.

View attachment 535863

I agree with your last point. I think most people who buy Genelec monitors are hoping to get the best possible performance and execution, if possible.

Not a unit that appears to sit near the outer edge of Genelec’s acceptable tolerance.

That matters to me because I purchased these monitors as new units at the full retail price, not as discounted B-stock or cosmetically imperfect units.

 

[WhiteBear]

Once your mind has fixated on a small detail and you keep thinking about it, it becomes difficult to let it go again.
I guess the only way forward is either to accept it (apparently there are even marketing photos showing the gap) or, if you simply can't get past it, to remove the "offending item" altogether. Though that probably wouldn't do much to improve one's future tolerance for manufacturing tolerances.

In the end, there have to be manufacturing tolerances. Your sample is a pick out of a normal distribution.
It depends on luck which one you get. I guess Genelec will have limits for what is acceptable or not which may not fit to your expectations.
Tightening down these limits would basically mean increasing costs by pre-selecting, tolerance chain matching, supplier parts spec tightening or even throwing away technically working products. Offering "visually flawed" monitors for a lower price could be an option, but I guess this is not Genelec way. And honestly, would you buy?

Thank you. I understand your point, and I agree that manufacturing tolerances must exist.

However, I think there is an important distinction between “a gap exists” and “the many images most customers usually see.” From the dozens of images I have collected, and from many public images available online, a gap as pronounced as mine still appears to be very uncommon.

Here is another way to look at it:

If a customer could inspect two new units in person before buying — one with a visible gap like mine, and one with a much cleaner and tighter-looking finish — which one do you think most customers would choose?

That is the part I find difficult to accept. When buying a product at this price level from a company that describes itself as a world leader in professional monitoring, I did not expect the visible finish of such a central part to depend so much on luck.

I also think there is a reason why Genelec’s main public images generally show cleaner and more continuous-looking examples. That is the finish many customers naturally expect to receive.

Regarding the cost of tighter QC, I understand your point. But Genelec products are already priced as premium professional tools, especially the coaxial lineup. So I think it is fair for customers to expect a high standard not only in measured performance, but also in visible execution and consistency.

And to answer your final question: yes, if a unit had a known visual flaw and was sold at a lower price because of that, I could understand the exchange. In that case, the customer knowingly accepts the condition in return for a lower price.

But I paid the normal price for a new unit, so I naturally expected the finish to be representative of Genelec’s normal retail standard.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Then return it

I mean, nobody would pay full retail price to buy from a store without a return policy, I’m sure

 

[pablolie]

don't genelecs measure very consistently? means those gaps mean absolutely nothing. do you want performance or looks? genelecs pride themselves on performance... not looks. which is why I admire them, but honestly couldn't look at. one in my room. it is known and accepted and part of the game.