jbl haters

[Nightbrace]

XX<< go ahead and buy every speaker that advertises a flat line as their freq. response curve. Thats ALL that matters .

[Titanium Dome]

Well, you know I always quote Bill Miller at a time like this: "Why can't it be both?"

I used to be more rigorous in looking at the numbers than I am now, but soon discovered that some companies actually distort what they report. Can you believe it? :shock:

Forgive me for saying so, but I'll bet even JBL has mucked it up a time or two.

Even published specs will give an inclination of the care a manufacturer took in the development process and may guide me toward what I'd like to listen to. Yet, many other things also play a role: horns, waveguides, direct radiators, panels, ribbons? Pulp, Carbon, Aluminum, polypropylene, Beryllium, Titanium, Mylar®? Two-way, three-way, four-way?

It's actually quite an advantage to have the numbers generated by some of the more technical folks on these forums, because they're more likely to be real-world accurate and also reveal what it takes to improve the numbers and thus the sound.

I think JBL's numbers are more useful than most manufacturers' numbers I've seen, because they do tend to be representative of the actual product. I adore the official response graph for the Performance Series 'cuz it kicks the shit out of a lot of products, JBL's included. "Your NirvanaTech Jupiter II speakers cost $30,000 and have imported Syrian Cedar veneer? Oh yeah? Well look at my effing graph; it kicks ass on you pal."

But I also know there are a few JBL speakers whose numbers might not be quite as good looking that will spank the PS head to head in the real world.

The thing I hope we can say about JBLs and the Lansing Heritage is that both art and science matter. I'm not sure what "soul" is in defining the characteristics of a loudspeaker. I'm aware of the science and technology JBL puts into every speaker, even the Venue Series and iPod® add-ons, and I believe the art is a belief held close to the heart of many Harman/JBL engineers that they can bring music to people in every place, for every taste, with many dreams, in every economic budget, and that music will bring joy or peace or inspiration or passion to those who hear the art coming through the science.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ian, as I continue working in-front of live audiences and invite people into my home I can say that your comment is very unfair. People have a vast understanding of instrumentation in general and loudspeaker designers do, in fact, engineer their products to faithfully reproduce real sounds (but do so at a price-point they can market).

It is awkward watching someone argue a point by presuming ignorance of others as a way of making their point.

Well I can understand why you might suggest this was the case.

I am talking from direct experience.

The brutal, and I mean brutal reality is I have witnessed this situation only in the past week at a dealers showrooms.

The dealers rep, as classical musician by training refused to demonstrated to a particular loudspeaker because in his view he felt it was unethical to recommend a loudspeaker that was claimed to reproduce the sounds of musical instruments faithfully as suggested by the manufacturer.


Ther manufacturer is not a fly by night outfit and we are not talking about a cheap model.

I am in the market for an alternative system and I had read Linkwitz site some days earlier and felt it appropriate to pass on as I had told it here.

On the matter of subjectivity there is such lattitude in preferences that no doubt some listeners (in a double blind test) would prefer the live acoustic demonstration while others would prefer the/some loudspeaker(s).

At the least Linkwitz has the balls and the brains to state the obvious.

Linkwitz honeymoon cottage up at Sea Ranch sounds quite nice actually.

Ian

[Otis McCoy]

Very interesting discussion. I have often wondered how JBL made such great speakers in the 1940's up to the point where computers aided their design? Those same speakers command huge sums, and are prized for their sound/build quality. I don't think that is a mistake. The fact that new age speakers have the benefit of computer aided design, doesn't make them better solely because of it. If that was the only criteria necessary for producing a great speaker, then there would be no need for showrooms, final critical listening tests, etc-etc.

I think that Robh3606 has a great point in his last post. What looks to be a slam-dunk performance winner on a graph, doesn't always translate into real world performance that the finest instrument of all, the human ear, will agree with. The people that build speakers know this as a fact. If not, why wouldn't they just spec a system wholly based on graphs and sell it?

He makes another great point wrt balance between subjective and objective points of view. Clearly, the "curve junkies" and the "trust your ears" camps should have some common ground. But this particular discussion shows that each will argue their points as if there is no common ground. I've watched this forum for a long time before posting. I see that although there is much to be gleened from the technical camp, It also seems that it is vehemently defended as the only real viable method of proof that a speaker sounds good. As Robh3606's example shows, that is not always the fact. I'm positive that his example is not unique.

I think that if credit for each side's position was given equal respect for it's value, there would be more growth and true understanding of speaker design for all members, instead of immediately discounting an opinion about a certain speaker because a chart or graph doesn't look right, or statements discounting the value of the technical data's importance. Only when given the proper genuine respect laterally, will this forum live up to it's potential. Where everyone one that cares to, will learn from and appreciate, both the measured and subjective data. The part of the brain that permits that to happen is closely tied to it's emotional center and logic. Admiration is a feeling, trust is made up of emotional components and logical assumptions based on human interaction. What is the gig here? Is the ultimate goal to have/build/buy speakers to listen to music? Is that not an emotional experience? And does that not require a generous amount of technical know-how to produce?

As it stands, it is not a matter of whether either side has the correct information, it is whether anyone cares to have the correct attitude to permit the sharing of ideas, opinions and data.

[SEAWOLF97]

Very interesting discussion. I have often wondered how JBL made such great speakers in the 1940's up to the point where computers aided their design? Those same speakers command huge sums, and are prized for their sound/build quality. I don't think that is a mistake. The fact that new age speakers have the benefit of computer aided design, doesn't make them better solely because of it.

Not to throw this thread off topic.

We visited Beale AFB years ago and got to see and sit in an operational SR-71 Blackbird. You all know what it is.....anyway, it was designed on slide rule, no computers or calculators in sight. A tad more complicated than speakers.

[Robh3606]

Here's a example of how measurements can be manipulated by adjusting resolution in both the actual measurement using smoothing and the db scale per box. These are all the exact same raw measurement presented in different ways. All are perfectly valid and all could be used by a manufacturer to represent their loudspeakers.

Rob

[Robh3606]

Here are DB scale

[Robh3606]

These are windowed. The last is the most meaningful graph of all. It is back to the original resolution but windowed to show the area wher the driver will operate in the system. As you can see it's all in the presentation.

Rob

[soundboy]

One of my favorite examples is the 4406 and a 4345 measured response above say 100Hz. Looking at the graph the 4406 would be the clear winner in real life nothing could be further from the truth.

Now I know why I got away from the foghorn lens, and the slot tweeters in the 80's...I rather like the 4406's.

At 95db, which would throw a better detailed image? Or sound more focused on an acoustic guitar or vocalist?
At 115db, which one would go up in smoke, and which would make your ears ache for a biradial?

Seriously, very good example.

[mikebake]

But I also know there are a few JBL speakers whose numbers might not be quite as good looking that will spank the PS head to head in the real world.

i.e.?

[mikebake]

Very interesting discussion. I have often wondered how JBL made such great speakers in the 1940's up to the point where computers aided their design? Those same speakers command huge sums, and are prized for their sound/build quality. I don't think that is a mistake. The fact that new age speakers have the benefit of computer aided design, doesn't make them better solely because of it. If that was the only criteria necessary for producing a great speaker, then there would be no need for showrooms, final critical listening tests, etc-etc.

I think that Robh3606 has a great point in his last post. What looks to be a slam-dunk performance winner on a graph, doesn't always translate into real world performance that the finest instrument of all, the human ear, will agree with. The people that build speakers know this as a fact. If not, why wouldn't they just spec a system wholly based on graphs and sell it?

He makes another great point wrt balance between subjective and objective points of view. Clearly, the "curve junkies" and the "trust your ears" camps should have some common ground. But this particular discussion shows that each will argue their points as if there is no common ground. I've watched this forum for a long time before posting. I see that although there is much to be gleened from the technical camp, It also seems that it is vehemently defended as the only real viable method of proof that a speaker sounds good. As Robh3606's example shows, that is not always the fact. I'm positive that his example is not unique.

I think that if credit for each side's position was given equal respect for it's value, there would be more growth and true understanding of speaker design for all members, instead of immediately discounting an opinion about a certain speaker because a chart or graph doesn't look right, or statements discounting the value of the technical data's importance. Only when given the proper genuine respect laterally, will this forum live up to it's potential. Where everyone one that cares to, is learning and appreciating the measured and subjective data. The part of the brain that permits that to happen is closely tied to it's emotional center and logic. Admiration is a feeling, trust is made up of emotional components and logical assumptions based on human interaction. What is the gig here? Is the ultimate goal to have/build/buy speakers to listen to music? Is that not an emotional experience? And does that not require a generous amount of technical know-how to produce?

As it stands, it is not a matter of whether either side has the correct information, it is whether anyone cares to have the correct attitude to permit the sharing of ideas, opinions and data.

Okay, "Otis", who are you?

[Otis McCoy]

Okay, "Otis", who are you?

I give up, who am I? I see that quite a few people here use pseudonyms. Is there something in what I said that has you curious?

[Shane Shuster]

So basically to sum it up.

Group A: Dynamics and impact are where its at, who cares about imaging and frequency response. Why can't those other guys get a clue and find out what real sound is?

Group B: Imaging and frequency response is where its at, who cares about dynamics and impact. Why can't those other guys get a clue and find out what real sound is?

When discussing audio why does the other guy have to be portrayed as ignorant and wrong? For example on the 20hz thing, if a guy listens to electronica/dance or pipe organ music wouldn't lack of low bass be an honest critique of a speaker? If you listen to just folk music do you value dynamics and impact as much as imaging?

Why so much focus on who has what for brand names and not on actual sound?

[Zilch]

Well, I have searched high and low for Giskard's post(s) illustrating (FR curve) and discussing the summation of the dual woofers in E2.

Does anybody know where this is?

Perhaps deleted? :dont-know

Did find this:

Somebody estimated 277 Liters. You get an A. We figure the active volume is around 270 l. As with all Japan intended systems, the low end is deliberately lean. The published curve is an anechoic curve which is very hard to interpret with regard to real in-room response. The system has 3 dB more output at 30 Hz than a S9800. It has the tightest and best defined bass reproduction of any JBL, ever. It is not as fast as the 100 dB woofers, but goes much deeper. In multi-channel, the use of a sub is normal and will take care of the issue. In 2-channel, some EQ could easily be used as the woofers have tremendous headroom.

[Highlight and emphasis added....]

[Mr. Widget]

So basically to sum it up...

I don't need to quote your whole post, but I agree with it 100%.

I listen to '60s Folk, '70s Rock, '80s and '90s pop, contemporary electronic music, Classical and Jazz... and not in any particular order or focussing on any particular genre at any one time. While listening to Joni Mitchell.... if my sub is switched off, I'd never notice, but if I throw on some Meshell Ndegeocello and the sub was still off... it'd be sorely missed.

I enjoy enough Jazz and other "acoustic" records where the imaging can be stunning... then again, for many very early recordings of Coltrane, the Beatles, and others... the stereo effect is distracting since they put some musicians on the left and others on the right.

Since I do listen to a wide range of music, I find any speaker that has it's own character... say one that makes Stevie Ray Vaughn's guitar searingly in your face and powerfully alive... also makes Andrés Segovia sound a bit searing... or one with a warm deep tone that makes thin '70s rock albums sound deep and rich, tends to make today's well recorded music sound boomy and bass heavy.

I like the most neutral sound I can find with best imaging and most dynamic sound possible... unfortunately it doesn't come inexpensively... one of the best compromises I have heard is the JBL Everest DD66000.

In an effort to bring this back on topic... I'll submit that this new JBL will change the minds of many of the JBL haters who hear them.


Widget