Genelec 8050 or Focal Twin 6 BE?

[mdjice]

I did...and I did!!
Focal Twin 6. I had both in my studio and I found the Genelec scooped in the mids and more HIFI sounding. good low end Hyped top.
The Twins will sound like what you have recorded. (after the LOOOOONG breaking period)

[Flagg]

Genelec for sure !

but not the 8050 model.
I think the 8040's serie are better than 8050's,
more balanced and with a Sub it's wonderful .

[mdjice]

Originally Posted by Flagg

Genelec for sure !

but not the 8050 model.
I think the 8040's serie are better than 8050's,
more balanced and with a Sub it's wonderful .

Actually I had the. 40s in the studio not the 50s and even they sounded great (once you get to a certain price range they all are) they sounded like great home hifi speakers. Very pleasing to listen too but defenetly scooped. The focal are far more even thru all frequencies. On thing about the genelc the stereo imaging is amazing.
Best bet? Do like me and try them both
(Flagg ; eric is that you ?

[studiogear]

and will there be a huge improvement from the mackie hr824's?

[kingofswing]

Originally Posted by mdjice

Actually I had the. 40s in the studio not the 50s and even they sounded great (once you get to a certain price range they all are) they sounded like great home hifi speakers. Very pleasing to listen too but defenetly scooped. The focal are far more even thru all frequencies. On thing about the genelc the stereo imaging is amazing.
Best bet? Do like me and try them both
(Flagg ; eric is that you ?

I have to agree on the 8040A's, only because thats what I had before switching to the bigger 8050s after using my Adam P33s for a couple of years. I found the 8040s a little too hifi for my liking, the bottom end just kept jumping out (not as well controlled imho), mids were good (but seemed colored to me), but very sweet highs indeed.

Having owned the Adam P11s and P33s as well as trying the other Adams too (all great boxes), I finally settled with the 8050s, they just sound right to my ears, though I have them set at -2db on the treble tilt. The mids are pretty neutral and the bass end is clear as a whistle. And yes the stereo imaging can be amazing when setup the right way. I like the 8050s more in some ways than the K+H O300D's, especially in the midrange, they just give me the detail I need to hear. I will be adding a pair of smaller Adams as a second reference though.

[Skallawa]

Originally Posted by studiogear

and will there be a huge improvement from the mackie hr824's?

I have the older model 1031a and they are a huge improvement over the mackies, so I would think that the 8040s or twins will also be a huge improvement.

[bexarametric]

I went with the Focal's. I could have gotten the Genelec's, but I like how my mixes translate better on the Focal's.

[Jantex]

As always, you should hear them by yourself and then decide. But my vote goes for Genelec 8050. For me Focal Twins did less than nothing, very strange, unnatural and nasal sounding, like they had hi-cut above 5kHz. If I compare them to Adam S3As (which share the same 2 woofer 1 tweeter esign) to me Adams are much better and truer sounding speakers. Top nearfields for me so far have been Klein & Hummel O300 and Genelec 8050/8250. Between these two IMHO the decision in only a matter of subjective taste. I had O300 but if I was to make the same decision again I would probably go for the Genelecs, because of more SPL and better build quality.

[Flagg]

Yes and the genelecs 80's series are more "friendly" in a room without acoustic treatment .

Originally Posted by mdjice

(Flagg ; eric is that you ?

mmmm from rouston ?

[mdjice]

Originally Posted by Flagg

mmmm from rouston ?

lol in a Z4??

[Flagg]

Z4 ... yeah man very nice gear ...
the sound is very sweet and low end are creamy ;-)

[Glenn Bucci]

Going to have the Genelec 8050's in my studio next week. Looking forward in trying the Gen's out and against the Twins.

[Caramel]

Genelec 8050A.thumbsup I`ve heard the focals a few times. First impressions were that they were VERY bright. Maybe my EARS were not broken in enough to appreciate them. Was concerned that they may result in dull mixes. Focals have a lot of detail. But the 8050`s suites me better.

Am I the only one who thinks there was a LOT of Hype on Focals? Like a year after they were out ,many were saying they were the best thing ever .Beating every long standing speaker , that all those wonderful songs were mixed on over decades.Genelec ,yamaha ,etc.... Even seen a shootout where speakers where spread out on a meter bridge , with Focals on the outside and review saying they had the widest stereo field.

I suspect a lot of product placement going on.

[BradLyons]

TASTES GREAT.....LESS FILLING......TASTES GREAT.....LESS FILLING.... I must admit, I really do miss those old commercials! Hmmmm I'll have to hunt that up on YouTube! Anyway.....

Monitors are a very subjective thing and depending on who you talk to you'll get a different answer based on what they know and they are experienced with. Hopefully I can provide a non-partisan view here. Many years ago I bought the ADAM P33A's which were the P-series model of their S3A's. I really liked them, but after putting in an Argosy desk at the time---they were no longer working in my particular room. SO, I decided to buy their 10" sub. But rather than just buying the sub I sold them and went for the S1A's with the subwoofer. Those monitors by themselves could really push the bass, but the sub was still critical in getting that response. I was doing a lot of sound analysis and critical listening, at the time the ADAM's were the best for me----but as I started mixing a lot more Soulful Gospel and Rock, I found that they were not working with my ears for longer hours. I took home many sets of monitors and what just so happened to be my favorite to mix on that also translated accurately were the JBL 6328's! I will say that you will not mix on these and think "wow listen to that", but they sound as if you're mixing on a high-end stereo system. In other words, it's fun to mix on them---BUT they are also accurate and will translate as well. I can't explain it, but they are wonderful!

WITH that said at the time I really wanted to purchase Focal but where I was employed at the time, we were not a Focal dealer. I have a personal motto that if I can't provide it to my own clients, I won't own it myself. And IF I own it myself, it better be a dang good product! SO in comparing the ADAM v/s FOCAL---it really is subjective here. The new X series from ADAM is vastly improved IMHO over the A-series (as in S3X v/s S3A, not the A-7, etc). IMHO the Focals are pretty amazing, you'll hear what you hear and get what you spend your money on. But from my experience, so is ADAM.....

To my ears, the 8050's are a cross of those JBL's and the ADAM's. The Gen's are pleasant to mix on, very open and smoothe---yet they are accurate and can sound pretty incredible in the room. The reason I mentioned ADAM was someone else brought them up, but also ADAM and FOCAL are typically compared against each other, and then there is Genelec. Among these three, they are all wonderful products and have their own strong points. I think a lot of people overlook Genelec because they've been around for so long and haven't changed their line-up for so long, but when you have a great product already--why should it change? The new 80-series improved upon what they had and did it incredibly well. I can't say that you'll sit down and in listening think "woah", but when you mix on the 8050's you'll think "wow, I didn't know that was there before". You're going to hear what's really there and not what the monitors want to make you think what is there. They are not a monitor that's just about accuracy, but about long-term mixing.....

I can't truly tell you one is better than the other here---because that simply would not be true. I'll leave that for everyone else to decide. Genelec is still the standard, but thankfully there are other top-choices available too if that's not your cup of tea.

[Glenn Bucci]

Ok I have the Genelec 8050's in my studio and I did a quick A/B against the Focal Twins. I found the Genelec's to sound very good, detailed, and plenty of low end. I did not find them to be harsh in the top end. The mid's were more pulled back compared to the Focal Twins. They sounded more even sounding on the lows and mid's while the Twins pushes the mid's out more. This may be more helpful when trying to listen carefully to the compression ratio setting or reverb tail. However I must say that I am pretty impressed with sound of the Gen's. I will report back with more detail after I have worked with them for a while. But I am impressed with these monitors. Very nice.

[jcc449]

Guys remember this:
If a song was mixed well, it supposed to sound hi-fi to you on an accurate set speakers.
If a song was mixed wrong, a good pair speakers should bring out the problem.

So when you demo them from song to song, listen to the differences:

No.1 is this pair over react on non necessary problems? (Adam seems to do that and sometime it caused your mix to sound boring.

No2. Is this pair sound the same from song to song? (then you dont need it)

No3. Does it remind you when there are clipping and distortion signals ?

Both my ns 10m and genelec can handle what I mentioned above. I havent try focal yet.

[coffee90007]

Forget about subject for a sec. In pro audio world if something gets used in almost every major studio there must be a damn good reason for it. So, Genelec all the way! I have 1030 and the new 8000 series. The new ones do have a much more pleasant hi end.

[Tube World]

Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci

Ok I have the Genelec 8050's in my studio and I did a quick A/B against the Focal Twins. I found the Genelec's to sound very good, detailed, and plenty of low end. I did not find them to be harsh in the top end. The mid's were more pulled back compared to the Focal Twins. They sounded more even sounding on the lows and mid's while the Twins pushes the mid's out more. This may be more helpful when trying to listen carefully to the compression ratio setting or reverb tail. However I must say that I am pretty impressed with sound of the Gen's. I will report back with more detail after I have worked with them for a while. But I am impressed with these monitors. Very nice.

After reading your great review of the Twins, I am curious what made you try out the Genelec's. If the Gen's are more even sounding, it seems that you might prefer them over the Twins? Looking forward to another of your great reviews and this time on the Gen 8050's.

[Glenn Bucci]

I have received over 8 private messages from several of you waiting for me to respond on this shoot out. Be patient guys, I don't want to quickly give my first impressions. I will give a more detailed review after a couple of days.

I will tell you though that it appears the Genelec's offer more depth on mixes. Reverb tails and being able to hear deeper in the mixes. The Focals on the other hand offer more detail in the mid's due to it's 3 way design and the way the mid's are pushed forward. Stayed tuned for further developments.

[kingofswing]

Get the 8050A's thumbsup

I'm only saying this because that is what I settled on as my mains, and have never looked back. But in reality land, it all comes down to what suits your ears and your room.

[Baguette]

I moved from 8050s to 8240+7270 with the GLM kit, a little over a year ago.

The 8050s were very good. The 8240s w sub, calibrated to your room are simply astonishing.

The 81/82XX series have other benefits too. For example, the instant switching between different calibration setups makes it possible to optimize the listening for, say, the sofa at the back where the clients are sitting... in one second, with one click...

The GLM also phase aligns the sub, which, in addition to regular calibration, allows great freedom in sub placement.

Muting/unmuting the sub AND the bass management is also a one click affair.

Lastly, The 8240s are of a quite portable size and with the GLM system you can set up pretty consistent monitoring for off-studio work, too.

I strongly suggest checking out the 8240s as an alternative. And remember that they take analogue input, too. You can borrow a GLM mike/software kit from somewhere (your dewler, perhaps?), calibrate to taste for your room, store the main setting permanently in the speakers return the GLM loaner and feed the speakers with an analogue signal.

Cheers,
bag

[Baguette]

tutt

Originally Posted by studiogear

and will there be a huge improvement from the mackie hr824's?

Yes - the difference to a pair of 8050s is huge - especially interms of accuracy and clarity. I had a pair of those Mackies before the 8050s. The Mackies sound really nice and cool and all, but just aren't the best choice for mixing. They're great for listening to music with in general, though, as they're very euphonic.

Cheers,

bag

[superama]

When I got my Genelecs I was shocked at how good my old speakers (HR 824) were in comparison. The 8050s work great but I'll be replacing them with something better.

[garryrobson]

Originally Posted by superama

When I got my Genelecs I was shocked at how good my old speakers (HR 824) were in comparison. The 8050s work great but I'll be replacing them with something better.

There are few greater fans of the Focal Twin than me but I agree re: the Mackie 824s. Nothing to touch them at that time. I'd have chosen them over most of the big guns at that price point (or even a bit higher).

[Glenn Bucci]

Test 1

Ok, here are some observations I have on these two monitors. First off the monitors I currently have in my studio are the Twins which replaced my Tannoy Precision 8D's. I had the opportunity to have the Genelec 8050's in my studio and I have compared them to the Twins. My studio has GIK bass traps, multiple panels and Auralex 3" foam.

Genelec's have a wonderful detail sound. Wonderful image, and depth. I can really hear the reverb tails and little things very well. Great stereo separation. The mid's are heard nicely and blend well with the top and low end. Speaking of the low end, these monitors have wonderful low end down to 38hz. I did use the bass contour and adjusted them from flat to one notch over for a little more bass for my taste. Top end is detailed, and you hear everything really well on them. What I found though was the top end can sound harsh if things are not mixed properly, as even commercial CD's can have a little harshness in the top end on a cymbal or percussion. I have done several mixes and found they translated well on other sources. Overall I really like these monitors and I would be very happy if they stayed in my studio.

Focal Twins have a pushed out mid range. It does not sound as natural or pleasant sounding in some way compared to the Genelec's for this reason. The flip side is with the mid range being forward, you can really get the compressor or EQ settings just right on your mixes. The high end is also forward and after hearing how they compared to the Gen's, I reduced the high end a little on it's EQ in the back. Bass is also strong though different sounding, I like both monitors low end. It does have very good detail, and image. The cymbals or high hat on commercial cd's did not have that slight harshness that the Gen's can have. These monitors I was also able to obtain good mixes on that sounded good on different sources. They also look a lot nicer than the Gen's with the red colored wood tops.

When I A/B the mixes on different systems, the Gen's had the high hat a little too loud and the bass guitar was a little stronger. The Twins bass sounded better but the kick drum was a little too strong. High hat was blended nicely. So what does this all mean? I think if you get to know your monitors character, you could equally mix on both monitors just as well. Not sure about adjusting reverb yet though.

The difference is the Gen's give a little better depth and the mid's are easier on your ears...more relaxed compared to the Twins since the mid's blend nicely with the mix and are not as forward. But with the 3 way system of the Twins there is a benefit with a dedicated speaker for mid's so you can really fine tune things better.

My next test will include making notes on the high end, mid's and low end on several different mixes on commerical cd's and compare more in detail on what I hear. The mixes will include jazz, pop, and rock music. I will also do some more mixes of my own material on both and carefully listen to the differences on a car stereo, headphones, and my Infinity 3 way stereo monitors which go through and Adcom 555 amp and pre amp. I will pay careful attention to reverb tails.

[jcc449]

Get a pair genelec/ns10m
U won't miss a thing or regret

[Tube World]

Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci

Test 1

Ok, here are some observations I have on these two monitors. First off the monitors I currently have in my studio are the Twins which replaced my Tannoy Precision 8D's. I had the opportunity to have the Genelec 8050's in my studio and I have compared them to the Twins. My studio has GIK bass traps, multiple panels and Auralex 3" foam.

Genelec's have a wonderful detail sound. Wonderful image, and depth. I can really hear the reverb tails and little things very well. Great stereo separation. The mid's are heard nicely and blend well with the top and low end. Speaking of the low end, these monitors have wonderful low end down to 38hz. I did use the bass contour and adjusted them from flat to one notch over for a little more bass for my taste. Top end is detailed, and you hear everything really well on them. What I found though was the top end can sound harsh if things are not mixed properly, as even commercial CD's can have a little harshness in the top end on a cymbal or percussion. I have done several mixes and found they translated well on other sources. Overall I really like these monitors and I would be very happy if they stayed in my studio.

Focal Twins have a pushed out mid range. It does not sound as natural or pleasant sounding in some way compared to the Genelec's for this reason. The flip side is with the mid range being forward, you can really get the compressor or EQ settings just right on your mixes. The high end is also forward and after hearing how they compared to the Gen's, I reduced the high end a little on it's EQ in the back. Bass is also strong though different sounding, I like both monitors low end. It does have very good detail, and image. The cymbals or high hat on commercial cd's did not have that slight harshness that the Gen's can have. These monitors I was also able to obtain good mixes on that sounded good on different sources. They also look a lot nicer than the Gen's with the red colored wood tops.

When I A/B the mixes on different systems, the Gen's had the high hat a little too loud and the bass guitar was a little stronger. The Twins bass sounded better but the kick drum was a little too strong. High hat was blended nicely. So what does this all mean? I think if you get to know your monitors character, you could equally mix on both monitors just as well. Not sure about adjusting reverb yet though.

The difference is the Gen's give a little better depth and the mid's are easier on your ears...more relaxed compared to the Twins since the mid's blend nicely with the mix and are not as forward. But with the 3 way system of the Twins there is a benefit with a dedicated speaker for mid's so you can really fine tune things better.

My next test will include making notes on the high end, mid's and low end on several different mixes on commerical cd's and compare more in detail on what I hear. The mixes will include jazz, pop, and rock music. I will also do some more mixes of my own material on both and carefully listen to the differences on a car stereo, headphones, and my Infinity 3 way stereo monitors which go through and Adcom 555 amp and pre amp. I will pay careful attention to reverb tails.

Finally insightful information on both monitors. I am tired of those who just say these are better than those. This is information that you can sink your teeth into.

[Glenn Bucci]

Test 2

I want to first thank Jeff from Vintage King for sending me the Genelec's to try out. I found his service to be excellent.

Ok let's get to the bottom of my results first. I like the Gen's very much. I have been able to obtain great mixes with them and they sound great in my studio. Great bass, mid's and high's. There is a more hi-fidelity to the sound over the Focal's since the mid's are not pushed forward. What does hi-fidelity mean...its' a little easier on your ears and more enjoyable to listen to. Every thing sounds even and pleasant. Of course on Gen's, if you don't mix them properly, they can sound a little harsh. But like Paul White from SOS said on his review of the Gen 8040's, I would rather have a more honest speaker than one covering it over.

The Focals with their pushed mid's are more in your face. Though this is not as desirable for listening pleasure, there is a reason why people love having Yamaha NS-10's in their studio. There is so much information in the mid's that it sometimes can be difficult to hear everything clearly. With mid's being forward it helps you to hear those different things. So the Yamaha's and Twins are a plus in this area.

I have done more mixes on the Gen's and I have compared them to the Twins. The problem with this test is, if I had a fresh pair of ears and l listen to a mix on the Twins I did 2 days ago with Twins again, there are things I will hear that I will want to change. So this A/B testing on mixes between two monitors is not as helpful as I would like it to be. Both mixes sound very good. The Gen's have the mid's a little bit less in the mix than the Twins. I like the Twins mix better for that, but the Gen's with their character allowed me to adjust the reverb on the vocals, and reduce the snare and drums overall. This make the drums sit nicely behind the vocals, and guitars, while the Twin mix, the drums were more like drums perhaps on a dance song where they are more up front. I prefer the drums further in the back though still solid than up front. So the Gen's did better there. However I liked the vocal mix on the Twins better. By getting to know the character of your monitors, you should learn how to adjust on these things to a certain degree.

I can't tell if the overall sound on the Gen's sound more enjoyable because of better amps, or because it has a even mids and it appears to have a little more 3 dimensional sound. One advantage of the Twins of course is the 3 way-2 1/2 way system they have. I actually tuned the Twin tweeters down a tad after hearing the Gen's in action. I find I like the sound of the Twins a little better after making this change.

I can tell you if you have the Gen's or the Twins your making a great choice. I would not say one is better than the other, only different. So you just need to make a choice of which character you like best.

[Tube World]

Thanks for your review again a's it was very helpful. I am surprised all the people who praised the Twins were silent and offers no comments. Would you say the 8050's and the NS10's would be a perfect match?