ROGERS LS 3/5 vs GENELEC 1031

[CeruttiA]

Hello friends,

have just acquired a pair of 1031 - strange, dry sound. How, for you does it compare to the little Rogers , and in your experience , how quickly does one need to change the drivers - there is Genelec salesrep in Paris and he can revise the each speaker for 450 € . Feedback would be interesting

[Hugh Robjohns]

The 1031 is an old speaker by modern standards... not as old as the 3/5A, but getting on a bit and thus quite possibly not sounding as it once did. 'Dry Sounding' could mean myriad things to different people, and I'm not at all sure how to interpret that.

What I can say is that the 1031 has a very different aural presentation to the 3/5A. Few brought up on the BBC version of a flat response liked the Genelec version of flat!

[CeruttiA]

Thank you very much indeed , John, very kind of you to reply. I found that the small rogers could not always cope well with vinyl recordings of classical and ECL jazz music from the 70/80s ; the Genelecs seem to cope better. Also, spare parts are available, i am thinking of sending them off to revision and was wondering if there was a simple way to see if they speakers are working well and are alighned, i have the feeling that one is slightly louder than the other one. Any tests you would recommend ?

[flo12]

Hi ! did you finally got the 1031 and if yes what is your feeling about it ? Lots of people like and others dislike...I mix with ns10, i like them a lot, and Focal shape65 but these i find to be too hifi perhaps so I m wondering about Genelec....

[Arpangel]

I used the Rogers LS3/5a for awhile, monitoring. I thought them not suitable as a wide range versatile music monitor, but it wasn’t really designed as that, it was designed for small spaces like OB vans, listening at fairly low volumes. There were bigger designs that were more suitable for wider range monitoring. Hugh knows more than I about these things, but I’m sure I’m in the right ball park.
it’s a great little hi-fi speaker, very "nice" sounding, I found it too coloured and lacking in power handling, it does sound absolutely fab on speech though!
Genelecs are a mystery to me, I’ve heard them, and yes, they sound strange to me too, at least the LS3 sounds more or less "right" even given its limitations, as Hugh said, the Genelec version of flat is not to everyone’s taste, bottom line is that I wouldn’t personally want to use either of these speakers for long term monitoring, IMO offerings from Neumann or "similar" designs would be well worth looking at for a decent "reference" speaker.

[ef37a]

I cannot find any references to the Genelec "1031" only the 1031'A' so is the former a passive speaker?

I have never heard either but the Rogers (have heard a big one playing direct cut jazz. Bloody marvelous!) of course is passive and being a 15 Ohm speaker is going to need a fairly hefty amp to deliver the voltage as most transistor amps are rated at 4 or 8 Ohms.

I am therefore with the others, look for a bigger, louder more modern active monitor. Trawl the back articles by Mr Ward.

Dave.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I cannot find any references to the Genelec "1031" only the 1031'A' so is the former a passive speaker?

No. All of Genelec's speakers have been active. Its just laziness leaving off the A.

I reviewed the 1031A back in the early 90s for Audio Media magazine (SOS's sister pro-audio mag at the time). It was produced between 1991 and 2005 as a relatively large two-way, with an 8-inch bass driver and a pair of 120W power amps. The 1030A and 1029A were smaller alternatives in the same range. The modern equivalent is the 8050A.

[James Perrett]

Hi ! did you finally got the 1031 and if yes what is your feeling about it ? Lots of people like and others dislike...I mix with ns10, i like them a lot, and Focal shape65 but these i find to be too hifi perhaps so I m wondering about Genelec....

If you like the very mid forward sound of the NS10 then you will probably find that most monitors will sound too hifi. I replaced the NS10s in our old studio with LS3/5a's and found it far easier to work with them as they didn't sound drastically different to the big monitors. The NS10s gave a very different sound to the big monitors which was more confusing, rather than helpful, for most of our clients.

[Arpangel]

Hi ! did you finally got the 1031 and if yes what is your feeling about it ? Lots of people like and others dislike...I mix with ns10, i like them a lot, and Focal shape65 but these i find to be too hifi perhaps so I m wondering about Genelec....

If you like the very mid forward sound of the NS10 then you will probably find that most monitors will sound too hifi. I replaced the NS10s in our old studio with LS3/5a's and found it far easier to work with them as they didn't sound drastically different to the big monitors. The NS10s gave a very different sound to the big monitors which was more confusing, rather than helpful, for most of our clients.

I could live with NS10’s if they were the only speaker that existed!
I like them a lot, and find it incredibly easy to track with them, it’s like pulling a curtain back on what you’re doing, or shining a torch on your music.
But as soon as you use anything else, it’s like all the mid has gone, like there’s a hole, and other monitors sound like they have a smiley curve with a big dip in the middle.
So what’s right? It’s all so subjective, personal, and it tends to boost my opinion that the idea of a transparent monitor is a blind alley, it just doesn’t exist anyway, it’s a matter of personal taste, and what sounds good to us, in our rooms, and with our particular types of music.

[ef37a]

Hi ! did you finally got the 1031 and if yes what is your feeling about it ? Lots of people like and others dislike...I mix with ns10, i like them a lot, and Focal shape65 but these i find to be too hifi perhaps so I m wondering about Genelec....

If you like the very mid forward sound of the NS10 then you will probably find that most monitors will sound too hifi. I replaced the NS10s in our old studio with LS3/5a's and found it far easier to work with them as they didn't sound drastically different to the big monitors. The NS10s gave a very different sound to the big monitors which was more confusing, rather than helpful, for most of our clients.

I could live with NS10’s if they were the only speaker that existed!
I like them a lot, and find it incredibly easy to track with them, it’s like pulling a curtain back on what you’re doing, or shining a torch on your music.
But as soon as you use anything else, it’s like all the mid has gone, like there’s a hole, and other monitors sound like they have a smiley curve with a big dip in the middle.
So what’s right? It’s all so subjective, personal, and it tends to boost my opinion that the idea of a transparent monitor is a blind alley, it just doesn’t exist anyway, it’s a matter of personal taste, and what sounds good to us, in our rooms, and with our particular types of music.

I never read of it being done these days but when I used to read Hi Fi News (before the beardy, subjective tweaks took it over) and Studio Sound speaker reviews they invariably did a test against real sounds.

Most revealing was speech but things like keys jangling and Glokenspiel were compared to the speaker reproduction. Very well known full range piano recordings were also used. I understand the BBC used to have engineers dashing through soundproof doors listening first to live musicians and then the repro' in the control room?

Quite a few times in his reviews Phil Ward has commented that a particular monitor reproduced a known voice with uncanny fidelity. How loudspeakers deliver real sounds and instruments is surely the final test of their quality?

As for "type of music". Surely the 'perfect' monitor would reproduce all music types and sounds perfectly? My Mission 775s can kick arse very nicely with the Stones but still deliver the genteel tones of a string quartet or classical guitar very convincingly...NOT that I am suggesting for one moment that the 775s are "perfect"! I listen now through Tannoy 5As and they seem pretty catholic for genre. I am quite sure that when/if I upgrade the newer monitors will be equally so?

Dave.

[Hugh Robjohns]

As for "type of music". Surely the 'perfect' monitor would reproduce all music types and sounds perfectly?

They should, yes, and the better manufacturers all share that viewpoint.

However, the 'should sound like a real instrument' thing is harder to justify. Speakers sit at the end of a recording chain. They should reproduce the signal they are fed accurately, but that signal is only ever a representation of the source.

As a simple example, no loudspeaker will match the polar pattern / frequency variations of a range of different instruments, so will interact with the room differently. I've run experiments substituting a recorded instrument over a single loudspeaker for the real thing behind an acoustically transparent curtain, and the only one that fooled a reasonable portion of audience was the trumpet (where the polar patterns are more similar).

Reproduced music is not real. It is a reproduction. We might strive to create as faithful a rendition as possible, but that's the best we can do, and why recording music is a true art form built upon science and engineering.

[ef37a]

I take your point Hugh of course but maybe advances in 'immersive' sound technologies will eventually give us a 'holographic' reproduction of a musical event?
The speakers would need to be beyond reproach and of course microphones will never be perfect.

But for Tony's music AFAIK it, nobody knows what a synth sounds like until we hear it! The same is true of the electric guitar to a large extent.

Dave.

[Tim Gillett]

I agree the ideal speaker accurately represents the signal fed to it. I thought a speaker like an NS10 was used like an Auratone not for great accuracy but to somewhat represent the sound of a speaker used by the average listener.

[sonics]

I thought a speaker like an NS10 was used like an Auratone not for great accuracy but to somewhat represent the sound of a speaker used by the average listener.

That's not the case IME. They are used for what one might term "focus" purposes, where the particular characteristics of the speakers become useful, for example in vocal sessions.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think it's fair to say speakers like the NS10, Auratone, AKG LSM50 and others serve or have served several different purposes depending on the user.

For broadcasters, the emulation of restricted-bandwidth domestic speakers was/is a useful feature.

For music mixers, the mid-forward 'focus' helps with optimising the vocal/lead balance, and the sealed-cabinet gives more clarity to low-end timing and balance.

[sonics]

My background is in music production, and I was thinking specifically about the NS-10/10M. Were/are they used in broadcast studios? I don't recall seeing them.

[Hugh Robjohns]

In my experience Auratones, AKGs and Foster were probably more common the the Yamahas, but I've certainly seen them used as grot-check speakers in dubbing theatres, tv broadcast music studios, and some on-air TV studios.

[orange]

For music mixers, the mid-forward 'focus' helps with optimising the vocal/lead balance, and the sealed-cabinet gives more clarity to low-end timing and balance.

agreed, although sometimes I like to switch to the NS10 (and the LSM50) as a 'ear refresh' - it's like taking a break from the mains and just gives a different perspective, even if you can't make critical mix decisions on them. Same with headphones.

[ef37a]

Be interesting to know when the idea of a "grot check" speaker started here? (bet it came from over The Pond!)

My idea of monitoring is rather old fashioned I suppose? When recording an artist or orchestra it would I think have been the height of arrogance for the recording engineer (two places up from the tape OP and three from the tea boy) to consider making the final result sound in any way materially different from the sound in the studio/hall. Within of course the limitations of the technology of the time. Although he might have to change things from what HE thinks is right in deference to the ideas of the artist or producer.

Of course the home studio recordist/player/composer can produce their music in any way that suits them. Not good to mangle the work of others though IMHO.
Dave.

[sonics]

My idea of monitoring is rather old fashioned I suppose?

Where have you been. It all changed in the seventies, man!

[Arpangel]

I agree the ideal speaker accurately represents the signal fed to it. I thought a speaker like an NS10 was used like an Auratone not for great accuracy but to somewhat represent the sound of a speaker used by the average listener.

When making anything other than classical music such as electronic music, the notion of an "accurate" speaker goes completely out of the window, as there are literally, no reference points. So the choice of speaker is purely down to what you as an individual like the sound of, and what suits your music.
When dealing with classical music, and traditional acoustic based music, there are definite reference points, and monitoring requirements change.
The notion of one speaker that does it all has never worked for me, some speakers are definitely more suited to some types of music than others.

[Arpangel]

OP, thought of you when I came across this.

EMT 950 BBC

https://www.audiophilesclinic.co.uk/for-sale

[Hugh Robjohns]

When making anything other than classical music such as electronic music, the notion of an "accurate" speaker goes completely out of the window, as there are literally, no reference points.

Surely the monitor speaker itself is the reference point? You're relying entirely on your accurate monitor speakers to let you know exactly and precisely what noises you're creating.

So the choice of speaker is purely down to what you as an individual like the sound of, and what suits your music.

The very obvious flaw in that claim is that no one else will have the same sonically-flavoured speakers as you, so won't hear your music the way you want it to be heard.

For example, if you choose an underdamped ported speaker with a poor tweeter your synths might seem to create powerful, resonant bass and silky smooth treble to you... while your audiencevhesrs only a thin and screechy racket on more typical (and certainly more accurate) systems!

The less well-defined the source, the more critical monitor accuracy becomes!

The notion of one speaker that does it all has never worked for me, some speakers are definitely more suited to some types of music than others.

It's true that some speakers cope with classical better than rock, etc, but they are — by definition — not monitor speakers.

[MarkOne]

Sorry Tony, I really can’t agree with that.

There have always been “reference” speakers, long before the idea of studio monitors being substantially different to high end domestic products

I remember visiting some notable speaker manufacturers in the 70s, and seeing anechoic chambers, Brüel & Kjær Measurement mics and Wayne Kerr response analysers hard at work developing as ruler flat responses and lowest level distortion measurements as possible (given the limitations of the technology)

A speaker that can (again within the limits of the technology) reproduce accurately what’s coming off the mixing desk/tape/etc when it comes to classical and acoustic music is also better placed to allow judgements on artificial sources.

[Arpangel]

Sorry Tony, I really can’t agree with that.

There have always been “reference” speakers, long before the idea of studio monitors being substantially different to high end domestic products

I remember visiting some notable speaker manufacturers in the 70s, and seeing anechoic chambers, Brüel & Kjær Measurement mics and Wayne Kerr response analysers hard at work developing as ruler flat responses and lowest level distortion measurements as possible (given the limitations of the technology)

A speaker that can (again within the limits of the technology) reproduce accurately what’s coming off the mixing desk/tape/etc when it comes to classical and acoustic music is also better placed to allow judgements on artificial sources.

I really don’t know, but you’re probably right, all I know is that a lot of milestone records were recorded and mixed on wardrobes half the size of my garage, massive things that in no way could have been accurate by any stretch of the imagination, a friend had a massive pair of 70’s Altecs in his studio, and his speciality was classical and avant-garde, he had them simply because he liked them, and already had them as as hi-fi speakers!
I’m not fussy about what I use, I’ll get used to anything, I’ve never had any issues with things not sounding as they should on other systems.
I have preferences, but it’s not the end the world if I can’t have them.
Yes, we’re lucky to have what we have today, it makes life a lot easier, but the musical output of the times speaks for itself.