JBL 4365/67 vs 4345 Monitors???

[kris90]

I would like some subjective and objective input on this comparison!!!!

the 4345's would be stock, i.e. (no crossover mods and in a bi-amp config)

Thanks!!!!:D

[ngccglp]

I would like some subjective and objective input on this comparison!!!!

the 4345's would be stock, i.e. (no crossover mods and in a bi-amp config)

Thanks!!!!:D

I had 4345 but not the 4365, but I did an extensive audition of the 4365 at the dealer's. For some reason, I always find the new JBLs limited in bass extension, which is also reflected in the specs. I Guess it all goes down to personal preference.

[ngccglp]

I would like some subjective and objective input on this comparison!!!!

the 4345's would be stock, i.e. (no crossover mods and in a bi-amp config)

Thanks!!!!:D

I had 4345 but not the 4365, but I did an extensive audition of the 4365 at the dealer's. For some reason, I always find the new JBLs limited in bass extension, which is also reflected in the specs. I Guess it all goes down to personal preference.

[BMWCCA]

I've had my 4345s for over eight-years now but I have not had the opportunity to hear the 4365s. I've always been impressed by how effortlessly the 4345s produce prodigious amounts of deep bass—even at incredibly low volume levels. Their previous owner referred to them as the "Velvet Hammer". From what I've read, the 4365 is voiced more for the Japanese market which means a pretty rapid rolloff around 50Hz. I'd love to hear them both in the same room to see for myself. :dont-know:

[martin_wu99]

No comparable!modrern vs vintage

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ditto on the bass.

I have heard both the 4345 and the 4365

In stock the 4345 is blurd and fluffy sounding by comparison to the 4365.
This is why improvement per GT's post is a logical step for any new owner

The improvements relate to the passive stock crossovers.

The 4365 subjectively may have more clarity in the bass but lacks the effortless bass and scale of the 4345.

This can be mitigated with a paramedic EQ for the 4345.

The 4365 has superior imaging qualities due to the 2 way design.

[ngccglp]

I would like some subjective and objective input on this comparison!!!!

the 4345's would be stock, i.e. (no crossover mods and in a bi-amp config)

Thanks!!!!:D

The best way is to bring your Favourite genre of music to audition both to see which you prefer. I chose 4345 over 4365. The most telling was Christian Mcbride Live at Tonic CD1 track 5. The 4365 just didn't have the bass extension and slam that I was looking for.

[kris90]

Thanks guys!!! It's a tough call on my end but I find the that the 4365/67 sound like one speaker... ie:all of the drivers blend together

very well!!! I've read a post GT made about how he designs/voices his systems and he is spot on...

I prefer most of his work(s) newer and of the legacy systems.

Thanks!!!!



P.S. .....How about a 4345 vs DD55000 comparison????

This should be interesting!!!!

:D

[BMWCCA]

I've never understood the "integration" issue so many have with the 4-way systems. I certainly don't notice it in mine. The soundstage presentation in my room with my 4345s is simply incredible. I never listen to music thinking I'm hearing four separate sources or noticing transition issues between the drivers. My other favorite in sound-stage presentation is the L7 4-way which even allows you to walk around the room and not lose an image. The upper-three drivers in the 4345 are clustered together as tightly as most two-ways would be. Maybe mine just benefit from the updated crossover design and by being bi-amp-only; simple solutions easily implemented with the information presented on this site. The only Timbers mod I've not done is to run the UHF off its own amp. I have a Crown D45 I bought just for such a purpose but haven't felt the need to implement it.

In the words of Greg Timbers which I have used as my sig line ever since bringing these into my home: ". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers

As I've previously written, I've not heard the 4365. I'd love to. If I ended up liking them better, I'd put them on my list. If the playing field were actually level (ie. updated crossovers and bi-amp-only) and the 4345 proved to be equal—or better—then I'd share a smile with Greg who I believe to be a tinkerer at heart who never let newer technology stop him from enjoying the thrill of speaker creation, but rather incorporated it into his arsenal. I always loved a good underdog story!

And while I've learned that Ian usually knows what he's talking about, isn't the 4365 a 3-way design?


The 4365 has superior imaging qualities due to the 2 way design.

[kris90]

Yes the 4365 is a three way design, the 4367 (basically an M2 for home use with a passive network)

is a two way with the waveguide horn...

[JeffW]

The 4365 has been discontinued, so unless there are some old stock items or you find some used...

[kris90]

Old stock NIB.:)

[audiomagnate]

...For some reason, I always find the new JBLs limited in bass extension...



...I've always been impressed by how effortlessly the 4345s produce prodigious amounts of deep bass...means a pretty rapid rolloff around 50Hz...


Ditto on the bass...
...have more clarity in the bass but lacks the effortless bass and scale of the 4345...

When I'm evaluating speakers - vintage or modern - I frankly don't care about bass extension because that's a job much better handled by subwoofers. Even if you do manage to find a speaker you like that's also capable of producing truly deep clean bass at adequate levels, more often than not the listening position relative to the speakers is not ideal. In my current system I have a 2245 loaded infinite baffle sub and two "helper" subs positioned to ameliorate room nodes. For music I turn down the helpers to where the box effects become inaudible due to masking.

I'm currently trying to decide between L300's and and 1400 Arrays, but they will both be rolled off at 50 Hz, so bass extension is moot.

[daveschott]

Old stock NIB.:)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/JBL-4365-Studio-Monitors-/262607802279?hash=item3d24a50fa7:g:JdkAAOSwGtRXyF7 9

[Ian Mackenzie]

I must be slipping in my old age

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?37434-New-2-way-in-the-synthesis-Blue-bafle-Line

[kris90]

Damn.....you guys are good!!!:)

[kris90]

Lets say the 4345 , DD55000 , 4365 were all the same price.

Which one ???

[ngccglp]

When I'm evaluating speakers - vintage or modern - I frankly don't care about bass extension because that's a job much better handled by subwoofers. Even if you do manage to find a speaker you like that's also capable of producing truly deep clean bass at adequate levels, more often than not the listening position relative to the speakers is not ideal. In my current system I have a 2245 loaded infinite baffle sub and two "helper" subs positioned to ameliorate room nodes. For music I turn down the helpers to where the box effects become inaudible due to masking.

I'm currently trying to decide between L300's and and 1400 Arrays, but they will both be rolled off at 50 Hz, so bass extension is moot.

haha not all of us have the space for more boxes and amps and cables in the room, besides, when we dish out that amount of money for a full range speaker, there are certain expectations.

On the 2 vs 3/4 ways comment, I do hear more coherence on a 2 way design, but as GT wrote, everything is a series of trade offs. My JBL journey started with 4333A, 4343B, 4430, then realised the superiority of the 43 series, went back with a vengeance and got the 4350A. Then the 4345. All excellent products, but it has got to suit your musical preference.

[JeffW]

Lets say the 4345 , DD55000 , 4365 were all the same price.

Which one ???

I haven't heard them all, but it's worth noting that the 4365 has a really low distortion woofer and a 4" Mg diaphragm compression driver.

[kris90]

I can completely agree with the musical preferences part...

And no...I definitely do not have the real estate for subs....wires...spaghetti!!!

I prefer two-channel...

Every system is definitely a set of compromises.........

[audiomagnate]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/JBL-4365-Studio-Monitors-/262607802279?hash=item3d24a50fa7:g:JdkAAOSwGtRXyF7 9

And from the best damn JBL dealer in the country, and a long time (but never self-promoting) LH forum member. Hi Greg, don't sell those 1400's without calling me first!

[Ian Mackenzie]

Good point concerning multiple subs but newer integrated amps like the new Parasound design by John Curl have bass management to assist with bumpy bass in less than ideal placement.

If you have the means some boost at the box tuning frequency of any of these systems will narrow the gap.

Except the rumpus room l can't imagine my wife liking multiple subs.

She does however like the OMA Monarch.

Perhaps JBL should consider alternatives to the Texas bookshelf?

[BMWCCA]

One thing i really enjoy about my 4345s is the fact that they are self-contained and need no subs. Many speculate about how appropriate the 2245H is when used above sub frequencies but, as GT says, they just work!

I've always (always!) had large JBLs in my living room. Previous to the 4345s I had 030s in C37 cabinets, so my wife has accepted living with big boxes in a small room. No way I'd ever get away with two more 2245Hs in similar-size boxes in the same room! From what everyone here has said, I'm sure I'll enjoy my pristine-in-box 250Tis when I finally have the room to deploy them but I anticipate never feeling they are as complete a system as the 4345.

I think I'd feel I'd been short-changed if I bought a modern JBL 3-way system for $20k (or $9k) and then had to go searching for subs and sub amps to make them sound complete in my room.

And on the coherency issues, are we to take for granted that anything beyond a 2-way has issues with driver integration? Have the bosses at Harman been wrong about the 250Ti all these years? Has GT been on the wrong path with his various arrangements of Array components in his home system all these years? Is it a sound-stage issue y'all are complaining about, or can you really hear a rise in frequency shift from one driver to the next? I just see and hear an orchestra in the room with me, or a jazz trio blending their instrumental voices, and yet standing out as individuals where intended. I get to be transported into a live performance every time I turn on my 4345s, and I simply become involved in that performance.

[Mannermusic]

When I'm evaluating speakers - vintage or modern - I frankly don't care about bass extension because that's a job much better handled by subwoofers. Even if you do manage to find a speaker you like that's also capable of producing truly deep clean bass at adequate levels, more often than not the listening position relative to the speakers is not ideal. In my current system I have a 2245 loaded infinite baffle sub and two "helper" subs positioned to ameliorate room nodes. For music I turn down the helpers to where the box effects become inaudible due to masking.

I'm currently trying to decide between L300's and and 1400 Arrays, but they will both be rolled off at 50 Hz, so bass extension is moot.

Yes and double yes. How many people have walked around their listening room playing pink noise with RTA mic in hand? Yeow. Need to spend a bunch more time on room prep / placement and stop worrying about the elusive (non-existent) perfect gear. After doing all the above I settled on the best speaker placement and turned off the sub. In all fairness, a lot depends on what people are listening to. It's a compromise, good hobby!

[audiomagnate]

...She does however like the OMA Monarch...

Now that's a different look!

[JeffW]

I think I'd feel I'd been short-changed if I bought a modern JBL 3-way system for $20k (or $9k) and then had to go searching for subs and sub amps to make them sound complete in my room.



When I listened to the 4365, I asked the owner to turn off the subs he had deployed. I thought the bass output was fine, and the quality of the bass was superb.

[1audiohack]

Yes and double yes. How many people have walked around their listening room playing pink noise with RTA mic in hand? Yeow...

Yeah that's enlightening, or horrifying! Go one more step and use two different pink sources, one for right and a separate for left. When it (the signal) is uncorrolated, as most music is, the effects are much less pronounced. Just another point of interest in multi point audio sources in rooms or outdoors.

Barry.

[1audiohack]

When I listened to the 4365, I asked the owner to turn off the subs he had deployed. I thought the bass output was fine, and the quality of the bass was superb.

Agreed. The Array subs are off now and the bass is great.

Barry.

[ivica]

Yeah that's enlightening, or horrifying! Go one more step and use two different pink sources, one for right and a separate for left. When it (the signal) is uncorrolated, as most music is, the effects are much less pronounced. Just another point of interest in multi point audio sources in rooms or outdoors.

Barry.

Hi Barry,

Is it really STEREO sound music Left to Right channel un-corrolated, if that would be the case, such stereo would be artificial, may be?
(especially for LF section)

regards
ivica

[1audiohack]

HI ivica;

I am good at making statements that are to brief to be clear, my apologies.

I meant to say is that although pink noise is random or semi random, when emitted from multiple sources, the comb filtering effect is magnified. Pink noise has much to tell when you listen.

Even out doors pink noise generated from one source played into a stereo pair of speakers will generate peaks an nulls of surprising magnitude. When the same stereo pair is fed pink noise from two sources, much of the offending peaks and nulls are tamed or mitigated all together.

In much of the music I own, a fair amount of instruments and even some vocals are not mixed in the center. I think we are pretty good at filtering out many of the room anomalies we all live with. That is not to say that a good listening space is not desirable.

Noise is good at showing us issues in a glaring light. For instance, I never noticed the audible effects of the ceiling fans in my room until I first ran a vacuum cleaner under them while they were running. Now if I am listening intently, I turn them off.

All the best,
Barry.

[ivica]

HI ivica;

I am good at making statements that are to brief to be clear, my apologies.

I meant to say is that although pink noise is random or semi random, when emitted from multiple sources, the comb filtering effect is magnified. Pink noise has much to tell when you listen.

Even out doors pink noise generated from one source played into a stereo pair of speakers will generate peaks an nulls of surprising magnitude. When the same stereo pair is fed pink noise from two sources, much of the offending peaks and nulls are tamed or mitigated all together.

In much of the music I own, a fair amount of instruments and even some vocals are not mixed in the center. I think we are pretty good at filtering out many of the room anomalies we all live with. That is not to say that a good listening space is not desirable.

Noise is good at showing us issues in a glaring light. For instance, I never noticed the audible effects of the ceiling fans in my room until I first ran a vacuum cleaner under them while they were running. Now if I am listening intently, I turn them off.

All the best,
Barry.
Hi Barry,
I have to agree with You that any two correlated audio sources that are apart each other would produce comb filter effect.
But we have to agree that in the most of the real stereo recording the L ad R signals ARE correlated especially in the lower frequency region , so for the lower LF region it can be a kind of bass drivers mutual coupling ., so if the speakers are about 10ft appart, for the frequencys lower then 200Hz, such effect can be measurable, introducing rise in the FR response for the lower frequencies.

Regards
Ivica

[1audiohack]

Hi Barry,
I have to agree with You that any two correlated audio sources that are apart each other would produce comb filter effect.
But we have to agree that in the most of the real stereo recording the L ad R signals ARE correlated especially in the lower frequency region , so for the lower LF region it can be a kind of bass drivers mutual coupling ., so if the speakers are about 10ft appart, for the frequencys lower then 200Hz, such effect can be measurable, introducing rise in the FR response for the lower frequencies.

Regards
Ivica

Hi Ivica;

Much of the music we listen to is left and right corrolated no doubt. I don't want to go back and edit my past posts and cloud the flow of the conversation more so I will just say that most of the music I listen to does not have continuous tones in it. Since most of my music is continuously changing, many of the modes, peaks and nulls created by the separation of sources and the environment go un-noticed.

Pink or white noise, and others, are good at showing us problems. To me, a point of interest is the difference between single source generated pink noise, and non correlated pink noise noise in a stereo system. In some spaces and environments, the observed results can be dramatically different.

Barry the measurement geek. :)

[ivica]

Hi Ivica;

Much of the music we listen to is left and right corrolated no doubt. I don't want to go back and edit my past posts and cloud the flow of the conversation more so I will just say that most of the music I listen to does not have continuous tones in it. Since most of my music is continuously changing, many of the modes, peaks and nulls created by the separation of sources and the environment go un-noticed.

Pink or white noise, and others, are good at showing us problems. To me, a point of interest is the difference between single source generated pink noise, and non correlated pink noise noise in a stereo system. In some spaces and environments, the observed results can be dramatically different.

Barry the measurement geek. :)

Hi Barry,

Your observation is VERY interesting for me, especially if we are talking about single source response measurements and stereo source (I mean two spatially apart sources of the same sound source) measurements where comb filter effects are ALWAYS presented. Not to mention that the room influence effects can enter into the 'roles'.

I have no idea which model would be better. May be a kind of 'mean power value' of both: each single channel measurements and stereo (single audio source) would give more 'realistic picture' in order to tune the whole system reproduction to be as much realistic as technically possible from the applied equipment in the real listening room or ambient, keeping in mind 'the size of the audiences'

If only un correlated noise power from each channel is averaged, I think it would be almost the same as single channel measurements have been done, while using only stereo single source noise measurements, due to the comb-filter effects would be wrong too, so 'something between' would give, may be the 'best possible guess' what would be expectable system reproduction response.

May be some members with more experiences can give us some better suggestion which way would have to be chosen.

Regards
Ivica

[Ed Zeppeli]

EQ the speaker from a single source with a near-field mic and EQ the room from an area in and around the listening position. Remember that averaging is a compromise much like most of the aspects of our hobby and so any 'comb filtering' effect of pink noise shouldn't be much more harmful than something that is panned to the centre (like vocals, equally balanced in both speakers) in your favourite track.


Cheers,

Warren