• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Genelec on audio science

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,998
Likes
937
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,935
Location
Oslo, Norway
Let me add a small note on rooms and acoustics etc, albeit highly subjective and anecdotic. I recently installed the most excellent 8C speakers from Dutch & Dutch in a very temporary listening room, an unused attic at my parents house. Picture here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dutch-dutch-8cs.2299/page-14#post-79181

The acoustics in this room is fairly horrible. It has helped a lot to throw in all the extra stuff I could find, plus carpets, but still. Way to small, the sloping ceilings are too low, etc. But here's the strange thing: the more I listen here, the less the acoustics bother me. It seems like my brain is increasingly filtering out the room, and focusing on the sound coming out of the speakers. My brain perceives the stereo image as ever sharper. It's like I'm learning to deal with what the room does to the sound.

That doesn't mean that it wouldn't sound better in a spacious and furnished room. Of course it would. But it does seem like my brain is able to deal with listening in even this most horrible of rooms.

Now I haven't tried full range room correction here yet. I've only just started playing with adjusting the bass though the built-in DSP equalizer in the 8Cs. But I'm not sure that I would want for these speakers to try and take the room out of the equation now. I suspect that it would add an ever so slight layer of artificiality - beceause the speakers would not actually sound like they were playing in this particular room anymore. And would I want that? It would create a disconnect between what my eyes are seeing; what my ears hear from other sounds in the room, and what my ears hear from the speakers.
 
Last edited:

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
Let me add a small note on rooms and acoustics etc, albeit highly subjective and anecdotic. I recently installed the most excellent 8C speakers from Dutch & Dutch in a very temporary listening room, an unused attic at my parents house. Picture here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dutch-dutch-8cs.2299/page-14#post-79181

The acoustics in this room is fairly horrible. It has helped a lot to throw in all the extra stuff I could find, plus carpets, but still. Way to small, the sloping ceilings are too low, etc. But here's the strange thing: the more I listen here, the less the acoustics bother me. It seems like my brain is increasingly filtering out the room, and focusing on the sound coming out of the speakers. My brain perceives the stereo image as ever sharper. It's like I'm learning to deal with what the room does to the sound.

That doesn't mean that it wouldn't sound better in a spacious and furnished room. Of course it would. But it does seem like my brain is able to deal with listening in even this most horrible of rooms.

Now I haven't tried full range room correction here yet. I've only just started playing with adjusting the bass though the built-in DSP equalizer in the 8Cs. But I'm not sure that I would want for these speakers to try and take the room out of the equation now. I suspect that it would add an ever so slight layer of artificiality - beceause the speakers would not actually sound like they were playing in this particular room anymore. And would I want that? It would create a disconnect between what my eyes are seeing; what my ears hear from other sounds in the room, and what my ears hear from the speakers.

It is pretty well known that A style sloping ceilings in a room are especially problematical no matter how good the speakers may be. But, yes, you can get used to most anything, even a stone that has hopped into your shoe while walking down the road.

I am totally in agreement with Dr. Toole and many others that by far the biggest payoff of DSP EQ is in the low bass. Above 500 Hz or so, DSP EQ is more controversial. Nontheless, in some circumstances and with better EQ tools, it might have benefits worthy of trying for experimentation. I have found that valuable, myself.
 

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,935
Location
Oslo, Norway
It is pretty well known that A style sloping ceilings in a room are especially problematical no matter how good the speakers may be. But, yes, you can get used to most anything, even a stone that has hopped into your shoe while walking down the road.

I am totally in agreement with Dr. Toole and many others that by far the biggest payoff of DSP EQ is in the low bass. Above 500 Hz or so, DSP EQ is more controversial. Nontheless, in some circumstances and with better EQ tools, it might have benefits worthy of trying for experimentation. I have found that valuable, myself.

True. People get used to listening to vinyl as well, so I guess you can make the argument that my adjustment to the room is like getting used to a stone in the shoe. Had I intended to stay here, I would for sure have experimented with all kinds of eq solutions.
 
OP
svart-hvitt

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
CURVES, DIRECT SOUND AND STEADY-STATE AS BASIS FOR ROOM COMPENSATION

I guess this discussion started with "curves". And what has come thereafter, may be a result of how you define "curves".

This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Just after I started the thread, @Floyd Toole wrote about his meeting with late Ilpo Martikainen, founder of Genelec, in the 1980s. Floyd told ASR members that Ilpo "had been following my NRCC research and papers and was eager to demonstrate to me how well he had applied the findings". The ASR reader gets the impression that this was a one-way communication between Ilpo and Floyd, where Floyd was the one illuminating Ilpo; not being there, how could we know if it was not a two-way communication? Conveniently, dead men don't talk.

Rigt after that, Floyd writes that "for anyone willing to exercise a modicum of independent, logical, thought can use his products to generate fine sound", as if Genelec were just a one-man shop (my underlying of "his").

Floyd also states that "I assume for business reasons, Genelec followed the guidance of ITU and EBU standards requiring flat steady state in-room curves, and they provide means to achieve it". In other words, Floyd insinuated that Genelec follows the money ("business reasons") and not science. Remember, this is a thread on "Genelec on audio science", so insinuation that Genelec is non-science oriented, but rather dollars-oriented, is interesting.

Then, Floyd writes that it "has been a while since I reviewed their product specifications*, but the answer to your question will be there. If the loudspeaker has a flattish on-axis frequency response, which theirs tended to have, then in a normally reflective room the steady-state room curve will tilt downwards. This is explained in detail in my book. To make that flat means equalizing the speaker, and this will yield an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards". (My underlining).

So what is the reader to take from this? Well, Floyd insinuates that:

1) Ilpo's discussion with Floyd in the 1980s was a one-way communication (with only Floyd giving the input to Ilpo).
2) Genelec uses steady-state measurements to yield "an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards".

These Finns must be amateurs, dollar-chasing copy-cats without integrity, right?

Then I tried to bring a new aspect into the debate on room compensation products, where the Direct Sound (DS) is separated from, controlled for the Steady-State sound (SS). Because what happens if the room compensation product focuses on Direct Sound (DS), instead of Steady-Sate (SS)? Floyd seems to be focusing on DSP products that look at SS, but what if a DSP product looks at DS? Has Floyd considered that possibility (i.e. Direct Sound oriented room compensation)?

Well, it's convenient to only look at SS if all previous research has been focussed on SS and pink noise. If a new factor enters the scene, i.e. DS, could it be that the old research should be extended to include DS as well?

For ASR readers, based on reader comments, it seems like Direct Sound (in room) is something new, something they haven't thought of; a factor they are not aware of, so a non-factor. Say a DSP product compensates for Direct Sound. Now, we have an interesting situation; because we now have a DSP product which compensates for a factor people are not aware of. And if a DSP product compensates for a factor not known to (most) people, this should yield - in the ignorants' world - nothing. Compensating for a non-factor shouldn't yield anything, right?

Floyd writes that he has done lots of research on direct sound, in anechoic chambers. But this is research on speakers only, right? He didn't put people in anechoic chamber, right? I can't see from his books or articles that he has studied DSP products that control for reflections, i.e. Direct Sound in room (and not in anechoic chamber) as opposed to Steady-State (SS).

My point is this:
  • According to Floyd, a DSP product that is focussed on Direct Sound is flawed, "an enticing marketing story".
So I wondered on what basis does one come to that conclusion that DS compensation is flawed?

-------

*This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Yet Floyd finds it frustrating that I haven't read his book and material from A to Z (I have tried to read the relevant material, but to me it's not always crystal-clear what he means), while he on the same time takes the liberty to talk about Genelec without having "reviewed their product specifications" for a while.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
CURVES, DIRECT SOUND AND STEADY-STATE AS BASIS FOR ROOM COMPENSATION

I guess this discussion started with "curves". And what has come thereafter, may be a result of how you define "curves".

This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Just after I started the thread, @Floyd Toole wrote about his meeting with late Ilpo Martikainen, founder of Genelec, in the 1980s. Floyd told ASR members that Ilpo "had been following my NRCC research and papers and was eager to demonstrate to me how well he had applied the findings". The ASR reader gets the impression that this was a one-way communication between Ilpo and Floyd, where Floyd was the one illuminating Ilpo; not being there, how could we know if it was not a two-way communication? Conveniently, dead men don't talk.

Rigt after that, Floyd writes that "for anyone willing to exercise a modicum of independent, logical, thought can use his products to generate fine sound", as if Genelec were just a one-man shop (my underlying of "his").

Floyd also states that "I assume for business reasons, Genelec followed the guidance of ITU and EBU standards requiring flat steady state in-room curves, and they provide means to achieve it". In other words, Floyd insinuated that Genelec follows the money ("business reasons") and not science. Remember, this is a thread on "Genelec on audio science", so insinuation that Genelec is non-science oriented, but rather dollars-oriented, is interesting.

Then, Floyd writes that it "has been a while since I reviewed their product specifications*, but the answer to your question will be there. If the loudspeaker has a flattish on-axis frequency response, which theirs tended to have, then in a normally reflective room the steady-state room curve will tilt downwards. This is explained in detail in my book. To make that flat means equalizing the speaker, and this will yield an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards". (My underlining).

So what is the reader to take from this? Well, Floyd insinuates that:

1) Ilpo's discussion with Floyd in the 1980s was a one-way communication (with only Floyd giving the input to Ilpo).
2) Genelec uses steady-state measurements to yield "an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards".

These Finns must be amateurs, dollar-chasing copy-cats without integrity, right?

Then I tried to bring a new aspect into the debate on room compensation products, where the Direct Sound (DS) is separated from, controlled for the Steady-State sound (SS). Because what happens if the room compensation product focuses on Direct Sound (DS), instead of Steady-Sate (SS)? Floyd seems to be focusing on DSP products that look at SS, but what if a DSP product looks at DS? Has Floyd considered that possibility (i.e. Direct Sound oriented room compensation)?

Well, it's convenient to only look at SS if all previous research has been focussed on SS and pink noise. If a new factor enters the scene, i.e. DS, could it be that the old research should be extended to include DS as well?

For ASR readers, based on reader comments, it seems like Direct Sound (in room) is something new, something they haven't thought of; a factor they are not aware of, so a non-factor. Say a DSP product compensates for Direct Sound. Now, we have an interesting situation; because we now have a DSP product which compensates for a factor people are not aware of. And if a DSP product compensates for a factor not known to (most) people, this should yield - in the ignorants' world - nothing. Compensating for a non-factor shouldn't yield anything, right?

Floyd writes that he has done lots of research on direct sound, in anechoic chambers. But this is research on speakers only, right? He didn't put people in anechoic chamber, right? I can't see from his books or articles that he has studied DSP products that control for reflections, i.e. Direct Sound in room (and not in anechoic chamber) as opposed to Steady-State (SS).

My point is this:
  • According to Floyd, a DSP product that is focussed on Direct Sound is flawed, "an enticing marketing story".
So I wondered on what basis does one come to that conclusion that DS compensation is flawed?

-------

*This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Yet Floyd finds it frustrating that I haven't read his book and material from A to Z (I have tried to read the relevant material, but to me it's not always crystal-clear what he means), while he on the same time takes the liberty to talk about Genelec without having "reviewed their product specifications" for a while.
My take on it:

Clarifying the terms "Direct Sound" and "Steady State" as they are being used here - I think. Direct sound just means that the speaker is being used/measured in anechoic conditions. This can be achieved in a real anechoic chamber or in a real room by gating a sweep measurement to sufficiently short a time to eliminate all reflections. Thus only the direct sound from the speaker is measured. However, you can make the measurements from more than one position around the speaker...

Steady state on the other hand refers to a measurement that allows the listening room's reflections into the measurement, also suggesting that multiple reflections are given time to 'build up'. Thus not only does the direct sound influence the measurement but also the room shape, dimensions, furnishings and off-axis indirect sound from the speaker. But music, remember, is not 'steady state'. Confused?

It may be a lot simpler than it appears if humans have the ability to, effectively 'de-reverberate' the sounds they hear in real acoustic spaces. This may just have evolved naturally, utilising a combination of two ears, micro head movements, HRTF and grey matter 'DSP' that uses time domain cues as well as frequency domain. If this actually were the case, then the in-room 'curve' would be misleading, because the human would not be hearing it as the microphone and FFT was measuring it.

Experience seems to show that this may indeed be the case, and that all that is required is a neutral speaker as measured anechoically including, crucially, the off-axis sound, too.

The room still matters, but only in the sense that the listener registers it separately from the direct sound and likes it or doesn't like it. Changing the speaker's EQ based on in-room measurements may therefore simply not really work, ever. It may be 'not even wrong' if you see what I mean. But this seemingly hasn't stopped various bodies from issuing standards based on room curves, anyway.

But if the speaker is not neutral..? This is a situation that is 'indeterminate' because the system is breaking the strict relationship between time and frequency domains and natural acoustics. It may never be made to sound good. But if the off-axis deviation from neutral is at least smooth, some smooth EQ of the direct sound (e.g. a variant of baffle step compensation) may make it acceptable, and this will be somewhat room dependent so perhaps you can call it a form of 'room correction'.

Is it science, or simply logic?

(I don't particularly know Genelec. Do their speakers sound as amazing as their cult status suggests they should?)
 
Last edited:

Floyd Toole

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
367
Likes
3,894
CURVES, DIRECT SOUND AND STEADY-STATE AS BASIS FOR ROOM COMPENSATION

I guess this discussion started with "curves". And what has come thereafter, may be a result of how you define "curves".

This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Just after I started the thread, @Floyd Toole wrote about his meeting with late Ilpo Martikainen, founder of Genelec, in the 1980s. Floyd told ASR members that Ilpo "had been following my NRCC research and papers and was eager to demonstrate to me how well he had applied the findings". The ASR reader gets the impression that this was a one-way communication between Ilpo and Floyd, where Floyd was the one illuminating Ilpo; not being there, how could we know if it was not a two-way communication? Conveniently, dead men don't talk.

Rigt after that, Floyd writes that "for anyone willing to exercise a modicum of independent, logical, thought can use his products to generate fine sound", as if Genelec were just a one-man shop (my underlying of "his").

Floyd also states that "I assume for business reasons, Genelec followed the guidance of ITU and EBU standards requiring flat steady state in-room curves, and they provide means to achieve it". In other words, Floyd insinuated that Genelec follows the money ("business reasons") and not science. Remember, this is a thread on "Genelec on audio science", so insinuation that Genelec is non-science oriented, but rather dollars-oriented, is interesting.

Then, Floyd writes that it "has been a while since I reviewed their product specifications*, but the answer to your question will be there. If the loudspeaker has a flattish on-axis frequency response, which theirs tended to have, then in a normally reflective room the steady-state room curve will tilt downwards. This is explained in detail in my book. To make that flat means equalizing the speaker, and this will yield an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards". (My underlining).

So what is the reader to take from this? Well, Floyd insinuates that:

1) Ilpo's discussion with Floyd in the 1980s was a one-way communication (with only Floyd giving the input to Ilpo).
2) Genelec uses steady-state measurements to yield "an on-axis, direct sound, response that is tilted upwards".

These Finns must be amateurs, dollar-chasing copy-cats without integrity, right?

Then I tried to bring a new aspect into the debate on room compensation products, where the Direct Sound (DS) is separated from, controlled for the Steady-State sound (SS). Because what happens if the room compensation product focuses on Direct Sound (DS), instead of Steady-Sate (SS)? Floyd seems to be focusing on DSP products that look at SS, but what if a DSP product looks at DS? Has Floyd considered that possibility (i.e. Direct Sound oriented room compensation)?

Well, it's convenient to only look at SS if all previous research has been focussed on SS and pink noise. If a new factor enters the scene, i.e. DS, could it be that the old research should be extended to include DS as well?

For ASR readers, based on reader comments, it seems like Direct Sound (in room) is something new, something they haven't thought of; a factor they are not aware of, so a non-factor. Say a DSP product compensates for Direct Sound. Now, we have an interesting situation; because we now have a DSP product which compensates for a factor people are not aware of. And if a DSP product compensates for a factor not known to (most) people, this should yield - in the ignorants' world - nothing. Compensating for a non-factor shouldn't yield anything, right?

Floyd writes that he has done lots of research on direct sound, in anechoic chambers. But this is research on speakers only, right? He didn't put people in anechoic chamber, right? I can't see from his books or articles that he has studied DSP products that control for reflections, i.e. Direct Sound in room (and not in anechoic chamber) as opposed to Steady-State (SS).

My point is this:
  • According to Floyd, a DSP product that is focussed on Direct Sound is flawed, "an enticing marketing story".
So I wondered on what basis does one come to that conclusion that DS compensation is flawed?

-------

*This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Yet Floyd finds it frustrating that I haven't read his book and material from A to Z (I have tried to read the relevant material, but to me it's not always crystal-clear what he means), while he on the same time takes the liberty to talk about Genelec without having "reviewed their product specifications" for a while.


If you had read my book completely, and understood it, I would not have been referring to it to answer your questions. Am I frustrated by this? A bit . . .

As for EQing direct sound, if one was to do it accurately, one will have achieved an improved on-axis/listening window (direct sound) frequency response. This of course is best done back at the factory, and best implemented in dedicated DSP. Lacking that, in-room measurements can assist over some, but not all, of the frequency range. As I said in the book, active loudspeakers have significant advantages.

I did not say, and do not believe that, as you said: "According to Floyd, a DSP product that is focussed on Direct Sound is flawed, "an enticing marketing story". So again, you have not read and/or understood what I have written.

When I met Ilpo, he was about 10 years my junior and he was just beginning his corporate journey. I had a full time job as a research scientist, and had several years of experience in the audio field. He was very interested to learn what had been found. We got along very well - if you choose to believe me - but it was, from a scientific point of view, one way conversation. What transpired in our separate careers later on are independent stories, and peer reviewed publications exist to tell the tales. Always I had a respect for Genelec and its commitment to portray honest looking anechoic data on their loudspeakers.

You seem not to be able to understand that if one aims for a flat in-room steady-state curve (which is a requirement of the ITU and EBU standards) that the result is an upward tilted on-axis/ direct sound curve. The only situations in which this is not true is when listening in a dominant direct sound situation, as in the extreme near field or in an anechoic space. It is the standards that are wrong, not the loudspeakers - as I said in an earlier post. Is this Genelec's fault? No.

I find myself in a situation of repeating what is already in my papers and the books. Am I frustrated by this? A bit . . .

You said, sarcastically, "These Finns must be amateurs, dollar-chasing copy-cats without integrity, right?" Wrong! These particular Finns make cracking good loudspeakers, which, if properly used, yield excellent sound. So do several other manufacturers who have followed the science. The rest is up to consumers.

I'm outta here, bye.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Another thought.

Something that fascinates me: I don't know why most audiophiles reject these ideas so vehemently. To me, the whole room correction/sloping target curves thing never rang true (although I was briefly seduced by it). As so often happens, if a technical solution gets too complex, arbitrary and open-ended then it is probably wrong. In this case, the solution probably really is the simple, pure, perfect one. It makes me very happy:). It sews up all the loose ends, and solves the mysteries as to why 'perfect measurements' don't seem to coincide reliably with good sound: the measurements are too simplistic or just wrong. Measurements really should just be the confirmation that the system isn't broken; it should be the ground-up design that ensures good performance - and that seems to be what we are seeing with the new DSP-based speakers that are closer to neutral than was possible before.

(Hardly worth mentioning that my homebrew system, built on these principles, works very nicely too!)
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
If you had read my book completely, and understood it, I would not have been referring to it to answer your questions. Am I frustrated by this? A bit . . .

As for EQing direct sound, if one was to do it accurately, one will have achieved an improved on-axis/listening window (direct sound) frequency response. This of course is best done back at the factory, and best implemented in dedicated DSP. Lacking that, in-room measurements can assist over some, but not all, of the frequency range. As I said in the book, active loudspeakers have significant advantages.

I did not say, and do not believe that, as you said: "According to Floyd, a DSP product that is focussed on Direct Sound is flawed, "an enticing marketing story". So again, you have not read and/or understood what I have written.

When I met Ilpo, he was about 10 years my junior and he was just beginning his corporate journey. I had a full time job as a research scientist, and had several years of experience in the audio field. He was very interested to learn what had been found. We got along very well - if you choose to believe me - but it was, from a scientific point of view, one way conversation. What transpired in our separate careers later on are independent stories, and peer reviewed publications exist to tell the tales. Always I had a respect for Genelec and its commitment to portray honest looking anechoic data on their loudspeakers.

You seem not to be able to understand that if one aims for a flat in-room steady-state curve (which is a requirement of the ITU and EBU standards) that the result is an upward tilted on-axis/ direct sound curve. The only situations in which this is not true is when listening in a dominant direct sound situation, as in the extreme near field or in an anechoic space. It is the standards that are wrong, not the loudspeakers - as I said in an earlier post. Is this Genelec's fault? No.

I find myself in a situation of repeating what is already in my papers and the books. Am I frustrated by this? A bit . . .

You said, sarcastically, "These Finns must be amateurs, dollar-chasing copy-cats without integrity, right?" Wrong! These particular Finns make cracking good loudspeakers, which, if properly used, yield excellent sound. So do several other manufacturers who have followed the science. The rest is up to consumers.

I'm outta here, bye.
I hope you'll still be contributing to other threads, though...
 

pirad

Active Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2018
Messages
178
Likes
61
I hope you'll still be contributing to other threads, though...
It must be extremely frustrating to scientists like Toole to try explain his
research to non-peers. Inspite of the name this forum is not populated only by audio scientists. I am not a scientist either, I play one on TV.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
'Sometimes it is better to be 'grasshopper' than noisy cricket' - Confusionist saying. :rolleyes:
 

Guermantes

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
484
Likes
561
Location
Brisbane, Australia
I don't particularly know Genelec. Do their speakers sound as amazing as their cult status suggests they should?

As I've stated previously in this thread, I work with a pair of Genelec 8260A monitors and I was instrumental in choosing them over others we auditioned.

Our original aim was to acquire a pair of Dynaudio Air20 monitors as the nearfields we use are Dynaudio BM5s, but we found it frustratingly difficult to audition a pair in our technology backwater (basically the distributor said that they had none in the country and would only get them in if we bought them). We listened to some other candidates that were available but each had some flaw or another that made it unsuitable for our use. In hindsight, I wish I had added the JBL M2 to our shortlist but we may still have had trouble chasing up a pair to audition.

The Genelec rep was very helpful and when we heard the 8260A we were extremely impressed by its neutrality and low distortion. They were a league above the others and for not much more money. It was a case of bird-in-hand, so we chose them.

If we had auditioned the Air20s or the JBL M2s perhaps it would be a different story, or at least a harder decision. We weren't swayed by their cult status, in fact it was the reputation of the Dynaudios that was steering us to them originally.
 

Jinjuku

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,278
Likes
1,180
I just meant that you could arrive at many different destinations through the choice of which measurements you 'believe in'. They talk about selecting the measurements most relevant to professional audio, but how did they come to decide which were the most relevant? Their "truth" and "facts" are based just as much on subjective choices as anyone else's.

I'll wager you are very off point with that. Their truth and facts are based in research, repeatability, psychoacoustics, known laws of physics.
 

Jinjuku

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,278
Likes
1,180
In my book both direct and steady-state sound are shown, explained and discussed in considerable detail.

If you don't want to buy the book, the basics are explained in this open-access AES paper:
Toole, F. E. (2015). “The Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 63, pp.512-541. This is an open-access paper available to non-members at www.aes.org. Just go to "publications" , "open access" and type in "Toole" - too lazy to get the link, sorry :)

Folks you should buy the book... :)
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,529
Location
Seattle Area
*This is a thread on "Genelec on audio science". Yet Floyd finds it frustrating that I haven't read his book and material from A to Z (I have tried to read the relevant material, but to me it's not always crystal-clear what he means), while he on the same time takes the liberty to talk about Genelec without having "reviewed their product specifications" for a while.
We would all find it very frustrating if Dr. Toole left the forum because of some discussion over Genelec. There is so much we can learn from him. So let's show him highest levels of respect. It is not like the Genelec designers are coming over here to teach as much as he is.

As to his book, it is mandatory reading in my book. You can disagree with it if you like but it has more useful information about audio than the combination of every other book I have read.
 

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,935
Location
Oslo, Norway
We would all find it very frustrating if Dr. Toole left the forum because of some discussion over Genelec. There is so much we can learn from him. So let's show him highest levels of respect. It is not like the Genelec designers are coming over here to teach as much as he is.

As to his book, it is mandatory reading in my book. You can disagree with it if you like but it has more useful information about audio than the combination of every other book I have read.

I really appreciate @svart-hvitt's contributions to the forum, but concur with this. That dr. @Floyd Toole chooses to write on this forum is an invaluable asset and gift to us.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
I'll wager you are very off point with that. Their truth and facts are based in research, repeatability, psychoacoustics, known laws of physics.
Possibly, but this is on their web site:
All Genelec loudspeaker systems feature room response adjustments to compensate for the room influences and retrieve a flat frequency response at the listening position.
The whole previous discussion with Dr. Toole was about the validity of that notion. The user may choose not to avail themselves of the above equalisation, of course, and FT was happy to say that the speakers are excellent if you don't, but it is clear that Genelec:
  1. are happy to go along with something they don't believe in, or
  2. now believe it, or
  3. their room optimisation doesn't in fact quite do what the above statement says it does
Belief in "flat at the listener's ears" needn't even conflict with your criteria of research, repeatability, (selective choice of) psychoacoustics and known laws of physics, but it can still be wrong :)

I find it fascinating to see how an idea (flat response at the listener's ears, or perhaps 'target in-room curves', or 'the speaker and room are a system') can be so persuasive that it supersedes logic and experience and sends people barmy trying to reconcile measurements with what they hear.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
...when we heard the 8260A we were extremely impressed by its neutrality and low distortion.
That's a very "intellectual" description..? When I have heard speakers I have liked, my reaction has been more along the lines of how "rich" and "real" they make the music sound - which I know to be the results of neutrality, but neutrality is not what I 'hear'. Compared to some of the descriptions I have seen in reviews of Kii, D&D, B&O, your description is very restrained. I'm still getting the impression that Genelec appeal to people because of their scientific credentials and supposedly impeccable measurements rather than gut-wrenching sound..?
 
Top Bottom