8000 vs 8300 sonic character? - Forum
8000 vs 8300 sonic character?
I'm a longterm Genelec 8040B user, and I love them to bits! Very satisfied with the results I've been getting so far.
However, recently decided to upgrade. I need just a bit more low end reach and definition to make better informed mix decisions (my work is mostly music and mulitmedia mixing). However, my room is about W3m x L4m x H2.8, acoustically treated, but not dead (RT60 0.4), ,.so there isn't a lot of space and the listening distance is fairly close, which also prevents proper low end propogation.. My options are:
8050 or 8340 (without the GLM kit), -since they're about the same price.
Personally I am a skeptic when it comes to ues of DSP in speaker systems, as I simply haven't heard anyone do it well, except for very few and very expensive exceptions. It does more harm than good in most cases and is commonly used to compensate for poor engineering and design as well as introduces a number of additional AD/DA variables (such as alliasing and jitter). Although, that should not be the case wit the 8300 series
Long story short, my question is how does the sonic signature of the classic 8000 series compares to the sound of 8300 out of the box? How do you justify the almost 40% price hike? The 8300 look to be exactly identicle except, for DSP based circutry and more powerfull amps, yet on paper the difference in performance is fairly minimal..
Would 8050 be overkill when the listening distance is about 150cm width and 120cm from ear to speaker?
Thakns for consideration!
Just a side commentary on DSPs vs analog crossovers:
Modern DSP functionality in speakers such as The Ones doesn't just perform room adjustments; it also implements audio crossovers, loudspeaker element response corrections and possibly other corrections which would be expensive, complicated or impossible to implement using analog audio crossovers. DSPs allow much more precise room adjustments, including channel delay offset tuning. Room corrections provided by DIP switches are very coarse in comparison.
Also, at 24 bit, 96 kHz internal processing of audio should by no sensible means be a quality bottleneck on humanly audible range of audio.
the sonic degradation caused by secondary a/d/d/a conversion will occure at the entirety of the spectrum. Nor genelec, nor any other company is posting detailed specs or test sheets of converters they're using. The fact that they're capable of 96/24 PCM sampling rate means nothing, a 10$ off-brand MP3 player from china can do the same. There is a reason why high-end converters are so expensive. The way I see it, the price of a truly hi-end converter that could substitude for analogue without significant degradation, would make the production cost too high to justify the benefits.
DSP makes precise tuning easier for the manufacturer, but it also introduces so many other issues that it can hardly be jsutified, especially when its not reducing the retail price of the final product.
Hence my initial question, how does the DSP vs Analogue versions of otherwise almost identical monitors comapre to each other.
i think the DSPs are fine.
used my 8351s an analog with a forsell D/A and they sounded better then pure digital.
an esoteric stance, can't be, wen't digital caus i wouldn't want myself to get away with such BS.
if you wanna upgrade, go 8351. sonic character stays the same, imaging is another league entirely.