Hi terraamb01,

I found very interesting your observations about 8040's. You see, I own the 8040’s the last 13 months and I have a very different experience from yours. I have started a thread about 8040’s some months ago expressing my negative experience with them. https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...t=genelec+8040

I was using the 1030’s for 10 years and they never let me down. Mixes and masters that I made with 1030’s translated almost perfectly on clubs, radios but also on expensive monitors like barefoot 27 and Focal SM9, something that is not happening with 8040’s.

Transients are a big issue for me with 8040’s. Do you hear transients? Because I feel like playing hide and seek with them. When I was working with 1030’s I could hear every fine tune adjustment on compressors and EQ’s, on 8040’s I feel I’m doing very bulky moves.

Overall I think they sound rounded and glossy and most of the time I think that mixes sound ready even though you might be only halfway there. 1030’s were by far more revealing, exposing mistakes easily in the mix. They also sound more “organic”, I mean they sound closer to most other speakers, 8040’s are very sterile and they have a very unique sound that you’ll not hear on other speakers.
But I admit 1030’s are ear fatigue especially if you mixing for long periods, with 8040’s this is not an issue. I can mix for over 8 hours (at low levels) without any issue.

Although I’m listening various genres like soul, jazz, pop, I’m producing mostly electronic music. With 8040’s most of the music of well-known producers it sounds flabby and undefined. After a research I did I found that only producers who use 8000 monitors translate well on my 8040’s.

One last thing, despite their beautiful curved design I think they are very room depended. If your room is not VERY well treated they will sound very ugly, their exaggerated bass will mask the low mid and mid frequencies very easily. But even in a great treated room they’ll still sound rounded and glossy.
1030’s were exactly the opposite, probably because they have been designed with very good off-axis response.

I’m glad that 8040’s are working for you’re a lucky man! But I’m just amazed how our experiences differ!

Cheers !

I was debating between Amphions, Barefoots and Genelecs 8351 for my next monitor purchase. I was almost certain to get Amphions but was scared buying monitor based only on great reviews. Decided this Saturday to drive 550km in one direction to listen to Genelecs 8260, 8351 and Barefoots mm27 Gen2. There was absolutely no comparison. Both Genelecs really performed a class above Barefoots. Both had superior imaging, sounded more natural and were also much clearer. Also had much better low end and transient response. In the end I decided for Genelec 8260 only because additional low end extension. Other than that 8351 were equally great. There were also Focals SM9b which unfortunately couldn't compete neither with Barefoots nor with Genelecs.

I do not get the Genelec haterade, I used to like the 1031's, and the 8040's are in a different league. Really two steps up from the older models. The 8xxx series is definitely among the best I've heard.

Curiuous: Where can the 8351 already be auditioned?

yeah i am not sure where the polarization comes from either. Monitors are subjective of course, but there was a clear difference to me between the CMS65s and the 8040 in detail and mid definition. They do cause a little ear fatigue with bright material compared to the 65s, but make up for it with detail and soundstage. Easily rectified by turning volume down a bit for a while. Also much tamer since put in better converters. Seem to have smoothed out a bit.

This time I auditioned them in Milan (Italy) and also in Slovenia two weeks ago. They were only a demo pair and were not available for purchase unfortunately.

I suppose your room is very well treated, right?

Since you’ve used both speakers, what factors are setting “The Rocks” apart? Can you elaborate further?
Did you liked the transient performance of 8040’s? Because I don’t hear transients to make fine tune adjustments. They are not “fast” to pop out the micro dynamic contrast between loud and quiet notes, hence they don’t reveal small details, on the contrary they’ll make everything sound “pretty”, like there is a smile in frequency response.
Genelec 1030's although somehow they were flattering too, they were quite on the opposite side, fast, revealing and accurate.

What about the low end, you believe on 8040’s is accurate or exaggerated/hyped?

Sorry I don’t get it, you would prefer to produce on 8040’s to “have the vibe” but you would end up mix/master on “The Rocks”?

My room is treated but I wouldn't call it very well treated. My point was that the speakers sounded drastically different in my room and the showroom, meaning it is very room dependent, unlike the Rocks which sounded very similar in both rooms. My conclusion is that the Genelecs rear ported design is what accounts for this. The Rocks are a sealed design so the room doesn't interact with the room as much, especially in the low end.

Micro dynamics and transient detail are one of the best things about the Rocks. For instance on drum bus compression, I'd have a hard time setting attack times...with the rocks, these decisions are obvious and the sweets pots seem to "snap" into place. They make you work harder but they also tell you when you got it right very clearly. It's not just transient detail, it's everything: reverb tails, .5db EQ moves, clearly hearing high and low pass filter slopes and cut offs, etc.

The other major thing I love about the Rocks is the ability to hear and balance low end all the way down to 40hz at very low volumes (as well as high). The Genelecs didn't reveal the sub region until they were turned up louder at which point the subs became massive (had to use dip switched to roll off lows and low cut - the rocks have no switches and they aren't needed). As a result if I mixed on the Genelecs at a low volume or high volume my decisions didn't neccesarily translate to other systems. The Rocks translate perfectly.

I loved the 8040s in my room for hype. The lows could shake the floor and they could get extremely loud. It was a very fun speaker to listen on. Everything sounded great on them so I had a lot of fun while producing/tracking. I still have fun tracking on the rocks, don't get me wrong. I really liked the Genelecs too and would love to have both. They'd be a great compliment. But if I can only have 1, the rocks win by a mile for mixing.

For sure Gens outperform many monitors when you quickly test them...That's exactly the problem...As said before in this thread, they sound too good. You should mix with them a few weeks before making real decisions...The "best sounding" is not always the best, as funny as it might seem.

When the 8040s came out I made the same mistake, changed my trusted 1030s to them just because they sounded so good...Compared to 1030s all my favorite albums just sounded better...

On some things they really are great and accurate...The mix translation might also be quite OK, despite the "OK, of course this sounds better on my Genelecs"-thing...

The problem I had was that my mixes felt finished way before they really were.

I also enjoyed mixing with them. Liked the idea of having very good sounding monitors ("Now I can hear everything so my mixes will be better")...Now after quite a many monitor upgrades, I know better.

I don't have any hate-relationship to Gens...I've just found better tools that work much better for me.

I found mixes that sounded great on the 8050's sounded great on everything else I played them on. I respectfulky disagree with Gens your mixes do not sound correct on other sources.

What I did was play Donald Fagens Nighfly that I know real why through the Gens. I adjusted the EQ to fit my room and my taste and also listened carefully to The Bealtes Abbey Road and Pink Flyod Dark Side of the Moon. Once I leanred how the mixes sound on these monitors (Or any other monitors) I knew how to mix with the Genelecs. They are very clean, and accurate but not sterile. I love them!

I assume that in your room they were calibrated (back switches) while on showroom they were flat, right?

Probably “The Rocks” have much better off-axis response than 8040’s and “MAYBE” their sealed design doesn’t interact as much with the room as you clearly pointed.

Well, this got me thinking…. actually “The Rocks MKII” are going down to 33Hz. 8040’s are going down to 48Hz, so we have a massive 15Hz difference in the low end! How can the Genelec 8040 sound more earth shaking/hyped????? I’m trying to find a logical explanation here, numbers/measurements doesn’t justify the difference between the two speakers. Anyone can explain?

Well if you think about it, having calibrating switches is only a good thing, unless your room is exemplary treated. Most rooms especially home studios will interact badly with any speaker because of poor treatment. MusicTech magazine when reviewed “The Rocks” at the end of review stated the same thing, which sounds logical to me.

Quoted from MusicTech review “The absence of EQ adjustment presupposes that they’ll be used in acoustically treated rooms. It’s obvious from the price that these are pro-quality monitors so that assumption is valid; however, The Rocks may not be the ideal choice if you do a lot of location recording. In all other regards, these are no-compromise nearfields that slotted straight into our setup.”

i can understand where a lot of the negative opinions about the genelecs might come from, based on subjective hearing. However Ive noticed a few things as I've gotten used to them. First of all, i am using these with a sub. I think that if i wasn't my bass information would be misleading. I have installed some higher end converters in my studio since I got the 8040s and I've noticed that the monitors have calmed down quite a bit since i added the better conversion. Mixes sound a little flatter than they did when i started working with the 8040s, not better or worse, but flatter and little more neutral sounding, which i was surprised by. I was encouraged though that the addition of the better converters WERE significantly noticeable using the monitors however. You could really hear the difference when a/bing my new and old interfaces. I haven't fallen in love with the Genelecs yet, but i will be the first to say that they are definitely a step up from the CMS65s in terms of clarity, soundstage and sensitivity.

Also, the 8040s specifically are right in a price range where its hard to find a better monitor in this price cap. once you get into the 8050s, 60s, etc, now your in a price point where there are a lot more options and possibly better options, but for right where these monitors live price wise i couldn't find much better.

You are not alone..

I agree.. we had a couple of hours to compare them (interface was RME Babyface) and 3 persons made the same decision. All 3 of us vote for Genelecs...

I have used many and tried many monitors. I would say 8050 are much above its competition in their price range while 8260 wipes the floor with amything I have ever worked on. 8351 are simply the speakers with the best projection I have ever heard. Their stereo image is so detailed and sharp with the most solid phantom center and their soundstage is as cohesive as it can be.

Genelec is probably the most forward thinking company with extensive R&D and "no bullshit" scientific approach. They are innovativ and publish many papers and their products always employ the latest research in acoustical designs. Their measurements are never overstated and their sales are not forum driven. They provide first class tools that are reliable and simply work. They are one of the few who is not selling 40 years old knowledge in a new design.

for the record I had seriously considered the Amphions based on what I've read here, but actually by the time buy the monitors AND an really good amp and cabling, your in a whole other price range.

has anyone tried Genelec SAM series? i was thinking about the 8330.LSE Triple SAM - 2.1 Studio Monitor Kit. at sweetwater its $3400...
Genelec 8330.LSE Triple SAM - 2.1 Studio Monitor Kit | Sweetwater.com

Q: whats the difference between 8000/8200/8300? are the basic design is same with different loudspeaker management system?
Q: do you prefer Loudspeaker Management System at all?
Q: do you prefer 2 pair of monitors like one must be the famous NS10?

thanks

I think part of the contentiousness surrounding some speaker brands is just the name recognition bringing up some folks positive/negative experiences with a mix involving that brand. What the O.P. wants to know is more or less unknowable. Why people in general have the reaction they have to Genelec is beyond anyone's investigative ability because there are simply too many variables, some of which are hidden, that figure.

What I can say about Genelec is that the "affordable" models of the last decade or so have a similar sound to each other. Only your ears can tell you if you can get along with that. Genelec as a company has made the 8260 for example. That model has been picked up by some well respected and renowned professionals. It's also about 12k a pair.

My point in mentioning it is that it's obvious that Genelec knows how to make a great speaker system. The real question is whether you can work with their not-so-great systems; the ones designed to a price point or to space saving considerations. That kind of thing is always unknown by all but you. It's a tough call always.

I don't know what the main differences are between the numeric designations of the 8000 series. It might be more helpful for you to think in terms of speakers to fit your room size, listening distance and ultimate application instead of attempting to understand the brands numbering system.

All of the signal output adaptation technology that is supposed to help compensate for room acoustics problems are ultimately attempts to fine tune the speaker system and mitigate problems with a room at best. They can be very helpful. But their overall usefulness depends on the specific situation they're used in. That all varies from room to room, and system to system. But some very dedicated and skilled engineers have put in a lot of work to make those things. It's likely that you can find some benefit in many cases. I personally don't like those kinds of tools. But that's just me. Anyone could feel differently.

I like using two monitoring systems. One is for hyper accurate listening. Another is more representative of a consumer system. I bounce between the two. I don't feel the need for NS10s specifically. But that's all a matter of personal preference.

I'm not sure which not-so-great systems you are referring to? I find the 8000 pretty uniform, although the 8020's really should not be used without a sub. But 8030/8040/8050 are all great-sounding for their respective sizes.

I don't believe they have been engineered to a price point, and frankly they are quite a lot pricier than similarly sized offerings from competing manufacturers. Now the M-series may have been designed with some consideration for cost, but I have yet to hear those, and again, cheap they are not.

The only recurring complaint I have heard about Genelecs (primarily about the older 1000-series) is that they flatter the sound. While I can see why certain engineers/producers would say that (primarily the ones raised on NS10's etc.), they don't strike me as such.

While I love NS10s, I must say that my 8260 and 8351 never flatter the sound. They sound superb when material is superb and they sound off when the material is not great. They really make you work hard while giving you all the information avalible. Despite their full range extension, they don't prefer one type of music over other.

For example Neumanns KH310 sounded superb with electronic but always shitty with rock music, even though it was a superbly produced record (like ACDC for example). Rock always sounded lo-fi with them, lacked the dimension. So the more low end the music had, the better and fuller it sounded.

Genelecs make rock music equaly exciting as electronic. The lack of sub in classic records don't make them sound like shit. They are the most honest speakers I have ever used and the most straighrforward (what you hear is what you get).

One plus of these two Genelec models over KH310 and ATCs I had is that while sounding much more open and more 3D they NEVER make any ear fatigue even at pretty high levels. They are the only speaker where detail in the long run doesn't hurt your ears and I can make confident judgements even after 8 hours of work. I guess this is due to the extreme cleanliness. They have headroom for days without a single sight of strain even at most extreme volumes.

I also worked with 8050 and they are equaly as good, though the midrange of thece coaxial series really is one of a kind, IMHO the best and clearest I have ever heard.

All Genelec are active...80xx..are standard crossovers...82xx..83xx are DSP based and even if you don't do room EQ the ability to position the speaker perfectly has to be seen & heard to believe. Without a doubt the best stereo image I have heard.


Jantex...did you purchase the mic & software or did your dealer or rep set the system up ?

I bought GML2 kit. Even though that my room is heavily treated and measure great in the low end, DSP simply improved it to the "out of this world" state.

Exactly. And it is that -false- punch that makes you think you are already there while you actually still have half of the way in front of you. They satisfy too early.

If you listen to music like Michael Jacksons Thriller and other records you know well; you learn how the mix sounds through the Genelec's. Then when you mix your own music you have a reference on how your mixes should sound. When this is done, your mixes will come out great.

Sure some of their speakers have been engineered to a price point. That's the way manufacturing works. Whether one thinks the price point is attainable for their budget is an entirely different discussion. I consider the smaller speakers affordable for what they are. Hell, I consider the 8260 affordable for what it is. "Cheap" is not a descriptor I used. "Not-so-great" is indeed what I used in that some of their more affordable speakers are literally not-so-great as their flagship ones. That's also no mystery. That's the way product lines go.

I think The smaller Genelecs are fine, for small speakers. But compared to full range speaker systems they can't begin to compete for critical listening in that they simply don't sound like a performer is right in front of you. That's not Genelec's fault. That's the physics of tiny speaker cabinets and drivers attempting to do what they do not do well.

It's hard to tell over the internet, but I sense the impression left with you is that I'm somehow dissing Genelec. I don't think that's the case. I actually quite appreciate the work of that team and I think they have great products. I was addressing the realities of compromise involved with making speakers of different sizes and price points. And I acknowledged that Genelec has a family sound.

have you heard any of the 82xx or 83xx series setup ?
my first listening of the 8250's setup in a horrible stucco L shaped hotel room blew me away.
I said to the Genelec rep.."i'm not sure i want the band in the room"
We have installed dual 15 & dual 18 Genelec systems and other than absolute level...the DSP systems have more realism.


Jantex...you did the setup & tuning yourself ?

I've heard the 8260 pair set up. It's an incredible system and definitely what I would consider full range monitoring. Things did sound very real. But those things are not small at all. They are huge and heavy and designed to be mid-fields.

I've also heard the smaller boxes. I don't remember the numeric designations. As near-fields go they are fine. I'd work just fine with them. I doubt that I've heard any of the 83xx. I'm not certain though.

As I said before, Genelec definitely knows how to do it right. I simply wouldn't say that because some of their speakers are incredible then all of them are. The smaller boxes struck me as excellent examples of smaller speaker systems, but still with all of the limitations of smaller speakers systems.

True, to a large extent. Their new co-axial designs 8351A and 8260A are truly great. They deserve more publicity. But.

Engineer driven approach is fine, but it leaves me cold. I attended a demo recently, hosted by their designer responsible for the unit, showing the new 1238A SAM monitor (large 15" 3-way "smart" DSP design). What shocked me slightly was that the speaker is designed against many classical hi-fi speaker design rules. Drivers are not chosen because they are the "best" (whatever it means) and then fitted together to make a smooth whole, but how it fits the design ideals, in this case "engineering" view of the design process. Woofer, for example: it is a light cone high efficiency/high power handling PA driver actually, which does not go lower than 100 Hz unaided. At the low cut-off point it is fed over +10dB EQ to force it to go to 35 Hz. Midrange is an in-house 5" cone, which can not really handle much power, but survives with the efficiency boosting waveguide. There is plenty of EQing going on behind the scenes to achieve the good on paper specks. Also radiation angles etc are exemplary, which in many other designs by other respected brands are not taken care of at all.

When I got back home/music room is sat down to listen to my PMC IB2S system and felt incredibly good, like many times before. I admit I have a big Genelec sub, 7071A, pumping in the background, but the British way of making monitoring speakers somehow touches my soul in a different way. Maybe because the mid dome in those IB2S boxes weigh over 10 kg alone and the long transmission line needs no EQ to sound flat and tight. It is engineering, right, but it is also TRADITION and love of music. It seems Amphions have both, I have had the Ions for a long time and like them a lot, and fight myself not to get one15s for auditioning, as I do not really need them. No I don't, no no no.

Those PMC IB2S are in the upper stratosphere of high end monitors and are $40,000 at Vintage King Audio. If you can afford them, God bless you. I don't beleive there are better monitors at any price. Not really fair to compare any monitor to those.

You are talking about the actives, passives are $17,499 at VKA . I honestly paid 6800 euros for the passive pair, new, some 4 years ago. Worth ever penny, I guess, thrice over.