Everest Listening Impressions

[Earl K]

Now to my impressions. Quite simply, Everest is a candidate for the finest loudspeaker I have ever heard. The reason that I do not come outright and state that Everest is the finest system I have ever heard is that the one or two other systems that I also consider in that regard have different strengths and weaknesses. It has been years since I have heard some of these competing systems, and since I have obviously never heard them all in the same room, it is not possible for me to make an absolute objective assessment.

Everest excels in dynamic response, bass impact, timbrel neutrality, and midrange detail. In comparison to the S9800, it has far more weight and is a more resolving system. I can't say enough about the 476Be driver. This driver is very similar to an electrostatic in its ability to be delicate and nuanced, however with all of the power and impact of a large format compression driver.
The twin bass drivers make the system truly magical. The in room response is solid down into the 30's and is far more articulate than the bass that I have heard from any other system.
It is impossible to make this system sound strained no matter what you throw at it.

Since there is no such thing as a perfect loudspeaker, Everest is not without its limitations. As has been much discussed, the bass response will not extend flat down to the lowest audible frequencies. However, it is much better than specs would lead you to believe due to room coupling. For 95% of music, it would not be an issue at all. However, if it were my system, I would look into EQ to provide ultimate extension. The other limitation regards imaging. It does not match the highest performing systems that I have heard in that characteristic. It is still significantly improved over the S9800 and better than any horn based system I have heard.

And there you have my impressions after around 3 hours of total listening.

Thanks Don ! for your first hand listening impressions.
- I would truly love to audition these fine examples of JBLs' superlative engineering .
- I've highlighted the parts of your testimonial that really catch my eye.

[grumpy]

Hi Earl. I agree completely. Thought about bringing the EQ option up, response given the
target audience, etc... I didn't really see the concern going anywhere. -grumpy

[Domino]

Wow! $30,000 apiece. And they need and EQ. Hmmm

[Mr. Widget]

Not everyone needs earthquake bass. I have heard quite a few great speakers that didn't produce infrasonic information... they were still great. Unlike those however these speakers are capable of amazingly deep and tactile bass... they simply need room gain or EQ.

Now that I think about it, that is probably a better design goal. If they had anechoic flat bass to 25Hz and you put them into most rooms the deep bass would be overpowering and a real bear to get rid of. With this design in an average room they will likely have plenty of deep bass and in larger rooms their owners can decide if they would like to add EQ or a sub. That is really a better way to go if the goal is to make a speaker that will work with the largest number of rooms.


Widget

[Earl K]

Hi John, ( Johnaec)

Each of the four stacks consists of the 1500AL, the 1200FE, and prototype Array horns with 435Be and 045Be compression drivers bolted onto them (two stacks as shown in the picture and two behind me in the back corners of the living room). The center channel is the 880 Array prototype.

I believe the intent was to prove that compression drivers were viable for use in high performance loudspeaker systems designed for home high-fidelity applications. That intent has been realized in an undeniably splendid fashion.

The sonic signature of this system, with or without subs, in two channel and in surround is nothing short of stunningly spectacular. I kid you not. I'm not one for being gun shy. If the system had problems I'd say so. When I sit here now looking at the picture in the first post and try to correlate it with what I heard I'm frustrated with the picture's inadequacy.

What do you see when you look at this picture?

A nice stereo system.

Does it tell you anything?

It tells me someone has a really nice stereo system.

The sound is effortless - powerful, dynamic, smooth, detailed. No resonances. No smearing. No distortion. No pain. You see horns and know there are compression drivers bolted to them. You don't hear horns with compression drivers bolted to them. Not in any traditional sense. It's a paradox.

I very much enjoyed ( and value ) these quotes from Giskards' thread Greg Timbers & DIY . This implies to me, that he and I think alike, when it comes to what subwoofers should strive to achieve as "in room" sub-bass support for a very musical system.

Regarding the bass, I think it is interesting that he used the 1500AL for 80hz down only, when the only thing slightly less than remarkable that I have ever read about the 1500Al , or the K2 S9800, is the perceived lack of output in the very lowest regions. I always assumed that this was strictly due to the design goals for the K2, and that the 1500AL must be as capable as any driver ever made at low bass.

Bandwidth limiting. The 1500AL is not capable of the same type of response curve when used in the same fashion as say a 2231H or 2235H in something like a 4333B or 4430. We've been over that fact, as well as the use of bandwidth limiting several times before. When used below 60 to 100 Hz it is a capable sub. A1500AL is not a SUB1500 or W1500H. What it does have is superlative articulation and freedom from distortion. Having read different posts on this forum over the past five years I have no doubt that many of you would not find four 1500AL-based subs as inspiring as other sub solutions that have been previously mentioned. And that's fine, it's personal choice. In Greg's living room I didn't hear a ton of loading up going on. The bass was all there and it wasn't at all overpowering. The point is - in my opinion, it fit the room. The two subs in the front are out in the room while the two subs in the back are loaded into the corners. That arrangement in this room seems to be very good at killing off those pesky nodes.

Also, I can't stress enough how good the 12-inch 3-ways sounded without the subs engaged.

[spkrman57]

Your observations about Everest DD66000 is about what I expected to hear. JBL did not invest the R & D into a speaker system that would be considered average.

I wish I get a opportunity to see and hear a pair myself. Don't know if I could afford a trip to CES in Jan to see them, maybe pennies from heaven may flow into central Ohio and make a dream come true.

Interesting note to those complaining about the bottom end response, I'm sure the Everest will reproduce all the necessary music content with no problem at all. Most bottom octave material being referenced in these forums is more related to home theater related than music!

Regards, Ron

[Rolf]

Not everyone needs earthquake bass.

Are you referring to the Cerwin Vega system delivered with the film "Earthquake" in the 70'th?

I have heard quite a few great speakers that didn't produce infrasonic information... they were still great.

Tell me ... How can a HI-FI loudspeaker system that does not deliver low notes be great?

Unlike those however these speakers are capable of amazingly deep and tactile bass... they simply need room gain or EQ.

A truly hi-fi speaker system should not need EQ!

Now that I think about it, that is probably a better design goal. If they had anechoic flat bass to 25Hz and you put them into most rooms the deep bass would be overpowering and a real bear to get rid of. With this design in an average room they will likely have plenty of deep bass and in larger rooms their owners can decide if they would like to add EQ or a sub. That is really a better way to go if the goal is to make a speaker that will work with the largest number of rooms.

Widget

Are we not talking about a loudspeaker, the very best, under the best condition? If you want a speaker ... the "ultimate"? Don't blame the room.

[mikebake]

If you want a speaker ... the "ultimate"? Don't blame the room.

The room is 50% of the equation involving any loudspeaker. You name the loudspeaker, and I'll show you a room that makes it sound like shit, guaranteed.

[Zilch]

Frankly, I'd very much prefer to read more actual listening impressions here, as they occur, than speculation as to what overpriced doo-doo they might be, or further carping about Harman marketing....

[Mr. Widget]

Frankly, I'd very much prefer to read more actual listening impressions here, as they occur, than speculation as to what overpriced doo-doo they might be, or further carping about Harman marketing....

This is filler until we get that chance in January... in the meantime precious few of us will have the opportunity...


Rolf, if you really want to discuss your questions I'd be happy to answer them on a general discussion thread as they are all general issues. I really don't want to prolong this OT discussion, but Mike is absolutely correct... the room is one of the components in your system. It must be taken into consideration.


Widget

[DavidF]

Tell me ... How can a HI-FI loudspeaker system that does not deliver low notes be great?



A truly hi-fi speaker system should not need EQ!

How about the venerable QUAD ESL-63, or the little giant BBC LS3/5A? Each had significant compromises in total performance but each had overwhelming attributes in other areas that kept them as highly-recommended in HiFi circles.

Most speakers have some form of equalization built in to the crossover, at the least. Why would equalization to a tweeter’s roll-on be considered an acceptable HiFi design but equalization to the woofer’s bottom end be considered a deficiency?

DavidF

[Rolf]

The room is 50% of the equation involving any loudspeaker. You name the loudspeaker, and I'll show you a room that makes it sound like shit, guaranteed.

Don't you think I know that? You obviously did not get my "under covered" meaning in the statement.

[Rolf]

How about the venerable QUAD ESL-63, or the little giant BBC LS3/5A? Each had significant compromises in total performance but each had overwhelming attributes in other areas that kept them as highly-recommended in HiFi circles.

Well, I have heard both many times, as a couple of my friends had them, before they got to their senses and bought JBL . I must say that none of them was to my taste.

Most speakers have some form of equalization built in to the crossover, at the least. Why would equalization to a tweeter’s roll-on be considered an acceptable HiFi design but equalization to the woofer’s bottom end be considered a deficiency?

DavidF

I know, and that is ok. If JBL had done that in the system there had been no use for an extra eq.

[Maron Horonzakz]

In the Everest DD66000 Technical White Paper is a small line illustration of the 476 Be mid/high frequency driver (fig 6) A very small cutaway drawing showing internal workings....I need a larger more detailed drawing. Does anyone know if a LARGER illistration is available???? Maybe JBL can furnish one for our library. Can Don McRitchie inquirer???? I need to compair with drawing of driver in K2 M 95000.....

[Jan Daugaard]

I found this drawing of the 476Be somewhere on the Internet; I don't remember the URL.