• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Wow! Genelec GRADE looks amazingly useful

pierre

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
726
Likes
1,805
Location
Switzerland
Screenshot 2022-05-19 at 11.01.17.png



Not too bad. It doesnt take into account the W371 yet but I am sure it will come.
 

Thomas Lund

Member
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
42
Likes
192
This is pretty neat! Specially their early vs late reflections ratio score!
Yes, that is a useful metric, especially resolved against frequency, which is also in the report, see attached.

E/L ratio is used in e.g. Deutlichkeit and speech intelligibility, but it is also an indicator if your room and system is able to fully convey envelopment latent in the content. For that to be the case, perceived-direct should dominate 50-700 Hz, see circular marking.

Such curves may even be considered essential in 3D sound monitoring, where the potential to affect the listening room is high. In stereo, it can be justified to rely (a bit) on the reproduction room to contribute immersion and envelopment.
 

Attachments

  • EvL.jpg
    EvL.jpg
    235.3 KB · Views: 77

soundwave76

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
660
Likes
1,063
Location
Finland
I already have an RME DAC to apply different EQ per channel, as my room is quite asymmetrical. I'm considering to buy a pair of 8030 plus a measurement mic which is ~ 1150 €.

The SAM version, a pair of 8330 + the GLM set, is about 1800 €.

I'm inclined towards option one, mainly because I don't need to be able to EQ the system in 10 minutes and I'm not a pro. Do you think eventually the GLM software can be that good that option two is better for home audio?
No no, get the GLM version. It is waaaaay much harder to adjust the sound manually with ADI-2 and REW etc. The SAM version Genelecs also sound better even without the room correction at least in my experience. The price difference is not that much. The future is digital.
 

xaviescacs

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,139
Likes
1,317
Location
La Garriga, Barcelona
No no, get the GLM version. It is waaaaay much harder to adjust the sound manually with ADI-2 and REW etc. The SAM version Genelecs also sound better even without the room correction at least in my experience. The price difference is not that much. The future is digital.
I have the impression that this new scores that GLM provide are basically a tool to asses your environment and prove to others it's good, which in case of a recording studio it may have a lot of sense. Not sure the benefit for a home listener...

The 8030 has a better score than the 8330 ;)
 

stemfencer

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
97
Likes
62
No no, get the GLM version. It is waaaaay much harder to adjust the sound manually with ADI-2 and REW etc. The SAM version Genelecs also sound better even without the room correction at least in my experience. The price difference is not that much. The future is digital.
I'm not surely if I agree with his as general advice, as the price difference is not insignificant:

8030 set = ~€1100
8330 + SAM = ~€1800

That is a 65% premium for SAM or €700 at the 8x30 range.

With that €700, I would argue majority of people (obviously situation dependant) would benefit more from the following as opposed to SAM:
- Umik-1 + 7040 subwoofer
- Umik-1 + Yamaha HS-8 and upgrading DAC to Topping D10 or money towards improving something else in their chain
- Sonarworks SoundID Ref /w mic + some room treatment panels + some money in the wallet
- Umik-1 + ADI-2 DAC (ok this is a bit more than €700)

Again it's situation dependant, and I don't want to understate SAM capabilities, but I think it's a difficult value proposition.
 

xaviescacs

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,139
Likes
1,317
Location
La Garriga, Barcelona
I'm not surely if I agree with his as general advice, as the price difference is not insignificant:

8030 set = ~€1100
8330 + SAM = ~€1800

That is a 65% premium for SAM or €700 at the 8x30 range.

With that €700, I would argue majority of people (obviously situation dependant) would benefit more from the following as opposed to SAM:
- Umik-1 + 7040 subwoofer
- Umik-1 + Yamaha HS-8 and upgrading DAC to Topping D10 or money towards improving something else in their chain
- Sonarworks SoundID Ref /w mic + some room treatment panels + some money in the wallet
- Umik-1 + ADI-2 DAC (ok this is a bit more than €700)

Again it's situation dependant, and I don't want to understate SAM capabilities, but I think it's a difficult value proposition.
I already have the RME DAC so Umik-1 + 7040 subwoofer was my idea.... I'll get the mic and start by practicing with my current speakers. To me the GLM software buys time and standards (comparable scores) with this new additions, and I don't need any of them.
 

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
1,402
Likes
1,453
I already have the RME DAC so Umik-1 + 7040 subwoofer was my idea.... I'll get the mic and start by practicing with my current speakers. To me the GLM software buys time and standards (comparable scores) with this new additions, and I don't need any of them.

Two of the five ADI-2 PEQ are only adjustable from 200 Hz and up, so only three PEQ available for the bass frequencies where it is needed the most.
 

soundwave76

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
660
Likes
1,063
Location
Finland
I have tried both paths myself. I had the 8040 + DSpeaker DualCore room correction DSP preamp. I also have the Umik and I have experimented with it and REW. I upgraded to 8340 and oh boy the sound got better. And that setup is more future proof if one adds a sub or upgrades to better Genelecs, which happens almost always after the first ones… ;)
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
750
Likes
770
Location
Calabasas, CA
I'm not surely if I agree with his as general advice, as the price difference is not insignificant:

8030 set = ~€1100
8330 + SAM = ~€1800

That is a 65% premium for SAM or €700 at the 8x30 range.

With that €700, I would argue majority of people (obviously situation dependant) would benefit more from the following as opposed to SAM:
- Umik-1 + 7040 subwoofer
- Umik-1 + Yamaha HS-8 and upgrading DAC to Topping D10 or money towards improving something else in their chain
- Sonarworks SoundID Ref /w mic + some room treatment panels + some money in the wallet
- Umik-1 + ADI-2 DAC (ok this is a bit more than €700)

Again it's situation dependant, and I don't want to understate SAM capabilities, but I think it's a difficult value proposition.
I struggled with this a good bit. In the US, it is not easy to get good amps, DAC and room correction for ~$700. The MiniDSP Flex with Dirac is about $700 itself.
 
Last edited:

stemfencer

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
97
Likes
62
I struggled with this a good bit. In the US, it is not easy to get good amps, DAC and room correction for ~$700. The MiniDSP Flex with Dirac is about $700 itself.
Perhaps should clarify this is for desktop set-up. Topping DS10 + REW + EquialiserAPO is $110 (and I recommend buying a beer or two for the developers who provide this software for free). If you want propriety software such a DIRAC, sure things change, but then may as well look at SAM.

For living/listening room application, you could run this stuff on a RaspberiPi/NUC. Moode Audio Player which has good 12 band EQ. But you are getting pretty DIY now - and this is why I'm buying a MiniDSP Flex for my living room (along side 2x sub output and preamp features).
 

ernestcarl

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
2,137
Likes
1,526
Location
Canada
REW already gives you everything you need and more, it just requires you to look for it in the measurements.

Yeah... but the learning curve is also steep. The nice thing is that the explanations and discussion in their measurements report is also applicable elsewhere. With REW, you have to manually parse through the data and various measurements and figure everything out for yourself.

I was curious if I could re-create some of the way graphs were presented mainly using REW.

Several steps shall be skipped here e.g. setup of mixed phase crossovers and dedicated sub/LFE channel equalization, IR and envelope (*updated to include that part as well) and all the individual timing adjustments, as well as the responses of the surround channels -- and any detailed analyses of the data.

Distinctly, though, I'm just also going to add six individual left and right (sub+front mains) spatially averaged, moving microphone measurements covering most of the entire width of the couch as additional points of reference.


1 FR (mmm) no EQ.png 2 FR (mmm) with EQ.png 3 FR (single-point).png 4 frequency magnitude & phase tracking.png 5 ETC.png 6 FR 'early' direct sound [FDW 7] to 'late'.png 7 FR sub 'early' direct sound [FDW 7] to 'late'.png 8 FR 'late' spectral decay b.png 9 RT Reflection-Decay T60M.png 10 RT Reflection-Decay 60 Hz.png 11 RT Reflection-Decay 30 Hz.png 12 waterfall full-range.png 13 wavelet spectrogram 100 Hz - 20 kHz.png


For the 'early' direct sound curve, I applied frequency dependent window of 7 cycles. For the 'late' arriving sound and specular reflections/energy, I specifically extracted the selected 20 ms curve -- 'trace SPL' tool in VituixCAD -- using the 10 ms rise time setting. I wish there was a way to do this easily inside REW itself... Mind you, this only approximates a similar level of filtering of the data, but it's not going to be exactly the same as Genelec's "greater than/less than 20 ms" algorithmic filtering.

REW's modal decay curve (white RT60M trace) is somewhat finicky or a bit erratic under 100 Hz or so... It's dependent on a range of factors like on the DSP equalization applied and length of sweep and volume level. Nevertheless, it does seem to reflect what already can be found in the other graphical views like the waterfall, spectrogram, and spectral decay (although, do learn to adjust settings and scaling depending on the situation or what you want to examine).

Oh, yeah MLP distance is ~2.3 m from the speakers (which are also directly adjacent to sidewalls, BTW). Important thing to note is that this small listening room's acoustics is sort of "treated", but is maybe more on the "dry" or very damped side compared to many other rooms you'd normally find out there.
 
Last edited:

onion

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
231
Likes
209
Does GLM 4.2 change bass Mx? With prior versions,, I manually reduced levels for the subs by 3dB after calibration. Is this still required?
 

Kervel

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
50
Likes
56
I found the report super useful. I was thinking of adding a sub, but apparently I really need room treatment. RT60 must go down, and early reflections need to be absorbed. Nice to know, and easy to verify whether the room treatment does any good.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,361
Likes
1,245
Location
Sweden
I have the impression that this new scores that GLM provide are basically a tool to asses your environment and prove to others it's good, which in case of a recording studio it may have a lot of sense. Not sure the benefit for a home listener...

The 8030 has a better score than the 8330 ;)
It doesnt matter - the sound from the 8330 even without GLM is slightly better than 8030c because it has a dsp crossover . 8330 sounds a bit clearer, especially when using a digital
signal into the AES input.

The better sound from 8330 reflects the price differences I would say.

For the price though , the 8030c is very hard to beat soundwise.
 

xaviescacs

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
1,139
Likes
1,317
Location
La Garriga, Barcelona
It doesnt matter - the sound from the 8330 even without GLM is slightly better than 8030c because it has a dsp crossover . 8330 sounds a bit clearer, especially when using a digital
signal into the AES input.

The better sound from 8330 reflects the price differences I would say.

For the price though , the 8030c is very hard to beat soundwise.
Yesterday a ordered a pair of 8030
:)
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,361
Likes
1,245
Location
Sweden
It doesnt matter - the sound from the 8330 even without GLM is slightly better than 8030c because it has a dsp crossover . 8330 sounds a bit clearer, especially when using a digital

Yesterday a ordered a pair of 8030
:)
Ok - congratulations !
Those are really good speakers and for the money I think they are unbeatable. You already have a very good dac in RME . As subwoofer advice, I would go for the analog Genelec 7050 ( one or two ) for your analog active 8030c .
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
97
Likes
56
Location
UK
I could do with some additional surface treatment (I’m not doing it tho, I’ve reached my point of acceptability for a home setup)
 

Attachments

  • 28CE5D29-7E13-4072-A49E-7018DE0711AF.jpeg
    28CE5D29-7E13-4072-A49E-7018DE0711AF.jpeg
    206.1 KB · Views: 48

Zaireeka

Active Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
181
Likes
152
Location
fRAMCE
Could you share the entire report?
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
97
Likes
56
Location
UK
is there something you’re interested in specifically? I don’t know how much, if any, personal info is in that report.

I fixed the issue by moving my listening position back a few cm
 

Attachments

  • EFF89F21-599E-49BA-B1C7-683502981696.png
    EFF89F21-599E-49BA-B1C7-683502981696.png
    612.7 KB · Views: 30
Top Bottom