The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Genelec 8000 Series Opinions?
Old 30th May 2006
  #31
Lives for gear
 
kingofswing's Avatar
Remember guys, buying monitors is about your ears and listening environment.

Also worth note is manufacturer and build quality / reliability. Nothing worse than finding un matched character tones or one speaker being louder than the other, etc, etc. (i have noticed this with quite a few brands).

Genelec 8000 series monitors are nicely built, resonant free, and have good electronics on the back. They are well matched from speaker to speaker. I cannot say the same for the Mackie 824's.

Whilst demoing the 824's last year, one speaker (left) kept cutting out. The left speaker was replaced for a brand new boxed unit (to continue the demo) and it didnt even work. A very similar thing happened with the 624's, when one of the speakers power supply was dodgy and had to be held in place or else it switches off. Not very impressed.
Old 30th May 2006
  #32
Lives for gear
 
goldphinga's Avatar
 

with no disrespect, that was your experience of mackie but there are thousands of people out there with 8/6/24's working great and doing sterling work. i much prefer them over the genelecs
Old 30th May 2006
  #33
Lives for gear
 
kingofswing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldphinga
with no disrespect, that was your experience of mackie but there are thousands of people out there with 8/6/24's working great and doing sterling work. i much prefer them over the genelecs

Thats cool, i have nothing against Mackie, infact i use Mackie products myself, but stuff before they went china.

Im pretty sure the 824's and 624's that i demoed are all newer units made in china.
Old 30th May 2006
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldphinga
i dont like the 8050's. I a/bd them with 1031's hr824s and i bought the hr824s. I found the 8050's very hyped in the upper mids and the top end very harsh. I actually hated them after about a minute of listening. They sounded much worse than the original 10 series speakers.The 824's seem much easier on my ears and my mixes translate great. People just hate them cos they say mackie on em!

My 2 pennies worth!
Gosh!!!! That's shocked me. I used to have the 624's. Had them for about 18mths. Took literally one listen to the 8050a's and traded my 624's then and there. The stereo imaging just flawed me the second I heard it. The range is astounding. The depth is practically 3D and they were most certainly not hyped in any way. Made my 624's sound toy. The 824's I have always disliked. I find the low end the most unaccurate exaggerated bottom I have ever come across with a harsh upper mid range. I just could never take to that model. I always found the 624's to be more accurate.

My close friend swears by them, 824's religiously so, rang me one day out of the blue. Like an excited kid who had found a £10 note in the street told me how he'd seen the light. "eh" - I said "I have just listened to and bought the Genelec 8040's." he screamed " I have them here in my studio - right now!. They're that good mate that my HR824's are on ebay right now". He yelled.

3 months later he swears by them and can't believe he bought the Mackie's. I can - for the money they're excellent but they are no way superior to the 8050a's.

Each to their own but I think you will be hard pushed to find anyone who agrees the 8050a's are not leagues ahead of the 824's in every aspect!

Paul

p.s. I do know that the foreward nature of the Genelec range are not to everyone's taste but the 8000 are not of the older Genelec sound. They're more smoother especially the 8050a's. These and the K+H 0300D are my firm favourites under £3K
Old 30th May 2006
  #35
Lives for gear
 
goldphinga's Avatar
 

IMO
a)the old genelecs are def smoother sounding than the new.
b)the new 8000 series are overly hyped in the hi end and are too bright even with the hi end cut engaged
c)the mackie 824 and 624 are completely different designs and apart from the name cant really be compared fairly with each other
d)its really not that shocking
e)my room sounds great and the low end on the mackies sounds tight
f)i wouldnt say the genelecs are leagues ahead, they do a job for some but hurt my ears. sound like cat scraping claws down a blackboard.
Old 30th May 2006
  #36
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldphinga
IMO
a)the old genelecs are def smoother sounding than the new.
b)the new 8000 series are overly hyped in the hi end and are too bright even with the hi end cut engaged
c)the mackie 824 and 624 are completely different designs and apart from the name cant really be compared fairly with each other
d)its really not that shocking
e)my room sounds great and the low end on the mackies sounds tight
f)i wouldnt say the genelecs are leagues ahead, they do a job for some but hurt my ears. sound like cat scraping claws down a blackboard.
Fair enough. Happy mixing!

Paul
Old 30th May 2006
  #37
Lives for gear
 
kingofswing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldphinga
IMO
a)the old genelecs are def smoother sounding than the new.
b)the new 8000 series are overly hyped in the hi end and are too bright even with the hi end cut engaged
c)the mackie 824 and 624 are completely different designs and apart from the name cant really be compared fairly with each other
d)its really not that shocking
e)my room sounds great and the low end on the mackies sounds tight
f)i wouldnt say the genelecs are leagues ahead, they do a job for some but hurt my ears. sound like cat scraping claws down a blackboard.

I respect your opinion, but im not too sure about point A.

I mean the greatest improvement of the 8000 series is that they have nothing to do with the 1000 series. To me the 1031's that i have always heard (at a mates studio) sounds hard, sterile, and far from ear pleasing.

The 8000 line has totally improved on extended low end that sounds very full, as well as nice detailed midrange, and a smoother sounding tweater that sounds (and looks) very similar to the tweater used in the K&H o300d's IMO. Also new improved amps (quieter), not to mention the wonderful wide stereo image thanks to the curvey design of the monitors. Did i mention lack of port noise / air.

BTW i dont even use Genelecs, i use Adams, so im not biased.

Old 30th May 2006
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Autocrat's Avatar
Hey king. . .check your mail.

I have the Adam P33 and curious about the Gens.

Thanks
Old 31st May 2006
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Jonathan Starr's Avatar
 

8050A's here. Great speakers.
Old 31st May 2006
  #40
Lives for gear
 
blackcom's Avatar
 

I had Air15 and sold them to get Genelec 8050's. I'm very happy with that.
They have alot better low-end responce, less phony mids and they translate better for me....and they look cooler...!!
Old 31st May 2006
  #41
Lives for gear
I auditioned the 8040s with a pair of ADAM S2A's.

The 8040s were excellent speakers, killer imaging and as many have said surprising bass extension. But when I put the ADAMs up next to them the detail in the mid and lower mid (my problem areas!) and just the way the hi-end is there without sounding at all treble-ee (is that a word) made an easy decision for me. The low end on the ADAMs was much tighter in my room as well where the 8040s were very round and full (slightly reminiscent of HR824's). To be fair, Ithe ADAMs are much more $$$, but the pair I got were hardly used and at a great price. After all that though I think the 8000 series are just fantastic (heard all of them at AES when they came out (nice demo room!) ).

YM-will certainly-V

-Lee
Old 31st May 2006
  #42
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Genelecs sound great they translate very well.
Go to the Genlec demo room next time at AES ...
Old 1st June 2006
  #43
Jai guru deva om
 
warhead's Avatar
 

8000 series = every step up equals about 3db louder with 10hZ better extension down low. Pretty consistent line, even the 8030 are an excellent choice if you can't quite get there to the 8040 / 8050.

War
Old 20th June 2006
  #44
Gear Nut
 
WilliamFF's Avatar
 

What do you guys consider a small room ?

I am moving into a 43 Square Meter studio\ mixing place soonish and I am thinking of getting some extra\ new monitors.

B 15 a and 8040 beeing top on the list. Will the room be too big for the 8040 ?

tia
Old 20th June 2006
  #45
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamFF
What do you guys consider a small room ?

I am moving into a 43 Square Meter studio\ mixing place soonish and I am thinking of getting some extra\ new monitors.

B 15 a and 8040 beeing top on the list. Will the room be too big for the 8040 ?

tia
Depends on how closely you are sitting. They'll do well in a near-to-mid-field situation anywhere, but it sounds like you have the room to do a larger, more accurate setup, and that depends on your budget. But the 8040A packs a "large wallop" in such a small package, its weakest link is it does not play that loudly, but certainly loud enough for any reasonable mixing situation except for loud hip hop if the client wants to play it loud. But in that case, in a room that large, I'd have to suggest leaping upward way past the BM15... and that would start a new thread.

Something large, in a "mastering" or audiophile-quality is what would suit a room that large and you would want to stop fiddling with nearfields.
Old 20th June 2006
  #46
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blenn
Gosh!!!! That's shocked me. I used to have the 624's. Had them for about 18mths. Took literally one listen to the 8050a's and traded my 624's then and there. The stereo imaging just flawed me the second I heard it. The range is astounding. The depth is practically 3D and they were most certainly not hyped in any way. Made my 624's sound toy. The 824's I have always disliked. I find the low end the most unaccurate exaggerated bottom I have ever come across with a harsh upper mid range. I just could never take to that model. I always found the 624's to be more accurate.
I agree about the 8050's. A bit too much presence in the upper mids for long-term enjoyment. But that is not the case with the 8040A.

But both models are world's removed from the 1031-style Genelec that I used to hate. If I needed something larger than the 8040A I'd skip the 8050A because of the presence issue and try a different brand, but not the Mackie, what can I say :-).

BK
Old 22nd June 2006
  #47
Gear Nut
 
WilliamFF's Avatar
 

Thanx for the reply Bob,

I will indeed be sitting quite close to the monitors. About 60 - 120 cm. I don't like playing too loud, I am quite a chicken when it comes to loud stuff. I have even stopped going to live shows, and my monitor controller never goes above 11 o clock...

Is there any point in getting a bigger monitor if I am not going to push it very hard ?

Originally I was thinking of having a set of 8040 \ P-22 \ B 15 a and a S 30 three way ( 94 model ) and a "boom box". But if I am going to be sitting very close to the monitors and be working on quite a low volume, I guess I could do just fine with a 8040 and a boom box ? ( I dunno, I just like to play the mixes on some shabby sytem, to see how they translate, and it's adrag to have to go out to the car for every mixdown...)

Another question regarding the room : would you say a small monitor working at low volume needs less of accoustic treatment than a big monitor working at high levels ??

tia
Old 22nd June 2006
  #48
Lives for gear
 
MIKEHARRIS's Avatar
If the Mackies were taller they would excell as speaker stands for the 8040's....just dont plug them in !!
Old 22nd June 2006
  #49
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamFF
Thanx for the reply Bob,

I will indeed be sitting quite close to the monitors. About 60 - 120 cm. I don't like playing too loud, I am quite a chicken when it comes to loud stuff. I have even stopped going to live shows, and my monitor controller never goes above 11 o clock...

Is there any point in getting a bigger monitor if I am not going to push it very hard ?
Not in my opinion.

Quote:


Another question regarding the room : would you say a small monitor working at low volume needs less of accoustic treatment than a big monitor working at high levels ??

tia
I think you have the same considerations, though low frequency extension enters in. If the larger monitor is more extended than the 8040A, which has a very well-designed low cutoff in it---then you might run into more room acoustics issues.
Old 27th July 2006
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Don S's Avatar
 

I just auditioned 8040s at my local music store. WOW! They definately had a "sound" that took about 20 minutes to get used to hearing. But they had excellent imaging and detail. I asked them to play the Mackie 824 (which I've owned for the last 5 years) and was shocked. I didn't know they were that bad!
Old 27th July 2006
  #51
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonne
Out of curiousity, Bob, and following your logic here: have you gotten any mixes from equally talented mixing engineers using the 8050's?

Have the 8050 mixes tended to be problematic for reasons you see as being down to inherent problems with these monitors. Would be interesting to know.

Regards!

Jørn
Good question, Jorn! I haven't quizzed every mix engineer sending me stuff what they have, but to my knowledge no one's yet sent me an 8050 mix.

I have one client who was using the 1031's and who wanted to upgrade and I recommended the 8050s. I haven't heard any of his new mixes. His old mixes had a hair too much "bite" (we're talking trumpets that maybe had 1/2 dB too much 2K in them), and I never could understand how a monitor like the 1031 that tends to be bright would produce mixes that are bright until I thought about the theory of distortion masking. And certainly the new 8000 series is just a lower distortion monitor. The lower the distortion of your monitor, the more you will recognize when you're getting edge or distortion in your mix.

So, the jury is out. I prefer the 8040 to the 8050 now and Im sorry I recommended the 8050 to my client. I haven't asked him what he thinks of them yet! I think in the right room they can sound pretty neutral, but with the wrong circumstances they could produce a bit of presence boost.

The frequency response graphs in this thread showing comparative family curves are interesting because it's comparing like to like measured in the same way by the manufacturer. At around 2K I see a dip in the 8040 that's not there in the 8050... Maybe that contributes to my feeling there's a bit excess upper midrange presence in the 8050. That's a crossover-based thing, I'm sure, and there can be phase shift and other anomalies that are related to that range. The ear has to be the ultimate judge, in a properly-treated room. I suggest to anyone considering the purchase that you live with the speakers for a week and play lots of different material through them. Go with a dealer who is willing to exchange them for the alternate model.

I heard a pair of 8040's with the Genelec sub a couple of weeks ago in a Hi-Fi system in a small room (Mike Chafees) and they played amazingly loud when you wanted to impress people (he was pushing them past 90 dB average on rock and roll and it was starting to hurt my ears)... they tend to "saturate" at high levels, instead of clipping and this can be entertaining for short periods (I'm sure it's the protection circuit). I wouldn't push them too far for mixing, though.

BK
Old 27th July 2006
  #52
Gear Addict
 
bonne's Avatar
Hi Bob,

Thanks for your responce. It will be interesting to see what you find when you start getting in mixes done on 8050's. The 2K "bite" you have been reporting on with them should generally translate to a slight lack of 2K clarity in the finished mix, don't you think? Or maybe "distortion masking" would come into play with the 8050's as it did with the 1031's you mentioned.

Oh, by the way did you demo the 8050's in your own main room?

A couple more months have passed since I posted my impressions of the 8050's and as I am getting to know them better I like them more and more. The distributor was willing to let me exchange them for the 8040's plus sub. I'm glad I didn't. For the kind of music I work with I don't really need the sub, the 8050 goes down far enough, and it's a relief not having to deal with all manner of moving target sub issues.

Allow me to quote myself: "I'd seen George Massenburg go for them for his new studio, after he had tried them out for a while and my rationale was: Good enough for George must be good enough for me."

After a break-in period I am pleased as could be. I hear the same from other 8050 owners.

Jørn
Old 27th July 2006
  #53
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
I auditioned both 8040 and 8050 before I decided to get 8050. I agree that were a little hard 2,5 -3kHz region, where 8040 is smoother. On the other hand 8050 was, to my ears, better at conveying the physical impact of music, resulting in more size, body and vividness of the sound. In this respect 8040 seemed more as a nice, but less dynamic 'representation' of the music. I have a digital eq [going into my dac1] to filter out [-2,5db] the 2,5-3kHz region, but it seems to be less necessary as time goes by. A little long break in period maybe, but these speakers seems to have better balance and just sound better now, after 6-8 months. I'm very glad I got them for all kinds of music, including classical/ acoustic!

Kind regards

Mads L
Old 27th July 2006
  #54
Lives for gear
 
danasti's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdjustice
I am thinking of purchasing another pair of monitors. What are you guys' general opinions on the 8030 and 8040 nearfields??

I have heard complaints about Genelecs that they are too colored and thus not as accurate to the source as they could be. I've never mixed with the 8000 series so I don't know what to expect.

My monitor budget is $1000-$2500 max for the pair.. any other monitor suggestions would be appreciated as well.

Thanks,

J.D.
I love 8040s. It's hard to understand how something so small sounds so big. Great amps and superb electronics have always been a genelec quality but their smaller drivers really took off with the 8000 series. 8040s are tops in the $1700-$1800 range. I've owned S-30, 1031 and mixed on many of their full range mains and subs and I think the 8000 series is really something special. They brought a level of quality to nearfield listening that was missing, like a depth or openness or clarity.

I do like the Dynaudio Air 6 for sure. The amp on it has great dynamic range, very low distortion and they are in the $2200ish range if I'm not mistaken.

The K&H 0300D is a awesome monitor but nowhere near your price range. The K&H amps are really powerful and effortless, somewhat like a Krell and it never breaks a sweat.

8030s are a good bargain at $1100 - $1200 and have essentially the same amp and crossover in terms of noise and distortion as their big brothers.

If I were you I would worry only about what monitor sounds better to you. Don't worry so much about "color" because the monitor will be flatter than your room. Worry more about the quality of parts - construction - size. BUT MOST importantly sound. What it sounds like to YOUR ears.
Old 27th July 2006
  #55
Lives for gear
 
kingofswing's Avatar
I just picked up a new pair of 8050A's for pre production, tracking, as well mixing for bass energy material. I also use Adams.

Although i do not have Bob katz's ears, or his experience, and as much as i liked the 8040s, i did find them a bit jumpy on the bottom. It just seemed slightly seperated from the mid-highs when listening to high bass energy music (like Hip Hop, Rap, etc).

I did state earlier that i found the 8040s mids slightly forward to the 8050s, and i kind of stand by that. After purchasing the 8050s, they just seem more relaxed in the mids, no snap, just near neutral. The bottom end is in proportion to the mids and highs, and thats why i actually prefer them. Although IMO the 8050s bass end is not as tight as my Adam experience, but they do go deeper into the sub region, and the bass is clean and clear. The top end on the 8050s does tend to spring out a little with orchestral / string material, but remains smooth at decent levels. Since purchasing the 8050s, i have pulled off some good sounding mixes, with no hidden suprises.

I also agree with Bob Katz about the lack of distortion on the 8000 series (thanks to better headroom amps, and lower distortion drivers). They are fantastic for letting you know of any distortion / digital clipping, etc, in your recordings.

Overall, i really like the 8050s, a great speaker IMO. thumbsup
Old 16th August 2006
  #56
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofswing View Post
Although i do not have Bob katz's ears, or his experience, and as much as i liked the 8040s, i did find them a bit jumpy on the bottom. It just seemed slightly seperated from the mid-highs when listening to high bass energy music (like Hip Hop, Rap, etc).
Could you elaborate on this ?
I am interested in the 8040As for close-monitoring and mixing "high bass energy music" as you describe it in a small room. My mix position is approximately 3 ft away from the monitors.
Thank you
Old 16th August 2006
  #57
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofswing View Post
I just picked up a new pair of 8050A's for pre production, tracking, as well mixing for bass energy material. I also use Adams.

Although i do not have Bob katz's ears, or his experience, and as much as i liked the 8040s, i did find them a bit jumpy on the bottom. It just seemed slightly seperated from the mid-highs when listening to high bass energy music (like Hip Hop, Rap, etc).

I did state earlier that i found the 8040s mids slightly forward to the 8050s, and i kind of stand by that. After purchasing the 8050s, they just seem more relaxed in the mids, no snap, just near neutral. The bottom end is in proportion to the mids and highs, and thats why i actually prefer them. Although IMO the 8050s bass end is not as tight as my Adam experience, but they do go deeper into the sub region, and the bass is clean and clear. The top end on the 8050s does tend to spring out a little with orchestral / string material, but remains smooth at decent levels. Since purchasing the 8050s, i have pulled off some good sounding mixes, with no hidden suprises.

I also agree with Bob Katz about the lack of distortion on the 8000 series (thanks to better headroom amps, and lower distortion drivers). They are fantastic for letting you know of any distortion / digital clipping, etc, in your recordings.

Overall, i really like the 8050s, a great speaker IMO. thumbsup
I cound not agree any more. For me I found the 8050A to be a much better speaker than the 8040a's. I'm not knocking Bob Katz, who in their right mind could, but I personnally find the 8050a to be a whole new league ahead of the wonderful 8040a's.

Paul Blenn
Old 1st September 2006
  #58
Gear Maniac
 
charleslee's Avatar
 

8040 with 7060sub

Hi mates,

Sorry if this is a HIJACK, but do help me out, ya?

I'm getting the 8040 (x5 for 5.1 work) and the 7060 sub. Bass management is done by my Tascam mixer (DM-3200). This is in preparation for our Surround work.

However, for our usual stereo work (Music mixes and stereo TV programmes), do I still turn on Bass Management in DM-3200 and set the speakers as 2.1 ?? or should i mute / turn off all other speakers and use only L & R without the sub??

Next question is regarding Bass Management. I think my mixer filters frequencies from 40-130Hz to the sub. certain 5.1 specs papers states that it should not be set higher than 120Hz. So do i set it at 120Hz or 80 or 40 ??

Thanks!!
Regards,
[Charles]
Old 1st September 2006
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Don S's Avatar
 

FWIW. I just came from a listening session at Dale Pro Audio with a $2000 budget. The selection was limited at this price point, but included the 8040A, Dynaudio bm6A w/sub, 15A, and K&H 0100D. They also had lipinsky 707s to get oriented.
The 8040 had a very detailed, but narrow image. I could not get used to the sound. They were extremely clinical. But, even well recorded and mastered commercial recordings sounded more clinical than musical. They had an "up front' and 'in your face" sound that I could not get away from.
The bm6a had a little less detail, but had a sound that made me enjoy working. I get the impression that Genelec designed this box for the broadcast industry.
The K&H 0100D was very sweet, just too small for mains, even with a sub. Just MHO!
Old 1st September 2006
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Don S's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldphinga View Post
with no disrespect, that was your experience of mackie but there are thousands of people out there with 8/6/24's working great and doing sterling work. i much prefer them over the genelecs
I bought mine about 6 years ago when they were made in US. I think the older ones sound better. This is why. I auditioned the 8040 in a music store that had newer Mackies and the difference was immense. I got the 8040 in the studio next to older 824s and the difference was much less
Also, I have an orchestral musician's ears. I remember comparing the 824 to the 1031 6 years ago, and found them much more natural sounding.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump