https://www.genelec.com/monitor-placementDo you have a link to this, please? I think I saw something from Genelec on this some time ago, but if it's what I'm thinking of, I wasn't convinced
https://www.genelec.com/monitor-placementDo you have a link to this, please? I think I saw something from Genelec on this some time ago, but if it's what I'm thinking of, I wasn't convinced
Whaaaaaaat?
I'm talking about a single metric value being assigned to convey the performance of a 3-Dimensional speaker.
If I didn't believe in measurements at all then I wouldn't spend days of my own time conducting them as well.
The first solution is to flush mount the monitors into a hard wall (creating a very large baffle) eliminating the rear wall reflections and therefore cancellations. Another possibility is to place the monitor very close to the wall minimising the gap. This raises the lowest cancellation frequency so high that the monitor has become forward-directing, and the cancellation no longer occurs. Remember that the low frequency boost should be compensated for when the monitor is mounted close to the wall (up to +6 dB gain).
Alternatively, the monitor could be moved considerably further away from the wall to eliminate back reflections. The cancellation frequency will be lowered below the low frequency cut-off of the monitor. When the monitor is moved away from the walls, it also moves close to the listener. This increases the direct sound level and reduces the reflected sound level which improves the sound quality.
Huh? It's matching, except that the illustration doesn't include the "very far from wall" case.Thanks I agree 100% with the text:
But not the illustration, which indeed contradicts the text:
View attachment 92818
No, that's the Genelec subwoofer.The illustration effectively says "Do not place your monitor more than 60cm from the wall".
No, that's the Genelec subwoofer.
So this speaker isn't too bad. It only fell .16 short of the JBL 308 mkII in the formula for scoring. Looks like the 308 goes flatter into the bass a ways.
If you add a sub to the Revel it slightly exceeds the JBL 308 score.
So yes, that formula still bothers me.
apologize, already asked... when you @hardisj will help us understanding how to use multiple subs (cardioid setup with dsp or simply placed in room corner)? or leave us in the hands of mighty Dirac fix all?
nothing on the web, many would love it... many thumbs up,
If that's true, the distortion for the Genelec would be even higher at 96 dB. But isn't that top aqua line showing the fundamental frequency at around 96 dB in both images (link)?IIRC, the Genelec measurement there is taken at about 85dB vs 96dB for the Revel.
Genelec have changed their illustrations for distance from the wall a few times and I think what's there now is a bit confusing. Here's what their guide used to look like:The illustration effectively says "Do not place your monitor more than 60cm from the wall".
And, indeed, if this is what @stevenswall was referring to when he said:
then his statement also contradicts Genelec's text and agrees with its illustration.
I suspect he may have been referring to something else, however, as there is no mention of measurements in this document.
If that's true, the distortion for the Genelec would be even higher at 96 dB. But isn't that top aqua line showing the fundamental frequency at around 96 dB in both images (link)?
It makes no sense to me why Revel would design a tower speaker with 3x 8” woofers to start rolling off bass at 100hz, unless there’s something audible we are not seeing in the measurements here.
It is not arbitrary in any reasonable definition of arbitrary. In fact, this shows the value of the score -- it is highlighting the measurement issue in the bass, and it may lead to a better understanding of how to measure bass. As I have said many times, the score is no better or worse than any other review. It reflects a weighted average of the inputs in the same way that any review ends up with an opinion. Its advantage is that it can be used to compare speakers on the same metric, and will be more consistent than any human reviewer. Its downside is that measurement issues can make the score misleading.No one has said that they cannot trust the measurements but agglomerating them into a single index, imho, is arbitrary.
I do believe that subwoofer volume settings are not best seen as "set and forget." I have an SVS SB2000 Pro (music system only, not home theater) that allows on the fly volume adjustment during playback via bluetooth and I often find myself adjusting the subwoofer volume up to +- 4 db depending on the perceived sub-bass response not being consistent with bass/mid-bass levels.That's not the case with subs either.
The other thing with subs is too much bass. When watching movies I am game for that. But with music it can get too much with some music, and not with others. Hooked up a sub to our living room TV system and had to disconnect it after a few hours since the commercials had the most bass!
Not saying don't use a sub but you are in for a lot of work to get them to work well.
If that's true, the distortion for the Genelec would be even higher at 96 dB. But isn't that top aqua line showing the fundamental frequency at around 96 dB in both images (link)?
Genelec have changed their illustrations for distance from the wall a few times and I think what's there now is a bit confusing. Here's what their guide used to look like:
View attachment 92821
If that's true, the distortion for the Genelec would be even higher at 96 dB. But isn't that top aqua line showing the fundamental frequency at around 96 dB in both images (link)?
With the increasing prevalence and availability of system-wide PEQ options, we're seeing that the preference score can be gamed by targeting frequency response. The Revel F328Be without EQ score is 5.5, while the Edifier R1280T with EQ score is 5.8 even though its distortion, directivity, and max SPL measurements are all substantially worse.It is not arbitrary in any reasonable definition of arbitrary. In fact, this shows the value of the score -- it is highlighting the measurement issue in the bass, and it may lead to a better understanding of how to measure bass. As I have said many times, the score is no better or worse than any other review. It reflects a weighted average of the inputs in the same way that any review ends up with an opinion. Its advantage is that it can be used to compare speakers on the same metric, and will be more consistent than any human reviewer. Its downside is that measurement issues can make the score misleading.
If, by "arbitrary" you meant that there is variability and that it does not reflect absolute truth, you are correct. And again, this review is a perfect example of that as well. I think most people believe the speaker sounds better than its score.
The first issue people run into is exactly this that only one subwoofer is used. I'd say start at four and work your way up from there.
After doing a bit more digging, we have three recommendations from Genelec:Interesting. I don't agree with the specific distances shown in this most recent illustration, but the gist is correct (i.e. either place it either very close or quite far).
After doing a bit more digging, we have three recommendations from Genelec:
1. Place the speaker between 5cm-60cm or 1.1+m. (Current recommendation.)
2. Place the speaker between 5cm-1m or 2.2+m. (~2011 recommendation.)
3. In their YouTube video about it, they say offhand that if placing at a distance, you will need at least 4m to get the cancellation dip below 20 Hz. (2019)
There is actually plenty of information on the web about how to do this using free software and a miniDSP.
Multi-Sub Optimizer
Tutorial using REW + MSO + MiniDSP.
It's far from simple and not for the faint of heart though. There is a reason so many people are interested in automated bass management. The manual process requires many hours of work and a good understanding of the tools.