jbl haters

[greyhound]

Im currently defending JBL against a bunch off audiophiles who are trying to convince me that JBL is rubbish and that i should trow them in the garbage.(www.hear.nl (http://www.hear.nl) forum)
I told them that every speaker (no matter how good it is ) will have a specific sound. In other words the speaker itself will have influence in the end result. I think some speakers are better in rock than otehers and some are better in classical or techno.
I Said that of all the speakers ive heard in my life JBL is the one that makes sense of all kinds of music. They say if a speaker has preferences (soory for my english) its no good.
Im a fighting windmills here or am i right.
if you guys think im wrong i will immediatly accept it.
So please let me know what your thinking
robin

[LowPhreak]

Well, that's some of the same old "audiophile" crap I've heard for years. A lot of those guys are concerned mainly with imaging/soundstaging, who has the most exotic design, and bling. Anything that has real-world dynamics and honest, accurate bass output louder than a mouse fart is poo-pooed.

:bs:


"They say if a speaker has preferences...its no good."

Let me tell ya, I've owned some of the best "audiophile approved" speakers (Apogee, B&W, Entec, KEF, Magnepan, Martin-Logan, Quad, REL), and there isn't a speaker in the world that doesn't "have preferences", ie: they ALL imprint their own "sound" on the end result. Some of these guys live in a fantasy world where they think if they try hard enough and throw enough money at it, that some day the perfect "neutral" speaker will come about. :banghead:

Ain't gonna happen.

I've learned my lesson the hard way: you play what sounds most realistic to you and let the rest take a hike.

[greyhound]

thats what i said. "youre living in a dream world when you think a speaker just reproduces sound"
there will always be influence from the drivers , cabinets and so on.
I told them the K2 s9500 was the best Speaker ive heard in my life time. They said its crap because it only goes until 35hz -6db.
That must mean there are no good small cabinet speakers:bs:

in my opinion when a speaker goes down to 20 hz you will need the perfect listening room. Some times you hear more room than music.

A speaker is as good as the room you place it in right?
for them its not about music but "how "something sounds.

im talking to deaf people there. or am i?

[hjames]

im talking to deaf people there. or am i?



I think part of the problem is that once you have a certain amount of money invested in your system, you pretty much have to defend its merits above and beyond all comers or you seem a bit ... ridiculous. Its kind of like a placebo effect - you just HAVE to hear a difference.

"I've spent $30,000 on this pair of Martin Lawrence speakers (made up name) and they are beyond your luddite Altec Model 19s (or JBL L300s or whatever). The sheer glisten of the violins heard in the post sonic range of 35ooo hz is just exquisite. I pooh pooh on your JBLs ... 20-20k is for dull-ears!"

Or some such silly thing.
It really doesn't sound like a place for productive discussions when all they do is insult you or your brand.

[Titanium Dome]

Ultimately it's pointless to argue with someone about brands or about specifications. Others will be emotionally attached to their favorite speakers just as I am attached to mine. We may try to use charts, graphs, and specifications to prove our point, but everyone (except Bose!) can produce those things. Then the argument shifts to "how" the sound was measured, or "why" one specification is more important than another, or "where" the measurement was made, or "what" was used in the audio chain to make the sound, etc.

Very few people have ever listened to many speakers other than the ones they ended up purchasing, and the last time they heard a brand like JBL turns the argument into a "when" did you last hear a JBL, if ever?

The fact remains that JBL is one of the oldest continuous loudspeaker brands in the world. Over its long history, it has accumulated more awards, developed more important technical and engineering innovations, and maintained the most diversified product line than virtually any other loudspeaker manufacturer.

As a part of Harman International, it has access to the world's most sophisticated loudspeaker design and testing facility, has developed the world's most sophisticated listening panels and double-blind listening protocols, and has access to the greatest technical and artistic minds in loudspeaker design, all at the Northridge, California facility.

JBL dominates theater, music hall, stadium, live venue, recording studio, and auditorium sound in many parts of the world. It is the most consistently widely-distributed brand around the world (check its Web site for countries and languages), and it has the largest support activities of any major brand.

JBL recently won international recognition and awards for its Everest II DD66000, following up on its international award-winning K2 S9800. It developed unique and amazing technologies, including transducers, which are world-class and best-in-class in their execution.

JBL is at the forefront of car audio, marine audio, professional audio, and home audio.

It is also true that it is one of the most often criticized brands among boutique speaker owners, snobs, and people who hate big companies. Often these people will compare the under $1000/pair entry level JBL consumer speakers with speakers that cost much more and use that as an indictment of the entire product line. But on a price segment comparison basis, JBL can match or beat any brand out there.

At the high end, it has a number of offerings that will humiliate similar priced lines, but since most people have never heard these JBLs, these people will use poor arguments and specs on paper to make their judgments. I make it a point to go to audio shops when I can to listen to the best they have. I am open to finding speakers that I can afford that will sound better than my JBLs.

But in any case, when someone attacks JBLs, I can say that I have heard their speakers and what my opinion is based on actually hearing them, or I keep my mouth shut if I haven't heard them. If they cannot say they have heard comparable JBLs, then they are ignorant in every sense of the word, and I have no reason to want to argue with an ignorant person. It wastes both of our times.

[SEAWOLF97]

The FORD , CHEVY and MOPAR guys all do that same thing.....
It really has nothing to do with JBL or even speakers....it's just current human nature.

[Andyoz]

Well, that's some of the same old "audiophile" crap I've heard for years. A lot of those guys are concerned mainly with imaging/soundstaging, who has the most exotic design, and bling. Anything that has real-world dynamics and honest, accurate bass output louder than a mouse fart is poo-pooed.

It took me a long time to learn that lesson. In the UK at least, when you hear a reviewer ravving about a speaker, they are nomally basing it on the performance with jazz/classical. Imaging/soundstage is everything to these guys but they generally don't worry about bass impact/dynamics.

Anyway, don't let it get to you. Be safe in the knowledge that a lot of these audiophiles are actually getting ripped-off. I once overheard a conversion at a hi-fi show where a new loudspeaker designer was talking to a well respected retailer about what price point to target his new 2 way speaker design (6.25" woofer + tweeter - usual boring design). They were basically picking numbers (high numbers!) out of the air with no consideration of the actual production costs, etc. They knew that some audiophile would buy this new "groundbreaking" design no matter what the price is.

That's the day I stopped reading reviews, etc.

[dino]

From the 1940s altec lansing set the speaker audiophile world on fire. other speaker companies had 20 years to come up with there answer! (its so lonely at the top) Just when you thought it couldnt get any better here comes JBL, The Lansing speaker company set the standerd so damm high ethier you came correct or dont come at all.( Like james brown said-this is a man world)It was 1982 or 84 when jbl set the standerd agin with the L-250 the most accurate speaker in the world. If you are a true audiophile and it doesant matter what country your from -say the name JBL, I dont care what responce you get good or bad they KNOW the name JBL.

[SEAWOLF97]

That's the day I stopped reading reviews, etc.

I always like Julian Hirsh and Ken Pohlman ... they seemed to be "well grounded"

[Andyoz]

There was trend in the UK in the 80/90's where "Audiophiles" were buying extremely expensive turntable/amps and running them into speakers costing about 1/10 the price of the rest of their system.

Some opinion leader in audiophile circles had convinced people that this was a good basis to design a system, i.e. if it aint' perfect at the source, you can't improve on it. Imagine listening to Led Zep on those type of systems.

[Tom Brennan]

Arguing preference is futile.

Besides, today's typical "high-end" type audiophile is an overly refined, decadent and delusional ninny who'd be hard pressed to tell the working end of a hammer. Why care what such fools think?

[JBLRaiser]

Im currently defending JBL against a bunch off audiophiles who are trying to convince me that JBL is rubbish and that i should trow them in the garbage.(www.hear.nl (http://www.hear.nl) forum)
I told them that every speaker (no matter how good it is ) will have a specific sound. In other words the speaker itself will have influence in the end result. I think some speakers are better in rock than otehers and some are better in classical or techno.
I Said that of all the speakers ive heard in my life JBL is the one that makes sense of all kinds of music. They say if a speaker has preferences (soory for my english) its no good.
Im a fighting windmills here or am i right.
if you guys think im wrong i will immediatly accept it.
So please let me know what your thinking
robin

bash JBL speakers. The L100 gets bashed here all the time.:dont-know :D

[Andyoz]

Greyhound,

Remember, at least you're not part of a group for which this product is targeted:

http://6moons.com/audioreviews/furutech5/demag.html ......It's an $1,800 vinyl LP demagnetizer of course :applaud:

p.s. it does CD's and cables as well.....cooks a mean Flapjack too apparently!

[Tom Brennan]

I call it 6 morons.

[Rolf]

There was trend in the UK in the 80/90's where "Audiophiles" were buying extremely expensive turntable/amps and running them into speakers costing about 1/10 the price of the rest of their system.

Some opinion leader in audiophile circles had convinced people that this was a good basis to design a system, i.e. if it aint' perfect at the source, you can't improve on it. Imagine listening to Led Zep on those type of systems.

Don't really know how it is today, but in my most active hi-fi time it was said that a pair of speakers should cost the same or more as your amp and record player.

[Robh3606]

Besides, today's typical "high-end" type audiophile is an overly refined, decadent and delusional ninny who'd be hard pressed to tell the working end of a hammer.

Tom your killing me here:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


I have lived with people bashing my JBL's since the 70's. Who cares what they think I like them and that's all that counts.

Rob:)

[Andyoz]

The review says it demagnetizes "game CD's" as well.

That's my lads Xmas present sorted then. I'm sure he'd be delghted I blew $1,800 on that instead of 25 new games for him :D

[L100t Owner]

The FORD , CHEVY and MOPAR guys all do that same thing.....
It really has nothing to do with JBL or even speakers....it's just current human nature.

Bingo!

I have B&W 801's that sound amazing. I have had Klipsch (K Horns) that I enjoyed just as much. FWIW I bought JBL drivers to replave the EV stuff that came with the Klipsch.

I also have a friend that literally has hundreds of thousands in planars, from small pairs to high end. Love them too.

The funny thing is that on the Klipsch forum they bash B&W and sometimes JBL, here everything but JBL and Altec gets bashed, on B&W, everything but B&W (although they are really technically challenged - afraid to change a capacitor - big mystery).

Point is that bench racing goes on everywhere. How 'bout then Bears?

[spwal]

I think B&W are awesome, though i would never openly admit it. :p

I heard some of their multi-driver towers and they exquisitely, i mean really really amazingly presented sketches of spain by miles davis. From that moment on, i have been chasing the dragon.

I think it has alot to do with the amp that was used: a bigass set of Classe monoblocks providing tons of juice.

I have also heard the CDM 1nt "entry level high end" monitors and though i was young and impressionable at the time, they sounded great. Now, i realize just how gawdarful they are.

I have typically underpowered my speakers (30 or less watts), and wonder if i have suffered as a result.

I have kicked the SET bug (for now), and realize now that I can get similar satisfaction from the likes of a Pass Labs Aleph 3/30/J which has their own take on how to make an amp.


You cant diss B&W for doing everything right -- High WAF, a snazzy yellow cone, nice fit finish and polish, fancy brocure showing fuzzy haired old brits in suspenders pensively working a microplane...

They are the Bose of Highend and will likely sit in that perch for a long time, as their well-heeled owners make them a standard. Who would come to your cocktail party if you didnt have a pair of 805s softly playing smooth jazz??

[boputnam]

So please let me know what your thinking
robinHi, Robin...

Sorry, dood, but they are correct - completely correct. JBL sucks.

Please do not convince them otherwise. To do so would only overcrowd our already mussy forum, and drive up prices on our beloved JBL.

Let them maintain their ignorance - it's in all our interest!

:p

[soundboy]

Heard all of this before...my take, is with lowphreak, it's human nature. I have several different systems/speakers. Dynaudio, and several JBL monitors, two B460 clones...they do different things better than each other. I could care about specs...I want flat from 50-16K or so, for sure, but....if something goes to 20hz, it means nothing to me...in my live sound rig that goes to 40hz at high effeciency, there really isn't much music down below 50, anyway, and believe me, they shake the walls, and also sound great with an acoustic guitar and vocal. What I will say, as a long time DIY builder, is I feel it is CRIMINAL what some of the high end is charging for speakers. I can understand a JBL statement system costing what it does...look at the drivers, craftmanship, and parts, and engineering involved....what always pissed me off, is the money for some of the wilson audio stuff. Like the little mini monitors. A couple hundred in drivers...and several thousands for the cabinet???. Last time I saw a response graph in a review, it was terrible...."done by ear" is what it seemed, but that is only part of the process.......I think it is arrogant what they charge. That's my human take on it. I have to add, some JBL's sound way better than others. Well, here we go with the L100 again...but like everything else, it does some things well...like for instance throw the voices in the room, instead of placing them 20 feet back like a Boston...but I prefer the flatter sound of a 4313, 4301, L96, L110, etc. And none of those sound really great until you update/replace the old crossover parts. I am not a home audio horn fan....used to be. But I would still rather have a 43XX anything than a B&W anything in my family room for movies/music. The biggest thing is the maturity and knowledge not to take any of this personally. There are many many great speakers, past and present. And, people that just bash JBL generally, fall in to a kind of snobbish/ignorant catagory, with very little real understanding of what makes a speaker work....and certainly a fraction of what the JBL engineers know.
Also, remember, this is a JBL forum...we bash Bose....the Bose, Boston, B&W whatevers can do the same to us on their forums...it's all OK....

[Thom]

I used to use the obvious quality of JBL drivers as a selling tool. The other side would counter with what you bought them for was to listen to. You could have a stale mate there I suppose or the JBL could loose if you liked the way the other sounded better. Or you could not like the sound of the JBL quite as well but buy it for the quality of it's components but why would you buy the speaker with the lesser quality components if you were going to have to modify it to listen to it?

People who hated JBL used to say you were taking a speaker designed for PA and bringing in indoors not realizing they had been designed for home use first. I guess I they want to get into imaging the D130 and 375 and 175DLH were designed before stereo and imaging is sorta tuff in mono.

I never have understood why diy books always centered about university and such and almost never JBL. I suppose there are many possible answers.

[greyhound]

well you guys are telling me tehe same things i already told them. They keep coming back with the fact that a speaker shouldnt have colour, taste or preference to some kind of music. They realy think a speaker should do nothing but reproduce. I dint think its possible to make that kind of speaker.
They rave about wilsson puppys en speakers like that. Ive heard them and found them boring.
I think im going to trow in the towel. Thanks for all your replies. realy appriciate it.

:applaud:
or maybe ill try one more time.:biting:

[SUPERBEE]

As I have said before......

I have heard alot of different systems in my time. From pro to home. And when I find anything that sounds better than my JBL rig, I will buy it!

[coherent_guy]

JBL bashing has been fashionable among some hard-core audiophiles for a long time. It's done for many reasons, to establish their credibility, to scorn the mainstream/big manufactuer, or the audiophile "I know better", "I am superior" mentality. "I replaced a capacitor in an amp, I know better than the designers."

A concept I see mentioned currently in high-end audiophile culture is that of a speaker or other component being "voiced" by its creator. That is, its sound is biased or adjusted in some way. While neutrality can be voiced, it is not the stated purpose of voicing. How do voicing and neutrality coexist?

Check the frequency response graphs of true high-end speakers, they are all over the place. Some are very flat but that is not common. Check the response curves of electrostatic or other planar type driver speakers, they are very. . . different. But that is dismissed as their nature, and is OK. Not to put those speakers down, but why in one case is unflat response acceptable and in another it is not? JBL was said to have the California sound and at one time it very well did, in some of it's products. That reputation has been difficult for JBL to leave behind with some audiophiles, simply because those audiophiles don't want to leave it behind!

A speaker with a flat frequency response guarantees nothing of the sort when it is in a listening room. The end result is a crap-shoot. That is why some reviewers are thrilled about the new digital room EQ products, there is finally a chance to have flat response!

Regarding 20 to 20kHz frequency response, how many speakers truly achieve this? When I say that, I mean achieve it at an SPL level where 20hz is audible. I always laugh when I see some high-end speaker with a 6.5 or 8 inch woofer claim that it reproduces 20hz. Sure, the cone moves at that frequency, but you need about 80db SPL at least for it to be audible at all. I always wonder why in reviews there aren't any measurements given about SPL levels, or comments about loudness levels. A few do, but they are the exception. I recall one high-end mag's review of a moderately priced JBL speaker, where the comment was how amazing the dynamics and undistorted volume levels were. That from an 8" 3-way bookshelf system!

I'm beginning to think that all the anti-JBL prejudice is pure spin in order to make others look good. They can compete with them only by dismissing them with some terminal affliction. That really is the ultimate compliment.

[LowPhreak]

I think im going to trow in the towel. Thanks for all your replies. realy appriciate it.

:applaud:
or maybe ill try one more time.:biting:

Issue them a challenge: tell them to sit in a room and do an A/B/X blind test (if they have the cojones to do so) with any of their speakers and a similarly priced JBL. Until they do, they ought to STFU.

[loach71]

Greyhound,

Remember, at least you're not part of a group for which this product is targeted:

http://6moons.com/audioreviews/furutech5/demag.html ......It's an $1,800 vinyl LP demagnetizer of course :applaud:

p.s. it does CD's and cables as well.....cooks a mean Flapjack too apparently!

A fool and his money are soon parted....;)

[greyhound]

Issue them a challenge: tell them to sit in a room and do an A/B/X blind test (if they have the cojones to do so) with any of their speakers and a similarly priced JBL. Until they do, they ought to STFU.

problem is that they throw speakers at me that cost about 15.000 euro's
Thats about hmmm 16.000 dollar?
JBl doesnt have speakers that cost that much.
I think i will just start anoying them by saying there right and im wrong and asking for frogiveness.
Pardon my english again.

[Zilch]

Yes JBL DOES make product at that price point.

Project Array, comes to mind.

Tell them it's such a terrible "shame" that they can not afford K2S9800 or Everest II ($30,000).... :p

[Andyoz]

problem is that they throw speakers at me that cost about 15.000 euro's

In the audiophile world, there is normally a large discrepancy between what a product "cost" and what it's actually "worth". ;)

[soundboy]

I have heard it all back in the day. Some of the more memorable ones:

JBL stands for:
"Just Barely Listenable"....
"Japanese Box Lunch"...
"Just Bad Loudspeakers"...
"Jazz boom loudly"

[SMKSoundPro]

I have heard it all back in the day. Some of the more memorable ones:

JBL stands for:
"Just Barely Listenable"....
"Japanese Box Lunch"...
"Just Bad Loudspeakers"...
"Jazz boom loudly"

HOW IN THE WORLD DID YOU LEAVE OUT:


"JUNKY, BUT LOUD!!!"

Smk.

"got no highs, got no lows...must be Bose!"
Bose stands for "Bothers other's silent enjoyment"-smk

[Storm]

Got any ALTEC ones?

:)

-Storm.

[richluvsound]

I spent tons on some Roksan, Klipcsh and Quad gear in November. I was bored by January.I Ebayed the bloody lot !
I sat there like a statue afraid to move incase I
lost the soundstage. What a complete waste of time. I did'nt even enjoy my music all i did was analize it ( english humour).
Anyway, I picked up a pair of 4435's and they make this
45 year old man giggle like a big kid . I bloody love Jbl . Infact , i'm building another pair , 4345's . Someone even asked me If I trying to compensate for a small cxxk ?"

[Andyoz]

I spent tons on some Roksan, Klipcsh and Quad gear in November. I was bored by January.I Ebayed the bloody lot !
I sat there like a statue afraid to move incase I
lost the soundstage. What a complete waste of time. I did'nt even enjoy my music all i did was analize it ( english humour).

Your post did make me laugh. I couldn't agree more as I went through the same thing about a year ago.

The English press rant and rave about certain items of gear and when you actually have a listen it leaves you...well "bored" is the best word for it really.

Where did you get the 4435's by the way (didn't you post re. buying something in early January)? I'm still after a pristine pair of 4430's to get a bit of 'Jekyll & Hyde' sound going with my 250Ti's.

[John W]

They realy think a speaker should do nothing but reproduce. I dint think its possible to make that kind of speaker.

Reproduce what? I'm guessing the music they listen to isn't cut to vinyl directly from the microphone. It was probably mixed by an engineer and the artist, hopefully using JBL. Perhaps the goal would be to reproduce the music like the artist intended.
I'll bet the mixing console had op amps and electrolytic caps in the signal path to boot.

[Titanium Dome]

Got any ALTEC ones?

:)

-Storm.

One I've heard from people who mock it is

A
Lousy
Tinny
Electronic
Cacophony

probably in reference to some of the horn designs, but I don't know for sure.

(Don't kill the messenger.)

[DJ Vincenzo]

many many haters on Prosoundweb.com... many of these self proclaimed engineers from time to time would give examples of how the speaker or amp should've been re-designed. These "rodies" make me chuckle.

[boputnam]

many many haters on Prosoundweb.com... many of these self proclaimed engineers from time to time would give examples of how the speaker or amp should've been re-designed. These "rodies" make me chuckle.I've seen the same thing over there. There are a few guys there that think Rane is "top shelf". :blink: That said, there are some really great guys with worlds of experience who's insight is worth finding. Trouble is, like here, those with tenure come 'round less often as the community grows - the repetitiveness of it all wears on them. Gear reviews can be very useful as it is from some real-life trials. As well, there are many equip makers who watch the place (QSC, KT, etc) and chime in on technical questions but carefully avoid the promote...

Recently, I've seen some evenhanded reviews of the SRX and MRX lines, without any flak. I think JBL can win them over if they give it a listen.

[MJC]

Some people think they need to buy $200k+ speakers, some people will only buy Electrostatics, or Ribbon speakers and some just have their heads up their :moon: , which is the only reason they buy the speakers they do, because they really can't hear them.

As for myself, I'll stay with JBL, they're are the only speaker company that has Greg Timbers and the top of the rock, Everest.

As the 1960 album cover stated, "50 Million Elvis fans can't be wrong"
so goes, "300+ back orders for $60k/pr Everest can't be wrong":applaud:

[Mr. Widget]

I really truly like JBL as a brand... I love their history, and appreciate the attention to detail, the quality, the engineering, the art, and the science of JBL... but I judge every pair of speakers on it's own merits and there are many speakers that I'd rather listen to than many JBLs. Most JBL's do have more character or a stronger sonic signature than I like... I don't like boring lifeless speakers, but I don't like speakers that put a "sameness" over the top of all of my music.

That said the other day as I was getting filthy crawling into a dusty cabinet at a construction site rescuing a pair of JBLs that were going to be tossed out, my buddy said, "why do you want that old junk"... followed by, "I bet you wouldn't save them if they didn't have that JBL badge on them."

He was right... if they were many other brands of speakers I wouldn't have sucked in a lung full of dust, but I just couldn't see a pair of old friends getting sent to the dump.


FWIW: I'd get dusty for a pair of B+W 801s or Wilson's too.:D


Widget

[SMKSoundPro]

"300+ back orders for $60k/pr Everest can't be wrong":applaud:[/quote]
IS this true?

Scott.

[Mr. Widget]

Not sure if they are that far back ordered, but at present, they are having difficulty keeping up with demand... and having heard them, it isn't all that surprising... they are so much better than anything I have ever heard with the JBL badge on them... they are amazing.


Widget

[Zilch]

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=143744#post143744

[Mr. Widget]

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=143744#post143744
...translation, as of that post they were behind by 105 pairs and expected to sell around 300 pairs of Everest IIs by the end of their first year of production... not bad for a $60K system. :applaud:


Widget

[greyhound]

I spent tons on some Roksan, Klipcsh and Quad gear in November. I was bored by January.I Ebayed the bloody lot !
I sat there like a statue afraid to move incase I
lost the soundstage. What a complete waste of time. I did'nt even enjoy my music all i did was analize it ( english humour).
Anyway, I picked up a pair of 4435's and they make this
45 year old man giggle like a big kid . I bloody love Jbl . Infact , i'm building another pair , 4345's . Someone even asked me If I trying to compensate for a small cxxk ?"

oh man i realy love the 4435 but i cant afford them.
The "analizing "factor plays a big rol with these guys. Listening to how far the drums are behind the vocals and that kind of things.
I do that some times but i can shut it off and just enjoy my music.
Its like when someone behind a reporter on tv does something strange you will not hear what the reporter has to say you'l be focust on the guy (drums) in the back.

[greyhound]

anyone withe a nice link to the everest 2 that i can throw at them.
curious to what they will say to put it down.
havent listend to them myself yet.
anyone with first hand expirience?

hoe does it compare to the K2 series.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Im currently defending JBL against a bunch off audiophiles who are trying to convince me that JBL is rubbish and that i should trow them in the garbage.(www.hear.nl (http://www.hear.nl) forum)
I told them that every speaker (no matter how good it is ) will have a specific sound. In other words the speaker itself will have influence in the end result. I think some speakers are better in rock than otehers and some are better in classical or techno.
I Said that of all the speakers ive heard in my life JBL is the one that makes sense of all kinds of music. They say if a speaker has preferences (soory for my english) its no good.
Im a fighting windmills here or am i right.
if you guys think im wrong i will immediatly accept it.
So please let me know what your thinking
robin

Hi Robin,

I would suggest your buddies are protecting their justification for all their expensive Hifi Jewellery.

The point is though what JBLs are they talking about. The L100, the L166 or the L250Ti, or the newer K2's.

Perhaps your argument should be to think if you lined up an L250 against anything else of the same era it would hold its own.

Dont expect something of that era to compete with the latest wonders of the 2007 CES. Head to head though at the moment the E2 possibily has everything else in the corner.

On a more down to earth level I did a tour of a few reputable HiFi shops today and compared some loudspeakers that I could afford on the spot and take home in the car just to see what was out there. $AUD4000-5000

The contenders were the PMC FB1+
http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/fb1.html

The Legend Kantu
http://www.legendspeakers.com.au/products/kantu.html

The B & W 704
http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products.models/label/MODEL%20704

These are all current and really good home loudspeakers. They had no JBLs in the shop but we played familiar hi quality cds using a hi end Cyrus CD front end a Musical Fidelity top of the line integrated amp.

They were all what I would call HiFi accurate and had a nice timbre in the upper registers and imaged really well but they had their own sound in that one model tended to do some things better than the other model.

The PMC had the best mid to hi integration and the most oomp in the bass and it was a bit warm and has a sound stage to die for. I would have preferred the next model up but it was AUD$8000 with a dome mid

The Legend was snappier in presentation with the ceramic dome tweeter and had harder, tighter bass. It was the most neutral but not necessarily the most listenable. The next model up has a biamped sub and similar mid and tweeter, Its about AUD$9000+

The B & W 703 had the biggest sound ( a party trick ) and its performance overall was somewhat less than the others overall. The next model up has a better Kevlar mid and is about AUD$6600. I think I would need to look at the 800 series to get into the ball park with B & W.

A couple of points.

None of them had bass that I would call realistic on Dark Side of the Moon. None of them had what I would call real scale in terms of bass weight and dynamic contrast. These properties are essential for me. Essentially they sounded like powerful small loudspeakers. The dealer has bigger and better but they were around $25000

I walked out empty handed and realised I needed to spent probably $25000 or more to get the accuracy and literal dimension of reproduction I was looking for and frankly I figure if I polish the old lantern in the 4345's at home correctly for long enough I will far surpass what I could reasonably afford. (I have already imho;) )

While the stock vintage JBls may not have the ultimate finesse and timbre in the upper midrange and top end or the pin point imaging there is something very real about they way work in terms of micro dynamic transient attack and that to me is the JBL sound. You can't beat cubic inches under the hood and I am sure with a selection of the newer drivers the JBLs would be right up there.


I have been invited back to hear a Mission system next week!

Ian

[LowPhreak]

Ian -

Try to get a chance to listen to some of the bigger PMC's. They can sound excellent, but PMC's pricing is ridiculous.

:(

[greyhound]

mission is not my kind of speaker. They are the absolute apex when it comes to the true "english "sound. very warm and to warm for me.
I totaly understand yor comments on those speakers i've heard e few of them and the PCM is (if i had to choose) my favourite.

and to make it clear they are talking about All JBL's. They put down everything even the 250's.
The K2 doesnt go low enough bla bla.
But thats about it. They just keep shouting that they dont heve enough bottom So to speak.
A discussion on bass thats audible above 30hz seems impossible. JBl is boomie. (yeah right) It has the fastest and tightest bass ive ever had.

[LowPhreak]

and to make it clear they are talking about All JBL's. They put down everything even the 250's.
The K2 doesnt go low enough bla bla.
But thats about it. They just keep shouting that they dont heve enough bottom So to speak.
A discussion on bass thats audible above 30hz seems impossible. JBl is boomie. (yeah right) It has the fastest and tightest bass ive ever had.

Some of them might not care for ported bass, and I can accept that to a degree. But to make blanket statements like those is simply ignorant.

With some audiophiles, anything larger than a 10" woofer is just 'uncivilized', the assumption being that larger woofs can't be made to behave well.

:screwy:

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ian -

Try to get a chance to listen to some of the bigger PMC's. They can sound excellent, but PMC's pricing is ridiculous.

:(

I will.

But then I will be tempted to negative engineer them instead of an Array Series.:blink:

I would prefer God Given to sink into the 6332 LSR Cheeder which I have very nearly ordered and Turbo twin 2245h's with 800 big ones a side:D

[greyhound]

Some of them might not care for ported bass, and I can accept that to a degree. But to make blanket statements like those is simply ignorant.

With some audiophiles, anything larger than a 10" woofer is just 'uncivilized', the assumption being that larger woofs can't be made to behave well.

:screwy:

most of the speaker they rave about are from small dutch comanies that only excist for a few years. You wouldnt know about em.

fact is they all heve ported bass.
Exotic designs made from limestone and so fort.
they are convinced that some guy who lives in his attic can revolutionise the world of speakers and what we know about them.

[Ian Mackenzie]

mission is not my kind of speaker. They are the absolute apex when it comes to the true "english "sound. very warm and to warm for me.
I totaly understand yor comments on those speakers i've heard e few of them and the PCM is (if i had to choose) my favourite.

and to make it clear they are talking about All JBL's. They put down everything even the 250's.
The K2 doesnt go low enough bla bla.
But thats about it. They just keep shouting that they dont heve enough bottom So to speak.
A discussion on bass thats audible above 30hz seems impossible. JBl is boomie. (yeah right) It has the fastest and tightest bass ive ever had.

What in the way of real emotional music is below 30hz? I have discussed this with the inventer of Calsod and while most agree it tends to be additive to environmental cues it tells you more about the recording environment than the musical performance. ie Abbey Road Studios had problems with the Underground. The sensitive area seems to be above that (30hz) threshold but lets not argue the point over that.

Room dimensions have more to do with audible low bass than most UK HiFi nutters appreciate. Your and my bathroom is bigger than their lounge.

Get it.

Unless they are prepared to sit on their bar stool speakers I sincerley doubt if the silly boffins know what bass iit.

In any case suggest we meet at X marks the spot and go Duck hunting.

Its open season JBL haters.

[Ian Mackenzie]

There are some very nice Danish drivers out there but as one designer put it better results tend to come from getting the best out of a given driver than a so called land mark drivers.

I mean today I sidelined a nice system with a Scan Ring Radiator in favour of a soft textile coated dome tweeter (PCM).

It just spanked the others. I guess those guys listen to their customers.

[Harvey Gerst]

Thanks, for that. Bingo.

That place has many cross and too-often inexperienced but outspoken guys that think Rane is "top shelf". :blink: That said, there are some really great guys with worlds of experience who's insight is worth finding. Trouble is, like here, those with tenure come 'round less often as the community grows. The repetitiveness of it all wears on them. Gear reviews can be very useful as it is from some real-life trials. As well, there are many equip makers who watch the place (QSC, KT, etc) and chime in on technical questions but carefully avoid the promote...
I like to think that my forum over at the R/E/P section of Prosoundweb.com doesn't engage in JBL bashing. While I'm not a big fan of Mark Gander, I certainly applaud JBL for their consistently innovative designs over the years. Our studio has four JBL equipped rooms. And I have an all JBL 5.1 system in my living room.

[LowPhreak]

I would prefer God Given to sink into the 6332 LSR Cheeder which I have very nearly ordered and Turbo twin 2245h's with 800 big ones a side:D

I might possibly could live widdat. :thmbsup:




I mean today I sidelined a nice system with a Scan Ring Radiator in favour of a soft textile coated dome tweeter (PCM).

You heathen, you!

[LowPhreak]

most of the speaker they rave about are from small dutch comanies that only excist for a few years. You wouldnt know about em.



I might not know some of them, but I have heard A.J. Van denHul's little 2-ways, and his amps. The speakers weren't bad, and the amps were "OK", but I think he should stick to making his wonderful cartridges.

I still have one of his Frog's with silver coils he custom made for moi. :) It will be used until the diamond wears out, then if he's still alive I'll send it back for a new tip.

[X_X]

this pair of Martin Lawrence speakers (made up name)


It really doesn't sound like a place for productive discussions when all they do is insult you or your brand.

I love JBL/Altec just as much as the guy, but you made a typing error, or something...

I think there are a lot of great speakers out there- each with it's own unique application that makes them excel. There are too many variables to quantify (some undiscovered) to make a categorical "poo poo" about anything audio. This, coupled with the fact our brains are put together in an infinate number of combinations, might explain why we all hear different things. I mean, have you seen American Idol auditions!?

In the end, some people will defend their brand just as violently as us JBL and Altec fans. Perhaps we have more in common with the "poo poo-ers" than we thought....:blink:

Nate.

[hjames]

The part in quotes was meant to be a playful role-play of a "Martin Lawrence speaker owner" poo-pooing another brand - it was tongue in cheek ... humour ... I figured naming them after a comedy actor would kinda be a giveaway and not offend any real brands.



I love JBL/Altec just as much as the guy, but you made a typing error, or something...

I think there are a lot of great speakers out there- each with it's own unique application that makes them excel. There are too many variables to quantify (some undiscovered) to make a categorical "poo poo" about anything audio. This, coupled with the fact our brains are put together in an infinate number of combinations, might explain why we all hear different things. I mean, have you seen American Idol auditions!?

In the end, some people will defend their brand just as violently as us JBL and Altec fans. Perhaps we have more in common with the "poo poo-ers" than we thought....:blink:

Nate.


I think part of the problem is that once you have a certain amount of money invested in your system, you pretty much have to defend its merits above and beyond all comers or you seem a bit ... ridiculous. Its kind of like a placebo effect - you just HAVE to hear a difference.

"I've spent $30,000 on this pair of Martin Lawrence speakers (made up name) and they are beyond your luddite Altec Model 19s (or JBL L300s or whatever). The sheer glisten of the violins heard in the post sonic range of 35ooo hz is just exquisite. I pooh pooh on your JBLs ... 20-20k is for dull-ears!"

Or some such silly thing.
It really doesn't sound like a place for productive discussions when all they do is insult you or your brand.

[X_X]

The part in quotes was meant to be a playful role-play of a "Martin Lawrence speaker owner" poo-pooing another brand - it was tongue in cheek ... humour ... I figured naming them after a comedy actor would kinda be a giveaway and not offend any real brands.


I meant no offense, just as you meant no offense. I just used what you said to illustrate a point. We all have our favorites. Ours is JBL! :)

[Mr. Widget]

A discussion on bass thats audible above 30hz seems impossible. JBl is boomie. (yeah right) It has the fastest and tightest bass ive ever had.JBL has been around a long time and have produced so many different loudspeakers. Some have been obnoxious boomers and others have some of the cleanest tightest bass I have heard... so you and your "audiophile" friends are probably both right... you are likely thinking of different systems.


Widget

[X_X]

I would suggest your buddies are protecting their justification for all their expensive Hifi Jewellery.

Agreed. I will also point out that the opposite holds true as well. Some people will defend what they have because they can not afford better.


The point is though what JBLs are they talking about. The L100, the L166 or the L250Ti, or the newer K2's. Perhaps your argument should be to think if you lined up an L250 against anything else of the same era it would hold its own. Dont expect something of that era to compete with the latest wonders of the 2007 CES. Head to head though at the moment the E2 possibily has everything else in the corner.

Well said.



None of them had what I would call real scale in terms of bass weight and dynamic contrast. These properties are essential for me. (I).....realised I needed to spend probably $25000 or more to get the accuracy and literal dimension of reproduction I was looking for and frankly I figure if I polish the old lantern in the 4345's at home correctly for long enough I will far surpass what I could reasonably afford. (I have already imho;) )

I find those elements to be absolutely essential for me, too. I think microdynamics and transient speeds come closer to recreating an actual performance than depth and soundstage. Even timbre comes in second place if I'm holding a values contest. The "JBL sound" is more actual, than the artificial ingredients sprinkled on by many current offerings. It appears that JBL sorta lost their way for a few years, but it now appears that they are returning to their roots with that JBL sound again. It's nice to see a company accept, embrace, and refine the signature qualities that are evident in their products. Too many manufacturers are trying to be inert, and it results in products with no soul.

I am working hard on a pair of 4345's right now, and your words are very encouraging! :)

[greyhound]

I might not know some of them, but I have heard A.J. Van denHul's little 2-ways, and his amps. The speakers weren't bad, and the amps were "OK", but I think he should stick to making his wonderful cartridges.

I still have one of his Frog's with silver coils he custom made for moi. :) It will be used until the diamond wears out, then if he's still alive I'll send it back for a new tip.

van den hull is a big companie compared to the brands they talk about.
van den hull is nice actually. He just loves music.
Ive discovered that most of the guys at "hear"dont go to live concerts. And some of em never heard a live rock show. That explanes a lot i think. they think they know how it should sound but hevent experienced it first hand.
anyone with a nice everest 2 link i can use.?

[kingjames]

ya, there talking about those Best Buy specials from the late 90's,those even turned me off but, maybe I was expecting too much from those cheap(money wise) speakers. I also believe this is the reason that alot of the current generation was disapointed with the JBL name. I do understand the economics of this decision.

What normal person wouldn't like the vintage stuff? You would have to either be deaf or just plain biased not to like this stuff.

I never heard the real expensive stuff and I'm sure I never will but I also know that no one has ever made a speaker like the L100 that just blew everyone away in such a small size.

I wish there was a current model today by JBL comprable to the L100.4311.4312,etc;. It is not a good thing that I have to sell the JBL name on just the vintage stuff. There isn't much of that stuff left. If your going to sell at best buy then sell a speaker that catches the imagination make it sound like the L100 and everything will be ok.

Now a days when you go to best buy and buy a bookshelf system by Jbl and remove the woofer from the cabinet ,your lucky if it weights 1 lb.

Charts and graphs do not sell speakers, when people go to buy speakers the first thing that catches your eye is the design,not a square box anymore.

Who has the oppurtunity to listen to $60,000 speakers? Who has the oppurtunity to buy them? This isin't what made the name JBL. The little guys like you and me who saved for a year to buy a square box that was named the L100 this is what made JBL. I might add also the L100 also made you want to buy othere Jbl products as well.I think Jbl has to make some awesome sounding lower end gear that catches the imagination like the old days with the same build quality that will want to make you go for the better stuff.

I can't wait for the day when I can go to Best Buy and pay $500.00 for a good looking JBL that will match the sound of some of the vintage stuff, but I think those days are over with, then you all wonder why Bose is selling so well.

I know I will get the people who don't care for the L100 riled up here but I only mentioned this model because this model changed the market and I might say for the better at least for JBL.:p

[greyhound]

ya, there talking about those Best Buy specials from the late 90's,those even turned me off but, maybe I was expecting too much from those cheap(money wise) speakers. I also believe this is the reason that alot of the current generation was disapointed with the JBL name. I do understand the economics of this decision.

What normal person wouldn't like the vintage stuff? You would have to either be deaf or just plain biased not to like this stuff.

I never heard the real expensive stuff and I'm sure I never will but I also know that no one has ever made a speaker like the L100 that just blew everyone away in such a small size.

I wish there was a current model today by JBL comprable to the L100.4311.4312,etc;. It is not a good thing that I have to sell the JBL name on just the vintage stuff. There isn't much of that stuff left. If your going to sell at best buy then sell a speaker that catches the imagination make it sound like the L100 and everything will be ok.

Now a days when you go to best buy and buy a bookshelf system by Jbl and remove the woofer from the cabinet ,your lucky if it weights 1 lb.

Charts and graphs do not sell speakers, when people go to buy speakers the first thing that catches your eye is the design,not a square box anymore.

Who has the oppurtunity to listen to $60,000 speakers? Who has the oppurtunity to buy them? This isin't what made the name JBL. The little guys like you and me who saved for a year to buy a square box that was named the L100 this is what made JBL. I might add also the L100 also made you want to buy othere Jbl products as well.I think Jbl has to make some awesome sounding lower end gear that catches the imagination like the old days with the same build quality that will want to make you go for the better stuff.

I can't wait for the day when I can go to Best Buy and pay $500.00 for a good looking JBL that will match the sound of some of the vintage stuff, but I think those days are over with, then you all wonder why Bose is selling so well.

I know I will get the people who don't care for the L100 riled up here but I only mentioned this model because this model changed the market and I might say for the better at least for JBL.:p

nice, nice, would love to hear te L100 one day:applaud:

[Titanium Dome]

A few misguided souls (some here but mostly elsewhere) occasionally mock my preference for JBL consumer models from the '90s and '00s. Prejudicial and judgmental statements occur within brands as well as between them.

One of the great things about my JBL collection is the variety of sonic pleasures available. One of the oft-claimed failures of a particular model is how "it's not" another model. That is the ultimate in obvious, unnecessary, obtuse observation.

I like it because it's different. Those audiophiles who are looking for a uniform perfect sound are on a fool's errand in my opinion. The destination will never be reached.

Some days I enjoy listening to MTM-styled speakers with soft dome driven CD horns. Other times I like horns with Ti compression drivers in them. I thoroughly enjoy listening to Ti direct radiators, as well as paper, carbon-filled, and polypropylene drivers. Some Al drivers can be quite satisfying.

I'm luckier than most people here because I can listen to so many varieties of sound, yet all JBL. The diversity of the product line is its great strength in my opinion, not a weakness.

Some folks are looking for a better cracker and champagne to go with their caviar. I can't consume crackers, caviar, and champagne every day, though I love to do it sometimes. On a daily basis, it's boring and pointless.

I like to go back up to the world's best buffet for baked chicken one time, prime rib another, then baked salmon, perhaps some sushi, Peking duck, lobster, tofu, and how about some Korean BBQ while I'm at it. Oh, a spoon of caviar, too. That's JBL to me.

[Tom Brennan]

"What normal person wouldn't like the vintage stuff? You would have to either be deaf or just plain biased not to like this stuff."

Nonsense. I think some of the vintage (and new) JBL (and Altec too) is lousy. To imply that I'm biased, deaf or abnormal is ridiculous. Well, biased or deaf anyway.

[kingjames]

A few misguided souls (some here but mostly elsewhere) occasionally mock my preference for JBL consumer models from the '90s and '00s. Prejudicial and judgmental statements occur within brands as well as between them.

One of the great things about my JBL collection is the variety of sonic pleasures available. One of the oft-claimed failures of a particular model is how "it's not" another model. That is the ultimate in obvious, unnecessary, obtuse observation.

I like it because it's different. Those audiophiles who are looking for a uniform perfect sound are on a fool's errand in my opinion. The destination will never be reached.

Some days I enjoy listening to MTM-styled speakers with soft dome driven CD horns. Other times I like horns with Ti compression drivers in them. I thoroughly enjoy listening to Ti direct radiators, as well as paper, carbon-filled, and polypropylene drivers. Some Al drivers can be quite satisfying.

I'm luckier than most people here because I can listen to so many varieties of sound, yet all JBL. The diversity of the product line is its great strength in my opinion, not a weakness.

Some folks are looking for a better cracker and champagne to go with their caviar. I can't consume crackers, caviar, and champagne every day, though I love to do it sometimes. On a daily basis, it's boring and pointless.

I like to go back up to the world's best buffet for baked chicken one time, prime rib another, then baked salmon, perhaps some sushi, Peking duck, lobster, tofu, and how about some Korean BBQ while I'm at it. Oh, a spoon of caviar, too. That's JBL to me.
I see you didn't include "Burger King" in your dishes. I agree with your philosophy but I might ask how many of your systems are purchased from Best Buy? I am sure I can do the same thing you talk about if I had a vintage set for every type of music there is. My budget doesn't allow me to have caviar or prime rib, I can only go to Burger king but when I do I would like to think that the meal I'm buying is well worth the money I'm paying for. I guess I'm just satisfied with the burgers of the world.

I don't expect all the speakers to sound like the L100 nor would I want them to, what I am trying to say here is the build quality that you got with that model or any model of that era. You could feel the weight of each individual driver and you just knew you were holding quality, the drivers in an L100 weight more than most speakers with cabinets now being offered at the cheap outlet's.

I know there are different speakers for different application's I just want every application to be pleasing to my ears without spending $60,000 for them.:applaud:

[Ian Mackenzie]

(More humour)

Your building a pair of those!:cool:

Well one of the reasons I did those little auditions was to figure out if I should give it away with 4345's and sell off all the parts to someone who might put them to good use and buy something else:hmm:.

So will I or won't I do the deed?. Not quite yet.

Sorry.

Ian

Edit,

One thing that came out of the conversation with sale rep yesterday was not everyone knows what the real thing sounds like. I am not talking about sitting behind a desk at a pop concert.

Conversely its much harder to find a loudspeaker that will sound real as opposed to its sounds good (like a pair of L100's) on everything.

For example DR Crawfords Legend Kantu's sounded superior in terms of dynamics in the mids and Hf areas over the PCM's but elsewhere it didn't get bigger as you turn up the level. With the PCM it was the other way around but they were not as strong in the Mid and Hf areas

With the larger JBL monitors that is a given! Okay they wont image as precisely or have the velvet smoothness of the comtemporary siblings. Save that for a cute set of near field monitors but the novelty of wearing a large set of headphones wears off fairly quickly

The next PCM up is $8000 which no doubt is dynamically more expressive but that is an expensive way of finding out just how good your own speakers at home really are.

The thing is it quite interesting to see where that design (4345) is in the current market along with many other JBL designs.

One thing is for sure if you go looking for something off the floor that is as big and is at least as accurate and dynamically expressive you will need 2nd mortgage on the house.

Enjoy your project.

Ian






Agreed. I will also point out that the opposite holds true as well. Some people will defend what they have because they can not afford better.



Well said.




I find those elements to be absolutely essential for me, too. I think microdynamics and transient speeds come closer to recreating an actual performance than depth and soundstage. Even timbre comes in second place if I'm holding a values contest. The "JBL sound" is more actual, than the artificial ingredients sprinkled on by many current offerings. It appears that JBL sorta lost their way for a few years, but it now appears that they are returning to their roots with that JBL sound again. It's nice to see a company accept, embrace, and refine the signature qualities that are evident in their products. Too many manufacturers are trying to be inert, and it results in products with no soul.

I am working hard on a pair of 4345's right now, and your words are very encouraging! :)

[Zilch]

What normal person wouldn't like the vintage stuff? You would have to either be deaf or just plain biased not to like this stuff.I agree that's nonsense.

Few "normal" persons like it at all, anymore....


nice, nice, would love to hear te L100 one day:applaud:Briefly. Very briefly.... :p

[kingjames]

I agree that's nonsense.

Few "normal" persons like it at all, anymore....


That is not the concensus on this forum,in less I am missing something. I forgot I must be careful with my P's and Q's here on this forum because someone might just take the word"normal" and turn it into something not meant or implied!

[Robh3606]

Why do you guys keep saying you have to sell JBL on vintage only?? What's wrong with the L20T-L200T series from the 80's or the XPL and L 1-L7 series from the 90's??? What about the Performance Series??? When you say vintage to me that's the 70's and back gear. There was plenty of good stuff after that.

Rob:)

[Zilch]

That is not the concensus on this forum,in less I am missing something.You were talking about the marketplace at large. This forum is hardly representative.

Despite that, there's plenty of members here will tell you what sucks, and why.

That doesn't mean there aren't others who like it, of course, and who, in some cases, will also pay big bucks for it. :thmbsup:

[MJC]

I can't wait for the day when I can go to Best Buy and pay $500.00 for a good looking JBL that will match the sound of some of the vintage stuff, but I think those days are over with, then you all wonder why Bose is selling so well.


There are places other than BB. Frys and Tweeter come to mind that sell JBL, and both sell higher end JBLs than BB(Studio L and PS)

And not all vintage JBL was worth buying either, much less keeping it for years. The Aquarius line comes to mind. And imho most of the '70's bookself speakers.
One has to pick the models worth keeping, Paragon, Hartsfield, L212, 250Ti, to name a few.

And I don't see that Boze sells any better than anything else. The only thing Boze has is slick ads on DHDTH. Of coarse there has to be mindless, deaf simps to buy those or Def Tech and other such junk.

[Zilch]

I wish there was a current model today by JBL comprable to the L100.4311.4312,etc;. It is not a good thing that I have to sell the JBL name on just the vintage stuff. There isn't much of that stuff left. If your going to sell at best buy then sell a speaker that catches the imagination make it sound like the L100 and everything will be ok.
Read Don's synthesis of the role of the L100 et. seq. in the evolution of JBL here:

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=12047&#post12047

[Titanium Dome]

(snip)

I see you didn't include "Burger King" in your dishes. I agree with your philosophy but I might ask how many of your systems are purchased from Best Buy? I am sure I can do the same thing you talk about if I had a vintage set for every type of music there is. My budget doesn't allow me to have caviar or prime rib, I can only go to Burger king but when I do I would like to think that the meal I'm buying is well worth the money I'm paying for. I guess I'm just satisfied with the burgers of the world.

(snip)
:

A fair question deserves a fair answer.

My first pair of L7s came from ABC Warehouse, a Best Buy competitor in the Great Lakes.

My LX300s came from Highland Appliance, now out of business, but another Best Buy look-alike.

My E50s came from Fry's Electronics.

My Simply Cinema set came from Montgomery Wards on clearance.

Some of that gear wouldn't even come from Burger King, but from White Castle or Weinerschnitzel.

The E50s beat L100s in almost every way, though they get even less respect than L100s around here. ;) These moderate-sized bookshelves are better in so many ways, and they cost less than L100s at original prices, not even counting inflation. I paid $273 each for my brand new L100s. I paid $71 each for my brand new E50s on clearance (normally $249 each).

[kingjames]

You were talking about the marketplace at large. This forum is hardly representative.

Despite that, there's plenty of members here will tell you what sucks, and why.

That doesn't mean there aren't others who like it, of course, and in some cases, will pay big bucks for it. :thmbsup:

Sorry I haven't figured out yet how to remove a line quote from the entire quote yet. I'm working on it.

I admit I haven't heard much in my life in the way of System's,never had the money to just go out and get the best,whichever one's they may be.
What I liked about JBL is that I felt I never really had to as I was satisfied with the sound for whatever reason it might have been.

It's like buying a car when you buy a certain model and you never have problems(rare) with it you kind of go with the same model all the time.

I think we are all looking for something different as we all have different taste and I don't think it possible to all agree on one certain brand, in my situation it was the L100 that hooked me,never had I heard music like that in(my world). In that era I heard a few of the better system's by JBL and they all had a sound of quality but were all expensive for that day.In most cases they were worth saving for.

I can't speak for the Martin Logans, raven's or B/W's as I have never heard any and,maybe they are a better buy,but,with the JBL's that I have it never was necessary to look for a better pair.

I think it fair to say that most folks here became a JBL fan because of the Vintage stuff and,though this forum might not be a representitive of the overall market it does reflect well on this stuff that I read about here or maybe we can use Ebay as a reprensentitive of the older stuff and the prices that this stuff is going for.

Maybe I am using the wrong word here maybe I should just say older stuff and not vintage. I think most products offered by JBL from the 60's through the early 90's were a brand of pure quality.

Somewhere that quality has disapeared in the late 90's for just a mere bookshelf setup. The cabinets were poorly made the drivers in a 3 way setup together weighed a mere 12oz.when removed from the box. It made you wonder if these products were the only thing coming out of this well known speakermaker.

I have always liked JBL speakers ever since I bought that first L100 and never second quessed my decision on any pair that I bought, I to want to experience the new stuff but until they make some new stuff in my price bracket I guess I will just have to stick to the older stuff or vintage stuff whatever you call it.:D

[Ian Mackenzie]

Why do you guys keep saying you have to sell JBL on vintage only?? What's wrong with the L20T-L200T series from the 80's or the XPL and L 1-L7 series from the 90's??? What about the Performance Series??? When you say vintage to me that's the 70's and back gear. There was plenty of good stuff after that.

Rob:)


Rob,

I think JBLs presence is perhaps fragmented over time.

That is probably not the right term but they sure as heck tried a number of different approaches in the Consumer side of the business.

While the Ti Series and later the XPL series may have been good frankly a lot of really stiff competition arrived before then and consistently performed and held presence in the market place (in the late 80's and 90's).

At this stage most baby boomers were thinking about others things so they may have stepped off the tread mill at that point with JBL but it was a "haven" for me too accuracy manufacturers.

The east coast and British sound really got momentum and big loud boxes just weren't popular at that stage.

My point is JBL in the 70's and early 80s had a lot more leverage relative to competing alternatives at " the time" in terms of systems that really delivered.

There just weren't many other players doing the same thing and they were in a unique position. I'm talking about the L300 and the 43xx series which sold in droves through the major hifi dealerships.

Then they stopped making those ranges and the 4430-4435 became a purely pro offering. Interestingly the 4343-4344-4344Mk11 carried on in Japan for the long haul. But they weren't widely marketed outside of Japan.

The Consumer stuff after that like the L150, the L220 and the L222 is the serious JBL hater department. Some people refer to them as party speakers.

There is no doubt the XPL's and the L series are impressive and were perhaps an attempt at the accuracy with muscle but a lot of people were sold rightly or wrongly on another sound at the time and I am not sure these later series penetrated the markets successfully.

Perhaps this is what the whole JBL hater thing is about. People just hear the wrong thing at the wrong time and as they say mud sticks like shit to a blanket

Regardless my excursion yesterday told me there is a revival happending in pure 2 channel audio so it will be quite interesting to see where it leads to.


Ian

[jbl]

As with almost anything, some will like the sound of certain JBL systems while others won't. Saying that a certain brand is good or bad is a worthless argument.
BTW. Find out where they're dumping those JBls. I'll be happy to dispose of the "garbage".:D

[greyhound]

the impression that i get is that alot of folks bought jbl for the simple reason that they could play loud , had plenty of bass and were great value for money. That means younger people bought them and people who listened to house, rap and i ithink this has been a big influence for the public opinion especially the "audiophiles"
once you make a connection between a speaker brand and (how do i put this) immature music the damge is done. Any serious attempt to make a quality product will be ignored because the price tag is high and your not gonna pay thousands of dollars for something that rappers or ravers listen to.
Its the same with chinese and japanese brands. if samsung made the best speaker in the world you wouldnt buy it because its samsung. The name itsellf is equal to junk.

makes any sense?

first im gonna change my picture, bought the century gold weeks ago.

it was like taking an abused dog in your home.
Tweeters were destroyed. terminals broken cabinets scratched.
but i fed them gave it some TLC and they play like they want to thank me for my troubles.

[greyhound]

As with almost anything, some will like the sound of certain JBL systems while others won't. Saying that a certain brand is good or bad is a worthless argument.
BTW. Find out where they're dumping those JBls. I'll be happy to dispose of the "garbage".:D

I only wish they would mean it. i'd get there before you do:D

[MJC]

I can't speak for the Martin Logans, raven's or B/W's as I have never heard any and,maybe they are a better buy,but,with the JBL's that I have it never was necessary to look for a better pair.

ML or BW are alright if that is the sound you want. B&W are typical English speakers. As for ML you have to like electrostatic speakers, and although they sound desent, if they were put along side JBLs, say, Performance Series or better, I don't think the ML stand a chance. I'm not sure I would even pick them against the Studio L890, side by side.
We all get used to what we listen to, for instance, Titanium Dome and myself really like our PS PT800s. But if we were to hear the Everest, I doubt either of us would hold the PS in a high a plane as we do now, just because of the Everest's high standards.
Its like years ago I really liked my L55s until I heard the L212s. But the L212s are of such a quality that I still enjoy listening to them, even tho I have the newer and better PS.

[greyhound]

by the way where did they move my topic to.
its bedtime over here:snore:

[kingjames]

Read Don's synthesis of the role of the L100 et. seq. in the evolution of JBL here:

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=12047&#post12047


Thanks Zilch that was a good read but I think it confirm's what I have been saying, more than the sound I was talking about the mass appeal brought on by the L100, it made people want to buy JBL.

I was not aware that the 4311 was half the cost of the L100. Had I known that then the 4311 would have been my first pair.:p

[Titanium Dome]

Thanks Zilch that was a good read but I think it confirm's what I have been saying, more than the sound I was talking about the mass appeal brought on by the L100, it made people want to buy JBL.

I was not aware that the 4311 was half the cost of the L100. Had I known that then the 4311 would have been my first pair.:p

Maybe, but we would have missed those excellent Quadrex® grilles.

[Titanium Dome]

(snip)
Perhaps this is what the whole JBL hater thing is about. People just hear the wrong thing at the wrong time and as they say mud sticks like shit ti a blanket
(snip)

Ian

Ah, the pungency of a well-turned phrase.

[Thom]

Rob,

I think JBLs presence is perhaps fragmented over time.

That is probably not the right term but they sure as heck tried a number of different approaches in the Consumer side of the business.

While the Ti Series and later the XPL series may have been good frankly a lot of really stiff competition arrived before then and consistently performed and held presence in the market place (in the late 80's and 90's).

At this stage most baby boomers were thinking about others things so they may have stepped off the tread mill at that point with JBL but it was a "haven" for me too accuracy manufacturers.

The east coast and British sound really got momentum and big loud boxes just weren't popular at that stage.

My point is JBL in the 70's and early 80s had a lot more leverage relative to competing alternatives at " the time" in terms of systems that really delivered.

There just weren't many other players doing the same thing and they were in a unique position. I'm talking about the L300 and the 43xx series which sold in droves through the major hifi dealerships.

Then they stopped making those ranges and the 4430-4435 became a purely pro offering. Interestingly the 4343-4344-4344Mk11 carried on in Japan for the long haul. But they weren't widely marketed outside of Japan.

The Consumer stuff after that like the L150, the L220 and the L222 is the serious JBL hater department. Some people refer to them as party speakers.

There is no doubt the XPL's and the L series are impressive and were perhaps an attempt at the accuracy with muscle but a lot of people were sold rightly or wrongly on another sound at the time and I am not sure these later series penetrated the markets successfully.

Perhaps this is what the whole JBL hater thing is about. People just hear the wrong thing at the wrong time and as they say mud sticks like shit to a blanket

Regardless my excursion yesterday told me there is a revival happending in pure 2 channel audio so it will be quite interesting to see where it leads to.


Ian

I'd have to seriously disagree. The JBL hating began long before the L100 was conceived. Basically you had electrostatic types and Kloss and his bunch on one end. (I'm speaking of people who liked those speakers. I know nothing of him himself. ) and a whole group of speakers with almost nothing in common with JBL. Then of course there were Klipsh which actually had some in common with JBL except the drivers were of such inferior quality that I suppose if you thought that was the way to go you would build a K horn and use JBL drivers. Anyway get some old speaker books from when HiFi was new and it was the thing to build your own and you just don't see plans around JBL's (I'm sure you can find an exception) and there are always Americans who think anything foreign is better there were wharfdales (talk about foam rot) with sand filled cabinets (sandwich actually), and quads, and JR's and Rogers, all I was really trying to say is hating JBL was fashionable before they started building crap (I'm not suggesting that's all they build) ESS was knocking JBL before they met Dr Heil. Back when ESS actually stood for Electrostatic Sound Systems and they were using RTR panels. At one time you could build much cheaper speakers with other peoples drivers, before it was discovered that the public would still pay as much, And then I guess JBL discovered it too.

[Thom]

Thanks Zilch that was a good read but I think it confirm's what I have been saying, more than the sound I was talking about the mass appeal brought on by the L100, it made people want to buy JBL.

I was not aware that the 4311 was half the cost of the L100. Had I known that then the 4311 would have been my first pair.:p

People wanted to buy JBL before. It was just seriously expensive. Even an LE14 with a 175DLH in that little glass topped cabinet was over $400.00 ea might have been $500.00 Unless you wanted to put an LE20 with a D123 in your own cabinet that was about where it started. The 14 with the LE20 was severely lacking. Jbl would severely punish a dealer for discounting or transhipping.
Whole Magnavox consoles didn't cost that much.

[Shane Shuster]

The thing is it quite interesting to see where that design (4345) is in the current market along with many other JBL designs.

One thing is for sure if you go looking for something off the floor that is as big and is at least as accurate and dynamically expressive you will need 2nd mortgage on the house.
Ian

Ian, Is the market in Australia much smaller than the US in terms of brand availability? In the under $10,000 USD range there looks like a handful (new, not used) that should at least be in the ballpark, if not better in select areas.

[Ian Mackenzie]

No,

I would say its even and as I said there is a revival of real audio.

I went to a shop in Prahan today that was known as a large screen home theatre outfit and it was full of valve amps, Kilpsch, Canton, Dynaudio, PSB and Melody Cantus ribbons. The said people were asking for the stuff over home theatre. Go figure.

We buys lots of Krells and and Halcro was originated here. The uptake of DVD was also interesting.

About my earlier discussion it was by no means an all consuming survey.
The point was and still is why spend $4000-6000 on something that sounds nice but won't go as loud / clean in dyamic contrast/micro dynamics or as low in terms of scale compared what you've already got.

Small speakers just cant do it. On the other hand if those two qualities don't matter then it inapproprate to be talking about comparisons with JBLs imho.

Its a bit like driving a dated V8 and deciding on an upgrade. The Mazda overhead cam 2 litre might be more comfortable and have all the fruit hanging off it but when it comes to passing power there ain't no substitute for cubic inches.

The $8000-10000 level is in the ball park but again why would you spend $10,000 it if you've already got most of that?

To get as big a sound and better sounding you need to go much higher up.

Anyway my 4345 are not stock by any means so the decision to spend under $10K is moot.

Of course if you are starting out its a whole different set of circumstanceand you maybe happy with the $4000 level.

Ian

[Shane Shuster]

About my earlier discussion it was by no means an all consuming survey.
The point was and still is why spend $4000-6000 on something that sounds nice but won't go as loud / clean in dyamic contrast/micro dynamics or as low in terms of scale compared what you've already got.

To get as big a sound and better sounding you need to go much higher up.

Ian

Ian, its nice to hear that you have a lot of choices. I am always interested in hearing how other countries approach audio.

Why are you comparing pro monitors to home speakers? You can go through todays speakers and cherry pick ones that do all the things you mention. I would also mention that most speakers of yesteryear were not 4345 caliber speakers. Is it fair to compare used prices to new?

In a nutshell I guess I don't get the whole "they don't make large dynamic speakers like they used to" thing. Companies still do, they just can't sell them at used prices.

[Rolf]

I have been following this thread, and had no plan of posting in it, but...

In my area of the world JBL was highly seen on as a "state of the art" speakers until about the mid 80's. After that the curve was falling very fast, and has stayed there to the present day.

Almost every person I speak to (that is those who are old enough to remember) talks positive about the JBL range of the 60's to the mid 80's. That is the "large speakers area. When they disappeared the JBL brand got the reputation of cheap no good sound.

And I agree, and understand this point of view. That is why I have the 4343's. No new JBL since the mid 80's can be compared to those until now. This is a guess, as I not yet have heard the new Everest. I hope they will "blow my mind away". If not .... then I think it is "the end" of JBL as a top of the line speaker manufacturer.

I am well aware of the imaging, depth, position of instrument position etc that the "guru" people is listening to. I have listen to systems that does this better than my 4343's, but when I have asked the owner "shall we start playing?" the answer is "we do". When I ask "is this how it sound to you when you are on a concert?" ... classical or rock, the answer is "no, but it should not sound like is it live". ??? What is the reference if not the real thing? Most of the time I "rest my case", and let the person believe what he (or she?) does.

I have come to a point in life when I just don't get bother anymore by these kind of meanings matter any more. I know. I just hope that someday they will find out what is real and what is not.

[JBL 4645]

Did you explain JBL was the first to be used to bring sound to the cinema with just a single loudspeaker placed behind the screen the Vitaphone helped pave the way forwards.

JBL has received the Oscar for technical merits for its contribution in the motion picture industry.

JBL was the first to be chosen for the THX sound system program and it took a mere few seconds for the JBL concept to be sold to me via the Empire’s impressive THX JBL sound power delivery.

So where are these morns, I bet there Bose lovers!:D

Plus JBL got some rather cool sounding nicknames like Just Bloody Loud JBL:applaud: , I’ll challenge these little buggers.:biting:

Why is it, that most who think oh that’s a great brand name for home cinema use lets buy it. Oh without stopping to think that it was JBL who’s been doing this since 1927 yeah go figure.;)

80 years now 80 years JBL has been around:applaud: and still packing them in at the cinema, nearly 85% of the world’s cinemas use JBL.

[LowPhreak]

JBL 4645 -

I think what you're missing is the notion that it doesn't matter much to the Kool-Aid-drinking audiophile cognoscenti that JBL has ruled the theater-sound world, or pro/live sound, or recording. Those facts are actually a turn off, because they figure those types of speakers were designed for those venues, but not for in-home "accuracy". They assume that the "leap" cannot be made.

[greyhound]

the people i speak to think that there speakers sound BETTER than a live performance.
they say that music sounds bad in a concert hall!. live music should sound like at there homes, if it doesnt they blame the roadies and engineers.
so they twist it around. Maybe because they have to if they dont want to lose the discussion.
if they would agree that the music in their livingroom sound dull en to clean they are acctualy saying. my 10.000 dollar speakers cant deliver the real thing.

[Tom Brennan]

"Those facts are actually a turn off, because they figure those types of speakers were designed for those venues, but not for in-home "accuracy"."


Indeed, audio is one of those activities in which the amatuer hobbyist thinks his tastes and skills are more refined than those of the people who actually do it for a living.

As though some weekend warrior putz who welds his broken lawn furniture with a buzzbox were to criticize the skills of boilermaker and pipefitter high pressure code welders.

[Rolf]

As usual ... None read my comments. Why do I bother ...

[LowPhreak]

I read your comments before Rolf, and I think your observations are correct.

Hell, you should come over to my house...nobody listens to anybody around here! I am often found in the corner babbling to no one in particular.


:spin:

[Robh3606]

Those facts are actually a turn off, because they figure those types of speakers were designed for those venues, but not for in-home "accuracy".

That point of view always surprised me. If the monitors, any by the way not just JBL, were good enough for the artist and producer, why wouldn't they be "good enough" for home use????? I never understood that rational unless of course you see it from the point of view that all monitors cannot do soundstage depth and imaging.

Rob:)

[Tom Brennan]

" unless of course you see it from the point of view that all monitors cannot do soundstage depth and imaging."

Which if true can lead to the uncomfortable conclusion that depth and imaging are unintended by those doing the recording and are actually forms of distortion.

In any event depth and exagerrated soundstage are so willy-nilly and unpredictable that they are undoubtedly often forms of distortion.

I recently heard a Dynaudio system in a hi-fi store that placed the snare drum in a Madonna song behind me and to the right, yet on my Altec 605s the snare drum is placed dead center in the mix. The Dynaudios sounded, ah, "interesting" but I believed the 605s.

[Titanium Dome]

" unless of course you see it from the point of view that all monitors cannot do soundstage depth and imaging."

Which if true can lead to the uncomfortable conclusion that depth and imaging are unintended by those doing the recording and are actually forms of distortion.

In any event depth and exagerrated soundstage are so willy-nilly and unpredictable that they are undoubtedly often forms of distortion.

(snip).

Which leads us back to personal preference as the arbiter of what sounds "right" rather than sonic perfection. If someone (or a group of audio bullies) determines that a particular sound is the correct sound, those opinions may be rooted entirely in an attractive distortion of what was intended.

BTW, I don't have a problem with that, as long as someone isn't a dick about it.

[boputnam]

...They said people were asking for the stuff over home theatre. I've had same experiences, here.

I think the newness and fullness of 5.1 - 7.1 was quite attractive. To be able to (nearly) emulate the cinema experience without your shoes sticking to the floor was damned appealing. However, 2.0 was lost in the process. As the DVD newness has become routine, people now find they cannot get good 2.0 out of their processors.

Quite a few neighbors have asked me to help them get better stereo - invariably, it was lost in their selection of "integrated" surround amp. :barf:

[Shane Shuster]

That point of view always surprised me. If the monitors, any by the way not just JBL, were good enough for the artist and producer, why wouldn't they be "good enough" for home use????? I never understood that rational unless of course you see it from the point of view that all monitors cannot do soundstage depth and imaging.

Rob:)

I can see the point. (I use studio monitors though)

1.A lot of monitors are meant to be soffit mounted or at least eq'ed.

2.The throw of some of them is often wrong for home use. Like how sitting 12 ft from a little nearfield or an A-5 isn't the best.

3. Looks wise they can be considered industrial (or just plain ugly)

4.Artists and producers using them doesn't mean anything. Look at the fads that go through the studio recording world. I am not convinced top sound is a priority for an artist or producer. (nor should it be)

[LowPhreak]

There's your chance bo, if you have any 'undesireable' neighbors: try to turn them into audiophiles. They'll either go stark raving mad, bankrupt, or both.


:bouncy:

[Thom]

I have been following this thread, and had no plan of posting in it, but...

In my area of the world JBL was highly seen on as a "state of the art" speakers until about the mid 80's. After that the curve was falling very fast, and has stayed there to the present day.

Almost every person I speak to (that is those who are old enough to remember) talks positive about the JBL range of the 60's to the mid 80's. That is the "large speakers area. When they disappeared the JBL brand got the reputation of cheap no good sound.

And I agree, and understand this point of view. That is why I have the 4343's. No new JBL since the mid 80's can be compared to those until now. This is a guess, as I not yet have heard the new Everest. I hope they will "blow my mind away". If not .... then I think it is "the end" of JBL as a top of the line speaker manufacturer.

I am well aware of the imaging, depth, position of instrument position etc that the "guru" people is listening to. I have listen to systems that does this better than my 4343's, but when I have asked the owner "shall we start playing?" the answer is "we do". When I ask "is this how it sound to you when you are on a concert?" ... classical or rock, the answer is "no, but it should not sound like is it live". ??? What is the reference if not the real thing? Most of the time I "rest my case", and let the person believe what he (or she?) does.

I have come to a point in life when I just don't get bother anymore by these kind of meanings matter any more. I know. I just hope that someday they will find out what is real and what is not.

I find this interesting. When I hear things from Europe being pushed as way ahead of us over here (not being traveled I'm not really qualified to referee such a debate) I often wonder what people in Europe (realizing generalities are dangerous) are doing and saying and if it is the thing of a guy with a briefcase from over a hundred miles away being an expert sort of thing. Quite curious about ESS moving to Germany. Maybe now they will be a much more serious company because they are German. Actually I was just posting because at the same time you say people at your home were praising JBL as "it" many here were looking over there for "it".

[Ian Mackenzie]

Why are you comparing pro monitors to home speakers? You can go through todays speakers and cherry pick ones that do all the things you mention. I would also mention that most speakers of yesteryear were not 4345 caliber speakers. Is it fair to compare used prices to new?
.

Its not fair is it. My agenda is a lot more simple than that:

The fact is by luck or good fortune I built them and I suppose there is a lot of head shacking. I mean how could you really compare something with two 18 inch woofers and two 10 inch mid cones to any consumer system.

I am not sure what the 4345 would be today in adjusted dollars. A lot.

However I have recently overhauled and upgraded my system. That leaves the loudspeakers. At times I have a love hate thing with the JBLs and I think its useful to challenge and re assure myself if they should stay or go. This is why I thought it relevent to enter the discussion.

They are difficult, a PITA actually to set up and they make they make a large porton of my music collection un appealing to listen to because they are monitors. I don't want to sway the discussion OT but there you are.

On the imaging thing is seems to me the smaller near field monitors are great for that.

On the hi sensitivity thing there is a come back happening there too. In Europe and in the USA., Take the Druid's for example and stores are stocking Klipschorns down hear. The Druid floor standers start at AUD$5000 and the big boys are AUD$15000 (the ones with bass).

I think if someone started production of JBL vintage reproductions they would make a fortune down here.

I also think many of us who have not bought a loudspeaker in along time are shocked at the prices. But that is also changing as manufacture in China gears up.

If I was asked would I buy a new JBL off the floor at the moment the answer is most likely NO.

Does that make me a JBL hater? Not necessarily. I have yet to hear the L260 but they look a bit plastic in the flesh and I would be embarrassed to compare the finish to say the piano black NHT's, the rosewood Dali's or the massively constructed Usher in that price range. There is no comparison. If I bought them I may as well throw out all the furniture, the good dinner set and head over to Ikea!! There is a pair at Harvey Norman I might listen to them later today. They are about AUD $6000 here.

I saw a pair of the TKi towers in the back room of a shop recently. They were not connected. They are a different story, they are beautiful.

Yes stone me of you wish, moderators please ban me or send me an infraction "rude your last chance buster" notice.

Rof, good point.

IMHO, imaging in today contemporary recordings is a manufactured item.

Enter the small hi end loudspeaker and you have real sound staging. The better the speaker the more obvious the recording method.The older JBLs are vague compared to their most recent designs.

I dont get too hung up an that.

Try finding those quality recordings. Its harder than buying the speakers to play it!

By the way the new 4344 baffles configuration images better than the 4343 for what its worth

Also, try locating the system using the room dimensions divisible by 3, 5, 7, 9. You will be astonished.

[greyhound]

As usual ... None read my comments. Why do I bother ...

i believe i did.
your comments were plausible.

[LowPhreak]

IMHO, imaging in today contemporary recordings is a manufactured item.

That's more prevalent than most people think. But it sells "audiophile" components!



Try finding those quality recordings. Its harder than buying the speakers to play it!

Absolutely.



Also, try locating the system using the room dimensions divisible by 3, 5, 7, 9. You will be astonished.

That's always my starting point with any new room or speaker. Works more often than not.

[Zilch]

Yes stone me of you wish, moderators please ban me or send me an infraction "rude your last chance buster" notice.Poo.

I never get any pee dubyas (procedural warnings.) :(

[Obviously need to step it up a bit.... ;) ]

[Rolf]

i believe i did.
your comments were plausible.

What does "plausible" means?

[kingjames]

What does "plausible" means?

Worthy of belief or worthy of applause depending on how you use the word.

[greyhound]

Worthy of belief or worthy of applause depending on how you use the word.
worthy of aupplause.
in other words i agree.:applaud:

[greyhound]

What does "plausible" means?

i have two dogs. one of them used to piss against my cd player.
it still smells bad and he did it a few years ago.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Rolf,

I re read your post quoted above and off the cuff I think you come across being cynical as in what's the point.

That sort of thinking is to a degree self destructive and a pre curver to alienating yourself from the purpose of it all. Enjoyment.

You don't have control over the recording process. If you think two channel stereo is bad what about 5.1 DTS. ..trumpets out the rears.

Perhaps the better way is to go hear a nice compositon at you local concert hall or opera house and then buy the cd. Many enthusiasts have numerous copys of the same piece on different labels for all the reasons you mentioned above.

The better systems will bring out the nuances of the recording environment and the focus is often different.

For example one loudspeaker will provide pin sharp imaging in the midrange and top end. Others demonstrate depth and height while some will provide spacial cues from extended low bass. Seldom will you get all those elements and frankly the same applies to recordings. Its a bit hit and miss.

The JBL's might be termed more a front row presentation. In that sense there is certainly placement of the instruments but the delivery of the transients and the micro dynamics is the overiding consideration.

The former examples however seem to fall sort of the front row test because the drivers are not up to the task in terms of power compression and sheer dynamic range. This is what I sensed in my recent consumer loudspeaker auditions.

If your a toffy old fart who always sits down towards the back then this former group of systems are going to win favour. Although cresendo's are unlikely to be realistic. The front row is certainly more demanding of the drivers.

Some enthusiasts will say, oh listen to the tonality and the timbre of this and that. The thing is the recording environment and the instruments play a big part in this.

For example a good drum kit will sound quite different tonally to a budget student kit. The same applies to brass and string instruments. They all sound different. A crap violin sounds hideous no matter who plays it. The goods ones are bloody expensive. Same with guitars. Did you know musicians are starting to recognise really good guitars at good prices are now coming out of China. Once you would never say that in a pink fit. Just a bit of trivia.

Does the label on the Cd tell you any of this? No and you may think well what's the point..again.

Well I tend to think that if you are looking for realism and levels approach the native recording, your 4343's will make the toffy old fart's loudspeakers (the JBL hater) sound like a transister radio.

Back in the old vinyl days you could almost pick a recording made with a JBL monitor.

[JBL 4645]

JBL 4645 -

I think what you're missing is the notion that it doesn't matter much to the Kool-Aid-drinking audiophile cognoscenti that JBL has ruled the theater-sound world, or pro/live sound, or recording. Those facts are actually a turn off, because they figure those types of speakers were designed for those venues, but not for in-home "accuracy". They assume that the "leap" cannot be made.

LowPhreak

Well you should have attended the CIC Empire feeling Kahn lifting Chekov, off the floor my goodness now that is sound to be heard and felt at the CIC Empire back in 1989 that is sound accuracy and precision that I have still not heard or felt anywhere else except at the CIC Empire via the huge JBL 4675-A and 4645 screen array incredible!! :applaud:

[Nightbrace]

Unfortunately, JBL is thought of as a "low-end" company.. Nothing could be further from the truth.. It was the first company to introduce "hi-end" sound into the "low-end" consumer market-place, and it hasn't changed since./

[JBL 4645]

Rolf,

You don't have control over the recording process. If you think two channel stereo is bad what about 5.1 DTS. ..trumpets out the rears.


Ian

Seeing the music is what I consider non sync it has got no visual image to relate to.

Have you tried placing the surrounds at the front with the flick of a switch you can send the stereo surround to the fronts say left centre and right centre just for fun ok.

Matching JBL five-screen will be needed of course, and while you can still keep the original JBL surrounds in there proper position you can say have these trumpets coming from the left centre and right centre.

There simple. Hay it’s a kinder of magic.:applaud:

[SEAWOLF97]

Unfortunately, JBL is thought of as a "low-end" company.. Nothing could be further from the truth.. It was the first company to introduce "hi-end" sound into the "low-end" consumer market-place, and it hasn't changed since./

well , I spent a couple of weeks going thru 12 1954 copies of AUDIO mag. JBL was very small with only a couple of minor ads.

Altec was much more in evidence. Klipsch , Stromberg Carlson , Allied , Bozak , DeMars, Jensen, EV , GE , Hartley all filled that niche. JBL was considerably more expensive , marketed to the connoisseur.

[Nightbrace]

I was mainly referring to the 70's with the L100. The first time normal people got introduced to "hi-end" sound.

[Titanium Dome]

I was mainly referring to the 70's with the L100. The first time normal people got introduced to "hi-end" sound.

Had a nice session with a pair of L100s today in my garage while I did some work. Checked them out with my brand new Hafler SR2600 (600WX2) and they were giant killers for sure. Played some Lord of the Rings Complete on 'em, and they really punched it out. Couldn't take the volume above 1/4 though, or the Hafler would've fried them.

Still love them after all these years, and they never cease to amaze me when I crank them up again. What else do I have that works as well as it did in 1970? Not me, certainly.

[BMWCCA]

well , I spent a couple of weeks going thru 12 1954 copies of AUDIO mag. JBL was very small with only a couple of minor ads.Let's face it: They hadn't yet begun the fancy paint-job and finish work on their components....and the 075 hadn't been introduced, either.
http://www.hifilit.com/hifilit/JBL/075-1.jpg

[Tom Brennan]

The 075 goes with the other speakers in my toolbox---the Heresy Skilsaw, the LaScala Sawzall and the 075 I use instead of a mag-drill.

[LowPhreak]

LowPhreak

Well you should have attended the CIC Empire feeling Kahn lifting Chekov, off the floor my goodness now that is sound to be heard and felt at the CIC Empire back in 1989 that is sound accuracy and precision that I have still not heard or felt anywhere else except at the CIC Empire via the huge JBL 4675-A and 4645 screen array incredible!! :applaud:

I don't doubt that it sounded great, but my point sailed right over your head. :blink:

The audiophile(s) that greyhound is talking about doesn't get it either, but in reverse, or obverse. (?)

Well it's Sat. night, and I'm listening to some very nice open-reels of old ZZ Top - "Rio Grande Mud" and "First Album" right now, (I'll not say where I got them) on my boomy, crappy, unwashed, non-audiophile, unmodded 4412's. Please don't bother me until I'm back from Mexico.


http://usera.imagecave.com/aztec447/Misc/Nobadges.jpg



:band:

Gracias por su cooperación :cheers:

[BMWCCA]

The 075 goes with the other speakers in my toolbox---the Heresy Skilsaw, the LaScala Sawzall and the 075 I use instead of a mag-drill.And I guess you have an 077 for when you actually try to do some precision work? :wtf:
:D

[SEAWOLF97]

Gracias por su cooperación :cheers:

cooperación ?? we don't need no stinkin' cooperación !!!! (treasure of the LHF)

[JBL 4645]

LowPhreak

Sorry mate, I often don’t get unless it’s JBL at the EMPIRE in London these audiophiles can go and jump of a cliff!:D

[Tom Brennan]

"And I guess you have an 077 for when you actually try to do some precision work?"

Ah, well that one I can listen to, the 076 too. It's that damned bullet that sets my hair on edge.

[X_X]

Ian,

You have mentioned the microdynamics and transients (JBL calling cards, actually) more than once in this thread. Do you really think you can replace the heart racing event that is twin 2245's with a cute box of a speaker? ...and better soundstaging!? Who cares! Stop shopping for other speakers- you own the best. Unless you just want to see how the 45's measure up...;)


About guitars from China: The Chinese (along with the Japanese) have been buying out some of the world's greatest lumber stock for decades. They even sink whole trees of prime wood in their harbors where it will be preserved for the inevitable (lumber extinction). Since good wood = good instruments- expect many more great guitars from China. Also expect great violins, cellos, etc...

[Ian Mackenzie]

I heard the L260 this afternoon.

They completely blew me out of the room!.

The JBL haters are going to love them.

Ian

[X_X]

I heard the L260 this afternoon.

They coiompletely blew me out of the room!.

The JBL haters are going to love them.

Ian


:rotfl:

[jim3860]

Don't really know how it is today, but in my most active hi-fi time it was said that a pair of speakers should cost the same or more as your amp and record player. Agreed. geez if i keep this up with responding to your posts rolf i will have my name on every single section at once.:p WOO HOO :applaud:

[greyhound]

LowPhreak

Sorry mate, I often don’t get unless it’s JBL at the EMPIRE in London these audiophiles can go and jump of a cliff!:D

its Holland there are no cliffs here. This country is flatter than the sound of a willson puppy.:D

[greyhound]

posted some pics and links of te everestdd66000
over a hundred forum members looked at it but none of them responded.
i was sure they were gonna complain about its range.

does anyone knows why JBL never goes below 30hz.
does it affect qualiyt above 30hz.
its their main complaint so any arguments would be welcome.

[Zilch]

Giskard recently posted an analysis of Everest II LF response. The specs are anechoic. The "in-room" response is different.

Someone wants artificial bass respsonse, they'll easily handle EQ, according to the designer....

[kingjames]

You know I used to be a JBL hater until I realize that it wasn't the speakers ,:applaud: I just hated everything. I think they call it growing pains!

[johnaec]

posted some pics and links of te everestdd66000
over a hundred forum members looked at it but none of them responded.
There were some earlier threads on these with tons of responses - I think everyone was "responded out" by the time your thread came around...

John

[Robh3606]

does anyone knows why JBL never goes below 30hz.

The 4435 is also at that number. Also a double driver bass system similar in many ways to the 66000. With room gain? A pair 2235's or Le-14's is plenty for me. I have never met a bass shy JBL unless it was designed to be.

http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/pro-speakers/1984-4430-35.htm

Rob:)

[soundboy]

Been reading on here about the low bass thing, and I think that people are ignorant of real music, or what 20 hz really is. I have played pro and run sound for many years. Also have 2245h's in my home that "only" go down to 25hz....there isn't any music down there, folks. My live rig goes to a solid 35 hz, at 98 db efficiency....and nothing is missing, beleive me. Most "big" bass slam is around 50 to 100hz....kick drum has most all of it's energy centered around 80hz....the lowest note on a standard bass guitar/stand up bass viol is 41hz, but most of the energy is 2nd harmonic....or 80 to 125hz....soooooo, if a system rolls of at 30 hz.....it's pretty much gettin' the whole picture, right?....and besides, how many of us are gonna buy the everest? I will never hear or see one, most likely. And if someone want's to hear/feel 20hz organ pedals, get a sub....a HUGE sub. I just don't know why so much space is allotted for this "only 30 hertz" thing. I understand a sharp drop at 25hz, is better than one at say 40 or 50, because of phase, etc....but I still think people are worrying about something that takes a 15 foot box, and an 18" woofer to recreate....that's the tradeoff. I personally don't have the room, or the energy to carry it around to shows.....or take up half my living room....happy rockin'!

[Thom]

The 4435 is also at that number. Also a double driver bass system similar in many ways to the 66000. With room gain? A pair 2235's or Le-14's is plenty for me. I have never met a bass shy JBL unless it was designed to be.

http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/pro-speakers/1984-4430-35.htm

Rob:)

I'm guessing that I probably caught your statement out of context but I looked and I didn't see it so : Some of the JBL systems I feel most fondly towards have been accused by many of being bass shy. This probably isn't fair as it's more a piece of art than a speaker but the Paragon left unmolested is certainly bass shy. However the raw materials are there for a beast. I speak of the LE15A I never heard one with 154-C but it must have been even more lacking. God can you imagine that with a sub woofer from today if you could marry it properly. Anyway for years if you wanted bass from a JBL you needed Box with a capital B otherwise it wasn't there.

I don't really know what goes down to 20hz. I used to have a pair of C55 cabs (there has been one on Ebay lately, mine weren't so pretty) and I would play 1812 and special Virgil Fox albums (hated them but impressive) and I never heard them double. I didn't believe it then but they couldn't have hit 20hz I want what I build now to but it's just because I can I think. With turntables you would have probably had to have the table in the other room on it's own foundation. (in the ground ) or maybe run a Decca at 4 or 5 grams or whatever those plows ran at.
I know that often much is lost looking for those bottom notes. In around '73 JBL had a demonstration record that had some pentangle cuts on it and we had some S7R's set up next to C40's with D130 175DLH and 075. The C40's if you knew enough you probably could have told what make stand up base and what strings (I don't know if that is true but you get the idea) on the S7R which almost growled with muscularity you did good to know it was a stand up. It really turned me against PR's and didn't make me a fan of the LE15. I'm not sure where I stand on that today. I've collected a number of drivers started more than one cabinet (Winchesters house) but the D130 just seamed so much more delicate and accurate or mistaken for accurate one. Also the S7R seamed to have to hit a certain level before it came out of the background. There have been thousands or more speakers built since then I'm sure not going to proclaim a best but the last few notes and the quest for them is interesting. If a base guitar speaker isn't considered to go low enough for a good sub woofer that must say something.

[LowPhreak]

cooperación ?? we don't need no stinkin' cooperación !!!! (treasure of the LHF)

Right you are, sir! One of my fave flicks.

I can report that Mexico is quite nice this time of year. And with 1st-gen copies of master tapes like these, I don't need no digital. I don't have to show you any steeking digital. :die:

:coolness:

So, we see that what Ian said is pertinent: it ain't always about the equipment, it's the recording's quality that will often get you there.

JBL: "The anti-audiophile audiophile's speaka."

[Ian Mackenzie]

I am inclined to think the 20hz tag is a sale pitch because unless the system can do it at full throttle you just wont hear hear it.

To explain, even with room gain a system may measure -3db at 20 hoits (yankee hertz ..muhhaha) on small signal but unless there is sufficient amp power and cone displacement the max 20hz signal without gross distortion is going to be well below the mid band rersponse at normal operating levels.

30 hertz is a lot more realistic and practical. Although Steve Schell would probably disagree. The 1500 JBl sub is quite handy for this sort of effects based ELF.

The other point is that with bass reflex systems the position of the port tuning frequency a about trade offs in terms of LF extension and power handling / max output about the port tuning frequency.

Apart from overall system viability, this may explain the 30 hz F3, offering a useful Low frequency extension and very high power handling at the f3 and above. Further lowering the F3 for more extension would significantly sacrifice maximum output and dynamic range over much of the more "useful" bass range in the 30-50 hz area.

[SEAWOLF97]

Right you are, sir! One of my fave flicks.

I can report that Mexico is quite nice this time of year. And with 1st-gen copies of master tapes like these, I don't need no digital. I don't have to show you any steeking digital. :die:


http://soundamerica.com/sounds/movies/S-T/Treasure_of_the_Sierra_Madre/

[Thom]

I don't know what the cut off is on a CD but with an lp even with the riaa curve I wonder what that looks like at volume. I'm entirely ignorant it might be nothing but it seems you could look at the vinyl and see something was going on.

[X_X]

What's the old saying in audio?

"If it sounds good and measures bad- find a different way to measure it; If it sounds bad and measures good- leave the rest to marketing."

..or something like that. :p

[greyhound]

Giskard recently posted an analysis of Everest II LF response. The specs are anechoic. The "in-room" response is different.

Someone wants artificial bass respsonse, they'll easily handle EQ, according to the designer....
what does anechoic mean.

[greyhound]

There were some earlier threads on these with tons of responses - I think everyone was "responded out" by the time your thread came around...

Johni was talking about the dutch site were all the haters hang out. but thnx

[greyhound]

I am inclined to think the 20hz tag is a sale pitch because unless the system can do it at full throttle you just wont hear hear it.

To explain, even with room gain a system may measure -3db at 20 hoits (yankee hertz ..muhhaha) on small signal but unless there is sufficient amp power and cone displacement the max 20hz signal without gross distortion is going to be well below the mid band rersponse at normal operating levels.

30 hertz is a lot more realistic and practical. Although Steve Schell would probably disagree. The 1500 JBl sub is quite handy for this sort of effects based ELF.

The other point is that with bass reflex systems the position of the port tuning frequency a about trade offs in terms of LF extension and power handling / max output about the port tuning frequency.

Apart from overall system viability, this may explain the 30 hz F3, offering a useful Low frequency extension and very high power handling at the f3 and above. Further lowering the F3 for more extension would significantly sacrifice maximum output and dynamic range over much of the more "useful" bass range in the 30-50 hz area.

my thoughts exactly.

[greyhound]

http://www.solidestate.nl/
link to "producten" (products)
take a look. they claim the menhir is the best speaker in the world.

i havent heard it yet but the people claim that its totally without colour, no musical preferences, en delivers 20 hz -1,5db.

Its the trend in holland that people make speakers in there own home and think they know something that companies like JBL dont know inspite of their 60 yrs expirience.

[X_X]

I am inclined to think the 20hz tag is a sale pitch because unless the system can do it at full throttle you just wont hear hear it.

To explain, even with room gain a system may measure -3db at 20 hoits (yankee hertz ..muhhaha) on small signal but unless there is sufficient amp power and cone displacement the max 20hz signal without gross distortion is going to be well below the mid band rersponse at normal operating levels.

30 hertz is a lot more realistic and practical. Although Steve Schell would probably disagree. The 1500 JBl sub is quite handy for this sort of effects based ELF.

The other point is that with bass reflex systems the position of the port tuning frequency a about trade offs in terms of LF extension and power handling / max output about the port tuning frequency.

Apart from overall system viability, this may explain the 30 hz F3, offering a useful Low frequency extension and very high power handling at the f3 and above. Further lowering the F3 for more extension would significantly sacrifice maximum output and dynamic range over much of the more "useful" bass range in the 30-50 hz area.


Agreed. I don't put much stock in the published data. I wonder how many people are capable of hearing anything @ 20Hz. I bet most people only feel freq ~20Hz, and very little (if any) music resides there. I can attest to the power of feeling extremely satisfied (with regard to bass) when listening to speakers that "only" go to 30Hz. When I look at drivers like the 2235, '45, and (X)1500(Al, etc) they have Fs @ ~30Hz, which sort of compensates for the drop in db at around the same freq. I am sure these are not engineering accidents. JBL's go deeper, and are more musically satisfying than any other LF transducer I know of.


NP says it more eloquently than anyone else:


"For a long time there has been faith in the technical community that eventually some objective analysis would reconcile critical listener's subjective experience with laboratory measurement. Perhaps this will occur, but in the meantime, audiophiles largely reject bench specifications as an indicator of audio quality. This is appropriate. Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not."



Nathan.

.

[Mannermusic]

Ultimately it's pointless to argue with someone about brands or about specifications. Others will be emotionally attached to their favorite speakers just as I am attached to mine. We may try to use charts, graphs, and specifications to prove our point, but everyone (except Bose!) can produce those things. Then the argument shifts to "how" the sound was measured, or "why" one specification is more important than another, or "where" the measurement was made, or "what" was used in the audio chain to make the sound, etc.

Very few people have ever listened to many speakers other than the ones they ended up purchasing, and the last time they heard a brand like JBL turns the argument into a "when" did you last hear a JBL, if ever?

The fact remains that JBL is one of the oldest continuous loudspeaker brands in the world. Over its long history, it has accumulated more awards, developed more important technical and engineering innovations, and maintained the most diversified product line than virtually any other loudspeaker manufacturer.

As a part of Harman International, it has access to the world's most sophisticated loudspeaker design and testing facility, has developed the world's most sophisticated listening panels and double-blind listening protocols, and has access to the greatest technical and artistic minds in loudspeaker design, all at the Northridge, California facility.

JBL dominates theater, music hall, stadium, live venue, recording studio, and auditorium sound in many parts of the world. It is the most consistently widely-distributed brand around the world (check its Web site for countries and languages), and it has the largest support activities of any major brand.

JBL recently won international recognition and awards for its Everest II DD66000, following up on its international award-winning K2 S9800. It developed unique and amazing technologies, including transducers, which are world-class and best-in-class in their execution.

JBL is at the forefront of car audio, marine audio, professional audio, and home audio.

It is also true that it is one of the most often criticized brands among boutique speaker owners, snobs, and people who hate big companies. Often these people will compare the under $1000/pair entry level JBL consumer speakers with speakers that cost much more and use that as an indictment of the entire product line. But on a price segment comparison basis, JBL can match or beat any brand out there.

At the high end, it has a number of offerings that will humiliate similar priced lines, but since most people have never heard these JBLs, these people will use poor arguments and specs on paper to make their judgments. I make it a point to go to audio shops when I can to listen to the best they have. I am open to finding speakers that I can afford that will sound better than my JBLs.

But in any case, when someone attacks JBLs, I can say that I have heard their speakers and what my opinion is based on actually hearing them, or I keep my mouth shut if I haven't heard them. If they cannot say they have heard comparable JBLs, then they are ignorant in every sense of the word, and I have no reason to want to argue with an ignorant person. It wastes both of our times.

Its all emotion - like trying to talk to a religionist. Pride fueled self-righteousness. They are unaware of their bias or what's required to be objective. The double blind technique is a threat, to be avoided!

[briang]

Its all emotion - like trying to talk to a religionist. Pride fueled self-righteousness. They are unaware of their bias or what's required to be objective. The double blind technique is a threat, to be avoided!

Regarding the double blind technique, how true it is. When it comes to belief, all data that yeilds evidence to the contrary of the belief is a 'dangerous' threat.

Reminds me of a fortune cookie I've taped to my monitor at work: "As scares as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of demand."

[Zilch]

The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not.".Utter nonsense. The subjectivist credo; always gotta take a whack at what they don't understand.

I am not in the least insulted. Read Toole (Harman's V.P. of figuring this out) in the June 2006 AES Journal, a thorough review of the current state of the science. Perhaps this site can acquire permission to reprint it here....

[Robh3606]

Originally Posted by X_X http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=149867#post149867)
The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not.".


What ever happened to balance or a balanced approach to audio that trys to work with both aspects of this hobby. To much focus on the Us and Them:bs: as far as I am concerned. We should be working on what we agree on not focusing on what we don't.

Rob:)

[X_X]

What ever happened to balance or a balanced approach to audio that trys to work with both aspects of this hobby. To much focus on the Us and Them:bs: as far as I am concerned. We should be working on what we agree on not focusing on what we don't.

Rob:)

I'd love to see more of that, and I think those companies that have correctly nailed their market do keep a balance. JBL is one of the few. We may be hordes, but we still have buying power. That is the ultimate leverage.


Utter nonsense. The subjectivist credo; always gotta take a whack at what they don't understand.

I am not in the least insulted. Read Toole (Harman's V.P. of figuring this out) in the June 2006 AES Journal, a thorough review of the current state of the science. Perhaps this site can acquire permission to reprint it here....

'Nonsense'? Tell it to Nelson Pass, of whom I quoted. I'm sure he'll apprecitae your input on his own nonsensical philosophy for all things audio. Perhaps if he had your opinion, he could understand that which he (obviously) does not, and actually make something decent.

To both of you: The quote was taken out of context, not that its merits aren't excellent enough to stand on it's own, but the big picture was overlooked in your desire to object. See there? It's all subjective; you just proved it!

For me and many others, the ears (and heart) are the definitive judge. Why? Because I'm black. I know you cannot tell what the content of another man's character is based on the color of his skin. Therefor, how can you say a speaker sounds good because of it's published data?

Nate.

[Zilch]

Therefor, how can you say a speaker sounds good because of it's published data?Non sequitur. Not saying that at all. My objection is to the explicit assertion that those of us who work with the measurements and data are inherently incapable of appreciating the subtleties of character in listening to the result.

Nonsense.

[It wasn't ME that did the underlining for emphasis....]


People want impressive publised data- there are companies bent on achieving those goals even it means the product has no soul. The "soul" is supposed to be in the music, NOT the speakers, though I well appreciate the desire of some listeners to have it fabricated for them artificially, instead.... :p

[Ian Mackenzie]

Utter nonsense. The subjectivist credo; always gotta take a whack at what they don't understand.

I am not in the least insulted. Read Toole (Harman's V.P. of figuring this out) in the June 2006 AES Journal, a thorough review of the current state of the science. Perhaps this site can acquire permission to reprint it here....

Zilch, I am sure you know the meaning of context.

From you own spin on reality or should I say Curve On Reality I think it is an oversight that an objectivist "knows" and a subjectivist doesn't.

I can quote countless experts with far superior ability and expierience in measuring loudspeakers than you who have opposing views on whether absolute flatness in response is really that critical.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing when you start using other peoples quotes to leverage your own point of view.

Besides which appreciating your own loudspeakers is not about a war of words.

I have read that document you mention above. The Reveal stuff does not convince me they got it right.

I doubt if a given sample population know what a particular musical instrument sounds like. How many loudspeaker builders/designers can say the same.

Can you?

This is the ultimate problem and hence it is about (those who can appreciate ) the subtleties of music and audio reproduction for those who can appreciate it.

See Linkwitz conclusions and his pointed remark towards manufacturers.

"I find it disappointing when loudspeaker manufacturers run extensive double-blind listening tests with trained and untrained listeners where they only compare loudspeakers to each other, but not to any live source. These are strictly preference tests within a given paradigm."




What ever happened to balance or a balanced approach to audio that trys to work with both aspects of this hobby. To much focus on the Us and Them:bs: as far as I am concerned. We should be working on what we agree on not focusing on what we don't.

Rob:)

Go here: Linkwitzlab.com. He seems to be trying to look at both aspeccts.

[rgrjit8]

Sounds like you take a lot of guff over there. I've simply stopped responding to the Philistines. People usually continue to defend their choices beyond reason and experience. The best you can hope for amounts to little more than a rearrangement of their prejudices. This passes for deep thinking.


Anyway, what I really came to say...

I just love it when someone derides my JBLs by saying, "Yeah, they're big and loud, but I expect to hear some DETAIL in my music!" (this is an internet confrontation, where I can't simply show him - Missouri style)

And I think to myself, "Jackass, the music you listen to on your oh-so sophisticated speakers probably had their final mixdown on a pair of 4355s, or a close cousin anyway, so how can you presume to lecture about detail?"

Perhaps my thinking(my prejudices) is skewed, but is not the artist's intention better expressed by a studio monitor rather than by a dissimilar speaker?

I know some of you guys have experience in studios, what do you think? Am I just a blithering:blah:

[Tom Brennan]

Coal City? Is Bums still there? We used to sneak over there for a long lunch when we were building Collins Station. Remember Horse Radish Joe?

[X_X]

Non sequitur. Not saying that at all. My objection is to the explicit assertion that those of us who work with the measurements and data are inherently incapable of appreciating the subtleties of character in listening to the result.


Nonsense.



The "soul" is supposed to be in the music, NOT the speakers, though I well appreciate the desire of some listeners to have it fabricated for them artificially, instead....

Your ignorance of the word "differentiation" is obvious, and marks the core of your circular argument.

'Differentiation by numbers' (mathematical definition) as it relates to the aforementioned 'subtleties of music' means anything that makes a [I]derivative (root meaning) of the source material (and the music that it is) purely for the sake of acquiring proper numbers is an abomination of the music itself and rightfully criticized by those who enjoy said music. No one (including Nelson Pass) is saying that those who work with numbers can't appreciate music- your allegation is nonsense. It is when you manipulate the music to get the numbers that the sanctity and/or purity of music gets lost. That sort of manipulation (or differentiation by numbers) is for those who do not appreciate the subtleties of music. I think it is beautifully written (almost poetic) when fully understood, and I think you will agree.

With regard to your soul in the speaker comment:

The soul of a performance needs to be present throughout the entire audio chain (including the recording process) for it to be evident at the loudspeaker. All the components need not possess it- only allow it to pass through unscathed by those who seek differentiation by numbers. Those who do not appreciate the subtleties of music probably wouldn't be moved anyways. :P

[Tom Brennan]

I think the soul of a performence need only be present at the recording, Hell, the emotional essence gets through if you're listening to a transistor radio earplug. If it's there you'll get it.

[Zilch]

Your ignorance of the word "differentiation" is obvious, and marks the core of your circular argument.
Blather.

Pass's statement merely goes to the issue of whether one is able to hear the music or not, and the resources available for discernment under those conditions. You cite it to support discounting the utility of measurements:


I don't put much stock in the published data.

It simply does not support a position that if one IS able to discern the subtleties (YOU, presumably, ;) ) then the numbers are meaningless, and may be ignored.

Then, to posit that Pass REALLY means "differentiation" in the mathematical sense, is, well preposterous. How parsing the music, manipulating it, and reintegrating applies is beyond me.

Speakers aren't DSPs, but I can certainly argue that BAD ones alter it, which is contrary to the objective of reproducing the source. Plenty of "discerning" listeners seem to like such adulteration just fine, indeed, actually prefer it, wherein lies the core of the subjectivist thesis: "What I like is best; there are no quantifiable absolutes."

[Convenient, but wrong, alas....]

[Nightbrace]

"Read Toole (Harman's V.P. of figuring this out) in the June 2006 AES Journal, a thorough review of the current state of the science. Perhaps this site can acquire permission to reprint it here...."

Where can I find this??

[boputnam]

I doubt if a given sample population know what a particular musical instrument sounds like. How many loudspeaker builders/designers can say the same.Ian, as I continue working in-front of live audiences and invite people into my home I can say that your comment is very unfair. People have a vast understanding of instrumentation in general and loudspeaker designers do, in fact, engineer their products to faithfully reproduce real sounds (but do so at a price-point they can market).

It is awkward watching someone argue a point by presuming ignorance of others as a way of making their point. :baby:

[SEAWOLF97]

We were talking - about the space between us all

And the people - who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion

Never glimpse of truth - then it's far too late - when they pass away :applaud:

-gh 1968

[Nightbrace]

Agreed. I don't put much stock in the published data.


"For a long time there has been faith in the technical community that eventually some objective analysis would reconcile critical listener's subjective experience with laboratory measurement. Perhaps this will occur, but in the meantime, audiophiles largely reject bench specifications as an indicator of audio quality. This is appropriate. Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not."



Nathan.

.

Published data helps a TON when getting a general idea of what to expect. While I don't subscribe to the idea that everything you need to know about a speaker can be determined from its frequency/impdence curves, it does give a very good "sense" of what the speaker actually sounds like. Without knowing certain things about speaker, you'd have to listen to every speaker ever made or take someone else's word for it (something that I've never subcribed to) Call me skeptical, but there are so many people making so many outlandish claims that its impossible to trust some peoples evaluations. About the only speaker company that has been truthful about the "ACTUAL" sound and build quality is JBL, and I'm willing to bet even JBL over-embellished a little to help sell their products. In audio as with any company, its all in the marketing, and perception is reality. Why do you think BOSE sells so well?

Saying that specs mean nothing is preposterous, and loudspeakers ARE an exact science (at least today), and cannot be compared at all with something like a fine wine.. Designers aren't master wine brewers, they have to engineer something to function in a certain way and especially today its imperative for it to be documented for a speaker to be wthin certain tolerances and to perform in an exacting way. This was not entirely possible when hi fideity audio was produced and many times a designer would have to fine tune based on their personal preferences as to what sounded good to them.. That is now a thing of the past..

When you hear a speaker you like, you can compare its specs to another speaker and slowly upgrade. None of the speakers I listen to spec out very good, but at least I know what I like to listen to and can tell whether or not I'll like a speaker by its spec without going through the hassle of auditioning it... At the same time, its okay to try new things, as your tastes do change and you may like something that you thought you wouldn't and again, specs can help you making these decisions as well.

Many of the things presented in NP's comments make sense, but only when you KNOW what your preferences are and what type of audio reproduction you personally enjoy as virtually every speaker sounds a bit different, subjectiveity only gets you so far, and while I agree that there will always be some trade-offs, its important to understand WHY you like what you like and specs and evaluations of speakers can help you achieve a more rounded understanding and can help aid in your progression towards the best sound possible for YOU.

I will say though that last time I checked, speakers are not tested in your house with your own equipment. So you cannot assume that they will sound the same once you get them home based on the specs, but as I said it helps tremendously to get a general sense of what to expect and once you find something that works for you, it will give you a better idea of what will work better for you in the future as there's no such thing as perfection in audio and you can always make improvements.

Audio reproduction is all about application and also finding something that fits your budget (as there are ALWAYS trade-offs), your listening preferences, and room acoustics.

I personally pick my speakers first and then fine tune them to my room with my gear. As there's no perfect amp that works with every speaker to suit your tastes. Again, picking a set of speakers that works perfectly in all aspects for EVERYTHING, is NEVER possible. Finding something that works well for you is whats important as well as making progress and going about it the right way. No need to be so hard on yourself either, its ok to make mistakes. I've made more mistakes in audio than its humanly possible, and I'm still here to tell the tale.. Its a hobby, not a mission, enjoy what you have and have fun making it better!

[Nightbrace]

It is awkward watching someone argue a point by presuming ignorance of others as a way of making their point. :baby:

YES IT IS!!! And it does hurt some people's feelings whether intended or not.

[rgrjit8]

Coal City? Is Bums still there? We used to sneak over there for a long lunch when we were building Collins Station. Remember Horse Radish Joe?

Sorry, I've only lived here 2 & one half years . I've never heard of the place or the person though I do have some horseradish growing in the back yard.
Collins station must be 'inside talk' for the local nuke?

Sorry, I'm not a real get out and know your neighbors kind of person.

[Robh3606]

Published data helps a TON when getting a general idea of what to expect.

I really enjoy doing measurements and I think they are a great tool. JBL does a really good job with the Pro Cabinets and gives one of the most complete measurements set's available.

That said the other side of the coin is it depends on what measurements your are looking at, the conditions of the measurements, and having the knowledge to know how measurements can be effected by these conditions. It's not as simple as looking at the graph. They can also be deliberately misleading depending on how they are scaled and published.

What measurements can't tell you is how the system will sound. They can give you an indication but they don't tell all by any means. This all goes back to the balanced approach I was talking about. You need to be able to look at things with both hats to be able to get the best out of your gear IMHO.

One of my favorite examples is the 4406 and a 4345 measured response above say 100Hz. Looking at the graph the 4406 would be the clear winner in real life nothing could be further from the truth.



Rob:)

[Nightbrace]

Rob<< couldn't have said it better myself. I can only imagine how fun it is making all those curves :).

[X_X]

Blather.
Pass's statement merely goes to the issue of whether one is able to hear the music or not, and the resources available for discernment under those conditions. You cite it to support discounting the utility of measurements:


Well, Zilch, I gave you too little credit. Not only do you know more than one of the finest minds in audio- you know how to read my thoughts! I guess I didn't know what my own intentions were when I made my post; So glad you could enlighten me.

You are one self-righteous Yank, I'll give you that!




It simply does not support a position that if one IS able to discern the subtleties (YOU, presumably, ;) ) then the numbers are meaningless, and may be ignored.

I don't know where you got this notion. I never said the numbers are meaningless. I said I don't put much stock in the published data. I stand by that statement. Pass meant music that is altered to achieve the numbers is bad. This is about as simple as it gets. Not my fault you disagree, but don't try to twist words to make a "point".


Then, to posit that Pass REALLY means "differentiation" in the mathematical sense, is, well preposterous. How parsing the music, manipulating it, and reintegrating applies is beyond me.

You are clearly brilliant. I stand corrected. I assumed that when Pass said DIFFERENTIATION BY NUMBERS he meant math. Yet, no matter WHAT version of differentiation is implemented- the statement still holds true. He all but wrote his intentions on the forehead of his readers, yet you find a miraculous way to twist it up. I guess he should have consulted you first to make sure he knew what his own convictions were before typing them.


Speakers aren't DSPs, but I can certainly argue that BAD ones alter it, which is contrary to the objective of reproducing the source. Plenty of "discerning" listeners seem to like such adulteration just fine, indeed, actually prefer it, wherein lies the core of the subjectivist position: "What I like is best; there are no quantifiable absolutes."

[Convenient, but wrong, alas....]

'Wrong'? I like how you can sum up my deepest feelings about audio, and the entire life I have made out of it as "wrong". Yet, self righteous as you are, you do your best to pin it up on the data you gain from your Clio program. You are missing a lot more than data.

What's wrong with being subjective? Isn't art subjective? Isn't music subjective? I'll wait to look and listen to anything else until you run your RTA and let me know what is acceptable for me to indulge in.

[X_X]

ILooking the the graph the 4406 would be the clear winner in real life nothing could be further from the truth.



Rob:)


So, what you're saying is I shouldn't put much stock in the published data? Point taken! ;)

Seriously, you made a very nice post. I agree. That was the nature of this thread- how certain audiophiles were thumbing their noses at the published data of JBL speakers. You cannot discount a speaker based on what it's specs are.


What measurements can't tell you is how the system will sound

Perfectly said. It has been my position from the very start; Thank you putting it in words everyone should be able to understand.

Nate.

[Nightbrace]

You can if its from a reliable company like JBL, but only when you know what it means and how it applies to you. But I wouldn't trust anything you read in a magazine or from a speaker company that posts its frequency response curve as expects you to buy that speaker because its a flat line.,

[Zilch]

What's wrong with being subjective?Why, NOTHING, of course.

With great good luck, you might even get it right!

I know, I am SUCH a piece of shit.

[That don't help your argument much, tho.... :p ]

[Nightbrace]

OH NO,, go easy on him Zilch. :)

[X_X]

I know, I am SUCH a piece of shit.

I never said that, or even implied it. Nelson Pass said it; Blame him. (That was a peace offering in the form of a joke.)

If you want to continue this great...whatever it is...we can. I see it as pointless, though; We have very different ideals. Lucky for us- we live on opposite sides of the world, and there's plenty of room for us in it.

Nate.

[Zilch]

Nelson Pass said it; Blame him.I will speak with Mr. Pass about this at the first available opportunity.... ;)


If you want to continue this great...whatever it is...we can. I see it as pointless, though; We have very different ideals. Lucky for us- we live on opposite sides of the world, and there's plenty of room for us in it.We'd be listening to each others' gear, probably, is what....:thmbsup:

[X_X]

I wouldn't trust anything you read in a magazine or from a speaker company that posts its frequency response curve as expects you to buy that speaker because its a flat line.,


Oh no- go easy on him Zilch! :)

[X_X]

We'd be listening to each others' gear, probably, is what....:thmbsup:


Not until you get yourself some speakers with actual human souls in them. :p

[Zilch]

Oh no- go easy on him Zilch! :)



:rotfl:


Not until you get yourself some speakers with actual human souls in them. :pYou'd be beggin' me to measure your speakers and help you fix 'em.... :p

[Nightbrace]

XX<< go ahead and buy every speaker that advertises a flat line as their freq. response curve. Thats ALL that matters :).

[Titanium Dome]

Well, you know I always quote Bill Miller at a time like this: "Why can't it be both?"

I used to be more rigorous in looking at the numbers than I am now, but soon discovered that some companies actually distort what they report. Can you believe it? :shock:

Forgive me for saying so, but I'll bet even JBL has mucked it up a time or two. :spchless:

Even published specs will give an inclination of the care a manufacturer took in the development process and may guide me toward what I'd like to listen to. Yet, many other things also play a role: horns, waveguides, direct radiators, panels, ribbons? Pulp, Carbon, Aluminum, polypropylene, Beryllium, Titanium, Mylar®? Two-way, three-way, four-way?

It's actually quite an advantage to have the numbers generated by some of the more technical folks on these forums, because they're more likely to be real-world accurate and also reveal what it takes to improve the numbers and thus the sound.

I think JBL's numbers are more useful than most manufacturers' numbers I've seen, because they do tend to be representative of the actual product. I adore the official response graph for the Performance Series 'cuz it kicks the shit out of a lot of products, JBL's included. "Your NirvanaTech Jupiter II speakers cost $30,000 and have imported Syrian Cedar veneer? Oh yeah? Well look at my effing graph; it kicks ass on you pal." :p

But I also know there are a few JBL speakers whose numbers might not be quite as good looking that will spank the PS head to head in the real world.

The thing I hope we can say about JBLs and the Lansing Heritage is that both art and science matter. I'm not sure what "soul" is in defining the characteristics of a loudspeaker. I'm aware of the science and technology JBL puts into every speaker, even the Venue Series and iPod® add-ons, and I believe the art is a belief held close to the heart of many Harman/JBL engineers that they can bring music to people in every place, for every taste, with many dreams, in every economic budget, and that music will bring joy or peace or inspiration or passion to those who hear the art coming through the science.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ian, as I continue working in-front of live audiences and invite people into my home I can say that your comment is very unfair. People have a vast understanding of instrumentation in general and loudspeaker designers do, in fact, engineer their products to faithfully reproduce real sounds (but do so at a price-point they can market).

It is awkward watching someone argue a point by presuming ignorance of others as a way of making their point. :baby:

Well I can understand why you might suggest this was the case.

I am talking from direct experience.

The brutal, and I mean brutal reality is I have witnessed this situation only in the past week at a dealers showrooms.

The dealers rep, as classical musician by training refused to demonstrated to a particular loudspeaker because in his view he felt it was unethical to recommend a loudspeaker that was claimed to reproduce the sounds of musical instruments faithfully as suggested by the manufacturer.


Ther manufacturer is not a fly by night outfit and we are not talking about a cheap model.

I am in the market for an alternative system and I had read Linkwitz site some days earlier and felt it appropriate to pass on as I had told it here.

On the matter of subjectivity there is such lattitude in preferences that no doubt some listeners (in a double blind test) would prefer the live acoustic demonstration while others would prefer the/some loudspeaker(s).

At the least Linkwitz has the balls and the brains to state the obvious.

Linkwitz honeymoon cottage up at Sea Ranch sounds quite nice actually.

Ian

[Otis McCoy]

Very interesting discussion. I have often wondered how JBL made such great speakers in the 1940's up to the point where computers aided their design? Those same speakers command huge sums, and are prized for their sound/build quality. I don't think that is a mistake. The fact that new age speakers have the benefit of computer aided design, doesn't make them better solely because of it. If that was the only criteria necessary for producing a great speaker, then there would be no need for showrooms, final critical listening tests, etc-etc.

I think that Robh3606 has a great point in his last post. What looks to be a slam-dunk performance winner on a graph, doesn't always translate into real world performance that the finest instrument of all, the human ear, will agree with. The people that build speakers know this as a fact. If not, why wouldn't they just spec a system wholly based on graphs and sell it?

He makes another great point wrt balance between subjective and objective points of view. Clearly, the "curve junkies" and the "trust your ears" camps should have some common ground. But this particular discussion shows that each will argue their points as if there is no common ground. I've watched this forum for a long time before posting. I see that although there is much to be gleened from the technical camp, It also seems that it is vehemently defended as the only real viable method of proof that a speaker sounds good. As Robh3606's example shows, that is not always the fact. I'm positive that his example is not unique.

I think that if credit for each side's position was given equal respect for it's value, there would be more growth and true understanding of speaker design for all members, instead of immediately discounting an opinion about a certain speaker because a chart or graph doesn't look right, or statements discounting the value of the technical data's importance. Only when given the proper genuine respect laterally, will this forum live up to it's potential. Where everyone one that cares to, will learn from and appreciate, both the measured and subjective data. The part of the brain that permits that to happen is closely tied to it's emotional center and logic. Admiration is a feeling, trust is made up of emotional components and logical assumptions based on human interaction. What is the gig here? Is the ultimate goal to have/build/buy speakers to listen to music? Is that not an emotional experience? And does that not require a generous amount of technical know-how to produce?

As it stands, it is not a matter of whether either side has the correct information, it is whether anyone cares to have the correct attitude to permit the sharing of ideas, opinions and data.

[SEAWOLF97]

Very interesting discussion. I have often wondered how JBL made such great speakers in the 1940's up to the point where computers aided their design? Those same speakers command huge sums, and are prized for their sound/build quality. I don't think that is a mistake. The fact that new age speakers have the benefit of computer aided design, doesn't make them better solely because of it.

Not to throw this thread off topic.

We visited Beale AFB years ago and got to see and sit in an operational SR-71 Blackbird. You all know what it is.....anyway, it was designed on slide rule, no computers or calculators in sight. A tad more complicated than speakers. :blink:

[Robh3606]

Here's a example of how measurements can be manipulated by adjusting resolution in both the actual measurement using smoothing and the db scale per box. These are all the exact same raw measurement presented in different ways. All are perfectly valid and all could be used by a manufacturer to represent their loudspeakers.

Rob:)

[Robh3606]

Here are DB scale

[Robh3606]

These are windowed. The last is the most meaningful graph of all. It is back to the original resolution but windowed to show the area wher the driver will operate in the system. As you can see it's all in the presentation.

Rob:)

[soundboy]

One of my favorite examples is the 4406 and a 4345 measured response above say 100Hz. Looking at the graph the 4406 would be the clear winner in real life nothing could be further from the truth.


Now I know why I got away from the foghorn lens, and the slot tweeters in the 80's...I rather like the 4406's.

At 95db, which would throw a better detailed image? Or sound more focused on an acoustic guitar or vocalist?
At 115db, which one would go up in smoke, and which would make your ears ache for a biradial?:p

Seriously, very good example.:applaud:

[mikebake]

But I also know there are a few JBL speakers whose numbers might not be quite as good looking that will spank the PS head to head in the real world.


i.e.?

[mikebake]

Very interesting discussion. I have often wondered how JBL made such great speakers in the 1940's up to the point where computers aided their design? Those same speakers command huge sums, and are prized for their sound/build quality. I don't think that is a mistake. The fact that new age speakers have the benefit of computer aided design, doesn't make them better solely because of it. If that was the only criteria necessary for producing a great speaker, then there would be no need for showrooms, final critical listening tests, etc-etc.

I think that Robh3606 has a great point in his last post. What looks to be a slam-dunk performance winner on a graph, doesn't always translate into real world performance that the finest instrument of all, the human ear, will agree with. The people that build speakers know this as a fact. If not, why wouldn't they just spec a system wholly based on graphs and sell it?

He makes another great point wrt balance between subjective and objective points of view. Clearly, the "curve junkies" and the "trust your ears" camps should have some common ground. But this particular discussion shows that each will argue their points as if there is no common ground. I've watched this forum for a long time before posting. I see that although there is much to be gleened from the technical camp, It also seems that it is vehemently defended as the only real viable method of proof that a speaker sounds good. As Robh3606's example shows, that is not always the fact. I'm positive that his example is not unique.

I think that if credit for each side's position was given equal respect for it's value, there would be more growth and true understanding of speaker design for all members, instead of immediately discounting an opinion about a certain speaker because a chart or graph doesn't look right, or statements discounting the value of the technical data's importance. Only when given the proper genuine respect laterally, will this forum live up to it's potential. Where everyone one that cares to, is learning and appreciating the measured and subjective data. The part of the brain that permits that to happen is closely tied to it's emotional center and logic. Admiration is a feeling, trust is made up of emotional components and logical assumptions based on human interaction. What is the gig here? Is the ultimate goal to have/build/buy speakers to listen to music? Is that not an emotional experience? And does that not require a generous amount of technical know-how to produce?

As it stands, it is not a matter of whether either side has the correct information, it is whether anyone cares to have the correct attitude to permit the sharing of ideas, opinions and data.
Okay, "Otis", who are you?

[Otis McCoy]

Okay, "Otis", who are you? I give up, who am I? :blink: I see that quite a few people here use pseudonyms. Is there something in what I said that has you curious?

[Shane Shuster]

So basically to sum it up.

Group A: Dynamics and impact are where its at, who cares about imaging and frequency response. Why can't those other guys get a clue and find out what real sound is?

Group B: Imaging and frequency response is where its at, who cares about dynamics and impact. Why can't those other guys get a clue and find out what real sound is?

When discussing audio why does the other guy have to be portrayed as ignorant and wrong? For example on the 20hz thing, if a guy listens to electronica/dance or pipe organ music wouldn't lack of low bass be an honest critique of a speaker? If you listen to just folk music do you value dynamics and impact as much as imaging?

Why so much focus on who has what for brand names and not on actual sound?

[Zilch]

Well, I have searched high and low for Giskard's post(s) illustrating (FR curve) and discussing the summation of the dual woofers in E2.

Does anybody know where this is?

Perhaps deleted? :dont-know

Did find this:

Somebody estimated 277 Liters. You get an A. We figure the active volume is around 270 l. As with all Japan intended systems, the low end is deliberately lean. The published curve is an anechoic curve which is very hard to interpret with regard to real in-room response. The system has 3 dB more output at 30 Hz than a S9800. It has the tightest and best defined bass reproduction of any JBL, ever. It is not as fast as the 100 dB woofers, but goes much deeper. In multi-channel, the use of a sub is normal and will take care of the issue. In 2-channel, some EQ could easily be used as the woofers have tremendous headroom.[Highlight and emphasis added....]

[Mr. Widget]

So basically to sum it up...I don't need to quote your whole post, but I agree with it 100%.

I listen to '60s Folk, '70s Rock, '80s and '90s pop, contemporary electronic music, Classical and Jazz... and not in any particular order or focussing on any particular genre at any one time. While listening to Joni Mitchell.... if my sub is switched off, I'd never notice, but if I throw on some Meshell Ndegeocello and the sub was still off... it'd be sorely missed.

I enjoy enough Jazz and other "acoustic" records where the imaging can be stunning... then again, for many very early recordings of Coltrane, the Beatles, and others... the stereo effect is distracting since they put some musicians on the left and others on the right.

Since I do listen to a wide range of music, I find any speaker that has it's own character... say one that makes Stevie Ray Vaughn's guitar searingly in your face and powerfully alive... also makes Andrés Segovia sound a bit searing... or one with a warm deep tone that makes thin '70s rock albums sound deep and rich, tends to make today's well recorded music sound boomy and bass heavy.

I like the most neutral sound I can find with best imaging and most dynamic sound possible... unfortunately it doesn't come inexpensively... one of the best compromises I have heard is the JBL Everest DD66000.

In an effort to bring this back on topic... I'll submit that this new JBL will change the minds of many of the JBL haters who hear them.


Widget

[Titanium Dome]

Since I do listen to a wide range of music, I find any speaker that has it's own character... say one that makes Stevie Ray Vaughn's guitar searingly in your face and powerfully alive... also makes Andrés Segovia sound a bit searing... or one with a warm deep tone that makes thin '70s rock albums sound deep and rich, tends to make today's well recorded music sound boomy and bass heavy.

Which is one explanation for why I have so many different kinds of JBLs.


I like the most neutral sound I can find with best imaging and most dynamic sound possible... unfortunately it doesn't come inexpensively... one of the best compromises I have heard is the JBL Everest DD66000.

In an effort to bring this back on topic... I'll submit that this new JBL will change the minds of many of the JBL haters who hear them.


If they can get past the response graph... ;)

[Mr. Widget]

Which is one explanation for why I have so many different kinds of JBLs.I used to think that was the only option. ;)


If they can get past the response graph... ;)While at CES, Greg did mention that review samples were being requested by the audio mags... I know that most on this forum love to bash the audio press... but I imagine a bit of praise for the DD66000 will make the production backlog even deeper. :D

I doubt praise for the DD66000 will sell any Northridge systems... but it may help get a few dealers for the Project Array series and the K2 line.


Widget

[LowPhreak]

I like the most neutral sound I can find with best imaging and most dynamic sound possible... unfortunately it doesn't come inexpensively... one of the best compromises I have heard is the JBL Everest DD66000.

In an effort to bring this back on topic... I'll submit that this new JBL will change the minds of many of the JBL haters who hear them.


Widget

Besides price, getting them past the "JBL" logos on the boxes is the biggest hurdle I would say. It is a very tough bias to overcome. Even with the curmudgeonly, somewhat anti-audiophile attitude I've developed over the years, I still find myself occasionally looking at my speakers and asking, "...what the hell am I doing with...JBL's?" An 'eeek!' moment for sure.

:argue:

However, cognitive dissonance can be a good thing. ;)

[mikebake]

I give up, who am I? :blink: I see that quite a few people here use pseudonyms. Is there something in what I said that has you curious?
No, I just know everyone in Ohio, and I don't know you...........

[Robh3606]

Group A: Dynamics and impact are where its at, who cares about imaging and frequency response. Why can't those other guys get a clue and find out what real sound is?

Group B: Imaging and frequency response is where its at, who cares about dynamics and impact. Why can't those other guys get a clue and find out what real sound is?


Hello Shane

You need speakers that can do it all the problem is the right balance. You really want speakers that are better than the sum of it's parts. I quess you could call it synergy where it all just compliments each other. No easy task. I agree as well lets talk about our common ground. We all like music.


Which is one explanation for why I have so many different kinds of JBLs.

Hello TDome

I could not agree more. Keeps things fresh and it's fun to change them out to get a new perspective every once in a while.


Rob :)

[boputnam]

Keeps things fresh and it's fun to change them out to get a new perspective every once in a while.Yea - just wander down the street to the neighbor's Bose-a-rama, and one quickly becomes less jaded... ;)

[Titanium Dome]

Yea - just wander down the street to the neighbor's Bose-a-rama, and one quickly becomes less jaded... ;)

Hey, I have a buddy in Long Beach who's a Bose Master and an excellent guitarist. He affirms that his Bose system is the closest to the real thing. It certainly gives me a new perspective everytime I go over there and he puts on some concert DVD.

I had him and his wife over for movie and a pizza night to watch Winged Migration, and she was pretty impressed with the JBL Performance Series and the big ol' Seleco CRT PJ. I grabbed Concert for George since they're both Harrison fans and played it in 5.1 surround.

Afterward, she said, "You need one of these, that was amazing" pointing to the entire system. He replied with a grin, "Yes, I do. JBL, huh?"

[SEAWOLF97]

Hey, I have a buddy in Long Beach who's a Bose Master and an excellent guitarist. He affirms that his Bose system is the closest to the real thing.

My manager at last job was a dufus. He went out and bought a Bose sat/sub system for his party room before he held his annual Xmas party.

He was really proud of it and kept talking about image and highs. The sats were mounted high on the walls, near the ceiling. They sounded dull to me.

I got up on a chair to check it out, at the party. Of course he had mounted them firing straight into the wall from about an inch away. I turned them to wards the room and everyone applauded. Wasn't great sound, but better. :applaud:

Got laid off shortly after that..............

[Andyoz]

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Nightbrace]

My manager at last job was a dufus. He went out and bought a Bose sat/sub system for his party room before he held his annual Xmas party.

He was really proud of it and kept talking about image and highs. The sats were mounted high on the walls, near the ceiling. They sounded dull to me.

I got up on a chair to check it out, at the party. Of course he had mounted them firing straight into the wall from about an inch away. I turned them to wards the room and everyone applauded. Wasn't great sound, but better. :applaud:

Got laid off shortly after that..............


LOL, you described about 90% of the population in a nut shell., Easily satisfied, or totally ignorant. Some both :). Which is why Bose is considered by many to be the Bees Knees in audio.. Gotta believe those commercials. I especially love the quotes, "sounds better than systems costing 10 times as much", "Sound that rivals that of more expensive 5 channel sattelite units". Some people believe it, after-all "Hearing is believing" Seems as if you are now a "believer" in Bose after hearing it :),

[Andyoz]

I have had about half a dozen people site down and really have a good listen to my 250Ti's.

These are the types who have no interest in hi-fi but they are always impressed when they hear the JBL's.

The conversation then normally goes like this....."and what make are they (as they try to read the little JBL badge)", then I say "JBL" and they generally say "Oh, have never heard of them...would they be as good as Bose then...":eek:

The funniest one was my Uncle. He has zero interest in music but still mentioned Bose. Bose's marketing penetration in the print media is scary.

[greyhound]

funny how populair bose is in your country.
In europe bose is considerd even worse than jbl. But both brands stand for loud & noisy. so over here there not so much difference between the two.

Only the people who are REALLY interested in audio know that jbl also makes good speakers. But there arent a lot of shops that sell them.
A lot of people still like the old 901's from bose and i have to admit i like em too. Not worthy of buying but they sound rich and big. A violin seems almost 2 meters long. so there not realistic but for electronic music and home theatre i guess they could do quit well.

[SEAWOLF97]

I have had about half a dozen people site down and really have a good listen to my 250Ti's.

These are the types who have no interest in hi-fi but they are always impressed when they hear the JBL's.

I cud make the same statement "word for word" about my mains, but the comment I usually get from listeners is "What the heck ARE those"


(Maybe I'll post new pix when done dying the tents today. I am going from 70's brown to 90's black....really improves sound..)

[kingjames]

ya.seawolf97, post those pictures.

[Andyoz]

...but the comment I usually get from listeners is "What the heck ARE those"

:D that's actually what they usually say first, I forgot about that.

[merlin]

Who has the oppurtunity to listen to $60,000 speakers? Who has the oppurtunity to buy them?

Interesting to note that the likes of Dynamic Audio and Audio Union in Japan sell the higher end JBL's on extended terms - almost like lease agreements. Hey maybe they drive around in Daewoo Matiz instead of a Camry - but at least they get into it every morning with a big grin on their faces.

I've been lucky enough to have lived with a lot of top audiophool loudspeakers over the years from B&W, Proac, Logan and others. I've owned speakers that image better than any JBL, that have more extended treble response, and that have more profound bottom ends. But I've yet to own a loudspeaker that captures the essence of most of my music collection as well as most 43** series JBL's do. I am writing to the Queen to ask that Mr G Timbers gets an honorary knighthood in the New Years Honours List.

[loach71]

I'll second that nomination.
A Peerage for Mr. Timbers. "Sir Gregory"......:D

[JBL 4645]

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/Brainstorm3417/everyonepx4.jpg

[Tweak48]

I remember when years ago I ordered a brand new pair of 4425's having never heard them before. The abuse I took over on the Audio Review forum was amazing. Not for ordering before hearing them, but for considering JBLs at all.:screwy: They all said it was a tragic mistake; that I could have done much better for my $1700.

A delightful speaker by the way.

[briang]

This in an interesting thread:

If ever confronted with the anti-JBL crowd, I think I'll ask the question of them, "Is JBL capable of making a good or great loudspeaker at all?" I think the typical answer from an "audiophile" would be "No" or "It is impossible for anything JBL to sound good". Which clearly elucidates their illogical bias against JBL, not on merit, but on name alone.

At this point one can choose to discontiune the arguement on the basis of futility.:)

I think Harmon realized this long ago, so now Revel carries the flag forward in many respects (the new Everest 6600 excepted).

"A rose by any other name..."

[spwal]

im sure its been mentioned in this thread, but i think jbl is considered bad because people are used to seeing them in a club environment. its natural to draw that conclusion.

as far as bose goes, well, thats great advertising. dont lose sight of reality $2500 bucks for a 5.1 HT in a box from bose is nothing to sneeze at. thats a huge purchase to most people and they love it.

Lets turn this thread towards the true enemy: b&o lmao

http://www.beoworld.co.uk/products11/BeoSound4-Beolab4.jpg

http://www.beoworld.co.uk/products11/bs4bl4.jpg

[merlin]

It's quite interesting. The latest issue of HiFi News here in the UK carries a scathing review of the Array 1400 where it effectively compares it with a PA speaker and criticises it heavily for horn colouration.

I can't help but think the reviewer simply took too much baggage into that review.

[Robh3606]

I can't help but think the reviewer simply took too much baggage into that review.

Do they have a website where you can read a review???

Rob:)

[merlin]

Unfortunately not. HiFi News is pretty much the UK Stereophile and highly respected.

Their editorial has been going down hill recently but this review was somewhat surprising as a 4338 owner who is familiar with similar horns. Maybe someone can scan it. I wasn't going to waste my money on such rubbish.

[Andyoz]

I was reading an interesting book by the UK studio and speaker designer Philip Newell.

He makes an interesting point about horns that I had never considered. Because horn loaded designs are (generally) so efficient, he suggests that much of the "horn colouration" often talked about is actually high levels of crossover distortion present in many amplifiers when producing only milliwatts (enough power to produce decent SPL's for normal domestic listening). I guess class A amps would have advantage here. I expect this has been discussed on here before though.

[LowPhreak]

You don't think any audiophile rag can say anything good about a horn, do ya? Excepting maybe something like the AvantGarde's...

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/287/

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Robh3606]

Hello Merlin

Thanks. I was curious as they reviewed the 9800 very favorably and as you say, the same family horn. I guess it all boils down to who gets the review sample and what their preferences are.

Rob:)

[merlin]

Hi Rob,

It was Paul Messenger who favourably reviewed the K2 9800 as well as the 5800 and Array 1400. Paul's a really nice guy and an extremely experienced loudspeaker reviewer. Another UK magazine favourably reviewed the S4800, which of course uses 435al and 045ti.

None of these reviews mentioned any horn colouration - indeed they made a point of mentioning it's absence. It makes this latest "review" all the less credible.

[LowPhreak]

Hi Rob,

It was Paul Messenger who favourably reviewed the K2 9800 as well as the 5800 and Array 1400. Paul's a really nice guy and an extremely experienced loudspeaker reviewer. Another UK magazine favourably reviewed the S4800, which of course uses 435al and 045ti.

None of these reviews mentioned any horn colouration - indeed they made a point of mentioning it's absence. It makes this latest "review" all the less credible.

Well, I can't complain much about Mr. Messenger, b/c it was he (among others) who gave the Mesa Baron amp a thumbs-up some years ago, and I tend to agree with his findings on that unit.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well I auditioned a bunch more of AUD $5000+ UK HiFi loudspeakers (up the pom's...not bad cricket players after all!) yesterday, the Kantu Legend, a 3 way PCM and 3 way Monitor Audio system with magnesium/aluminium alloy cones.

No doubt they would be owned or at least admired by JBL bashers.

All three systems were tall slender cabinets with hi quality drivers, construction and finish.

We played the PMC first up with some familiar program material. I would describe the presentation is fruity and fleshed out not unlike a Vifa dome in the mids (yes it had soft 3 inch mid and 1 inch tweeter domes) and a nice oomp in the bass. A nice engaging system, but perhaps overplays the mids and misses on what might be considered true accuracy and precision.

Next up was the Monitor Audio. I loved this system finished in polished piano black.

This system had nice integration, better timing than the PMC and it was nice on some classical program material in that certain instruments really came across in manner that filled the room. While it was more accurate in the top end and had a nice tight bass end this system also overplayed across the midrange as female vocals were way too forward.

Then we played the Legend Kantu. A two way system with 7 inch Scan treated fibre woofers and a Visation cermic tweeter in quasi MTM configuration.

The Kantu was ruthlessly accurate in the upper midrange / top end and had some of the best imaging I have ever heard. The bass however was over damped and lacked balls. The Kantu had a clinical quality about the midrange which in the end bothered me. It was as thought the mids were greyed out as they were a long way behind the texture and snap of the tweeter. The bass was lightning fast but lacked weight.

Compared to my own system (4345) and allowing for different rooms and amps ect the JBL is without any doubt far more even handed right across the spectrum in terms of clarity ,dynamics and smoothness and I think this is its greatest strength.

The systems discussed above are relatively uneven in their approach in that while they may appear accurate they do not cover all the bases evenly or with the same emphasis. There was also a tendency for the PMC and the Monitor Audio to cast a particular tonal flavour over everthing we played. The Legend also did something in a way that cannot be fully explained. Perhaps it because it was a 2 way. I would say it lacks life in the midrange. A fatal flaw.

Tweaked up in biamp mode the JBL is very revealing and while it may not have the ultimate resolve and precision of the Legend Kantu in the upper registers it cheerfully plays everything well on a grand scale. The 2122H as far as midrange is concerned in my book is almost untouchable

If your an audiophile nut cake I suppose its easy to pick the bone about this and that not being not quite right but the point is its quite a listenable system. As evidenced above I have picked at and critiqued three very good audiophile Hifi speakers because I can. What was that about being able to appreciate the differences?.Oh well whatever.

Ian

[LowPhreak]

Oh you are a hard lot to please...you JBL types. :blink:

[Zilch]

I will add "fruity presentation" to the audiophile lexicon here.... :)

[Ian Mackenzie]

########Not nearly much as the non JBL users around here..they know who they are.:D

Don't they make white wine in CA?:) #############

[Tom Brennan]

"better timing than the PMC"

Timing ?!? What, did the speaker dance like Elaine? Timing? You gotta explain that one.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I really don't understand you post.

You will have to go hear a TL to appreciate the remark.

The bass often by design appears not as responsive as the rest of the system.

[Tom Brennan]

I've heard many TLs, going back to IMF and Fried Model H days . And I've heard speakers with good bass, bad bass and no bass but I never heard a speaker with bad timing.

Now I played with a bass player with bad timing, think it was his amp and not him? ;-) Acoustic 360.

[Andyoz]

I own a pair of the PMC's that Ian mentioned (sounds like he was listening to the OB1 -- http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/ob1.html).

They are lauded by the hifi press over here in the UK. I just found the bass slow and ponderous, not sure what the correct term is but it just sounded wrong to me. The rest of the spectrum is OK I guess but nothing special really. Also, if you ever extract the OB1's drivers, you may be surprised. There is no real substance to them at all, the woofer and midrange in particular are a real disappointment for a speaker that retails for £2,700 or US$5,000.

From what I remember, the woofer has 1" voicecoil and magnet weight less than 0.5kg. It's similar to this one out of the PMC FB1 (the whole driver is 6.25" remember).

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g240/andyoz/DB1Driver_web.jpg


The JBL's wipe the floor with them.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Exactly,

It was a bit of a let down. the blurb suggested they had it worked out.

To Tom, Another defining moment for that Nelson pass Quote.

No offence intended but you first post and of course your last post has me wondering.

For the less appreciate timing errors can be a lot of things.

Its generic statement often used to describe blurring of transients and loss of focus and clarity.

Driver offset, ringing of poorly designed or poor use of drivers, long group delay in bass systems and crossovers can interact witn drivers and calls ringing, phase shifts etc.

The Kantu by design as a simple two way was the least offender in this department. The woofers appear to operate in an over damped manner and the ceramic dome works as a point source in piston mode over most of its range. But it suffers other issues.

[Andyoz]

Driver offset, ringing of poorly designed or poor use of drivers, long group delay in bass systems and crossovers can interact witn drivers and calls ringing, phase shifts etc.

Yep, these are exactly the type of problems that systems based on small woofers are fighting. They are trying to fight the laws of physics in order to get low-frequency extension (as well as good time reponse) and all of the factors listed above come into play in some form or another.

Every manufacturer will proudly list 'Frequency' response data for their design but 'Time' reponse data is really never seen. At bass frequencies, the time response is just as important (more important?) than outright extension. It effects all matter of things right down to the way a speaker drives the room modes (a very important trait to consider).

Out of interest, I have seen time reponse data for the venerable Yamaha NS10 and Auratones. When compared to other competing products at the time, it actually explains a lot about why these were favoured by many top rock/pop mixing engineers for their "punchy" sound. Within their design limits, their time reponse is very "tight" even though absolute extension isn't great. You always have to trust you ears and that is exactly what these experienced mixers were doing.

[Tom Brennan]

"No offence intended but you first post and of course your last post has me wondering."

Indeed. I'm aware of speakers with lousy bass and what makes for lousy bass but I've never interpreted bad bass as bad timing, just bad sound. I can tell timing with good bass, bad bass or no bass. I remember listening to WLS-AM over a transistor radio ear-piece 45 years ago and having no trouble with the beat.

[jim campbell]

could it be that some transmission line designs have a slight but perceptible lag time?

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think so, its a characteristic of that type of design.

There is a lot of information on the www TL theory with formula and papers by a former JBL technical manager.

[Steve Schell]

The first time I became aware of subjective timing issues in speakers was when I built a JBL 2245J 18" woofer based vented subwoofer from the plans in Greg Timbers' and Lorr Kramer's article in Audio magazine in the early 1980s. No matter what I tried at the time with crossover slopes, level adjustment or placement, the sub output seemed to lag that of my stacked Quad ELS mains. The sound was a sort of "kerwhoomp", with the sub subjectively trailing the mains by 1/4 second or so. Still not sure what was at work (perhaps it was stored energy in the floor), and I wish I still had these components available to have another go at implementation. Does this make me a JBL hater? Sure hope not!

Being a fully front loaded horn kind of guy for the past decade, I have had a lot of experience at blending horn subs, mid bass horns and high frequency horns. My mid bass horns have 4' to 5' added path length compared to the mids/highs, and I have yet to perceive this in terms of timing. Horns tend to sound very quick, and I think that this amount of delay falls below our threshold of perception. The phase differences through the crossover region can introduce some interesting measured response anomalies though.

It is a different story with the big horn subs. These have a path length inside the box of 18' to 20', creating delays of 10 to 15 milliseconds compared to the mid bass and mid/h.f. output. The blend is acceptable on most material, but one can tell that things don't quite line up on highly transient material like drum solos. Dialing out the arrival time errors digitally results in a noticeably more coherent sound with greater perceived impact and detail.

[jomina]

Interesting to note that the likes of Dynamic Audio and Audio Union in Japan sell the higher end JBL's on extended terms - almost like lease agreements. And after the lease has been paid, they'll buy them back and sell you the next BIG thing, while your old equipment gets sold on through their extensive s/h network. It's a nice arrangement. AudioUnion gets much better interest rates than Dynamic Audio, if anyone is interested ;-) PS Merlin barely scratched the surface when he was here. We met up at his hotel, and I took him on a quick tour of Shinjuku's audio/music shop sites. We started with a trip to the basement of his hotel... His face was a picture when he spotted the 9800s that were on display :-)