The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Event Opal/Genelec 8050 vs Adam A8X Studio Monitors
Old 5th July 2011
  #31
Thanx man, I had to go to a couple of dealers, but I tried to crosscheck it with trying the same monitors over again for reference. Will get it delivered tomorrow I think, and I'm pretty stoked!

Regarding treatment, I'm on it, and I'm well aware of what your saying but treating my room further to improve my now old monitors wouldn't help me much. It's not like I have a great set of monitors and changing for a new set because of nulls or peaks in the room. I'm changing because I've had a couple of Truths (500 Euro monitors) for 7 years and I just need a higher resolution, and I've been saving up to get the monitors I liked the best. Now I know which sounded the best in the stores, and I gotta work with my own room to get it to sound best way possible and I now know the potential the PSI A17-M has

So I just wanted to share my thoughts after A/B'ing alot of different monitors, as I always find it interessting to read myself
Old 5th July 2011
  #32
Lives for gear
 
takman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcB View Post
Not really. You're making assumptions.

for eg. Measuring and treating your room to work with a small 5" bass cone monitor which rolls off at 65hz isn't going to help if your next

speaker has a 10" bass cone and goes cleanly down to 30hz.

This is irrelevant in terms of room modes. They will not change as they are based on the dimensions of the room, and the physical properties of the room boundaries ( walls, floor, ceilings). Irrelevant again, because when treating a room, you apply as much bass trapping as you physically can, regardless of the size of the bass driver. Irrelevant again because at 65hz, the wavelength would 17ft., at 30hz, the wavelength would be 36ft.! And in order to treat these very low frequencies, if using porous absorption, it would have to take up nearly the entire volume of the room. lolz

We can only hope to reduce, not eliminate resonances at these low frequencies. At least with velocity based treatment like absorbers.

and the point here is even at 65hz, cost and space wise, it wouldnt be practical to build a bass trap that large....let alone at 30hz.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use bass traps in our rooms. Reducing modal ringing is very important.






So care to show what your room EQ plots before you placed your traps up and what it measures like now ? I want to see this amazing acoustic transformation myself.

EQ plots? You mean Frequency response graphs? Waterfall graphs? lol.

I'm building a new studio right now, and i will be posting the before and after graphs in the next coming months.

Why do professional studios spend so much on acoustic design and treatment? They do have large bass traps BTW, but they are hidden in rooms outside of the control room shell.






Well I have no idea how many people buy monitors without even hearing of acoustic treatments. Would you care to share the accurate figures and where you sourced this information ?
Even so, if they're on a pro audio forum with its own acoustics section, I hardly think it's going to be a huge shock for them.

Yea, and those are the people wondering why their mixes suck. Figures? look at any book written on acoustics, the Master Handbook of Acoustics for example. Every room is prone to acoustical problems! especially small rooms, with bad dimensions ( most home studios) Ohh, i suppose they are exempt from the laws of physics? There have been tons of studies on this, and its all referenced in that book. But if you want me to try and dig some stuff up, i will.

The problem is that most people dont test their rooms. But I will post you an example of mine.



Using your own example, room treatments wouldn't fix that problem anyway.

No they wouldnt. But if you knew where they were, you would just move the listening position out of that area.But you would never know that if you didnt test the room.

Wouldn't a more sensible question be "how big is your room and what position are you going to be placing the monitors?" if you cared for his monitoring ?

Yea, monitoring position and room dimensions is an important thing to know. But it doesnt mean squat if you dont have any room treatment whatsoever. They are both intertwined.

You use room testing in to find the correct position of the monitors. There are some general guidelines of course, the monitors will be placed equal distance between the side walls, in an equilateral triangle, a certain distance from a boundary etc. etc. but you need to test the room to know exactly the best position.



Or how about "what is it about your old monitors that makes you want to upgrade?" to see if room treatment could actually fix whatever he wants to change?

If he doesnt have any room treatment. He has problems. We are fixing the room here, not the speakers.

Instead you charge in with the "room treatment", parroting off the same old broken record because you strangely believe that sticking a few 4" thick panels of fluff to a wall will make some magical difference to your bass, instead of the reality that probably only alter a couple of db in the bass and give you a faster overall room decay time.

This is exactly the reason why most people have a negative idea towards acoustics. They are not implementing it correctly.

You dont want to have the panel on the wall, you want to have it gapped from the wall. At the wall, it cant do its job efficiently. At the wall, the velocity of the wave is 0! and the absorber is not absorbing anything.

And why would we expect to absorb much bass at a wall? bass does exist there, but most of the high pressure ( bass) is at the corners of the room.

I'm not saying that room treatment is unimportant , as when its done right it clearly is, but after putting up 10x bass traps around my room and running REW I'd happily take a much better monitor in an untreated room over a poorer monitor in a treated room. (and I've tried monitors/speakers ranging from £600 to £10k in this room both with and without treatments)

So basically you are saying is that room treatment IS important, you just didnt know what you were doing and did everything wrong. Then assumed it wasnt that important.

Heres the frequency response graph of my room completely empty with no treatment whatsoever. Hard walls and floors, drywall roof.

Never mind the DB scale as i didn't calibrate the levels. we are just concerned with the values in relation to one another.

Old 5th July 2011
  #33
Lives for gear
 
MarcB's Avatar
Quote:
This is irrelevant in terms of room modes. They will not change as they are based on the dimensions of the room, and the physical properties of the room boundaries ( walls, floor, ceilings). Irrelevant again, because when treating a room, you apply as much bass trapping as you physically can, regardless of the size of the bass driver. Irrelevant again because at 65hz, the wavelength would 17ft., at 30hz, the wavelength would be 36ft.! And in order to treat these very low frequencies, if using porous absorption, it would have to take up nearly the entire volume of the room. lolz
errr the speaker position and relation to the boundaries do have an effect on the sound. It isn't all based on the length/width/height.

Placing a 30hz speaker near a wall will sound completely different than placing a 65hz speaker near a wall.

Quote:
We can only hope to reduce, not eliminate resonances at these low frequencies. At least with velocity based treatment like absorbers.

and the point here is even at 65hz, cost and space wise, it wouldnt be practical to build a bass trap that large....let alone at 30hz.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use bass traps in our rooms. Reducing modal ringing is very important.
sure

What is important is that the original post was about which monitor, not about sticking bits of rockwool to your walls.

Quote:
Why do professional studios spend so much on acoustic design and treatment? They do have large bass traps BTW, but they are hidden in rooms outside of the control room shell.
Big pro studios who spend on room acoustics don't stick 4" thick panels of fluff all over the walls.

Quote:
I'm building a new studio right now, and i will be posting the before and after graphs in the next coming months.
No you're not mate. You're sticking fluff onto your spare bedrooms walls. Studio =|= bedroom + rockwool

Quote:
Yea, and those are the people wondering why their mixes suck. Figures? look at any book written on acoustics, the Master Handbook of Acoustics for example. Every room is prone to acoustical problems! especially small rooms, with bad dimensions ( most home studios) Ohh, i suppose they are exempt from the laws of physics? There have been tons of studies on this, and its all referenced in that book. But if you want me to try and dig some stuff up, i will.
What people wondering why their mixes "suck" ?

You keep pulling this out of the air and repeating it like it gives you some authority. Show me all these top mixers who have made mixes that "suck" because of their room acoustics.

Maybe their mixes "suck" because they lack an ability to mix good ?

Quote:
No they wouldnt. But if you knew where they were, you would just move the listening position out of that area.But you would never know that if you didnt test the room.
Err yes you would. Anyone who has an idea regarding speaker placement would know the centre of the room is a null.

Quote:
If he doesnt have any room treatment. He has problems. We are fixing the room here, not the speakers.
How do you know this ? are you psychic ?

YOU want to fix his room, the OP wants monitors. What bit don't you understand ?

Quote:
This is exactly the reason why most people have a negative idea towards acoustics. They are not implementing it correctly.

You dont want to have the panel on the wall, you want to have it gapped from the wall. At the wall, it cant do its job efficiently. At the wall, the velocity of the wave is 0! and the absorber is not absorbing anything.

And why would we expect to absorb much bass at a wall? bass does exist there, but most of the high pressure ( bass) is at the corners of the room.
Look sherlock. I contacted company that I bought the panels off and spoke at length about my requirements. I bought the panels that they said I needed and I've placed them in the positions which they have told me to.

Measuing my room before and after the effects aren't as great as I expected. I can't remember the exact amount spent but I believe it was around the £800-1000 range.
Yes, the panels made "some" difference. No, they didn't cure the thing I wanted curing. To cure it I'll still need to spend another £2000 on more panels. (DIY makes zero difference. If I worked overtime for the hours it takes to make them I'd have raised enough to buy them anyway)

So as an example. If it was my post asking about a monitor upgrade and I had £2k to buy new monitors as an upgrade from a pair of ****ty £500 ones or something. You would advise me to spend what , say £1000 on room acoustics and buy a lesser £1000 pair of monitors?
This would leave me with half arsed room treatments which wouldn't really do much and a pair of monitors of lower spec than I wanted.. To put it bluntly, I wouldn't be a happy bunny.

Quote:
So basically you are saying is that room treatment IS important, you just didnt know what you were doing and did everything wrong. Then assumed it wasnt that important.
No. I'm saying that a great speaker in a **** room sounds better than a **** speaker in a good room.

Room treatment is important if you're going to do it properly (ie spend a lot of money, get the room built properly). As you've already stated, sticking panels to the walls is doing nothing for bass. All you're doing is reducing room echos.

Quote:
Heres the frequency response graph of my room completely empty with no treatment whatsoever. Hard walls and floors, drywall roof.

Never mind the DB scale as i didn't calibrate the levels. we are just concerned with the values in relation to one another.
You have your speakers too close to the walls. Pull them out a bit and you probably won't need any treatment.
Old 7th July 2011
  #34
Lives for gear
 
takman's Avatar
 

Marc, you are trying argue something you now little about. you should buy a book and read a little. or spend some time in the acoustics section on this forum.

I have better things to do with my time than argue with you. bye!
Old 7th July 2011
  #35
Lives for gear
 
MarcB's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by takman View Post
Marc, you are trying argue something you now little about. you should buy a book and read a little. or spend some time in the acoustics section on this forum.

I have better things to do with my time than argue with you. bye!

that is some funny ****.. coming from you with your M'audio speakers and your DIY foam things stuck all over your bedroom.

Here's my clueless midfield mixing position, microphone placed 2.5m away from the speakers in a 4x3x3 room , done with proper speaker placement and just 10x panels stuck to mainly the side/rear walls to get rid of flutter echo.

thanks

Old 7th July 2011
  #36
The Gen 8050's are a big step up from the Adam A8X. The lower end Adam series does not have the quality amps of the Gen 8050's or the Adam S series. I really like the Gen's, and out of the ones you mentioned at the top of your thread, I would not hesitate to get them. They offer a wonderful 3 D quality and offer wonderful depth. The only problem is when your mixes are not right, the high's can have a edgy sound. But once under control, they are wonderful.
Old 8th July 2011
  #37
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci View Post
. The lower end Adam series does not have the quality amps of the Gen 8050's or the Adam S series. l.

Could you provide me to some detailed feedback on your thoughts regarding the amps.

Just interested in general as I've just got some A7x's which I traded for CMS50's. CMS50's which I tested for 1 week, but I got ear fatigue after 4+ hour sessions, and for me personally they was to flat.

The amps on the CMS's where very warm, but compared to the A7x's lack overall output. Just interested to know what the real difference is with the Gen and Adam S series amps compared to these A7x's.

Thanks.
Old 8th July 2011
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jomox View Post
Could you provide me to some detailed feedback on your thoughts regarding the amps.

Just interested in general as I've just got some A7x's which I traded for CMS50's. CMS50's which I tested for 1 week, but I got ear fatigue after 4+ hour sessions, and for me personally they was to flat.

The amps on the CMS's where very warm, but compared to the A7x's lack overall output. Just interested to know what the real difference is with the Gen and Adam S series amps compared to these A7x's.

Thanks.
I agree the Gens are a step above the lower Adam series. The X Series are really made for the home studio market. If you find Glenn's review on his Focal Twins he found the 8050's had even more depth than his Twins. Everything is built to a price point, so you won't find $1,200 active monitors will not be the same as $4,000 Gen's.
Old 9th July 2011
  #39
Thanx for the tip man! But after hearing Genelec vs PSI, PSI clearly had an edge. I was very close to ending up with the Genelecs but then I heard the PSI's. Seemed like a class above the Genelec 8000 Series which I thought had an edge on Adam AX series. PSI just sounded "right" for me, their more expensive and thats really reflected in the sound.

If you read the SOS July review on the PSI's, that really sums it up very good.

I ended up with the PSI A17-M
Old 26th June 2013
  #40
Gear Head
 

Do the PSI A17's extend low enough to not need a sub?
Old 26th June 2013
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatsNo View Post
Thanx for the tip man! But after hearing Genelec vs PSI, PSI clearly had an edge. I was very close to ending up with the Genelecs but then I heard the PSI's. Seemed like a class above the Genelec 8000 Series which I thought had an edge on Adam AX series. PSI just sounded "right" for me, their more expensive and thats really reflected in the sound.

If you read the SOS July review on the PSI's, that really sums it up very good.

I ended up with the PSI A17-M
You won't regret it, stunning monitors
*edit* just realised the date of that last post, oops. Well I'm sure he's still loving them :D
Old 26th June 2013
  #42
Gear Nut
 
bom619's Avatar
 

Monitors

Like most of the new self powered monitors these days the Genelec's have tons of tuning options selectable by dip switches. I don't know if I have ever seen a pair of 8040's or 8050's in use that didn't have the high frequencies attenuated 2dB (usually -4). The default setting is flat/anechoic; which is good for making measurements but not for music (at least not in any control room I have ever worked in). Unless you are in a small room, the 8040's will need a sub but the 8050's (my current weapon of choice) do not.
Old 26th February 2016
  #43
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bom619 View Post
Like most of the new self powered monitors these days the Genelec's have tons of tuning options selectable by dip switches. I don't know if I have ever seen a pair of 8040's or 8050's in use that didn't have the high frequencies attenuated 2dB (usually -4). The default setting is flat/anechoic; which is good for making measurements but not for music (at least not in any control room I have ever worked in). Unless you are in a small room, the 8040's will need a sub but the 8050's (my current weapon of choice) do not.


that's exactly what I think, I've just got a pair of 8050s, at first I was kinda disappointed but after de adjustments all is good
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
thanos4 / So Much Gear, So Little Time
9
Chapiro / So Much Gear, So Little Time
31
kraku / High End
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump