Genelec Community Forum has been archived

Thank you for all the years of Community discussions and activity!

The time has come for us to retire the community forums, but we will keep everything available for reading. There is a lot of valuable content written over the years, and you'll be able to access all of that. However, no new posts can be written, or old posts modified.

If you have questions, we recommend you use the Support function on the bottom right corner to contact our Customer Support directly.

Alternatively, if you wish to engage in a community discussion with other people, there are many active forums available. There is also an active, fan managed GENELEC COMMUNITY in Facebook, and many Genelec employees are active in the discussions there.

We are sorry for any possible inconvenience this may cause you, but we hope to hear from you through the other channels mentioned above.

Genelec Support

Keskusteluryhmät

SAM technology VS Room treatment ?

luigi2000, muokattu 5 Vuodet sitten.

SAM technology VS Room treatment ?

Youngling Viestejä: 1 Liittymispäivä: 26.4.2017 Viimeisimmät viestit
Im in the procces of upgrading my studio monitoring and room treatment. I am gonna by the Genelec 8030 SAM monitors i have decided. But how sould I do with room treatment? Sould I try to treat the room as much as posible or should I let SAM do the job?

I have some basic diy stuff treatment now in the room. Auralex bastraps in the front corners and front cealing, molton fabric and and accustic panels above, in front and on the first reflection points. My room is 3,4 x 3,4 concrete so it is hard to treat in the bas area. Thats why I choosen the SAM technolgy, that it sould compensate for the bad room acustics.

But should I bouild some real bas traps and place in corners, or should i just let SAM handle the bas bump?

excuse for bad spelling cheers
adriantatar, muokattu 5 Vuodet sitten.

Re: SAM technology VS Room treatment ?

Padawan Viestejä: 29 Liittymispäivä: 27.5.2014 Viimeisimmät viestit
Hi,

Read the last post of Ilkka Rissanen from this discussion viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2604&p=8872&hilit=8240#p8872
1038, muokattu 5 Vuodet sitten.

Re: SAM technology VS Room treatment ?

Jedi Master Viestejä: 340 Liittymispäivä: 6.4.2009 Viimeisimmät viestit
They both compliment each other perfectly.

One of the major benefits of GLM is that you can see what effects your treatments have, i encourage all users to experiment with the placement of all 3 variables, monitor position, listener position and acoustic treatment.

No DSP system can fix cancellations, or modify the RT time of your room, room treatments can do both. So what Illka said in that previous post is correct, SAM monitors will give you the biggest return in an untreated room, but SAM and treatments is the ideal.
jappi, muokattu 5 Vuodet sitten.

RE: Re: SAM technology VS Room treatment ?

Padawan Viestejä: 36 Liittymispäivä: 28.7.2016 Viimeisimmät viestit

I totally agree with previous comment. Setting up bass traps to the corners provided the most significant improvement to the sound quality. Obviously with acoustics you should be careful not to damp the room too much so the music "stays alive". Then the next biggest improvement came from switching to completely digital domain. I have been using a lots of highend electronics in the past some worth around 10k€ per unit but none of them has provided the tranparency, timing and control what can be achieved by simply taking them away from the signal path. Then it all becomes to the D/A conversion quality, internal amplifier quality and acoutics properties of the speakers. 

I'm not favorite of class D amplification especially for higher frequencies although the technology surely evolves. Many times the switching psu for example is superior to linear power supplies in terms of measured performance. I would welcome amplifier+dac module upgrade packages you could purhase separately with even higher grade and matched extra low tolerance components that Gelenec is now using. 

In the end I think that using the whole front baffle as wave guide introduced in 8351A is the future the loudspeaker technology in general if it can be scaled up without problems. It's benefits exceed the improvement that can be made to the electronics by mile, but I think there will still be some people that are willing to take the extra stretch on electronics if it would be available. This would also give very welcomed opportunity to upgrade the dsp-engine when significant technological steps can be taken!