4435 / 4350 / dd66000

[Brian DK]

Hi folks (-;

I know this probable is a long shot.
but here goes anyways (-;

these 3 speakers are all top of the line in
there Year.

but can anyone tell the sonic difference
on them.?

[BMWCCA]

Sure.

The 4435 is the one with no highs.
The 4350 is the one that plays loud but the lows aren't as good as the 4345.
The DD66000 is the one everybody wanted . . . until the DD67000 came out.
;)

[Challenger604]

The 4355 are way better than the 4350's!!!
DD67000 if you have the money...

[Brian DK]

The Dd66/67000 is limited in the low end at 45hz, the two "Older brothers" is limited at 30-32 hz.
I surpose the new transducer in DD is better than the "old" ones?

How do the low end compare to one another?
I meen sonic, and not on paper. (-;

[BMWCCA]

The Dd66/67000 is limited in the low end at 45hz, the two "Older brothers" is limited at 30-32 hz.
I surpose the new transducer in DD is better than the "old" ones?

How do the low end compare to one another?
I meen sonic, and not on paper. (-;Are you interested in two-channel stereo reproduction for music? Or Home Theater response? It makes a difference.

First, let me say if there was a place to hear the Everests within 200-miles of my home, I'd be there in a heartbeat. Failing that I have to rely on the opinion of others, which is what you're doing here.

This is what Jonathan Valin wrote in The Absolute Sound last year in reviewing the Munich High-End show:
JBL showcased its $74k dd67000 Everest horn loudspeaker driven by Levinson new No.536monoblock amplifier. This is simply (and famously) a terrific transducer, with no horn coloration—just a dark rich coherent presentation with superior articulation, great bass, lifelike presence, and incomparable dynamic range. The Everest may not have the very tightest image focus (what horn does?), but show in and show out it is among my favorites. Another Best of Show contender.

You might also want to read the first post in this thread, at least: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?30677-Comparing-JBL-Everest-with-TAD-Reference-One&p=308432&viewfull=1#post308432

[Mr. Widget]

The Dd66/67000 is limited in the low end at 45hz, the two "Older brothers" is limited at 30-32 hz.
I surpose the new transducer in DD is better than the "old" ones?

How do the low end compare to one another?
I meen sonic, and not on paper. (-;There has been a lot of talk about the lack of low end regarding the Everest II. I would submit that this is due entirely to the misunderstanding of loudspeaker measurements and published specs. This is undoubtedly why for decades JBL and other reputable manufacturers avoided publishing "full" specifications.

My E2s in my living room are quite "flat" down into the low 30s which is more than needed for most music. That said even the low 20s are reproduced with quite some authority, but it is measurably down a few dB. There was a thread sometime back by a Forum member who felt the need to add dual 18" subs to his E2s... and he was probably not wrong especially since it sounded like he was trying to recreate a dance club sound in a fairly good sized room. In my 22' by 13.5' by 8' room when playing modern music with sub-bass synth sounds the room is satisfyingly pressurized and at higher SPLs one's chest is noticeably compressed. (Not the sort of thing I do often, but it is quite astonishingly well done when required.)

Regarding these newer speakers vs. the older 2235H based systems... I have had both and much prefer these newer generation woofers. They are more articulate as well as possibly more dynamic and just plain sound better. Same is true of the DD67000 woofers (1501AL-2) vs. the DD66000 woofers (1501AL)... JBL has continually improved their designs and the 1501AL-2 is stunningly articulate and free of distortions. It is not a great woofer for pro sound as it is heavy as hell and quite expensive to manufacture, but for an all out assault on the best they can produce, it is the current state of the art.



Widget

[Mr. Widget]

This is what Jonathan Valin wrote in The Absolute Sound last year in reviewing the Munich High-End show:I take all reviews with a grain of salt, but I would say in this case I agree with the quote above almost verbatim.


You might also want to read the first post in this thread, at least: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?30677-Comparing-JBL-Everest-with-TAD-Reference-One&p=308432&viewfull=1#post308432Reading his review again, I have also been pained by the 100-200Hz bump in the original DD66000 speakers. This seems to be room and placement dependent, but can be quite difficult to manage. I think it is a combination of the geometry of the speaker's baffle, woofer placement, the woofer itself and room interaction. The DD67000 clears this up substantially. I am not sure why. Would love to hear GT's take on this if he ever has the time to pop in to comment.


Widget

[hlaari]

Reading his review again, I have also been pained by the 100-200Hz bump in the original DD66000 speakers. This seems to be room and placement dependent, but can be quite difficult to manage. I think it is a combination of the geometry of the speaker's baffle, woofer placement, the woofer itself and room interaction. The DD67000 clears this up substantially. I am not sure why. Would love to hear GT's take on this if he ever has the time to pop in to comment.


Widget[/QUOTE]

you are using the newer 1501Al-2 in your DD66000 with the original DD67000 filters right?

[Vahe Sahakian]

Sure.

The 4435 is the one with no highs.
The 4350 is the one that plays loud but the lows aren't as good as the 4345.
The DD66000 is the one everybody wanted . . . until the DD67000 came out.
;)

Both 4430 and 4435 use the same hi frequency driver, and I agree they have no highs.
Low frequency response according to JBL original catalogs are 32Hz for 4345, 30 Hz for 4435 and 4350, 28 Hz for 4355.
As for Everest too expensive, I will pass that one.

Vahe

[BMWCCA]

Both 4430 and 4435 use the same hi frequency driver, and I agree they have no highs.
Low frequency response according to JBL original catalogs are 32Hz for 4345, 30 Hz for 4435 and 4350, 28 Hz for 4355.
As for Everest too expensive, I will pass that one.LF specs may have little bearing on what you feel in your gut. Re-read the TAD vs. Everest II comparison. The punch from the 18-incher in the 4345 is very different than that of 12s, or even the dual-twelves. Some prefer one over the other. To each their own! :dont-know:

[1audiohack]

Here we are comparing apples and oranges again.

4350's and 4435's are professional large format studio monitors. They are tools. 4435's are nicely integrated and sound pretty damn good for the drivers they have. 4350's really come around when multi amped with some DSP and I would put mine up against any vintage blue faced monitors.

As much as I love my 4350's and 4435's they have held no permanent place in my living room.

The DD6700's? They don't belong in a studio, they belong in my room!

Barry.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Sorry but l find this type of discussion mindless.

Why not list the L250ti in the first post?

When comparing the bass well anyone (intended user) in there right mind would take care to eq the bass in use and that would largely minimise gross audible differences ?

(4435 and 4350 were for pro use often installed overhead and eq in the control room not chucked on some domestic living space for comparison over s beer)

It's a matter of loudness and finesse (bass) of each design.

Worthy of discussion is the midrange and sound staging.

Obviously the 2311/2308 in the 4350 is not going to hold a candle to the Everest horn let alone the 2344 bi radial in the 4435.

But how would you compare them descriptively?

Has the poster searched any of the designers actual posts that speak of the virtues and weaknesses of these designs (Greg Timbers, David Smith) or perused the white papers?


I don't mean to sound (sorry) critical but would this thread in its lamm form be better placed in an informal lounge room forum?

[hsosdrum]

If you're looking for dead-on accuracy you'd better audition the M2 system (a factory-made system with appropriate processing, not someone's DIY version) before making a final purchase decision. It doesn't sound like any of the other systems discussed here, it simply sounds like whatever music is being played through it.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Agreed