Why do some people say that Genelec sound too “flattering” or “too forgiving”? Specifically for mixing

[kemmler3D]

This logic means they should be mixing on AirBuds, no?

Yes, it's like trying to have it both ways if you deliberately mix on compromised monitors, and getting neither. I get the idea of bad monitors forcing you to mix in a way that is robust against poor consumer equipment, but I don't think the need to do that is an argument against more neutral monitors.

 

[sigbergaudio]

That's the first time I've heard someone say Genelec is too forgiving. I must say I somewhat doubt that you've "seen this quite a bit". And as you can see in the thread, some have the complete opposite impression.

This is a pretty complex subject, and it's dangerous to generalize too much (especially based on random people on Reddit, or internet in general).

A comment like that Reddit post will be colored (pun intended) by which Genelec model it is (they have quite a few), which room that Genelec speaker was in, what prior experience the person has, etc.

You say you're trying to figure out why some people say this. I suggest they're likely somehow misinformed.

 

[Arindal]

Genelecs have a flat frequency response and are analytical. They don’t flatter your mix or make things sound pretty?

I have worked a lot with Genelec in studios, and never thought they were ´analytical´. It is anyways a problematic term, used by many audiophiles but not clearly defined, that is why I try to avoid it. But if you expect a studio monitor to clearly reveal all treble details at lower SPL, always allowing a judgement if a mix is either transparent, very present, partly aggressive, overly brillant or too distant/dull - well, I would not call Genelecs analytical or revealing at all. Under certain conditions, particularly untreated or midrange-heavy rooms, they do have a tendency of being forgiving, a bit ´dull-silky´ in audiophile´s terms.

Most of them do have a flat frequency response - on-axis! Off-axis many of them show a significantly narrowing radiation pattern, so underrepresented treble in the indirect soundfield of the room. That can go well under nearfield conditions or in certain studio control rooms, but sometimes it leads exactly to the character which was described.

This is certainly not true to all Genelecs under all circumstances, e.g. the 8341A I found to be a pretty capable tool and excellent speaker under nearfield conditions.

The genelecs sound "nice" because they're more accurate... This may diminish one's ability to find problems in a mix (or enhance it) but that's more due to the user than the speaker.

I dispute that. A potential explanation for not easily discovering flaws in the mix, lies in the room soundfield, not in the expectation of the engineer. Other studio monitors with a very similar on-axis response, give a much more detailed picture of imaging and treble.

As long as the monitors are reasonably accurate a good mixing engineer will get good results.

Not always. We have to take into account that an imbalanced indirect soundfield does not just sound like dull reverb. It is also contributing to the additional reverb being perceived from wrong directions, being perceived as not a part of the mix, leaving comparably dry phantom sources in the mix ´holographic in a subjective vacuum´ and instruments with fairly enough reverb as overly distant. A resulting side effect for mixing engineers is the difficulty to judge the right amount of reverb or proximity for their mix.

Another aspect is that it is not as easy to judge the bass response with such speakers. If you are into electronic music and want to create some really punchy lower bass beats, you might find it difficult to judge it with speakers which always sound either bloated in certain bass bands, or on the edge of compression (like the smaller models).

 

[Multicore]

I get the idea of bad monitors forcing you to mix in a way that is robust against poor consumer equipment

I get that some people think this way, and there are indeed intentionally bad monitors sold for this purpose, but I didn't see how it stands up to scrutiny. How can you represent poor consumer sound generally with one model of monitor?

Isn't there modeling software that can do this for you better? Captured FIR, multiband compression and some distortion settings packaged as Samsung soundbar, Toyota Prius, Beats phones, dive bar, Bose Wave Radio, etc. This must already exist.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I get that some people think this way, and there are indeed intentionally bad monitors sold for this purpose, but I didn't see how it stands up to scrutiny. Have can you represent poor consumer sound generally with one model of monitor?

Isn't there modeling software that can do this for you better? Captured FIR, multiband compression and some distortion settings packaged as Samsung soundbar, Toyota Prius, Beats phones, dive bar, Bose Wave Radio, etc. This must already exist.

It's a hard to kill myth. It can be useful to have alternative (lesser) monitors to check the translation when mastering, but there's no reason why you don't want the highest quality monitors for the main mixing and mastering work.

 

[Leporello]

People's opinions on anything will always vary wildly. We will never reach an unanimous conclusion about anything. We do not necessarily need a technical explanation for this.

 

[kemmler3D]

Isn't there modeling software that can do this for you better? Captured FIR, multiband compression and some distortion settings packaged as Samsung soundbar, Toyota Prius, Beats phones, dive bar, Bose Wave Radio, etc. This must already exist.

Software like this does exist but I'm not sure it's used for that purpose or not. On the other hand, you also have to model the distortion profile which can't be captured as easily. I haven't seen this exactly but I haven't looked either.

 

[nqikz]

Or reading ASR instead of Reddit would be a good place to start...

That’s why I’m on this forum. Reddit has interesting takes but the measurements I trust more than what redditors say.

 

[nqikz]

Ok. There's also this coming up later this month...

Dr. Toole's 4th Edition Book is Coming! (Discount)

I don't know about you but I am quite anxious to get my hands on the much expended 4th edition of Dr. Toole's book: https://www.routledge.com/Sound-Reproduction-The-Acoustics-and-Psychoacoustics-of-Loudspeakers-Rooms-and-Headphones/Toole-Olive-Welti/p/book/9781032761930 Sound Reproduction...

www.audiosciencereview.com

That’s cool. Thanks for the recommendation

 

[nqikz]

I visit reddit only once, and that was enough.

Keep it that way..

 

[krabapple]

Keep it that way..

This is silly. Reddit isn't useless. It's also enormous and various, so to dismiss the whole thing is...silly.

 

[nqikz]

This is silly. Reddit isn't useless. It's also enormous and various, so to dismiss the whole thing is...silly.

I’m not dismissing it. It has some nice advice on certain forums on there. But it’s a cesspool filled with degeneracy overall.

 

[Multicore]

Software like this does exist but I'm not sure it's used for that purpose or not. On the other hand, you also have to model the distortion profile which can't be captured as easily. I haven't seen this exactly but I haven't looked either.

Modeling and profiling is the name of the game in certain pro audio areas: guitar amps and cabs, vintage studio gear, reverb, what else? The same techniques can surely be applied. Even if products to do it aren't commercially available I'll bet some engineers have their own set ups.

 

[kemmler3D]

Modeling and profiling is the name of the game in certain pro audio areas: guitar amps and cabs, vintage studio gear, reverb, what else? The same techniques can surely be applied. Even if products to do it aren't commercially available I'll bet some engineers have their own set ups.

Yes... I'm not totally sure but I think IMD might be harder to model, but it's probably important to the lack of clarity you get on crappy speakers. Anyway, access to crappy speakers is easy even if you don't have a sophisticated software emulator, just go to the local thrift store and grab something from the shelf.

I've tested mixes on cheap earbuds and on car stereos and it does help, I don't see that it's too much to ask to spend maybe 5 extra minutes per track doing that, but on the other hand I'm not a working mixing engineer...

 

[Multicore]

I'm not totally sure but I think IMD might be harder to model

Iiuc, IMD and harmonic distortion are measurements. It's nonlinearity you need to model and yes, it's harder and requires either elaborate physical models or simplifications with empirical justification.

 

[krabapple]

I’m not dismissing it. It has some nice advice on certain forums on there. But it’s a cesspool filled with degeneracy overall.

Well, no, it actually isn't. Have you any idea how vast it is?

The guy said he 'visited once and that was enough', and your told him to 'keep it that way'.

So, yeah, between that and this, you *are *dismissing Reddit. Why deny it?

 

[Sokel]

I have worked a lot with Genelec in studios, and never thought they were ´analytical´. It is anyways a problematic term, used by many audiophiles but not clearly defined, that is why I try to avoid it. But if you expect a studio monitor to clearly reveal all treble details at lower SPL, always allowing a judgement if a mix is either transparent, very present, partly aggressive, overly brillant or too distant/dull - well, I would not call Genelecs analytical or revealing at all. Under certain conditions, particularly untreated or midrange-heavy rooms, they do have a tendency of being forgiving, a bit ´dull-silky´ in audiophile´s terms.

Most of them do have a flat frequency response - on-axis! Off-axis many of them show a significantly narrowing radiation pattern, so underrepresented treble in the indirect soundfield of the room. That can go well under nearfield conditions or in certain studio control rooms, but sometimes it leads exactly to the character which was described.

This is certainly not true to all Genelecs under all circumstances, e.g. the 8341A I found to be a pretty capable tool and excellent speaker under nearfield conditions.



I dispute that. A potential explanation for not easily discovering flaws in the mix, lies in the room soundfield, not in the expectation of the engineer. Other studio monitors with a very similar on-axis response, give a much more detailed picture of imaging and treble.



Not always. We have to take into account that an imbalanced indirect soundfield does not just sound like dull reverb. It is also contributing to the additional reverb being perceived from wrong directions, being perceived as not a part of the mix, leaving comparably dry phantom sources in the mix ´holographic in a subjective vacuum´ and instruments with fairly enough reverb as overly distant. A resulting side effect for mixing engineers is the difficulty to judge the right amount of reverb or proximity for their mix.

Another aspect is that it is not as easy to judge the bass response with such speakers. If you are into electronic music and want to create some really punchy lower bass beats, you might find it difficult to judge it with speakers which always sound either bloated in certain bass bands, or on the edge of compression (like the smaller models).

I would ask, "which Genelecs?"

Cause sometimes suffering comes from downsizing and I'll explain:

Take a big example, and highly regarded here as he's deep in it and mixes with Genelecs, Steven Wilson.
And take a nice work as "Routine" for a sample.

A disaster of a work, a track with the potential of a thunderstorm diminished in a matchbox. Almost unrespectful for singer's performance, and no meat overall.
Is there an excuse? It's Wilson we're talking about, he has listened to unrestricted live, he knows what the real thing sounds like.
But?

Mixing small carries lots of sins with it, strident is one of them.

 

[nqikz]

So you buy any chance recognize these speakers? 2006-2007.

Never mind

Well, no, it actually isn't. Have you any idea how vast it is?

The guy said he 'visited once and that was enough', and your told him to 'keep it that way'.

So, yeah, between that and this, you *are *dismissing Reddit. Why deny it?

you can’t judge tonality through text. I’m just having fun

 

[Arindal]

I would ask, "which Genelecs?"

Interestingly, very different models of various sizes and generations. If I recall it correctly, 8030C, M040 and S360 showed this unwanted effect in the most pronounced way, but 8361A as well.

Cause sometimes suffering comes from downsizing

I understand what you mean and have noticed such effects with some models as well, particularly those with ´hidden´ woofers and small enclosure volume. If you try to judge bass impulses and character on such, it is almost impossible, as it always sounds to a certain degree lame, bloated and somehow compressed.

 

[tmtomh]

I have worked a lot with Genelec in studios, and never thought they were ´analytical´. It is anyways a problematic term, used by many audiophiles but not clearly defined, that is why I try to avoid it. But if you expect a studio monitor to clearly reveal all treble details at lower SPL, always allowing a judgement if a mix is either transparent, very present, partly aggressive, overly brillant or too distant/dull - well, I would not call Genelecs analytical or revealing at all. Under certain conditions, particularly untreated or midrange-heavy rooms, they do have a tendency of being forgiving, a bit ´dull-silky´ in audiophile´s terms.

Most of them do have a flat frequency response - on-axis! Off-axis many of them show a significantly narrowing radiation pattern, so underrepresented treble in the indirect soundfield of the room. That can go well under nearfield conditions or in certain studio control rooms, but sometimes it leads exactly to the character which was described.

This is certainly not true to all Genelecs under all circumstances, e.g. the 8341A I found to be a pretty capable tool and excellent speaker under nearfield conditions.



I dispute that. A potential explanation for not easily discovering flaws in the mix, lies in the room soundfield, not in the expectation of the engineer. Other studio monitors with a very similar on-axis response, give a much more detailed picture of imaging and treble.



Not always. We have to take into account that an imbalanced indirect soundfield does not just sound like dull reverb. It is also contributing to the additional reverb being perceived from wrong directions, being perceived as not a part of the mix, leaving comparably dry phantom sources in the mix ´holographic in a subjective vacuum´ and instruments with fairly enough reverb as overly distant. A resulting side effect for mixing engineers is the difficulty to judge the right amount of reverb or proximity for their mix.

Another aspect is that it is not as easy to judge the bass response with such speakers. If you are into electronic music and want to create some really punchy lower bass beats, you might find it difficult to judge it with speakers which always sound either bloated in certain bass bands, or on the edge of compression (like the smaller models).

I don’t use them to mix in a studio, but with that said, this is the complete opposite of my experience and not in any way, shape or form supported by measurements that I’m aware of.

Most Genelecs, especially the Ones, are highly linear and if anything have a very small, 0.5-1dB rise in the 1-3kHz range (depending on how one interprets the Spin and decides what the average zero point is across the full spectrum), which can make them sound a bit forward or “clear/zingy” to some folks - in other words the opposite of “silky/dull.”

As for bloated bass, if it doesn’t show up in the Spin - which it doesn’t - then it’s the room and/or the listening position, not an inherent quality of the speaker, and I'm puzzled about why you would claim otherwise.

And BTW if you’re arguing that “analytical” is an overly subjective term, then you’ve got no business using terms like “dull/silky” yourself.