Vintage JBL vs New Studio Monitor Series 4429, 4306, etc.

[watchnerd]

Hi all, first time poster here, so please be patient of my JBL ignorance.

After a few decades using Martin Logan electrostats and Dynaudio dynamic speakers, I've decided I want to make a change in my main living room speakers. The change was driven by the purchase of a set of JBL LSR305s for my office. For those not familiar, the LSR305 is an active speaker with a 5" woofer and a soft dome tweeter mounted to a wave guide. While still budget speakers, I was impressed with their performance for the price, particularly their dispersion, soundstaging, and impactful dynamics.

I realized that my current living room speakers have been weak in the areas that JBLs seem to be good: the electrostats have low distortion and great resolution, but limited dynamic impact. The Dynaudios have great tonal balance, good imaging, unfatiguing, but start to sound compressed at higher volumes.

I'm now really interested in getting that JBL sound in my medium sized living room (about 14' x 20', carpeted, concrete slab floor). Analog source is a Michell Gyro SE, Jelco SA-750D, Nagaoka MP-500 feeding a Fi Yph phono stage. Digital is streaming from Roon to AppleTV. Electronics are a Wyred4Sound mPRE (balanced analog preamp plus DAC) and 2 x mAMP (monoblock power amps).

Music is everything: jazz, blues, classical, opera classic rock, some pop or world.

I'm really attracted to both the new studio monitor series (the blues ones sold mostly outside North America) as well as vintage models. Budget for speakers is <$5k.

The 4429 seem really interesting, but wondering if they're too big for my room. Also like the looks of the 4306, might be a better size for my room, but also wondering if they're going to have serious low-end or loudness limits given their size and 2-way nature.

In contrast, there is a bewildering selection of vintage JBLs out there...about which I know very little, other than vague childhood memories from the 1970s-1980s of systems I admired as a kid.

Long prelude aside:

Are the new blue "studio monitors" sold in Europe and Asia regarded as better, similar, or inferior to their vintage counterparts?

And which vintage models should I be looking at for a medium size room?

[hjames]

As you say, there is a huge diverse range of JBL speakers for sale -
one thing to do is decide on a price range you want stay with ...
it makes a lot of difference if you are looking at under $6000 speakers,
or if you include the Everest and higher models ...

Can we presume you are staying with 2 channel systems?

[watchnerd]

As you say, there is a huge diverse range of JBL speakers for sale -
one thing to do is decide on a price range you want stay with ...
it makes a lot of difference if you are looking at under $6000 speakers,
or if you include the Everest and higher models ...

Can we presume you are staying with 2 channel systems?

Yes, staying with 2 channels.

Budget would be $2k - $5k. That being said, some of the more expensive models might be too large for the room.

[Mr. Widget]

That being said, some of the more expensive models might be too large for the room.Do you mean aesthetically? I have a pair of DD66000s in a room approximately the same size as yours.

Visually, they certainly make their presence known. Sonically they fit in just right.


Widget

[watchnerd]

Do you mean aesthetically? I have a pair of DD66000s in a room approximately the same size as yours.

Visually, they certainly make their presence known. Sonically they fit in just right.


Widget

Certainly aesthetically and wife-factor-wise, I wouldn't be able to get away with something that size.

Also, the DD66000 is out of my price, I believe.

[Ed Zeppeli]

Below is a thread comparing the 4430 to the Array 1400 (new versus old as per your thread title). Have a look see for a wide variety of opinions on the subject. Also, have you considered the L300? There is at least one nice pair for sale here by one of our members.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?32769-Is-newer-better-4430-vs-1400-Array


http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?5-Lansing-Product-Marketplace


Cheers,

Warren

[watchnerd]

Below is a thread comparing the 4430 to the Array 1400 (new versus old as per your thread title). Have a look see for a wide variety of opinions on the subject. Also, have you considered the L300? There is at least one nice pair for sale here by one of our members.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?32769-Is-newer-better-4430-vs-1400-Array


http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?5-Lansing-Product-Marketplace


Cheers,

Warren

Thanks for the links, I'll check those out, especially the 4430/4425 is one of the vintage models that has caught my interest.

As for the L300...I hadn't heard of that at all. It looks huge from the pictures! What are its best features?

[Ed Zeppeli]

Thanks for the links, I'll check those out, especially the 4430/4425 is one of the vintage models that has caught my interest.

As for the L300...I hadn't heard of that at all. It looks huge from the pictures! What are its best features?

The L300 is similar to any JBL Pro or high end consumer speaker system in size that has a 15" woofer. It's probably about a 5 cubic foot box. As for it's best features I'm not too sure other than it is highly coveted as a top of the line consumer loudspeaker from its era for a multitude of reasons.


Best of luck in your quest,

Warren

[Ian Mackenzie]

You will find a review of the 4429 by other forum members using the search function

The newer blue baffle series have the characteristic JBL house sound but are high resolution than the earlier vintage designs by virtue of improvement in driver design and technology.

If you can find an Array system second hand (consumer) they are excellent in terms of resolution and sound stage.

The L300 is fun to listen to but its challenged design wise to compare to a modern JBL blue baffle monitor.

The JBL sound has always been about the drivers.

But the horns (JBL now uses wave guides with carefully controlled directivity ) and crossover network design has vastly improved over the past decade and this had trickled down into the more affordable systems.

[Mr. Widget]

Certainly aesthetically and wife-factor-wise, I wouldn't be able to get away with something that size.

Also, the DD66000 is out of my price, I believe.Understood on the size concerns, I was using the DD66000s to make the point that even seemingly huge JBLs can perform well in a more typical sized room.

Many here are using JBLs using 15" woofers... I doubt any will fit your requirements. The 12" based 4429 may work, but I would strongly suggest you look into the smaller Array series. Either the 800 Array with a sub, or the 1000 Array.

http://www.jblsynthesis.com/productdetail/id-800-array.html

http://www.jblsynthesis.com/productdetail/id-1000-array.html

These speakers are a little unusual looking, but they sound amazing. The Array Series will also be discontinued soon, so bargains will be available and then they will become difficult to find.


Widget

[watchnerd]

You will find a review of the 4429 by other forum members using the search function

The newer blue baffle series have the characteristic JBL house sound but are high resolution than the earlier vintage designs by virtue of improvement in driver design and technology.

If you can find an Array system second hand (consumer) they are excellent in terms of resolution and sound stage.

The L300 is fun to listen to but its challenged design wise to compare to a modern JBL blue baffle monitor.

The JBL sound has always been about the drivers.

But the horns (JBL now uses wave guides with carefully controlled directivity ) and crossover network design has vastly improved over the past decade and this had trickled down into the more affordable systems.

Thanks for your great overview.

Were the bi-radial designs an evolutionary side path? It seems that after the 10+ year run of 4430/4425, JBL stopped making bi-radial horns. Was it a technological dead end?

[Ian Mackenzie]

They were actually in production for a long time

JBL has progressively moved in term of refining the bi radial horn.

The 2344/a bi radial was a 100x 100 dispersion horn

Great for studios but not always the best design for domestic use.

But JBL use of the term studio monitor is a marketing name sake for brand recognition that has l think blurred the line in terms of selecting a loudspeaker that will perform well in a domestic environment as opposed to a recording studio.

A true monitor is for critical evaluation of the recording process. It's use in the home can render many recordings un playable!

Oddly enough JBL sold more of the now vintage 4343 monitors into Japan consumer than anywhere else. It has an almost God or cult status in that market. They feature in jazz bars in Tokyo, some powered by massive Pass Labs Aleph 4 SE class A amplifiers.

So as time went on JBL made more conventional shaped horns with a modified diffraction throat 80 x 60/30 dispersion for consumer. But they also went off the reservation with designs like the Everest 55000 horn and the vertical Arrays horns.

Fortunately Greg Timbers was an innovative and persuasive engineer.

Unfortunately he is no longer with JBL.

The most recent advance is the M2 waveguide for studio use that is close to 100 x 100 dispersion.

Modified versions of this design are starting to appear in consumer systems and other monitors such as the 4367.

[srm51555]

A true monitor is for critical evaluation of the recording process. It's use in the home can render many recordings un playable! .

Agree

[watchnerd]

Agree

That actually doesn't bother me, as I'm a hobbyist / volunteer recording engineer in my spare time. I'm accustomed to this.

I don't have any recordings that are both so bad, and so important to me, that I would pick a speaker just to make them sound better. If it really gets bad enough, I can always apply EQ or even tube roll.

[rdgrimes]

One of the first things I noticed about my Array 1400 is that even the worst sounding content was easier to listen to. Crappy MP3 and hyper-compressed CDs alike sounded better. Its a phenomenon I did not expect. I would not say the same thing about some vintage and pro gear.

[watchnerd]

One of the first things I noticed about my Array 1400 is that even the worst sounding content was easier to listen to. Crappy MP3 and hyper-compressed CDs alike sounded better. Its a phenomenon I did not expect. I would not say the same thing about some vintage and pro gear.

Interesting...do you have any theories about why that might be?

[Mr. Widget]

One of the first things I noticed about my Array 1400 is that even the worst sounding content was easier to listen to. Crappy MP3 and hyper-compressed CDs alike sounded better. Its a phenomenon I did not expect. I would not say the same thing about some vintage and pro gear.I agree... I had the same experience listening to a wide variety of CDs with my 1400s and I also felt the same with my DD66000s and the Revels that I've had in my home. I don't think it's due to these newer speakers being more forgiving, I think it is because they are more neutral. I think the vintage JBL monitors and other vintage speakers tend to emphasize certain musical flavors and therefore make some albums really shine and others not so much.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hi Widget

Technically a 4way is going to be in piston range across the full range.

A nice two way is going to be in piston range in the lower mids and then in controlled breakup mode across the critical mids. The same apples to the HF driver as we well know.

Thus the mids and highs have a "nice" way of presenting music without a clinical quality.

[rdgrimes]

Interesting...do you have any theories about why that might be?

The Array are phenomenal speakers. The same can be said of much of the Synthesis line.
They are just transparent, adding nothing.

[watchnerd]

The Array are phenomenal speakers. The same can be said of much of the Synthesis line.
They are just transparent, adding nothing.

Hmmm....well, I own electrostatic speakers, which most folks regard as about as transparent as you can get (although they're not so hot on macro dynamics and punch). And through those recordings with bad compression still sound bad.

There must be something else going on.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Micro dynamics like are spatial cues as opposed to dramatic shifts in volume level

[watchnerd]

Micro dynamics like are spatial cues as opposed to dramatic shifts in volume level

I'm not quite following the logic.

If a given speaker is good at resolving micro dynamics and spatial cues, and MP3s and low DR/compressed lossless have reduced micro dynamics and spatial cues, I don't see how improved resolution fixes this. High resolution speakers can't undo lost information.

Unless it's "adding back in" sonic effects that correlate with what his been lost, which would be a form of euphonia.

[Mr. Widget]

Hmmm....well, I own electrostatic speakers, which most folks regard as about as transparent as you can get (although they're not so hot on macro dynamics and punch). And through those recordings with bad compression still sound bad.

There must be something else going on.You mentioned that one of your systems was a pair of Martin Logan's. At JBL one of the demonstrations that they perform for VIP and dealer tours is to show off their double blind speaker shuffler speaker comparison room. The standard demo that I've been fortunate enough to hear twice is a comparison of three speakers. The listeners have no idea what they are listening to.

When I heard it two speakers were close with pluses and minuses here and there and one speaker is a true stand out. The stand out sounds a bit honky with a midrange bump. I thought for sure this was a JBL horn system. It was not. It was a Martin Logan hybrid with a 10" or 12" woofer below the panel. When you don't see the speakers and are not being seduced by the visuals, the ML was definitely not as neutral a performer as the other two. For the record the other two were the B&W 800D and the 1400 Array.

Both times I experienced this demo the B&W and 1400 Array were overwhelmingly noted as superior with the JBL slightly ahead.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

I'm not quite following the logic.

If a given speaker is good at resolving micro dynamics and spatial cues, and MP3s and low DR/compressed lossless have reduced micro dynamics and spatial cues, I don't see how improved resolution fixes this. High resolution speakers can't undo lost information.

Unless it's "adding back in" sonic effects that correlate with what his been lost, which would be a form of euphonia.


That wasn't my point.

I was drawing a comparison b/n what micro dynamics mean and dynamic range.

Your electrostatic speaker do the former well but not the latter.

You can audibly equate this to spatial detail in terms of micro dynamics and compression in terms of dynamic range.

Don who owns the M2 comment about this when comparing to other loudspeakers

These two qualities are not difficult for an untrained listen to identify.

[Mr. Widget]

And through those recordings with bad compression still sound bad. In my reply above I read your post too quickly and wasn't focused on overly compressed recordings (compression in the audio realm not digital signal compression) rather the wide breadth of decent recordings. There are pop recordings that are so overly compressed that they can be rather unpleasant and there is no system that will make those recordings sound great.


Widget

[watchnerd]

You mentioned that one of your systems was a pair of Martin Logan's. At JBL one of the demonstrations that they perform for VIP and dealer tours is to show off their double blind speaker shuffler speaker comparison room. The standard demo that I've been fortunate enough to hear twice is a comparison of three speakers. The listeners have no idea what they are listening to.

When I heard it two speakers were close with pluses and minuses here and there and one speaker is a true stand out. The stand out sounds a bit honky with a midrange bump. I thought for sure this was a JBL horn system. It was not. It was a Martin Logan hybrid with a 10" or 12" woofer below the panel. When you don't see the speakers and are not being seduced by the visuals, the ML was definitely not as neutral a performer as the other two. For the record the other two were the B&W 800D and the 1400 Array.

Both times I experienced this demo the B&W and 1400 Array were overwhelmingly noted as superior with the JBL slightly ahead.


Widget

I don't find that surprising, especially the pre-DSP crossover Martin Logan's.

However, it still doesn't seem to explain how the 1400 would make MP3s/compressed CDs sound better. Once the information in the recording is lost, it's gone for good.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic. I'm sure the 1400 is a great speaker.

[watchnerd]

In my reply above I read your post too quickly and wasn't focused on overly compressed recordings (compression in the audio realm not digital signal compression) rather the wide breadth of decent recordings. There are pop recordings that are so overly compressed that they can be rather unpleasant and there is no system that will make those recordings sound great.


Widget

Agreed.

[rdgrimes]

However, it still doesn't seem to explain how the 1400 would make MP3s/compressed CDs sound better.


You're reading something into this that wasn't said. "Sound better" was in comparison to other speakers, and in this context vintage speakers.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Apparently

[watchnerd]

You're reading something into this that wasn't said. "Sound better" was in comparison to other speakers, and in this context vintage speakers.

Thanks for the clarification.

However, as I don't actually listen to MP3s, it's not a decision criterion for me.