TheLion
Registered: 12/04/09
Posts: 147
|
|
MikeDuke
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 1,013
|
|
Posted 09/22/10
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how the two compare.
__________________
I simply love this stuff.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
KevinD
Registered: 05/21/10
Posts: 70
|
|
Posted 09/22/10
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Wow, some nice pics right there lol....I might use one if you don't mind as an avatar on the forum....if you do not mind of course  hahaha
Really looking forward to your opinion 
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Stereodude
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 316
|
|
Posted 09/22/10
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
I can't help but feel a little sorry for the Genelec cause it's not even gonna be a fair fight. 
|
|
Loading...
|
|
BladeRnR
Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 59
|
|
Posted 09/22/10
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
|
"What can a Seaton Catalyst do against an $6295.00 Genelec"
Embarrass it 
Thanks for playing.
Blade
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Mark_Seaton
Moderator
Registered: 05/29/07
Posts: 1,499
|
|
Posted 09/22/10
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Hey guys, the 1037 is no slouch, especially with a small bit of EQ. They hugely embarass many expensive speakers in the HTmarket.
__________________
Mark Seaton
Seaton Sound, Inc.
sales@seatonsound.net
773-290-8436
|
|
Loading...
|
|
BladeRnR
Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 59
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
|
True Mark. I've heard the Genelec 1037 and stand by my (Albeit brief) comment.
Blade
|
|
Loading...
|
|
TheLion
Registered: 12/04/09
Posts: 147
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
I spent 5 hours yesterday setting everything up: level matching with the Genelecs using the RS meter, laser assisted placement/alignment, Audyssey only used to set delay settings (due to the DSP engine the Catalyst needs quite a bit of additional delay).
So for direct comparison I turned EQ off. Started with a blind test - my girlfriend put the XLR input cable in either speaker without me knowing which one was on.
First impressions:
Let's start with something easy. Packaging is very professional and secure. An awful lot has to go wrong if the Catalyst is to be damaged - this is quite relevant for peace of mind with oversea orders like mine.
Next stop build quality. While in my opinion not quite on par with the Genelec (fit and finish is "a bit coarser" in comparison) it is very professional and much better than you can expect from regular "consumer speakers".
How do they sound? Please note that I plan to do a in-depth review once I am really familiar with the Catalyst - I would like to take my time with that, it will be weeks or even a few months for my final assesment (Blade, you know what I am talking about, don't you? Still looking forward to your D2V review ;-) ).
All I knew about the Catalyst was from user statements. These statements may have influenced or even formed my expectations. I keep hearing 4 attributes describing the sound signature: Huge soundstage, "full sound", crystalline and detailed highs, and obviously dynamics.
Everything that follows are first impressions and should be taken as such. This certainly is not n informed opinion yet. These impressions are certainly highly influenced by 3 years of daily experience with said Genelec studio monitors - so any statement should be taken in this particular context.
Why do I see the need to explain myself? Because it makes a huge difference where you come from. My (little) experience with the Catalyst doesn't really resemble the user opinions I have read so far. Please note that the Genelec also is a tri-amplified fully active speaker. One difference is the active analog crossover instead of the DSP crossover of the Catalyst. The other is that the 1037C is a vented design. Point is: I am used to the advantages of active speakers, and (sadly) don't get as excited as users coming from a passive design about them.
I will discuss the four attributes I mentioned above.
First of all the difference between those two speakers is very obvious. So after some switches we ended the blind test because it was pointless. I know the sound signature of the Genelec, and the Catalyst is very different.
Sound Stage: Because I just have a single Catalyst yet I will not comment on the sound stage per se. I tested two setups - the Catalyst integrated as center with the Genelecs in a 7.1 setup. And the isolated approach: all others speakers turned off and just the Catalyst as center playing. Imaging is less focused, giving the impression of a more spacious sound with the Catalyst. I will leave it at that for now.
Dynamics: I certainly didn't like to crank the Catalyst up fresh out of the box so no comment about "macro dynamics". Listening 5-10db below reference the Catalyst didn't give me the impression of increased dynamics yet. Regarding "micro dynamics"/transients I got the impression that the Genelec is superiour (eg. guitar riffs in Dave Matthews excellent Radio City Blu-Ray).
"Crystalline Highs": My experience so far is in stark contrast to that assesment. When switching from the Genelec to the Catalyst this was one of the most obvious differences. With the Catalyst the highs are much less pronounced. It is a strong word but certainly applies here: the Catalyst sounds veiled compared to the Genelec - and the difference is not subtile. Question remains which one is "right", correct presentation of the source. Are Catalysts subdued or Genelecs exaggerated? Let me add that Genelecs are tools - they are designed to allow you hear everything that's in the recording. they certainly remind me of good headphones/nearfields in the regards - a acoustic microscope of you will. The Catalyst sounds "smooth" in comparison - I am not sure yet which one is to be considered more "realistic".
So add some EQ to boost highs and be happy, some may suggest. But this has not so much to do with frequency response (we will look at frequency response graphs tomorrow), but with the general performance of the co-ax unit. Which leads me to my next point:
What became very obvious is that the Genelec is superiour in detail and definition. I certainly hear details with the Genelec that are "covered" with the Catalyst (eg. Avatar on Blu-ray). I am certainly not suggesting that the Cat' is not good in absolute terms in this regard (compared to just about any consumer speaker out there it will stand its ground) but to be honest - I expected a little more transparency. I sure would miss it very much if I go with the Catalyst for front speakers. But probably it is just a process of getting used to a more "Hi-Fi" like sound instead of all revealing studio monitoring.
"full sound" - Now we are talking. I mentioned "Hi-Fi" above. That was and is my main grief with Genelec - sans EQ they sound so revealing that it becomes clinical, very analytic and "thin" at times. The Catalyst has a "Hi-Fi" sound signature in comparison. A very "full sound" that doesn't emphasize higher frequencies but is very smooth. If not being tormented with levels and levels of detail it makes for a much more relaxing listen ;-) With certain loud, dynamic action soundtracks the Genelecs are piercing at times - Catalysts remain smooth.
I would like to add one statement: The sound signature of the Catalyst reminded me very much of my Genelec with active Audyssey EQ. Much "fuller" sound (pronounced mids - which eg. improves dialog intelligibility) BUT at the expense of transparency and detail.
Pick your poison! To be continued...
PS: I will make some frequency response measurements (ECM8000, CARMA application) today - to get some objective data.
One Question: What does the "Programm Select" button on the Cat amp do? Are there different DSP EQs selectable?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
TheLion
Registered: 12/04/09
Posts: 147
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Another thing to consider: The Catalyst is straight out of the box and probably needs a break-in period to really improve its detailing and transparency.
And please note that after the initial "blind test" the Catalyst was being placed in exactly the same position the Genelec was used as center before (so not 2 speakers on top of each other as shown on the photos - placement was optimized by laser alignment and listening tests - measurements will follow today).
|
|
Loading...
|
|
misterkit
Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 22
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
|
Thanks for the write up. Im sure that we are all anxious for your further impressions.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
BladeRnR
Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 59
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
|
All speakers need a break in period of at least 50 hours and 100 to sound their best and for critical listening purposes. You most certainly have not heard the best of what the Catalyst has to offer and are actually doing it a disservice. In fact detail and transparency are 2 attributes that all who have heard them comment upon right off the bat. Then there are the dynamics which in my experience are unmatched by any speaker I have heard - it's the Catalysts greatest attribute.
How many hours are on the Genelec 1037C?
IMHO I believe you should get a good number of hours on the Catalysts (50 at least) before engaging in any critical listening and/or measuring.
Blade
|
|
Loading...
|
|
TheLion
Registered: 12/04/09
Posts: 147
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Blade,
I agree (and remain hopeful!) - I noted several times that these are just "out of the box" first impressions and certainly not a meaningful assessment.
I use the Genelecs for more than 3 years now. And I certainly didn't expect the Catalyst to match the transparency (revealing, resolving nature) of the large Genelecs - very few speakers do. I am interested in the combined performance aspects matching my preferences - and to evaluate this I need much more time.
Do you know what the "Programm Select" button on the Catalyst amp does?
Would you say that your new Anthem D2V changed the sound signature of the Catalyst significantly from the Integra? I am hesitant about the D2V because I consider it on the "bright, analytical side" which in combination with Genelec is probably not a smart move. But it could be exactly what the Catalyst needs (to comply with my personal listening preferences)!?
Did you notice a change in performance after you used the Catalysts for 50-100 hours?
How was your experience with Genelec 1037?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
BladeRnR
Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 59
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
|
According to Mark I believe the "Programm Select" was for development purposes and utilises a slightly different DSP program. This is true for the Submersive Subwoofer but I cannot claim to know this is true for the Catalyst. Mark will no doubt answer that for you.
The Anthem with Upsampling of all sources in conjunction with ARC room correction has only benefited the Catalysts. The Integra (if anything) sounded veiled (muffled) to me and at extreme levels quite harsh. I am not a fan of Audyssey after using ARC. It is clearly superior (At least in my room). The Anthem D2V has added copious amounts of detail and this can be attributed to higher grade internals (Caps, OPamps etc) and the aforementioned ARC Room EQ. I also utilise filtered mains to ensure clean power is fed to the entire system. I would describe the Anthem D2V as "accurate" and not at all bright. The Integra on the other hand was particularly harsh by comparison.
I noticed a large change with the Catalysts after about 30 hours of solid use and burn-in (Keep in mind the amplifier needs it too!). At first they lacked a little focus and a little directionality and detail. This quickly changed with mileage and are now extremely detailed, focused, smooth as butter and dynamic. They now have 120 hours on them and are simply spectacular via the Anthem D2V.
I'm very interested in your test but the Catalyst needs more hours on it
Regards
Blade
|
|
Loading...
|
|
MikeDuke
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 1,013
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
|
Thanks for that write up. I have only heard the Cats one time. It was at someone else's system. It was about a 4-6 hour listening session. The room was in the process of being treated so the I am sure that with more treatments it would have sounded different. I am coming from JM Labs 1027Be's so the sound was quite different. The amount of detail that I heard was impressive. The bell ringing in the beginning of Master and Commander was incredibly crisp. The detail was like a fine razor but not harsh. In my system, the bell still sounds very good but it sounds different. We also listened to music. Again. to me, the music was very well presented. I brought some of my own music that I was familiar with. When we played the songs, the power was undeniable. They sounded great. And we even turned off the sub for a few songs and I still enjoyed the sound a lot.
Now, there is no doubt that they are different than my JM's. But I would still love to hear the Cats in a room that was not wood floors and concrete walls. I think that these Cats were broken in. The sound stage was very big with the CATS. I hogged the best seat all day . One of the benefits of needing a cane at my age  . But even people who were off center still said that the sound was pin point accurate. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts after you have some more time with them. And don't take this as me not believing what you are hearing. It was a number of years ago at NAB but I did hear some Genelec speakers. They were not in a room, just open on the floor. The demo was some concert. To me and my ears, they sounded very good. I know I am pulling this from a very old memory bank but I remember the sound being very smooth. I did enjoy them. But I also enjoyed the CATS as well even though the presentation is different.
__________________
I simply love this stuff.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
carlm9
Registered: 07/26/10
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Lion,
Very nice write-up. I am interested in how this progresses. I have also heard the Catalysts in person and felt that there are more detailed speakers out there. The same day I heard them we also listened to the Danley SH-50's and my personal pair of speakers the Legacy Focus HD's. As far as detail was concerned I would rank it as: 1. Danley 2. Legacy and 3. Cataysts.
The interesting part is that the Danley's were too detailed, causing fatigue at high volumes. As much as I could appreciate the detail, I could never live with these speakers. The Legacy's were not fatiguing but still compressed at high volumes, definitively not as dynamic as the Seaton's or Danley's. Lastly the Seaton's were not fatiguing at all. At high volumes they were just as clear as they were at moderate volumes. You could listen to them all day and not be fatigued.
It is the trade-off you get. Both the Danley horns and the Legacy ribbons sound great to me, but I wouldn't want to listen to them at reference level for a long period of time. Since I don't listen at high volumes, my current system which consists of 50/50 Music/HT, the Legacy's work excellent for me. I personally love the detail of ribbon tweeters (Dali's as well).
On the other hand, if I had a HT only room or if my ratio was leaning toward HT more, I would want a complete Seaton set-up. I have never heard a speaker that is as dynamic as the Catalyst.
I would also like to point out the Genelec's are almost double the cost of the Seaton's. Mark certainly does have an excellent price/performance ratio, keep up the excellent work.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Hudda
Registered: 05/24/09
Posts: 93
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#16
|
|
Lion,
I know it's not in the cards but what would really be interesting would be if you ordered all 3 Cats for the front stage, set them up, tweak appropriately, and live with them exclusively for several months. I wonder how the Genelec's would sound to you after your ears/brain got used to daily use of the Cats?
I don't put much stock in hardware break-in. It's our ears and brains that accommodate to a new sound signature. All of the speakers being discussed are in the same general category and as you said, EQ can tilt the sonics one way or another for preferences. The question comes down to which baseline you want to start with and, or course, money. 
|
|
Loading...
|
|
fugueness
Registered: 06/02/08
Posts: 137
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#17
|
|
TheLion, it's all a matter of degree.
Like several other Catalyst owners, I considered the Genelecs but they were a bit too clinical, thin, and fatiguing for HT use. When watching movies, my ideal is a smooth, refined sound with ample clarity and dynamics that allow the viewer to be fully immersed and engaged in the cinematic experience. It should not be a clinical "acoustic microscope" that calls attention to itself. Of course, that's just my preference, and some like yourself may prefer the "acoustic microscope"! A good comparison in the hifi world might be Aerial (smooth) vs Revel (clinical).
I have done movie marathons lasting 9 hours with zero fatigue from the Catalysts. With many speakers (especially horns), I can handle one movie at most!
Now, if you're a sound engineer mixing and mastering soundtracks in a near-field situation, they excel. That is why I use industry standard Mackie studio monitors in my post-production studio.
While I applaud your valiant effort to compare the single speakers as center channels, I do think you are doing the Catalysts a bit of a disservice by not comparing LCR vs LCR.
First impressions do matter, but like any speaker, it does take several months (if not a year) of solid experience to properly evaluate their performance, and of all the speakers I've owned, the Catalysts have benefited the most from time and experience - they still surprise me after nearly 2 years of ownership.
So in that sense, you can't get a full-bodied comparison from those of us who have spent only a couple hours with the Genelecs, just first impressions.
By the same token, you might a well get the L and R Catalysts so you can develop a full impression over time and get a proper comparison going! I doubt you would lose much in resale, especially given the value proposition vs comparable speakers.
That said, the Catalysts destroy the Genelecs in terms of sound stage and dynamics, and IMHO - as an HT speaker.
In the end it's in the ear of the beholder. There is no right or wrong. Only what's best based on your preferences.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
gjrhine
Registered: 08/05/10
Posts: 52
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#18
|
|
In my opinion the biggest advancements in audio in the last 15 years are Dolby Digital, lossless audio and Room EQ. Especially Audyssey which operates in the time domain to deal with reverb frequencies around the room. Without it you are at the mercy of the acoustic characteristics of the room no matter how well treated (you didn't say a thing about the room) you think it is. I don't know how you plan to evaluate a speaker, re-calibrate with the other speaker and evaluate from memory but without some such scenario I believe the validity of any listening test is suspect at best. Personal preference from memory is the best you can do. Without room EQ you could take the entire setup to a different room and hear something entirely different from each speaker.
__________________
Gary J
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Hudda
Registered: 05/24/09
Posts: 93
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#19
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gjrhine
In my opinion the biggest advancements in audio in the last 15 years are Dolby Digital, lossless audio and Room EQ. Especially Audyssey which operates in the time domain to deal with reverb frequencies around the room. Without it you are at the mercy of the acoustic characteristics of the room no matter how well treated (you didn't say a thing about the room) you think it is. I don't know how you plan to evaluate a speaker, re-calibrate with the other speaker and evaluate from memory but without some such scenario I believe the validity of any listening test is suspect at best. Personal preference from memory is the best you can do. Without room EQ you could take the entire setup to a different room and hear something entirely different from each speaker.
To be fair, TheLion turned off EQ for both the Genelec and the Catalyst so it is more of an apples to apples comparison. Let me be clear: I applaud his efforts to do a fair comparison. He is not bashing the Catalyst (this testing is being done because he is considering buying something new). Lion has acknowledged these are only very early impressions and much more time is needed. My point was simply that EVERYONE accommodates to what they have been listening to over a long time period. That's a fact. I would love to see him with a full Seaton rig and live it with it for a while. Then go back to the Genelecs and see how he likes them. He might like the Genelec sound signature better in the end but at least he will know for sure.
To make it really interesting, he could have an extended in-home demo of say, something like B&W 800 series. I can just hear it now: "Wow, the Catalysts are soooo neutral after all!!"
Chris
|
|
Loading...
|
|
MikeDuke
Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 1,013
|
|
Posted 09/23/10
|
Reply with quote
#20
|
|
|
The word fatigue has been used. I can also concur that even what had to have been 5-6 hours of non stop listening, at fairly loud levels, I was fine. No soreness or ringing in my ears. I have heard other systems loud and after 10 miniutes I had a headache. If I were starting over again, Something from Mark, probably one of the new tower speakers, would be on a very very short list.
__________________
I simply love this stuff.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
