Anyone here using the ones? Id be interested to hear how you're connecting things up (AES or analogue), what interface you're using, monitor controller and volume management, whether you have the GLM connected 24/7, do you use a sub - anything!
I had the opportunity to listen the 8331, 41, 51 in the local dealer, and the volume output of the 41 seemed to be the best option for the size of my room and for my taste. I was debating actually between the 8351 no sub or 8341 with sub and went with the latter option.@Nimrod7 The controller for the 905 is something I've lusted after for years, what a piece of kit. Is there a reason you bypassed the 8331 and jumped to the 8341?
Oh I enjoy volume, it's my neighbours who don'tI had the opportunity to hear the 8331, 41, 51 in the local dealer, and the volume output of the 41 seemed to be the best option for the size of my room and for my taste. I was debating actually between the 8351 no sub or 8341 with sub and went with the latter option.
my feeling is that the 31s are a bit small for most rooms in 2.0, or 2.1 configurations except if you don’t enjoy volume.
I will always prefer to leave the output of the DAW un-attenuated and use the speakers' volume control to set listening level. This is best practice. They Dynaudio AIR system I've used for 20 years does it this way, with a dedicated volume remote. Not sure if the remote actually controls the gain of the speakers' internal amps, or just attenuates the AES input once it hits the back of the speaker, but I hope it's the latter.@David Kudell@charlieclouser You're partly to blame for this spending spree I'm about to embark on, I hope you're feeling bad. Same questions to you as I had for Anders. Are you guys setting the max volume level physically via a pot on the back of the monitors and then using the digital controller to attenuate that?
The biggest OCD headache that I'm giving myself is reading about how connecting the monitors via AES sounds worlds better than analogue. My old faithful apollo twin doesnt have digital out so my options seem to either be spending 5 times the price for an interface with 10x as many in/outs as I need, or a cheap usb focusrite unit and using a spidf to AES convertor.
Had any of you used sonarworks, trinnov or similar before GLM? I'm happy with sonarworks but prefer the set and forget aspect of SAM, but I wonder if in 5 years sonarworks won't be much more powerful than being stuck with an underpowered in the box DSP chip with the genelecs.
For my current setup which is a small apartment the 8331's would have probably been fine since I'm using a sub. But I plan to have a larger setup eventually and wanted to be future proof. I know the 8341's will go with me when I get a larger studio.@David Kudell @Anders Wall @charlieclouser Thanks for taking the time, it's appreciated
@David Kudell You're definitely putting GLM through its paces with that right hand monitor! Is there any reason you didn't go for the 8331s, what with you using a sub anyway? I very rarely monitor above 80db so can't see a good reason to go any bigger than 8331 + sub, not unless I ever move to a bigger room with less neighbours to piss off.
I did read that. It's one thing that bugs me with sonarworks - the safe headroom feature due to boosts and the mess that makes when mixing etc. In saying that, I'm using sonarworks currently and it adds some boosts here and there from 1k >, and I like the sound if I'm honest. What does glm do about frequencies that could do with a boost?The corrective eq is cuts-only.
I don't think GLM does anything with frequencies that need a boost. The way its eq's are configured, it's not a zillion-band transfer function, it's a bunch of parametric bands and it does what it can using those - so I doubt it would do something like "cut everything by 6db and then cut frequency range X by zero db" in order to simulate a boost. That would have a similar "lowering of headroom" effect to what SonarWorks suffers from - but at least it's not on a plugin inside the DAW or audio path.I did read that. It's one thing that bugs me with sonarworks - the safe headroom feature due to boosts and the mess that makes when mixing etc. In saying that, I'm using sonarworks currently and it adds some boosts here and there from 1k >, and I like the sound if I'm honest. What does glm do about frequencies that could do with a boost?
I'm trying to get a trial with the genelecs. It'll be interesting to run them with glm and soundID separately and see what results I get. I'm also tempted to bite the bullet and jump up to the 51's minus the sub. Then finally, I can write a piece of music, but not until then.I don't think GLM does anything with frequencies that need a boost. The way its eq's are configured, it's not a zillion-band transfer function, it's a bunch of parametric bands and it does what it can using those - so I doubt it would do something like "cut everything by 6db and then cut frequency range X by zero db" in order to simulate a boost. That would have a similar "lowering of headroom" effect to what SonarWorks suffers from - but at least it's not on a plugin inside the DAW or audio path.
If the room is soaking up a frequency range more than it should, it's the room's problem. The speakers are designed and tested to the point that Genelec knows they're outputting those frequencies correctly, and I think they made a wise choice in making GLM cuts-only. That at least helps with room resonances and issues with reflection from work surfaces etc.
When I tried SonarWorks in my room it built such a crazy, zillion-band correction curve that it was no surprise that I thought it sounded "phasey" and weird. With GLM I didn't have that impression, and the correction curve was less elaborate for sure.
Since trying both systems (and buying neither) I have added a TON of bass traps and treatment, and I'm not done yet. 8" of trapping on the entire front wall, corner traps floor to ceiling, a 10' x 4' x 8" ceiling cloud, and I'm waiting on 16" soffits to arrive. Once that stuff is all hung I will get the new Genelec rig in here again and see what's what, and I'll also shoot the room with SonarWorks and FuzzMeasure again as well to see if all the effort made any difference.
For my current setup which is a small apartment the 8331's would have probably been fine since I'm using a sub. But I plan to have a larger setup eventually and wanted to be future proof. I know the 8341's will go with me when I get a larger studio.
I'm on a mixture of 8341, 8340 and a 7370 in a 7.1 system connected AES through a 9301 interface.
My "volume control" is thought the AVID MTRX interface using eucon and an iPad.
I opted out the DAD pro/mon controller, I find that once the levels are set I rarely change anything else than dim and cut/mute.
You could do the volume handling with the GLM interface, a potentiometer and some resistors connected to switches. Would be super easy to build and wouldn't cost that much.
Best of luck,
/Anders
Hello nmarvellous.Is there a big difference between 8340 and 8341s? I currently have the 8340s and 7360, looking to upgrade but I can't tell if I am missing much.
Awesome! Thanks for sharing your experience. I am going to invest in room acoustics!Hello nmarvellous.
I’m not sure the extra cost of having a tri-amped speaker is worth it.
To my ears the 8341 sounds more focused and at the same time not so picky with the sweet spot as the 8340 or at least that’s how I recollect the switch.
If your room acoustics can be improved I’d say spend your money on that rather than new speakers.
The 8340’s are great speakers especially with a sub.
/Anders