Just in: JBL 4367 versus JBL S4700 comparison

[jpw]

Just got both speakers in stock plus S3900. Neither the 4367 or S4700 is broken-in yet but I could not wait to do the A-B comparison. Both retail at $15,000 pair.

The room is new and medium sized at about 15 foot by 20 foot with suspended 9.5 foot ceiling and the speakers are setup on the short wall about 46" out from the rear wall and 36" from the side walls. I listened about 6 feet off the back wall using a MAC C52 preamp and MC-601 mono block amps. The speaker tape marks may change as I spend more time with the new room and speakers, but I believe I am in the neighborhood of where they will ultimately end up.

The 4367's external cabinet volume is about a foot great at 8 cubic foot versus 7 cubic foot on the S4700. At 135 lbs, the 4367 is 15 lbs heavier but I don't know for sure if this is just because the cabinet is bigger or because it has a thicker baffle or more bracing. The two way 4367 uses a single D2 compression driver/horn from 700hz on up, where the three way S4700 uses a two way horn loaded top end with the 175nd HF and 138nd UHF compression drivers. Midrange crossover frequency is 700hz on the 4367 and 800hz on the S4700 with the UHF coming in at 12khz. The woofer in both speakers is the same (2216nd). Both are rated at 300 watts RMS.

The 4367 is front ported where the S4700 is ported out the back, sometimes a disadvantage if they must be placed close to the rear wall. The 4367 is shorter but wider. The proportions of the S4700 are more pleasing and of course it was designed to look more at home in a living room. The 4367 needs a short 6-7 inch high riser or stand to sound proper. This is a unneeded extra cost and an annoyance that JBL should have designed around. The S4700 does not require a stand or riser as it is a true floor standing speaker.
When I asked my regional JBL sales manager if the S4700 was going to be discontinued he said definitely not. Their different looks means they will probably serve two different customers.

Both rated at 94db and 6 ohms. Treble is rated -6db down at 40khz on both speakers, bass response is rated -6db at 30hz for the 4367 and -6db at 38hz for the S4700. Perhaps the extra cubic foot in volume allows the 4367 to be tuned slightly lower.

I started listening to the S4700 first, which impressed me more than I remember from my last time with them a couple of years ago. The 4367 was listened to with a makeshift 5 inch mdf riser bring the middle of the compression driver to about 37 inches off the floor.

-Sensitivity subjectively seems about the same. No surprise here.
-I could not hear a meaningful difference in bass extension between them at this point in the listening tests with so little playing time on them. Neither speaker seemed to make 40hz flat.
-The 4367 has a more open transparent and natural midrange and treble, as well as a larger soundstage.
-The 4367 has better driver integration sounding more coherent, more like a one way speaker. It gets reasonably close to the way the M2 sounds through out the broadband midrange.
-Bass snap and character is very similar, a strong point for both speakers.
-The 4367 is slightly more reserved and relaxed sounding overall.

More to come....................

[srm51555]

Thanks for posting, can't wait to hear more as they get broken in.

[jpw]

Just got both speakers in stock plus S3900. Neither the 4367 or S4700 is broken-in yet but I could not wait to do the A-B comparison. Both retail at $15,000 pair.

The room is new and medium sized at about 15 foot by 20 foot with suspended 9.5 foot ceiling and the speakers are setup on the short wall about 46" out from the rear wall and 36" from the side walls. I listened about 6 feet off the back wall using a MAC C52 preamp and MC-601 mono block amps. The speaker tape marks may change as I spend more time with the new room and speakers, but I believe I am in the neighborhood of where they will ultimately end up.

The 4367's external cabinet volume is about a foot great at 8 cubic foot versus 7 cubic foot on the S4700. At 135 lbs, the 4367 is 15 lbs heavier but I don't know for sure if this is just because the cabinet is bigger or because it has a thicker baffle or more bracing. The two way 4367 uses a single D2 compression driver/horn from 700hz on up, where the three way S4700 uses a two way horn loaded top end with the 175nd HF and 138nd UHF compression drivers. Midrange crossover frequency is 700hz on the 4367 and 800hz on the S4700 with the UHF coming in at 12khz. The woofer in both speakers is the same (2216nd). Both are rated at 300 watts RMS.

The 4367 is front ported where the S4700 is ported out the back, sometimes a disadvantage if they must be placed close to the rear wall. The 4367 is shorter but wider. The proportions of the S4700 are more pleasing and of course it was designed to look more at home in a living room. The 4367 needs a short 6-7 inch high riser or stand to sound proper. This is a unneeded extra cost and an annoyance that JBL should have designed around. The S4700 does not require a stand or riser as it is a true floor standing speaker.
When I asked my regional JBL sales manager if the S4700 was going to be discontinued he said definitely not. Their different looks means they will probably serve two different customers.

Both rated at 94db and 6 ohms. Treble is rated -6db down at 40khz on both speakers, bass response is rated -6db at 30hz for the 4367 and -6db at 38hz for the S4700. Perhaps the extra cubic foot in volume allows the 4367 to be tuned slightly lower.

I started listening to the S4700 first, which impressed me more than I remember from my last time with them a couple of years ago. The 4367 was listened to with a makeshift 5 inch mdf riser bring the middle of the compression driver to about 37 inches off the floor.

-Sensitivity subjectively seems about the same. No surprise here.
-I could not hear a meaningful difference in bass extension between them at this point in the listening tests with so little playing time on them. Neither speaker seemed to make 40hz flat.
-The 4367 has a more open transparent and natural midrange and treble, as well as a larger soundstage.
-The 4367 has better driver integration sounding more coherent, more like a one way speaker. It gets reasonably close to the way the M2 sounds through out the broadband midrange.
-Bass snap and character is very similar, a strong point for both speakers.
-The 4367 is slightly more reserved and relaxed sounding overall.

More to come....................

"The 4367 is slightly more reserved and relaxed sounding overall". In fact I turned the UHF control up .5db on the 4367. I did not find the S4700 too aggressive, just a bit more up front in the upper midrange and treble. In fact they sounded more balanced than what I remember from when I listened to them before, but that was in a different room.

[Dave_72]

aye yi yi...i'm beginningto think that the S4700 is the black sheep of the family regarding the synthesis line...sorry, i've developed a complex...and i can't sell them because they are worthless after being bashed around here and on other sites..blah..

[1audiohack]

My memory isn't what it used to be but I don't recall anyone bashing the 4700's. No one fully agrees on much when it comes to audio but not loving something doesn't make one a hater.

For the record, I quite like them. :)
Barry.

[Dave_72]

My memory isn't what it used to be but I don't recall anyone bashing the 4700's. No one fully agrees on much when it comes to audio but not loving something doesn't make one a hater.

For the record, I quite like them. :)
Barry.

sorry my humor does not come accross on the interwebs...anyway, in all seriousness not bashing but it seems the general consensus is that its not as good as the other models in the synthesis line...

anyway, thanks i appreciate that...:applaud:

[jpw]

Dave 72, no need to have anxiety over the S4700 vs 4367. In the 10 months my store has had both models on hand, the sales has been about even between the two models. The S4700 looks better to most people and does not need a riser to bring the speaker to the proper height. This is not a trivial matter. The 4367 is muddy and muffled sounding without getting it off the ground. Fabricating a riser that both looks good, does not degrade the sound through resonance etc, and is within most people's ability to design and construct is not easy. Even on a proper riser the difference between the speakers is not that great. Remember that us audiophiles love to split hairs, even hairs that sometimes are not really there. They have far more in common than not. For all of these reasons, I would think that they would probably be easier to resell than the lesser known more niche 4367.

[Dave_72]

Dave 72, no need to have anxiety over the S4700 vs 4367. In the 10 months my store has had both models on hand, the sales has been about even between the two models. The S4700 looks better to most people and does not need a riser to bring the speaker to the proper height. This is not a trivial matter. The 4367 is muddy and muffled sounding without getting it off the ground. Fabricating a riser that both looks good, does not degrade the sound through resonance etc, and is within most people's ability to design and construct is not easy. Even on a proper riser the difference between the speakers is not that great. Remember that us audiophiles love to split hairs, even hairs that sometimes are not really there. They have far more in common than not. For all of these reasons, I would think that they would probably be easier to resell than the lesser known more niche 4367.

thnks for your time in typing this...it's just that the s4700s don't get as much praise as say, the 1400 array's, and even the s3900s, generally speaking. maybe because they haven't been really reviewed other than that little article in robb report that wasn't even mentioned on the synthesis website.


http://robbreport.com/electronics/home-entertainment-modern-sound-midcentury-vibe

i bet no one here has seen this...

anyway, i do know what matters is if i like the product, and i do...but at the same time, it just bugs me to find out that the damn things aren't up there with the k2 and everest..not to say comparable, because those 2 are beasts, but the s4700s don't get too much love, and i think they deserve it because they blow away the competition ie b&w, atc, and tannoy for starters..

[hsosdrum]

I was quite enamored of the S4700 the several times I was able to audition it while I worked at Harman. I found it extremely neutral throughout the midrange region, with good 3-dimensional soundstaging and a superbly realistic dynamic presentation, even at low listening levels. My only real complaint about it was that I thought GT voiced it a bit lean for my tastes in the bottom end. (Based on how GT's designs sound to me, I think he and I are simply satisfied by different sonic presentations below around 90Hz.) I thought that the S4700 was superior in all respects to the S3900.

I left Harman before the 4367 came about and have not heard it at all, so I cannot offer any comparisons between it and the S4700. What I can say is that except for the M2, the S4700 is my favorite current JBL speaker.

[bubbleboy76]

I heard S4700 at an large hifi-exibition in my home town, and it was the best speaker at that show with a vast margin. Fantastic speaker. One of the best I have ever heard.

[pos]

I thought GT voiced it a bit lean for my tastes in the bottom end.
It is probably impossible to get more low end without using EQ with that particular driver (hence the -1 version in the 4367).

Why not lengthen the port a bit (potentially on the exterior side) to hit a 27Hz tuning and then apply the same type of EQ+shelving as used in the M2 ?

[bubbleboy76]

It is probably impossible to get more low end without using EQ with that particular driver (hence the -1 version in the 4367).

Why not lengthen the port a bit (potentially on the exterior side) to hit a 27Hz tuning and then apply the same type of EQ+shelving as used in the M2 ?

I would rather add one or more subwoofers, if possible.

[bubbleboy76]

I was quite enamored of the S4700 the several times I was able to audition it while I worked at Harman. I found it extremely neutral throughout the midrange region, with good 3-dimensional soundstaging and a superbly realistic dynamic presentation, even at low listening levels. My only real complaint about it was that I thought GT voiced it a bit lean for my tastes in the bottom end. (Based on how GT's designs sound to me, I think he and I are simply satisfied by different sonic presentations below around 90Hz.) I thought that the S4700 was superior in all respects to the S3900.

I left Harman before the 4367 came about and have not heard it at all, so I cannot offer any comparisons between it and the S4700. What I can say is that except for the M2, the S4700 is my favorite current JBL speaker.

hsosdrum, it would be interesting to hear your opinion of 4429 and 4365. Did you audition them?

[hsosdrum]

hsosdrum, it would be interesting to hear your opinion of 4429 and 4365. Did you audition them?

Although I wrote the owner's manuals for both the 4429 and 4365 (along with the S4700, S3900, Everest DD67000/65000 and M2), I was never able to audition either of them. I was only able to audition the hi-end models if GT or one of the other engineers had them set up in a soundroom. The lab had 4 soundrooms that were being used during the development of various Harman products — JBL and Revel speakers as well as Levinson and HK electronics, so the rooms were constantly in use and there was no way I could take over a soundroom and set up a demo simply on my own. Because of this I was never able to hear the K2, 4365, 4429 or any of the Arrays while at JBL. (A good friend of mine owns Array 1400s and I've heard them many times at his home, but I haven't heard any of the other Array models.)

Being a big fan of 15" 3-way speakers, the ones I always really wanted to hear were the 4365s. Every time I walked past the pair that resided in the lab I imagined just how much ass they must kick with Metallica's black album or Led Zeppelin II blasting through them.

[Mr. Widget]

Being a big fan of 15" 3-way speakers, the ones I always really wanted to hear were the 4365s. Every time I walked past the pair that resided in the lab I imagined just how much ass they must kick with Metallica's black album or Led Zeppelin II blasting through them.Funny, during week I had a pair in my home I never blasted either of those two albums or even considered it. :D

That said, I'm sure you are right. They did play well at lower SPLs and yet still kicked butt when cranked up.


Widget

[BMWCCA]

Funny, during week I had a pair in my home I never blasted either of those two albums or even considered it. :D
:rotfl:

[bubbleboy76]

Although I wrote the owner's manuals for both the 4429 and 4365 (along with the S4700, S3900, Everest DD67000/65000 and M2), I was never able to audition either of them. I was only able to audition the hi-end models if GT or one of the other engineers had them set up in a soundroom. The lab had 4 soundrooms that were being used during the development of various Harman products — JBL and Revel speakers as well as Levinson and HK electronics, so the rooms were constantly in use and there was no way I could take over a soundroom and set up a demo simply on my own. Because of this I was never able to hear the K2, 4365, 4429 or any of the Arrays while at JBL. (A good friend of mine owns Array 1400s and I've heard them many times at his home, but I haven't heard any of the other Array models.)

Being a big fan of 15" 3-way speakers, the ones I always really wanted to hear were the 4365s. Every time I walked past the pair that resided in the lab I imagined just how much ass they must kick with Metallica's black album or Led Zeppelin II blasting through them.

Very interesting to hear this insider information.
I did play the black album a couple of times on my 4365s, the dvd-audio version. Yes, very nice :)

[hsosdrum]

Very interesting to hear this insider information.
I did play the black album a couple of times on my 4365s, the dvd-audio version. Yes, very nice :)

The DVD-audio version is my go-to hard rock demo disc. Once, when a friend and his wife (non-audiophiles) were visiting I put that disc on, and he continued talking through the intro to 'Enter Sandman'. When the drums kicked-in he stopped talking in mid-sentence, looked at me with his eyes wide and just said "Wow!".

[hsosdrum]

Funny, during week I had a pair in my home I never blasted either of those two albums or even considered it. :D

That said, I'm sure you are right. They did play well at lower SPLs and yet still kicked butt when cranked up.


Widget


Uncompressed dynamic contrasts at low SPLs is one of the main things that IMHO makes large JBLs sound so much more like live music than other speakers. While at Harman I had many opportunities to listen to the Revel Ultima speakers, and although they were all tonally neutral and created a convincing 3-dimensional soundstage, they never created realistic-sounding dynamic contrasts, especially at lower SPLs. At realistic listening levels, voices, acoustic guitars and pianos stubbornly refused to sound like anything but recordings of voices, acoustic guitars and pianos; they never sounded like the real voices or instruments were playing in the room. At similar SPLs the S4700 (and of course, the M2) handily bested them in creating the illusion that there were flesh-and-blood musicians singing and playing real instruments in the room.

I attribute this to a higher-sensitivity speaker's ability to convert a higher percentage of the input power into motion, which is especially important at low SPLs. The less input power there is, the more a lower-sensitivity speaker compresses the dynamics, because they convert less of that power into motion. Compressed dynamics = lack of realism. To me that's the #1 reason why just about all speakers sound like speakers, and not real musicians.

[bubbleboy76]

Uncompressed dynamic contrasts at low SPLs is one of the main things that IMHO makes large JBLs sound so much more like live music than other speakers. While at Harman I had many opportunities to listen to the Revel Ultima speakers, and although they were all tonally neutral and created a convincing 3-dimensional soundstage, they never created realistic-sounding dynamic contrasts, especially at lower SPLs. At realistic listening levels, voices, acoustic guitars and pianos stubbornly refused to sound like anything but recordings of voices, acoustic guitars and pianos; they never sounded like the real voices or instruments were playing in the room. At similar SPLs the S4700 (and of course, the M2) handily bested them in creating the illusion that there were flesh-and-blood musicians singing and playing real instruments in the room.

I attribute this to a higher-sensitivity speaker's ability to convert a higher percentage of the input power into motion, which is especially important at low SPLs. The less input power there is, the more a lower-sensitivity speaker compresses the dynamics, because they convert less of that power into motion. Compressed dynamics = lack of realism. To me that's the #1 reason why just about all speakers sound like speakers, and not real musicians.

I could not agree more.

When a speaker plays really loud, but it does not sound loud or makes your ear and head ache, that is also a good thing. Do you get what I mean? Is that also about uncompresed dynamics? Or some other distorsion that is low?

[bubbleboy76]

The DVD-audio version is my go-to hard rock demo disc. Once, when a friend and his wife (non-audiophiles) were visiting I put that disc on, and he continued talking through the intro to 'Enter Sandman'. When the drums kicked-in he stopped talking in mid-sentence, looked at me with his eyes wide and just said "Wow!".

:)
Can I ask what speakers and other equipment you use at home?

[Dave_72]

I was quite enamored of the S4700 the several times I was able to audition it while I worked at Harman. I found it extremely neutral throughout the midrange region, with good 3-dimensional soundstaging and a superbly realistic dynamic presentation, even at low listening levels. My only real complaint about it was that I thought GT voiced it a bit lean for my tastes in the bottom end. (Based on how GT's designs sound to me, I think he and I are simply satisfied by different sonic presentations below around 90Hz.) I thought that the S4700 was superior in all respects to the S3900.

I left Harman before the 4367 came about and have not heard it at all, so I cannot offer any comparisons between it and the S4700. What I can say is that except for the M2, the S4700 is my favorite current JBL speaker.

excellent narrative! i really appreciate this! thanks so much! would you recommend a subwoofer? and which make and model?

[Dave_72]

Although I wrote the owner's manuals for both the 4429 and 4365 (along with the S4700, S3900, Everest DD67000/65000 and M2), I was never able to audition either of them. I was only able to audition the hi-end models if GT or one of the other engineers had them set up in a soundroom. The lab had 4 soundrooms that were being used during the development of various Harman products — JBL and Revel speakers as well as Levinson and HK electronics, so the rooms were constantly in use and there was no way I could take over a soundroom and set up a demo simply on my own. Because of this I was never able to hear the K2, 4365, 4429 or any of the Arrays while at JBL. (A good friend of mine owns Array 1400s and I've heard them many times at his home, but I haven't heard any of the other Array models.)

Being a big fan of 15" 3-way speakers, the ones I always really wanted to hear were the 4365s. Every time I walked past the pair that resided in the lab I imagined just how much ass they must kick with Metallica's black album or Led Zeppelin II blasting through them.

you did a great job writing the s4700 manual...i found it to be very educatioal and informative...

so thanks, much appreciatted.

now, i plan on trying bi-wiring, i aleady have the second pair of cables...by doing so, do you feel that i will be getting an improvement in sound, or not? if so, what would the improvement be...

[hsosdrum]

:)
Can I ask what speakers and other equipment you use at home?

Sure. (BTW, none of this would be considered "audiophile-approved")

Home theater system (where the Metallica demo took place):

3 x Klipsch KT-LCR THX speakers (left/center/right)
2 x Klipsch KT-DS THX speakers (left/right surround, re-wired from dipolar to bipolar operation)
1 x JBL 4641 (subwoofer)
1 x Kenwood KM-X1 6-channel amplifier (100W x 6)
1 x Lexicon DC-1 surround processor (Dolby Digital/DTS version)
1 x Panasonic 50" Viera plasma TV
1 x Panasonic Blu-ray player (included free with the TV, so WTF)
14AWG zip cord to all speakers
Sonance 1m & 2m interconnects (I bought a shitload of them when I was working there and the company got out of the interconnect business)

I've used the Klipsch THX speakers for the past 20 years. When I bought them there wasn't a set of comparably-priced THX-certified speakers from any other company that could come anywhere near them (JBL's entry-level THX offerings — I forget the model numbers — were nowhere near as good). At first I was using a Kenwood 12" THX-certified subwoofer in the system (a freebie from when I worked there) but never really liked it. A few years ago I replaced it with the 4641 and OMG, what a difference! The whole system seemed to roar to life.

FWIW, I do all my music listening in 5.1 channels through the Lexicon's Logic 7 surround-sound mode, which puts to shame plain-Jane 2-channel stereo for emotional involvement with the music. Well-done classical recordings (old Telarcs, for example) sound remarkably realistic through Logic 7, and even classic rock standards like the aforementioned Led Zeppelin II really benefit from Logic 7 processing and 5.1-channel presentation.

Recording studio:

2 x Klipsch Cornwall II speakers (main monitors, I've used them for 35 years and know their sound better than I know any other speaker's sound, so I trust what I hear from them)
2 x JBL 4312E speakers (for 'fact-checking' mixes for problems in the midrange and midbass)
2 x Sonance S622 speakers (also for 'fact-checking' mixes, because their timbre fairly closely matches that of typical small 2-way home stereo speakers, and even that of my own home theater speakers)
ART SLA-1 2-channel amplifier, 130W x 2. (Due for replacement because the friggin' fan runs whenever the amp is on and it's only around 3 feet from my ear. Drives me nuts at lower volumes.)
Soundcraft M8 console
PreSonus 1818 VSL audio interface
AKG microphones (C214s, D112s, D40s) plus a few others
PreSonus Studio One and Sony Acid Pro 6.5 DAW software
More 14AWG zip cord and Sonance interconnects


When I win the lottery I'll replace all the studio monitors with a set of M2s, although I'll have to put the Crown 4 x 3500 amp in another room because its friggin' fan also runs whenever the amp is on.

[hsosdrum]

you did a great job writing the s4700 manual...i found it to be very educatioal and informative...

so thanks, much appreciatted.

now, i plan on trying bi-wiring, i aleady have the second pair of cables...by doing so, do you feel that i will be getting an improvement in sound, or not? if so, what would the improvement be...

Thanks so much for your kind words. I have not personally tried bi-wiring, and have not had the opportunity to A/B a set of speakers connected both with and without bi-wiring, so I'm reluctant to offer advice in this regard. My best advice would be to try it and see if it makes a difference in your system. Since you already have the second set of cables you have nothing to lose.

I'm also reluctant to offer advice on subwoofers, since my personal experience with them is a bit limited (for a couple of years I used my Cornwall IIs as home theater subwoofers — wired directly to the 15" drivers, bypassing the crossovers, then I moved into a smaller house and switched to a Kenwood THX sub before replacing that with a JBL 4641). I can tell you that if you have the room for it, the 4641 is an amazing home theater subwoofer, fast and powerful, with an uncanny ability to render bass guitars with life-like realism. If you want significant output below 30Hz from it you'll need to EQ it. JBL recommends a +6dB peak at 25Hz with a Q of 2, with a 12dB/octave 20Hz high-pass filter. (Check the 4641 spec sheet — I'm writing this from memory.) Mine is in a corner with the driver facing my couch from about a foot away, and I can easily shake the couch and rattle the windows directly behind it, with no EQ and only 100 watts (and it's probably never seen more than about 20 of those watts).

[NWCgrad]

Uncompressed dynamic contrasts at low SPLs is one of the main things that IMHO makes large JBLs sound so much more like live music than other speakers. While at Harman I had many opportunities to listen to the Revel Ultima speakers, and although they were all tonally neutral and created a convincing 3-dimensional soundstage, they never created realistic-sounding dynamic contrasts, especially at lower SPLs. At realistic listening levels, voices, acoustic guitars and pianos stubbornly refused to sound like anything but recordings of voices, acoustic guitars and pianos; they never sounded like the real voices or instruments were playing in the room. At similar SPLs the S4700 (and of course, the M2) handily bested them in creating the illusion that there were flesh-and-blood musicians singing and playing real instruments in the room.

I attribute this to a higher-sensitivity speaker's ability to convert a higher percentage of the input power into motion, which is especially important at low SPLs. The less input power there is, the more a lower-sensitivity speaker compresses the dynamics, because they convert less of that power into motion. Compressed dynamics = lack of realism. To me that's the #1 reason why just about all speakers sound like speakers, and not real musicians.

It is like you took the fuzzy thoughts straight from my mind, and organized them into a clear statement.:bouncy: I was trying to explain this very thing last night to a friend. I will cut n paste your synopsis into a text and send it to him.

[hsosdrum]

It is like you took the fuzzy thoughts straight from my mind, and organized them into a clear statement.:bouncy: I was trying to explain this very thing last night to a friend. I will cut n paste your synopsis into a text and send it to him.

Thanks for the compliment! I'm glad what I wrote was of some help.

[christo]

now, i plan on trying bi-wiring, i aleady have the second pair of cables...by doing so, do you feel that i will be getting an improvement in sound, or not? if so, what would the improvement be...

Hi Dave

I have my K2 S9900s in a tri-amp bi-wire configuration and the improvement in sound is basically zilch. The only reason I did this was that I had the gear on hand as I have a pair of 4344s that I run in a tri-amp configuration with an electronic xover. So if you were thinking of getting an additional amplifier to try bi-wire don’t bother the difference in sound is so slight that after 60 seconds you won’t be able to hear it anymore, and it will be a total waste of money.

I also added a pair of JBL Array 1500s I have mixed feelings on this. Yes there is an improvement in sound that justifies the expense but in other ways I’m somewhat disappointed. In critical listening situations I find the Arrays to be slow when compared the 1500AL-1s. I'm just not enamored with the amplifier in the Arrays.

In using the Arrays with the K2 they do remind you of just how much bass the K2s do produce which is more than you think. I would suspect this to be the same with your 4700s. The other thing to consider is the program material that you listen to any recordings from the 60s, 70s and 80s (80s without being remastered) really does not have much in the lower octaves.

If you do add a sub be prepare to do something about integrating it with the room or the result will not improve your sound.

Chris

[Retroman]

The Array 1500 is a very good subwoofer, but I think it looks more impressive than it sounds.

I bought one because it matched my Array 1400s and had some good on-line reviews. It replaced a 4545C driven by a Crown K1 in my 2-channel system.

The Array 1500's bottom octave is probably better, but overall the 4645C is more impressive, especially on high level rock music. Interestingly and surprisingly, I discovered the driver is not manufactured by JBL, but by an outside company whose name I cannot recall.

The larger JBL driver-sourced subs such as the 4641 that hsodrum owns and the slightly-better 4645C have a bass punch and visceral impact that the Array 1500 cannot quite match. Too bad they're the size of a small refrigerator and a protective grille is not available, at least for domestic use.

For movies, the Array 1500 might be better below say 50Hz, but above that they can disappoint, relative to the LE14H-3 and 1500Al-1.

[Dave_72]

Hi Dave

I have my K2 S9900s in a tri-amp bi-wire configuration and the improvement in sound is basically zilch. The only reason I did this was that I had the gear on hand as I have a pair of 4344s that I run in a tri-amp configuration with an electronic xover. So if you were thinking of getting an additional amplifier to try bi-wire don’t bother the difference in sound is so slight that after 60 seconds you won’t be able to hear it anymore, and it will be a total waste of money.

I also added a pair of JBL Array 1500s I have mixed feelings on this. Yes there is an improvement in sound that justifies the expense but in other ways I’m somewhat disappointed. In critical listening situations I find the Arrays to be slow when compared the 1500AL-1s. I'm just not enamored with the amplifier in the Arrays.

In using the Arrays with the K2 they do remind you of just how much bass the K2s do produce which is more than you think. I would suspect this to be the same with your 4700s. The other thing to consider is the program material that you listen to any recordings from the 60s, 70s and 80s (80s without being remastered) really does not have much in the lower octaves.

If you do add a sub be prepare to do something about integrating it with the room or the result will not improve your sound.

Chris

why thank you for sharing your experiences with me, i appreciate it...

regarding bi-wiring, i thought that there would be at least some improvement by getting rid of the shorting bars and sending each crossover board its own signal...

i do listen to a lot of 70s and 80s classic rock and heavy metal, and some from the 60s (Led Zeppelin II! haha) so i see what you mean regarding bass output and/or performance...again i wish the big jbl subs were active, but the price would probably be 3 times as much?

what boils down to is that i feel the k2s and s4700s are underrated...this could be a lack of reviews here on the 'net and in the press. high praise reviews to be exact. i guess that's not a bad thing, but that does affect resale value and whatnot, and i just don't want to lose my derriere on the sale of the s4700s...

i must confess that i'm not a true jbl guy...i've tried many different brands over the years and i reserve the right do so...i've never really been loyal to 1 brand of anything audio wise with the possible exception of bryston (mainly their amps and preamps) and technics turntables. i always wanted to try jbl and here i am...

anyway, there you have it...confessions of yet another loony audiophile, lol

[martin_wu99]

Who compared 4365 carefully with 4367?