No problem with that. But me thinks, you have not really laid out your case yet so I don't know what to disagree with except from a loose connection between on-axis and linearity, which I have answered to already.
I think, a level difference in 5dB averaged off-axis over the course of a few octaves of the most sensitive bands (500-5,000Hz) is anything but subtle, and I have explained to which degree the measurements are in line with my observations. I mean, everyone can easily understand that a lack of -5dB in the 2.5-5K band compared to lower neighboring bands, leads to dull reverb, perceived as coming in from the rear, detached from phantom sources, making it impossible to judge reverb tonality, proximity and depth-of-field on the recording, if not specifically used in an overdamped or nearfield environment.
Wich directivity plots have I ignored in your understanding and how do you explain exactly how they prove me wrong? I have seen only plots fully supporting my claim that the directivity index is steeply increasing between 500 and and 2,500Hz, making the 2.5-5K band significantly underrepresented in the room.
I'm not trying to make a case. I'm trying to say that I don't see a sufficient correlation between what you're pointing to in the graphs and the measured response on the one hand, and the rather large subjective claims you're making on the other. You might very well be correct, or correct about some aspects of what you're claiming and incorrect about others. I certainly cannot say definitively, and my point is that I don't think you can be quite so definitive as you seem to think you can.
The core of your point, as I understand it, is in post #23 on the previous page, in which you write (among other things of course):
"Off-axis many of them [Genelec speakers] 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 [e.g. 'dull/silky']."
You further note that you find this to be true of many Genelecs, including several of the "0" non-coaxial models, and also the 8361a. And more recently you have added the 8351b to that list. In contrast, you note that "the 8341A I found to be a pretty capable tool and excellent speaker" - although it should be noted that you stated that about the 8341 "under nearfield conditions," in the very same comment where you claimed that all the problematic Genelecs are
also fine "under nearfield conditions or in certain studio control rooms."
So the only logical conclusion is that most Genelecs are dull, excessively attenuated in treble, when mixing with them in mid-field or far-field and in untreated or undertreated rooms, because their indirect sound falls off too fast and too much as you move up in frequency - but the 8341 is different and doesn't manifest this problem, even though the application in which the 8341 works well is stated as the same "nearfield... or certain control rooms" conditions in which you stated the other Genelecs work fine too.
I'm happy to put aside, for the moment, this apparently nonsensical, contradictory distinction/non-distinction between the 8341 and the others, and proceed with what appears to be your general intention, which is to state that the 8341 is different and not afflicted with this problem (although I despair at the possibility that you respond with something on the order of, "The 8341 has this issue too, it just doesn't have it to the same degree" or some other goalpost-moving comment; I hope I'm incorrect about that).
So here are some measurements of the 8341 and 8351.
Early reflections:
And predicted in-room response:
The magnitude - as in counting the number of dB - of the early reflection drop-off across the spectrum is virtually identical between the two through the relevant range. It is true that for whatever reason the 8351b has a small "tail" of added drop-off starting around 17kHz - but that is also reflected in the direct axis and could be a measurement issue/artifact, and in any event I would hope we could agree that the 17-20kHz range is very much not the frequency range that has any relevance to your claims.
Similarly, the estimated in-room response, which includes direct and reflected sound, is virtually identical for both, again down to the degree of counting how many dB the drop-off is as you go up in frequency. In fact, not that it matters, but as I read the graph, depending on where in the mid-bass one decides the zero point is, the 8351's drop-off up to about 17kHz is perhaps 1dB
less than the 8341's - though I stress that I'm not trying to claim the 8351 has less of an off-axis treble roll-off than the 8341, because part of my hesitancy about your analysis is precisely based on my skepticism about using such tiny "hints" (as I believe you have referred to such measurement elements) to make large claims about significant audible differences between speakers in use.
So I suppose what we're left with is that the 8341s and other speakers you prefer for mixing either (a) have more powerful off-axis response at higher frequencies that cannot be discerned from the above-noted comparative measurements or (b) have more powerful
late reflections and therefore are more
accurately "spacious" for purposes of mixing - which in my view would be a quite curious claim to make.
So as far as lack of detail, "dull/silky" sound, lack of treble in "the room soundfield" and so on, what I'm saying is that I don't see it (and I also don't hear it, but I'm not making any objective claim based simply on what I personally happen to hear or not hear with a single pair of Genelecs in my room). I am not convinced that your claims of "you can see a hint of it in the measurements," and "The calculated difference is 3dB here between the aforementioned bands, [but] in reality it is much more" have been sufficiently supported with evidence for me (or anyone else, but that is of course up to them) to accept them. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm rather saying I haven't seen a cohesive assembly of evidence that fully or consistently supports what you're saying. And to further clarify, I'm not making a demand that you keep providing evidence until I'm satisfied - you of course have zero obligation to do that, and whether or not I'm personally satisfied by your argument is of no relevance you or anyone else. If others are satisfied that your argument holds water and I'm an outlier who simply doesn't see how compelling your interpretation of the measurements is, so be it.
As far as bass, I don't know that there's much to say there. You have referred to this entire brand/line of speakers as, "speakers which always sound ... bloated in certain bass bands" and you have repeatedly referred to their bass as "distorted." Genelecs' bass distortion absolutely increases significantly beyond certain SPL levels, as does that of virtually every other speaker. The smaller models are, as is usually the case, more SPL-limited than the larger ones. But below those SPL levels, one can examine Amir's measurements in the reviews here and I think a reasonable person would agree that those bass distortion levels are quite low - in some cases low enough that he comments on the speaker's very low distortion levels (at that SPL).
Now, I do recall that in a review of one of the coaxial Genelec models (I forget which one) he noted that at very high SPLs, when the bass was clearly distorting, he approached the speaker and he could hear an audible effect of the high-SPL output from those bass slots that the Ones have as part of their design. So again, I have zero disagreement with the claim that these speakers can and do get distorted in the bass region - but I am not prepared to agree with your claim that these are "speakers which always sound... bloated in certain bass bands." There are also compression measurements of at least some Genelecs available online, and I remember looking them up a few months ago because another member here - interestingly also someone who's done studio mixing or mastering - made a sweeping (and evidence-free) claim about how they "compress at the drop of a hat" or similar. If memory serves it was Erin's compression measurement of the 8331 that I found, so the smallest and lowest-powered coaxial, which we would expect to compress most easily and severely. At 96dB it exhibited measurable but minimal compression. So again, I have no doubt that all of these speaker models exhibit compression, particularly bass compression, beyond certain SPL levels - although it appears their bass generally starts to distort before it significantly compresses, which I'd say is preferable to the opposite situation. Regardless, you're saying much more than that - you're saying their design is fundamentally flawed such that they chronically compress in normal use, which is part of the explanation in your view for them allegedly "always sounding bloated."
I don't see evidence for that - and by pointing out "hints" and "indirect" effects as you have, you're asking others to simply assume that your subjective listening claims are true, and then go hunting for the signs of it in the measurements. From your perspective that makes total sense - that's what we all do when we hear something. But from others' perspective, that doesn't work because taking listening claims as a given and then trying to find signs of them in the measurements is backwards when it comes to the question of putatively objective characteristics rather than subjective impressions.
