jbl haters

[Mannermusic]

Ultimately it's pointless to argue with someone about brands or about specifications. Others will be emotionally attached to their favorite speakers just as I am attached to mine. We may try to use charts, graphs, and specifications to prove our point, but everyone (except Bose!) can produce those things. Then the argument shifts to "how" the sound was measured, or "why" one specification is more important than another, or "where" the measurement was made, or "what" was used in the audio chain to make the sound, etc.

Very few people have ever listened to many speakers other than the ones they ended up purchasing, and the last time they heard a brand like JBL turns the argument into a "when" did you last hear a JBL, if ever?

The fact remains that JBL is one of the oldest continuous loudspeaker brands in the world. Over its long history, it has accumulated more awards, developed more important technical and engineering innovations, and maintained the most diversified product line than virtually any other loudspeaker manufacturer.

As a part of Harman International, it has access to the world's most sophisticated loudspeaker design and testing facility, has developed the world's most sophisticated listening panels and double-blind listening protocols, and has access to the greatest technical and artistic minds in loudspeaker design, all at the Northridge, California facility.

JBL dominates theater, music hall, stadium, live venue, recording studio, and auditorium sound in many parts of the world. It is the most consistently widely-distributed brand around the world (check its Web site for countries and languages), and it has the largest support activities of any major brand.

JBL recently won international recognition and awards for its Everest II DD66000, following up on its international award-winning K2 S9800. It developed unique and amazing technologies, including transducers, which are world-class and best-in-class in their execution.

JBL is at the forefront of car audio, marine audio, professional audio, and home audio.

It is also true that it is one of the most often criticized brands among boutique speaker owners, snobs, and people who hate big companies. Often these people will compare the under $1000/pair entry level JBL consumer speakers with speakers that cost much more and use that as an indictment of the entire product line. But on a price segment comparison basis, JBL can match or beat any brand out there.

At the high end, it has a number of offerings that will humiliate similar priced lines, but since most people have never heard these JBLs, these people will use poor arguments and specs on paper to make their judgments. I make it a point to go to audio shops when I can to listen to the best they have. I am open to finding speakers that I can afford that will sound better than my JBLs.

But in any case, when someone attacks JBLs, I can say that I have heard their speakers and what my opinion is based on actually hearing them, or I keep my mouth shut if I haven't heard them. If they cannot say they have heard comparable JBLs, then they are ignorant in every sense of the word, and I have no reason to want to argue with an ignorant person. It wastes both of our times.

Its all emotion - like trying to talk to a religionist. Pride fueled self-righteousness. They are unaware of their bias or what's required to be objective. The double blind technique is a threat, to be avoided!

[briang]

Its all emotion - like trying to talk to a religionist. Pride fueled self-righteousness. They are unaware of their bias or what's required to be objective. The double blind technique is a threat, to be avoided!

Regarding the double blind technique, how true it is. When it comes to belief, all data that yeilds evidence to the contrary of the belief is a 'dangerous' threat.

Reminds me of a fortune cookie I've taped to my monitor at work: "As scares as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of demand."

[Zilch]

The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not.".

Utter nonsense. The subjectivist credo; always gotta take a whack at what they don't understand.

I am not in the least insulted. Read Toole (Harman's V.P. of figuring this out) in the June 2006 AES Journal, a thorough review of the current state of the science. Perhaps this site can acquire permission to reprint it here....

[Robh3606]

Originally Posted by X_X
The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not.".

What ever happened to balance or a balanced approach to audio that trys to work with both aspects of this hobby. To much focus on the Us and Them as far as I am concerned. We should be working on what we agree on not focusing on what we don't.

Rob

[X_X]

What ever happened to balance or a balanced approach to audio that trys to work with both aspects of this hobby. To much focus on the Us and Them as far as I am concerned. We should be working on what we agree on not focusing on what we don't.

Rob

I'd love to see more of that, and I think those companies that have correctly nailed their market do keep a balance. JBL is one of the few. We may be hordes, but we still have buying power. That is the ultimate leverage.

Utter nonsense. The subjectivist credo; always gotta take a whack at what they don't understand.

I am not in the least insulted. Read Toole (Harman's V.P. of figuring this out) in the June 2006 AES Journal, a thorough review of the current state of the science. Perhaps this site can acquire permission to reprint it here....

'Nonsense'? Tell it to Nelson Pass, of whom I quoted. I'm sure he'll apprecitae your input on his own nonsensical philosophy for all things audio. Perhaps if he had your opinion, he could understand that which he (obviously) does not, and actually make something decent.

To both of you: The quote was taken out of context, not that its merits aren't excellent enough to stand on it's own, but the big picture was overlooked in your desire to object. See there? It's all subjective; you just proved it!

For me and many others, the ears (and heart) are the definitive judge. Why? Because I'm black. I know you cannot tell what the content of another man's character is based on the color of his skin. Therefor, how can you say a speaker sounds good because of it's published data?

Nate.

[Zilch]

Therefor, how can you say a speaker sounds good because of it's published data?

Non sequitur. Not saying that at all. My objection is to the explicit assertion that those of us who work with the measurements and data are inherently incapable of appreciating the subtleties of character in listening to the result.

Nonsense.

[It wasn't ME that did the underlining for emphasis....]

People want impressive publised data- there are companies bent on achieving those goals even it means the product has no soul.

The "soul" is supposed to be in the music, NOT the speakers, though I well appreciate the desire of some listeners to have it fabricated for them artificially, instead....

[Ian Mackenzie]

Utter nonsense. The subjectivist credo; always gotta take a whack at what they don't understand.

I am not in the least insulted. Read Toole (Harman's V.P. of figuring this out) in the June 2006 AES Journal, a thorough review of the current state of the science. Perhaps this site can acquire permission to reprint it here....

Zilch, I am sure you know the meaning of context.

From you own spin on reality or should I say Curve On Reality I think it is an oversight that an objectivist "knows" and a subjectivist doesn't.

I can quote countless experts with far superior ability and expierience in measuring loudspeakers than you who have opposing views on whether absolute flatness in response is really that critical.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing when you start using other peoples quotes to leverage your own point of view.

Besides which appreciating your own loudspeakers is not about a war of words.

I have read that document you mention above. The Reveal stuff does not convince me they got it right.

I doubt if a given sample population know what a particular musical instrument sounds like. How many loudspeaker builders/designers can say the same.

Can you?

This is the ultimate problem and hence it is about (those who can appreciate ) the subtleties of music and audio reproduction for those who can appreciate it.

See Linkwitz conclusions and his pointed remark towards manufacturers.

"I find it disappointing when loudspeaker manufacturers run extensive double-blind listening tests with trained and untrained listeners where they only compare loudspeakers to each other, but not to any live source. These are strictly preference tests within a given paradigm."

What ever happened to balance or a balanced approach to audio that trys to work with both aspects of this hobby. To much focus on the Us and Them as far as I am concerned. We should be working on what we agree on not focusing on what we don't.

Rob

Go here: Linkwitzlab.com. He seems to be trying to look at both aspeccts.

[rgrjit8]

Sounds like you take a lot of guff over there. I've simply stopped responding to the Philistines. People usually continue to defend their choices beyond reason and experience. The best you can hope for amounts to little more than a rearrangement of their prejudices. This passes for deep thinking.


Anyway, what I really came to say...

I just love it when someone derides my JBLs by saying, "Yeah, they're big and loud, but I expect to hear some DETAIL in my music!" (this is an internet confrontation, where I can't simply show him - Missouri style)

And I think to myself, "Jackass, the music you listen to on your oh-so sophisticated speakers probably had their final mixdown on a pair of 4355s, or a close cousin anyway, so how can you presume to lecture about detail?"

Perhaps my thinking(my prejudices) is skewed, but is not the artist's intention better expressed by a studio monitor rather than by a dissimilar speaker?

I know some of you guys have experience in studios, what do you think? Am I just a blithering

[Tom Brennan]

Coal City? Is Bums still there? We used to sneak over there for a long lunch when we were building Collins Station. Remember Horse Radish Joe?

[X_X]

Non sequitur. Not saying that at all. My objection is to the explicit assertion that those of us who work with the measurements and data are inherently incapable of appreciating the subtleties of character in listening to the result.

Nonsense.

[It wasn't ME that did the underlining for emphasis....]

The "soul" is supposed to be in the music, NOT the speakers, though I well appreciate the desire of some listeners to have it fabricated for them artificially, instead....

Your ignorance of the word "differentiation" is obvious, and marks the core of your circular argument.

'Differentiation by numbers' (mathematical definition) as it relates to the aforementioned 'subtleties of music' means anything that makes a derivative (root meaning) of the source material (and the music that it is) purely for the sake of acquiring proper numbers is an abomination of the music itself and rightfully criticized by those who enjoy said music. No one (including Nelson Pass) is saying that those who work with numbers can't appreciate music- your allegation is nonsense. It is when you manipulate the music to get the numbers that the sanctity and/or purity of music gets lost. That sort of manipulation (or differentiation by numbers) is for those who do not appreciate the subtleties of music. I think it is beautifully written (almost poetic) when fully understood, and I think you will agree.

With regard to your soul in the speaker comment:

The soul of a performance needs to be present throughout the entire audio chain (including the recording process) for it to be evident at the loudspeaker. All the components need not possess it- only allow it to pass through unscathed by those who seek differentiation by numbers. Those who do not appreciate the subtleties of music probably wouldn't be moved anyways. :P

[Tom Brennan]

I think the soul of a performence need only be present at the recording, Hell, the emotional essence gets through if you're listening to a transistor radio earplug. If it's there you'll get it.

[Zilch]

Your ignorance of the word "differentiation" is obvious, and marks the core of your circular argument.

Blather.

Pass's statement merely goes to the issue of whether one is able to hear the music or not, and the resources available for discernment under those conditions. You cite it to support discounting the utility of measurements:

I don't put much stock in the published data.

It simply does not support a position that if one IS able to discern the subtleties (YOU, presumably, ) then the numbers are meaningless, and may be ignored.

Then, to posit that Pass REALLY means "differentiation" in the mathematical sense, is, well preposterous. How parsing the music, manipulating it, and reintegrating applies is beyond me.

Speakers aren't DSPs, but I can certainly argue that BAD ones alter it, which is contrary to the objective of reproducing the source. Plenty of "discerning" listeners seem to like such adulteration just fine, indeed, actually prefer it, wherein lies the core of the subjectivist thesis: "What I like is best; there are no quantifiable absolutes."

[Convenient, but wrong, alas....]

[Nightbrace]

"Read Toole (Harman's V.P. of figuring this out) in the June 2006 AES Journal, a thorough review of the current state of the science. Perhaps this site can acquire permission to reprint it here...."

Where can I find this??

[boputnam]

I doubt if a given sample population know what a particular musical instrument sounds like. How many loudspeaker builders/designers can say the same.

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.

[SEAWOLF97]

We were talking - about the space between us all

And the people - who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion

Never glimpse of truth - then it's far too late - when they pass away

-gh 1968