Jump to content

JBL Discussion & Owner's Thread


Recommended Posts

I thought the Convoy JBL room/speakers sounded great at last years show. 4367 was really good.

 

 

Edited by Darren69
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I love my K2s. A few people who have been here more recently now I have them dialled in to within a inch of their lives would most probably agree how dynamic, and engaging they can be.   And

Unboxed to try at home a pristine pair of S3900s

Indeed a lot of it can be R&D.... but there are also other overheads to recover....and it isnt the same for every product...   cant talk speakers specifically.... but having worked in ma

14 minutes ago, Marc said:

The K2 or the Everest @Darren69?

Off memory the Everest (side x side woofers etc) were in the Melody room but am not up to speed on all of the JBL model numberings/id's etc. The Melody room didn't sound that great, even to my non-phile ears. Not accusing anyone or any thing, just how it is at such shows sometimes.

 

I think the Convoy room had the 4367's and a pair of K2 S9900's (?) Both sounded bloody awesome anyhow. :D 

 

But it was also a different room, not as much side glass and nice high ceilings.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marc said:

And with that said, having lived with K2s for quite some time, it took me over a year to get the placement right in regards to bass output. Being rear ported, the relationship and distance with the wall behind them is critical.

For front ported speakers, it probably makes very little to virtually no difference (compared to rear ported speakers) as the bass frequencies that emanate from the ports is typically omni-directional.

Link to post
Share on other sites


21 hours ago, Darren69 said:

I have tried the DEQX HDP4 previously, set up by Alan Langford himself sitting in my listening possie. Later on when I tried other non-DSP components, I found I preferred the sound without any DSP, as a whole. DSP seemed to taker something away and I don't know what that is.

This is a tough one because DSP is typically changing what you hear, that's it's purpose.

So I think it's difficult to separate what it's intended to take away (e.g. the affect of bass peaks) versus the "other stuff", presuming it is.

The audiophile mind is a thing of wonder, it's very easy from the outset to be sitting there thinking something like "DSP Bad, DSP Bad, DSP Bad...".

I think a negative mindset is likely to translate into a negative experience.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Satanica said:

For front ported speakers, it probably makes very little to virtually no difference (compared to rear ported speakers) as the bass frequencies that emanate from the ports is typically omni-directional.

There is often an unintended side effect with ports that people don't tend to consider. Ports interact with tweeters and mids due to diffraction. Sometimes this can be a pest when it comes to designing the crossover.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2018 at 2:13 PM, Darren69 said:

I have tried the DEQX HDP4 previously, set up by Alan Langford himself sitting in my listening possie. Later on when I tried other non-DSP components, I found I preferred the sound without any DSP, as a whole. DSP seemed to taker something away and I don't know what that is. So, have been there done that but thank you for the suggestion.

With DSP it is very easy to "fix" the response so it is flat on one axis .... but to make it worse in other respects.

 

How the DSP is used is a much bigger factor in the performance than people credit.

 

It would have been interesting to see before/after charts of the system performance to be able to comment on what happened.   Were you given that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


17 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

With DSP it is very easy to "fix" the response so it is flat on one axis .... but to make it worse in other respects.

 

How the DSP is used is a much bigger factor in the performance than people credit.

 

It would have been interesting to see before/after charts of the system performance to be able to comment on what happened.   Were you given that?

Nup, didn't request it either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You must match the speaker to the room its just simple physics

get it right and everything else will fall into place,saves you a lot of heartache not to mention money.

Edited by kab
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You must match the speaker to the room its just simple physics

I think it has more to do with how good the acoustics are in the room than the room size itself, yes a larger speaker will create more energy and potentially cause issues but this isn't necessarily a problem if the room is acoustically treated properly.  

Think about a car with high end stereo, sub's etc... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in todays designs what speaker designer would not take the average listening room into account. I think people are using the room as an excuse to justify saying I spent 50,000 grand on a speaker and it sounds just like a 5000 dollar speaker. They blame the room but how good can a really expensive  speaker sound compared to a realistically priced one. They pretty much use the same drivers and design its just marketing after that. My missus said after taking her to the HiFi show that shouldn't the expensive speakers make any basic room sound great. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


On 26/06/2018 at 2:51 PM, Darren69 said:

So would we think JBL's are tonally balanced for crap metal and rock recordings in an average room? Would their lovely big woofers help me out with more bass?

 

@yamaha_man has stayed true to his label and put the big Yammies forward. What JBL's rock out? I know the 4367's do. Any other decent sized floorstanders?

Mate, forget the new. Get the Blue.

Image result for jbl 4435

Edited by Wimbo
  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red Spade Audio said:

There is often an unintended side effect with ports that people don't tend to consider. Ports interact with tweeters and mids due to diffraction. Sometimes this can be a pest when it comes to designing the crossover.

 

Hello Paul. Could you expand on this point a little more please, for my benefit? How does this diffraction occur? How would you change a crossover to deal with it?

 

I was reading the comments from The Boss on his K2 with its rear port. As far as I can tell, from the way bass frequencies emanate from a port, it should make no difference, to the bass response and room interaction, whether the port is on the front, bottom (with a sufficient gap) or back of a speaker. What are your thoughts on this?

 

Regards

Grant

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, murrmax said:

I think it has more to do with how good the acoustics are in the room than the room size itself, yes a larger speaker will create more energy and potentially cause issues but this isn't necessarily a problem if the room is acoustically treated properly.  

Think about a car with high end stereo, sub's etc... 

 

Sorry have to disagree 

getting the low frequencies right is number 1 regardless of room size/treatments etc

everything else follows

Edited by kab
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

Hello Paul. Could you expand on this point a little more please, for my benefit? How does this diffraction occur? How would you change a crossover to deal with it?

Any edge or bump on a speaker (eg. a port, or a driver, or an edge) will produce a new sound wave (diffraction) ...  When summed with the original sound, the result will be a peak or dip in the response.

 

The EQ (eg. a crossover filter) to the speaker can be adjusted to compensate for this (eg. remove the peak or dip).   However as the diffraction effect is not the same at each place you observe the speaker from.... then whether to flatten the diffraction peak or dip based on the listening position response is not a simple question.

 

This is an example of my reply to Daren earlier, saying that DSP, used to arbitrarily flatten the speaker from a single (or low number of) measurement position - can sometimes have a poor result.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


Quote

getting the low frequencies right is number 1 regardless of room size/treatments etc

Well the only way to get the low frequencies right is to use proper sized bass drivers i.e 12, 15 or 18 +  inch ... 

casse-JBL-4355-550x302.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, murrmax said:

Well the only way to get the low frequencies right is to use proper sized bass drivers i.e 12, 15 or 18 +  inch ... 

casse-JBL-4355-550x302.jpg

Good example of what not to do 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes not optimal, but matching speaker size and room size is a myth. The elephant is the room, worth watching the first 5 minutes or so ..

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, murrmax said:

 

Yes not optimal, but matching speaker size and room size is a myth. The elephant is the room, worth watching the first 5 minutes or so ..

 

 

 

 

Interesting thanks @murrmax Being someone who has relatively large speakers in a small room I tended to agree with what they were saying however the only thing i will add is the fact small rooms limit speaker/listener distance and some larger speakers with multiple drivers requires a certain optimal listening distance for optimal coherence which cannot always be achieved in a smaller room.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Tubularbells said:

 

Interesting thanks @murrmax Being someone who has relatively large speakers in a small room I tended to agree with what they were saying however the only thing i will add is the fact small rooms limit speaker/listener distance and some larger speakers with multiple drivers requires a certain optimal listening distance for optimal coherence which cannot always be achieved in a smaller room.

 

I used to think the same, but I've heard a couple of horn systems (JBL everest clones) where the seating position is essentially near field.

The imaging and coherence was astounding, no issues at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
57 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:
I used to think the same, but I've heard a couple of horn systems (JBL everest clones) where the seating position is essentially near field.
The imaging and coherence was astounding, no issues at all. 

IME near field listening is a completely different experience with a completey different set of rules. Whether that's because the room and its relationship to the speakers is less of an issue, I am not sure (but I suspect this is the reason). Someone like Paul, with a solid grasp of all things acoustics, can probably offer a better explanation.

I've found it much easier to set up and listen to just about any speaker in a near field application.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Marc said:

IME near field listening is a completely different experience with a completey different set of rules. Whether that's because the room and its relationship to the speakers is less of an issue, I am not sure. Someone like Paul, with a solid grasp of all things acoustics, can probably offer a better explanation.

I've found it much easier to set up and listen to just about any speaker in a near field application.

Oh I like reading such things, my room is a glorified walk in robe. :D 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched dynaudios video and he does know what he is talking about.  From my experience,  I can say that small rooms do present major problems for hi-end speakers with very low bass.   Putting it very simply in a small room it becomes a tradeoff  between clean sound and a big open natural sound, ideally, most of us want both.

Edited by HCH
Personal
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  i agree darren, nearfield is different to a large room with a big system, have done that several times ,these days after downsizing i find the nearfield experience is quite intimate, it doesn't take much(just move the chair either way a few inches) you know when you have got it and sit there with a big smile on your face.

me750 005.JPG

me750 004.JPG

original pics 024.JPG

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Wimbo said:

Mate, forget the new. Get the Blue.

Image result for jbl 4435

Ahhh, my old 4350’s what a great set of speakers. As discussed room treatment is absolutely critical for good sound. My place is ok but I know it can be better. Once my 2 new projects are done I will dig into room acoustics cause it’s worth the time and money.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Grant Slack said:

Hello Paul. Could you expand on this point a little more please, for my benefit? How does this diffraction occur? How would you change a crossover to deal with it?

 

I was reading the comments from The Boss on his K2 with its rear port. As far as I can tell, from the way bass frequencies emanate from a port, it should make no difference, to the bass response and room interaction, whether the port is on the front, bottom (with a sufficient gap) or back of a speaker. What are your thoughts on this?

 

Regards

Grant

Dave answered the first part well.

 

Coming to the second part ... there are two separate issues. The first is quite basic. Any port needs clearance to work properly. With front ports or downfiring, the designer has insured you can't muck this up. With rear ports there is the risk that you might push it too close to the wall and block it. There are 3 basic things that can happen depending on the gap:

 

1. Free and clear - you have enough clearance for it to work as designed

2. Blocked - bass output is blocked and the speaker behaves more like a sealed box

3. Mixed - with the right gap, the area around the port becomes like an extension of the port, slightly altering the tuning but also at high output, altering how the speaker behaves

 

The second issue is probably more sigificant. The position of the port can impact the room interaction. A rear port, depending on the depth of the speaker, will be closer to the rear wall. It might result in a better bass response. A downfiring port has the port closer to the floor - often this is an advantage in terms of the speaker-room interaction. You can measure this - often a woofer or port closer to the floor measures better.

 

Keeping in mind that with a ported speaker, both the woofer and port will interact with the room, depending on the relative position of each to the room boundaries.

5 hours ago, Marc said:

IME near field listening is a completely different experience with a completey different set of rules. Whether that's because the room and its relationship to the speakers is less of an issue, I am not sure (but I suspect this is the reason). Someone like Paul, with a solid grasp of all things acoustics, can probably offer a better explanation.

I've found it much easier to set up and listen to just about any speaker in a near field application.

By nearfield do you mean right up close as you would in a studio? Or just quite a bit closer than people would normally use?

 

Assuming we're not talking about a studio style nearfield situation, in any room it's about the ratio of direct sound (from the speaker only) to reverberant sound (all the sound that bounces around the room and arrives at your ears). A lot of people start with a very strong reverberant field. Speakers too close to the wall, listening position too far back into the room. Sometimes it's a compromise you have to live with, but if you have the choice, the first thing to do is bring your speakers out from the wall (and often toe them in a bit). And then bring forward your listening chair. You might start with an equilateral triangle and then move back a bit from that. When you change just these two things, the sound stage can improve significantly. When you add treatment, one of the things you are doing is changing that ratio - you are dialing back the reflected sound. The sound becomes more clear, more transparent, more neutral.

 

One of the tricky things about speaker placement is that you are changing many things at the same time. The position relative to the boundaries will change the bass and low midrange - sometimes some things better, others worse. You can measure this but often the result is a mixed bag, so it can lead to confusion about what to do. You're also changing the sound stage - the depth and the width most noticably. This is the thing most easily picked up just by listening and I would argue it's also the thing that should mostly drive the decision about what sounds best. You can correct for bass and low midrange fairly easily but once you kill the sound stage with poor placement, there is no other solution. Except in some cases, speakers better suited to your room and ambitions.

 

Quote

Yes not optimal, but matching speaker size and room size is a myth.

 

In general I agree - it's a myth. Size is poor predictor of how well a speaker will work in a room.

 

Edited by Red Spade Audio
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

I used to think the same, but I've heard a couple of horn systems (JBL everest clones) where the seating position is essentially near field.

The imaging and coherence was astounding, no issues at all. 

Na thats not what I meant, what I was trying to say was some designs require a certain listing distance for all drivers to 'become as one' for lack of a better description. Im sure If you sat 1m from mammoth speakers such as Joz's SGR's then all you would hear is the driver closest to your ears where as with mine and your previous Zingali's  being a 2 way design I think allows for a closer listening position than a speaker with 5+ drivers and you wouldn't class my JBL's or Zingali's as being particularly small speakers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tubularbells said:

Na thats not what I meant, what I was trying to say was some designs require a certain listing distance for all drivers to 'become as one' for lack of a better description. Im sure If you sat 1m from mammoth speakers such as Joz's SGR's then all you would hear is the driver closest to your ears...

I did that, it's freaking great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tony ray said:

Very interested to hear how these sound at the Audio show.

JBL-Synthesis.jpg

I hope they sound better than they look 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tony ray said:

Very interested to hear how these sound at the Audio show.

JBL-Synthesis.jpg

 

Any info on what will be demo'd? 

 

As my house comprises of many 70's archways these would blend right in I reckon.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Tubularbells said:

 

Any info on what will be demo'd? 

 

As my house comprises of many 70's archways these would blend right in I reckon.

There the new JBL synthesis range that were featured on stereonet awhile back.

 

55 minutes ago, awayward said:

I hope they sound better than they look 🙂

I thought they looked great. Maybe im livin the 70s

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tony ray said:

There the new JBL synthesis range that were featured on stereonet awhile back.

 

I thought they looked great. Maybe im livin the 70s

Remember this?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, rantan said:

Remember this?

 

Yes I loved Skyhooks. And Shirls Neibourhood. Pity he couldn't drive a Chopper. Maybe he should of gone to Nam and learnt how to fly instead of being a rock star. 

Thems the breaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tony ray said:

Yes I loved Skyhooks. And Shirls Neibourhood. Pity he couldn't drive a Chopper. Maybe he should of gone to Nam and learnt how to fly instead of being a rock star. 

Thems the breaks.

Nope. anyone in the right( or wrong )mind would have steered well of the hell hole where a sovereign country was invaded by America purely on an idealogical basis.

 

Anyway, Shirl died as he lived...having fun, doing what he wanted. One cannot ask for more.

 

Edit:apologies to all for the OT. Normal transmission is now restored😀

Edited by rantan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Tony ray said:

Yes I loved Skyhooks. And Shirls Neibourhood. Pity he couldn't drive a Chopper. Maybe he should of gone to Nam and learnt how to fly instead of being a rock star. 

Thems the breaks.

check the fuuel shirl

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2018 at 8:57 AM, Marc said:

IME near field listening is a completely different experience

Yes.   It is because of the change in ratio of the direct sound, and the reflected sound.    You are getting "more of the speaker" vs the room.

 

Many speakers have both poor quality and too much "room sound" .... and moving closer avoids that to some extent.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On ‎25‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 8:09 AM, skies2clear said:

There are a lot of options with both JBL and TAD if you are capable of quality DIY for a lot less money for some of us mere mortals.

 

Funny topic, my woofer is a TAD, the mid horn and driver JBL and the tweeter is a Pioneer. Very happy with the result.

 

I could only afford a Toyota though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Marc changed the title to JBL Discussion & Owner's Thread
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...