Genelec 8341A SAM™ Studio Monitor Review

[richard12511]

So, I tend to agree that people overstate the differences between Genelec and Kef dispersion. However, the Kef R3 and Revel F208 are ~2dB apart from 1-10khz, which is the region you usually notice dispersion differences as translating to spatial qualities I think.

The real question is: How audible are changes in DI? I don't think there is actually a good explanation of that in Toole's book, even. My guess would be significantly more audible than they seem intuitively.

There is a study referenced by Toole about audibility of different directivity patterns. The graphs aren't exactly... the nicest quality... but their "direct radiator" design and "cardioid" design(pg 293) seem to correspond more or less to the differences I see between the Revel F208 and the Kef R3. And the answer to "was this audible" seems to have been yes. In their first experiment, they varied only the surrounds in a 5-channel system, yet there were significant differences even then. Question 1 is envelopment, Question 2 is detail.

In the 2nd experiment, they varied the front 3 speakers, and while more marginal than the 1st experiment, differences were still audible(and proved that it's... extremely bad to have a significantly different center from your L/R, lol). We know that surround systems make it harder to discern qualitative differences between speakers, so it's logical to predict that audibility of directivity differences is significantly more pronounced in stereo, let alone mono.

It's also important to remember that sound power DI uses the listening window, which ignores vertical dispersion past +/- 10 degrees. So, built into it is the standard "vertical directivity doesn't matter that much" assumption of the Spinorama, which IMO is one of its least well-supported assumptions.

I suspect that a better way to show differences in the overall sound field created by a dispersion pattern would be to calculate the critical distance for each speaker in a standard room. Genelec does this in their "correct monitors" chart and it leads to pretty big differences even though the dispersion of their speakers doesn't vary that much. The 8341A and the 1236A are different by 2x despite the latter's horizontal dispersion being at most (+/-) 10 degrees less than the 8341A's. Vertically there is a much bigger difference, of course... Probably not.

Interestingly, the Neumann KH80, Kef R3, and Genelec 8341A are more similar than not up until about 4khz at which point Genelec diverges with consistently wider dispersion. I suspect that this, too, is audible and probably what leads to the common perception that Genelecs are brighter.

Missed this somehow, but it lines up close with my impressions. That is, Revel has the widest treble dispersion, KEF the most narrow, and Genelec somewhere in between. Given that they are all neutral on axis, that should also track with perceived brightness. Revel will be the most bright, KEF the most laid back, with Genelec and Neumann somewhere in between. This also tracks with my impressions. My guess is that preference will closely align with dispersion width preferences.

Looking closer, the Genelec and KEF actually track incredibly close up to 3k, beyond which the KEF becomes more directive. I imagine the Genelec and KEF sound quite similar for most instruments. This also means they will likely soundstage and image very similarly, with the Genelec having a bit more "air" but also being more fatiguing. The Neumann and KEF track closely beyond the point that the Genelec and KEF separate, which I'm guessing means they'll have similar amounts of "air". The Neumann having the widest bass and low mid dispersion is interesting, what effect will that have on the soundstage? I've never heard the KH80.

The Revel is the odd one of the bunch, and the most different overall. It's more directive in the bass/midrange, but then becomes the least directive by far up until the top octave, after which it becomes the most directive once again. Should have the widest soundstage, least precise imaging, and brightest. Actually, the Revel seems the least uniform and controlled, and should sound the most different and be easiest to pick out in a blind test(maybe intentionally). Other three might difficult to tell apart under blind conditions.

 

[pozz]

I suspect that a better way to show differences in the overall sound field created by a dispersion pattern would be to calculate the critical distance for each speaker in a standard room. Genelec does this in their "correct monitors" chart and it leads to pretty big differences even though the dispersion of their speakers doesn't vary that much. The 8341A and the 1236A are different by 2x despite the latter's horizontal dispersion being at most (+/-) 10 degrees less than the 8341A's. Vertically there is a much bigger difference, of course... Probably not.

Great post.

Only thing I'd add is that critical distance is a property of rooms, not speakers.

 

[richard12511]

Some have described them as brighter in comparison to Neumann(and maybe Revel, I forget) specifically, that's mostly what I was referring to. I don't think they are in general, no. I do think these differences are minor, despite being audible, and people will describe them in varying ways.

With Revel and Genelec side by side, the Revel is definitely brighter, but it's not a huge difference, and neither are too bright to my ears. Under blind conditions, the best way to tell them apart was actually to listen for the difference in soundstage and imaging, not the tonality. The Revels throw a bigger sound, while the Genelecs are more pinpoint and tight. A few months ago I tried blinding them against each other, but the soundstage difference was a dead giveaway for me, which ruined the "blind" aspect of the test for me. It was still useful for my guests, though.

Speaking of blind tests. My ABX Switch Comparator came in recently, but I haven't had a chance to play with it yet. With covid, it may be awhile .

 

[Frank Dernie]

Only thing I'd add is that critical distance is a property of rooms, not speakers.

Not so.
It is a property of both.
The equation in question:

where

is the degree of directivity of the source (

for an omnidirectional source),

the equivalent absorption surface,

the room volume in m3 and

reverbaration time.

 

[Spocko]

GLM definitely has some usability issues... there are a bunch of ways to disable monitors or mess up the response on any of them, and it's not always 100% clear what settings are active. I once accidentally left only one monitor with a -0.5dB/oct rolloff, and only after about 20 minutes of listening to music and hearing weird things did I realize what had happened.

That said, I haven't had any unreliability, every time something is busted it's because I did it.

Query: is this because you left GLM connected to the speaker? I assume that if you uploaded the GLM settings to the speaker then locked it in, and unplugged the GLM, these GLM usability issues would be non-existent? Because I don't plan to leave the GLM plugged in after locking in all my GLM settings to the speaker.

 

[Sancus]

Query: is this because you left GLM connected to the speaker? I assume that if you uploaded the GLM settings to the speaker then locked it in, and unplugged the GLM, these GLM usability issues would be non-existent? Because I don't plan to leave the GLM plugged in after locking in all my GLM settings to the speaker.

Stored settings are set when the speaker is powered on. In my case, I had changed the settings but then somehow forgot to turn that one speaker on and off after disconnecting GLM. If you change things and then disconnect(without storing) those settings will remain until the speaker is powered off at which point it will return to stored settings on next power on.

Stored settings won't ever change if you leave GLM disconnected, certainly.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

No, not drooling. I am more inclined to go with a good Class A 70+ watts/channel amp and a nice pair of passive speakers.

Personally I love my Class AB Vidar (always operates in class A as I never go above a handful of watts) with my s400 but I'd rather have a cooler running, less space taken up s500.

 

[Tangband]

I own the Genelec 8340 , so different speaker compared to 8341.
But I wonder If the ones using GLM have tried the shelving function in the treble area ?

In GLM, I use a shelving from 3 kHz , -1 dB from 3000 -20000 Hz. I also have a Peq with center frequency at 4 kHz , -1 dB , Q= 2.
That way, I get an audiophile sound compared with the best loudspeakers I have heard.

I can recommend everyone to try this minor tweak.

 

[Spocko]

I own the Genelec 8340 , so different speaker compared to 8341.
But I wonder If the ones using GLM have tried the shelving function in the treble area ?

In GLM, I use a shelving from 3 kHz , -1 dB from 3000 -20000 Hz. I also have a Peq with center frequency at 4 kHz , -1 dB , Q= 2.
That way, I get an audiophile sound compared with the best loudspeakers I have heard.

I can recommend everyone to try this minor tweak.

This is exactly what the GLM was designed to do! Tweak your room curve, but also specific FR to meet your preferences. From hearing loss to music content, there are diverse variables unique to everybody that requires some adjustment to the FR in order to avoid buying 3 different speakers.

 

[jonfitch]

I uploaded my sound demo of the 8341 vs Kef Reference 1. My recording mic isn't great, it's a Blue Yeti, but still captures the main sound signature differences between the two speakers.

In general I would say the 8341 is more forward, especially in the lower mids, which stands out a lot. There's a big vocal intelligibility gap between the two, the 8341s have much clearer vocals. The overall sound power/sound signature reminds me alot of the TAD ME-1, which I A/Bed against the Reference 1 in the past. Much flatter, more forward, more lower mid energy. The Reference 1s are really laid back and not for everyone. But you do get a very nicely layered soundstage and a nice laid back sound signature that makes everything IMO sound good, whereas a flatter speaker will show differences in recording quality in a more jarring fashion. If I may make a headphone analogy, the Kef Reference 1 are the Hifiman HE1000 of speakers (laid back/diffuse, layered and back row sound stage) whereas the Genelecs are more like the Focal Utopias (resolving, forward sound stage).

 

[ctrl]

I uploaded my sound demo of the 8341 vs Kef Reference 1. My recording mic isn't great, it's a Blue Yeti, but still captures the main sound signature differences between the two speakers.

Thanks for the comparison!

Could you say something about the mic setting used.
The microphone offers four settings, but all of them are not neutral. In addition, you have to consider the dispersion of the microphone capsules, which can also be considerable.


Were both speakers played without EQ settings (settings all neutral)?

What can be said in any case is that both speakers sound very different. No speaker sounds neutral, but the Genelec does not sound convincing - could that be due to the mic?

 

[jonfitch]

Thanks for the comparison!

Could you say something about the mic setting used.
The microphone offers four settings, but all of them are not neutral. In addition, you have to consider the dispersion of the microphone capsules, which can also be considerable.
View attachment 119651

Were both speakers played without EQ settings (settings all neutral)?

What can be said in any case is that both speakers sound very different. No speaker sounds neutral, but the Genelec does not sound convincing - could that be due to the mic?

I ran them without EQ, on the blue yeti which isn't an ideal mic but it does capture the main details. One of the main sound signatures of the Genelecs is the quite strong response out the about 700hz. This can be seen in the off axis graphs and the sound power graphs in most spinoramas. Whereas KEFs usually start rolling off here rapidly from 350hz and up. This means the fundamental frequency of vocals and percussion stuff tends to be several db hotter than the kefs even at the same average spl. I would say what really stands out with the 8331 and 8341 after demoing them against multiple passive speakers is just how strong the 300-700hz range really dominantes (IMO) the sound signature on the Genelec relative to other speakers I compared. Even something as lowfi as a Blue Yeti mic can capture this quite easily.

One note worth making is I don't think this is unique to The Ones. Most other Genelec speakers seem to have similar sound power and off axis responses in this range so it seems to be an intentional design. I don't think I'm the first to notice this, if anything alot people seem to say on pro audio sites like Gearslutz is that Genelecs are a bit "mid-forward."

I also recorded a sound demo with my umik-1s. It sounds pretty much the same, except the ambient hiss level is very high relative to the recording so I didn't upload them. As for the blue yeti I used the default cardiod setting. Its not meant to be an FR accurate mic recording, but mostly meant to capture the differences between them using the best control I could, which was the same mic and leveling marching as best I could.

 

[richard12511]

I uploaded my sound demo of the 8341 vs Kef Reference 1. My recording mic isn't great, it's a Blue Yeti, but still captures the main sound signature differences between the two speakers.

In general I would say the 8341 is more forward, especially in the lower mids, which stands out a lot. There's a big vocal intelligibility gap between the two, the 8341s have much clearer vocals. The overall sound power/sound signature reminds me alot of the TAD ME-1, which I A/Bed against the Reference 1 in the past. Much flatter, more forward, more lower mid energy. The Reference 1s are really laid back and not for everyone. But you do get a very nicely layered soundstage and a nice laid back sound signature that makes everything IMO sound good, whereas a flatter speaker will show differences in recording quality in a more jarring fashion. If I may make a headphone analogy, the Kef Reference 1 are the Hifiman HE1000 of speakers (laid back/diffuse, layered and back row sound stage) whereas the Genelecs are more like the Focal Utopias (resolving, forward sound stage).

Cool video. I often wonder how well video sound preferences might correlate to in person sound preferences. Next blind I do, I may record the output and test.

 

[q3cpma]

I ran them without EQ, on the blue yeti which isn't an ideal mic but it does capture the main details. One of the main sound signatures of the Genelecs is the quite strong response out the about 700hz. This can be seen in the off axis graphs and the sound power graphs in most spinoramas. Whereas KEFs usually start rolling off here rapidly from 350hz and up. This means the fundamental frequency of vocals and percussion stuff tends to be several db hotter than the kefs even at the same average spl. I would say what really stands out with the 8331 and 8341 after demoing them against multiple passive speakers is just how strong the 300-700hz range really dominantes (IMO) the sound signature on the Genelec relative to other speakers I compared. Even something as lowfi as a Blue Yeti mic can capture this quite easily.

I think you're misintepreting. The 700 Hz vertical "kink", isn't the Genelec being hotter, it's its d'Appolito cancellation not going high enough (due to the chosen crossover frequency, as seen in the 8351A vs 8351B data) to smoothly take over from the waveguide's control. So the KEF, in comparison, is even "hotter", as it has no directivity control at all at these frequencies, having a way higher baffle step in both planes.

One note worth making is I don't think this is unique to The Ones. Most other Genelec speakers seem to have similar sound power and off axis responses in this range so it seems to be an intentional design.

Huh? The measured sound power is as smooth as it gets.

I uploaded my sound demo of the 8341 vs Kef Reference 1. My recording mic isn't great, it's a Blue Yeti, but still captures the main sound signature differences between the two speakers.

In general I would say the 8341 is more forward, especially in the lower mids, which stands out a lot. There's a big vocal intelligibility gap between the two, the 8341s have much clearer vocals. The overall sound power/sound signature reminds me alot of the TAD ME-1, which I A/Bed against the Reference 1 in the past. Much flatter, more forward, more lower mid energy. The Reference 1s are really laid back and not for everyone. But you do get a very nicely layered soundstage and a nice laid back sound signature that makes everything IMO sound good, whereas a flatter speaker will show differences in recording quality in a more jarring fashion. If I may make a headphone analogy, the Kef Reference 1 are the Hifiman HE1000 of speakers (laid back/diffuse, layered and back row sound stage) whereas the Genelecs are more like the Focal Utopias (resolving, forward sound stage).

The size difference really shows here. I continue to say it's a bit unfair to compare them and not the 8351B.

 

[jonfitch]

I think you're misintepreting. The 700 Hz vertical "kink", isn't the Genelec being hotter, it's its d'Appolito cancellation not going high enough (due to the chosen crossover frequency, as seen in the 8351A vs 8351B data) to smoothly take over from the waveguide's control. So the KEF, in comparison, is even "hotter", as it has no directivity control at all at these frequencies, having a way higher baffle step in both planes.

Huh? The measured sound power is as smooth as it gets.

Meh. Whatever. It sounds more forward. You can hear it in the recording. It doesn't really mean anything to me to keep rehashing or arguing over what the theoretical mechanics behind it are.

The size difference really shows here. I continue to say it's a bit unfair to compare them and not the 8351B.

Don't really understand what this means in the context of my post, unless you are arguing the 8351s have a completely different sound signature in the midrange, in which case that's great, go ahead and create an 8351 review thread if you are interested in that product--that's not what I tested and I can't give feedback on that product. Both the 8331 and the 8341, which I both recorded, have the same sound signature. I played all these speakers at 70-75db @ 1m in the recording. None of them are being strained at all.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I uploaded my sound demo of the 8341 vs Kef Reference 1. My recording mic isn't great, it's a Blue Yeti, but still captures the main sound signature differences between the two speakers.

In general I would say the 8341 is more forward, especially in the lower mids, which stands out a lot. There's a big vocal intelligibility gap between the two, the 8341s have much clearer vocals. The overall sound power/sound signature reminds me alot of the TAD ME-1, which I A/Bed against the Reference 1 in the past. Much flatter, more forward, more lower mid energy. The Reference 1s are really laid back and not for everyone. But you do get a very nicely layered soundstage and a nice laid back sound signature that makes everything IMO sound good, whereas a flatter speaker will show differences in recording quality in a more jarring fashion. If I may make a headphone analogy, the Kef Reference 1 are the Hifiman HE1000 of speakers (laid back/diffuse, layered and back row sound stage) whereas the Genelecs are more like the Focal Utopias (resolving, forward sound stage).

The KEF sounds a bit veiled in comparison to the Genelec

 

[Pearljam5000]

Meh. Whatever. It sounds more forward. You can hear it in the recording. It doesn't really mean anything to me to keep rehashing or arguing over what the theoretical mechanics behind it are.



Don't really understand what this means in the context of my post, unless you are arguing the 8351s have a completely different sound signature in the midrange, in which case that's great, go ahead and create an 8351 review thread if you are interested in that product--that's not what I tested and I can't give feedback on that product. Both the 8331 and the 8341, which I both recorded, have the same sound signature. I played all these speakers at 70-75db @ 1m in the recording. None of them are being strained at all.

The 8351B should sound different because it has a bigger mid/tweeter unit (and bigger everything)

 

[RobL]

I ran them without EQ, on the blue yeti which isn't an ideal mic but it does capture the main details. One of the main sound signatures of the Genelecs is the quite strong response out the about 700hz. This can be seen in the off axis graphs and the sound power graphs in most spinoramas. Whereas KEFs usually start rolling off here rapidly from 350hz and up. This means the fundamental frequency of vocals and percussion stuff tends to be several db hotter than the kefs even at the same average spl. I would say what really stands out with the 8331 and 8341 after demoing them against multiple passive speakers is just how strong the 300-700hz range really dominantes (IMO) the sound signature on the Genelec relative to other speakers I compared. Even something as lowfi as a Blue Yeti mic can capture this quite easily.

One note worth making is I don't think this is unique to The Ones. Most other Genelec speakers seem to have similar sound power and off axis responses in this range so it seems to be an intentional design. I don't think I'm the first to notice this, if anything alot people seem to say on pro audio sites like Gearslutz is that Genelecs are a bit "mid-forward."

I also recorded a sound demo with my umik-1s. It sounds pretty much the same, except the ambient hiss level is very high relative to the recording so I didn't upload them. As for the blue yeti I used the default cardiod setting. Its not meant to be an FR accurate mic recording, but mostly meant to capture the differences between them using the best control I could, which was the same mic and leveling marching as best I could.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I hear what you mean with the mid’s...it’s quite apparent in the female vocals. That the little Genelecs can hold their own against those Kefs is pretty high praise, I actually preferred the 8341 in this recording. Your making me want to look for a pair!

 

[jonfitch]

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I hear what you mean with the mid’s...it’s quite apparent in the female vocals. That the little Genelecs can hold their own against those Kefs is pretty high praise, I actually preferred the 8341 in this recording. Your making me want to look for a pair!

Yeah the Kef Reference 1 is a very laid back speaker. I'll do a video sometime this week with the M126BE measured in the same spot vs Ref 1/8341 and will try to level match and so people can get a general sense of the difference. Although I will say compared to the Genelecs it's going to be more laid back in the mids much like Kef Reference 1, and LS50 Meta, and I'll upload a 8341 vs Kef LS50 Meta sound demo as well. The Genelecs give you more detail in the mids but to me the tradeoff is generally this causes the music to sound less spacious, main reason why I gave the Focal Utopia comparison in which some complain about the lack of soundstage depth, heh (everyone's got their individual preferences in the end).

 

[richard12511]

I uploaded my sound demo of the 8341 vs Kef Reference 1. My recording mic isn't great, it's a Blue Yeti, but still captures the main sound signature differences between the two speakers.

In general I would say the 8341 is more forward, especially in the lower mids, which stands out a lot. There's a big vocal intelligibility gap between the two, the 8341s have much clearer vocals. The overall sound power/sound signature reminds me alot of the TAD ME-1, which I A/Bed against the Reference 1 in the past. Much flatter, more forward, more lower mid energy. The Reference 1s are really laid back and not for everyone. But you do get a very nicely layered soundstage and a nice laid back sound signature that makes everything IMO sound good, whereas a flatter speaker will show differences in recording quality in a more jarring fashion. If I may make a headphone analogy, the Kef Reference 1 are the Hifiman HE1000 of speakers (laid back/diffuse, layered and back row sound stage) whereas the Genelecs are more like the Focal Utopias (resolving, forward sound stage).

Having watched the video now, I see what you're saying.

Genelec's image is more forward in space, and the soundstage is wider and more spacious sounding.
KEF is more laid back and thinner sounding, but the image is actually a little tighter and closer to the front wall.

Looking at the measurements, the bigger more spacious sound from the Genelec makes sense, given the wider dispersion. KEF sounding more laid back makes sense, given the narrower dispersion and equally neutral on axis. Can you do a similar comparison with the Revel? It has even a little wider dispersion than the Genelec, and much wider than the KEF.

I honestly don't know what causes the image to be more forward, but I definitely hear what you're saying now. You mention the sound power, which honestly could be it(as I have no idea). Looking again at measurements, the 8341s sound power is noticeably smoother, whereas the R3 drops faster, then comes back up, then drops faster again.

Neither really sound like what I hear here(granted I've never heard the 8341), but it's interesting that I can still here what you're describing.