I have a beautiful set of original 4345's that may not be "THE Best" but they are the best I'll ever have. Running them with McIntosh gear. I also have a set of Bozaks Concert Grands that is beautifully different.
I have a beautiful set of original 4345's that may not be "THE Best" but they are the best I'll ever have. Running them with McIntosh gear. I also have a set of Bozaks Concert Grands that is beautifully different.
The question should have been rephrased and entitled. What Jbl is the most musical ever or most beautiful sonically?
Xpl200a
At my house, XPL200A with active crossovers (2 BSS FDS360s), bi-amping, outperformed my 4341, L300 by big margins.
Another guy here: http://www.audiophilenirvana.com/aud...0a-holy-grail/
XPL200A with active crossover (DX-1), bi-amping, outperformed his 4345
Not to be argumentative or overly biased toward the 4345 but the reviewer used a sub and said an improvement to the XPLs would be found in replacing their 12-inch woofer with an LE14. That seems to put a rather large hole in their superlative-laced review.
Only one reply compared them to that person's 4345 but we have no idea whether or not they were running their 4345 in bi-amp, or not, or bypassing the switch, or with modern network mods as GT has recommended. I have no doubt the XPLs are great speakers—and I'd purchase a pair in a heart-beat—but to draw your conclusion from a two-sentence comparison to the 4345 with its 18-inch woofer seems a bit of a stretch.
I drew a different conclusion from the review based on this comment from the reviewer:I experienced this same phenomenon when I first got my 4345s (bi-amp clones with CC networks). Good recordings sounded great and bad ones sounded worse. I have over a dozen JBLs with more laid-back sound if I want to intentionally mute the flaws of a bad recording. But I keep the 4345s in the main system specifically for their ability to reproduce everything the source has to offer. I can still enjoy any recording but I appreciate the good ones even more.The XPL-200A may be the perfect home audio reproduction system. Unlike professional monitors such as the JBL LSR6332 and M2, the XPL-200A approaches the level of detail required for professional mastering, but stops just short of the extreme levels needed in the studio. The LSR6332 and M2 systems are too revealing of the recording, and allow the listener to hear every studio error. They take the enjoyment out of listening to many older recordings. Whereas the XPL-200A, by stopping just short of this level of detail, makes listening to many older recordings more pleasant than on any other loudspeaker system we’ve ever experienced.
If I was interested in purchasing a compromising system to mask recording flaws or inadequacies, I'd be more accepting of the reviewer's comments, but I have an EQ for that! To the contrary, he tries to put forth the limits of the system as a feature and then claims to have found "the Holy Grail of Audio?" Note his question mark which implies (to me) rhetoric and hyperbole.
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
I own the XPL200s, and bi-amplified them with the Mark Levinson LNC-2 crossover. Bi-amping was a small upgrade. Adding aqualpas to the midrange drivers was a larger upgrade. But even with those changes, switching to the Performance series PT800 and PS1400 was a step up from the XPLs. Too bad about the unreliability of the electronics in those. And the M2 clones that I have built are a huge upgrade from either one of those. So the XPLs are good, but they probably don't belong in a discussion of the very best JBLs.
Sorry for the confusion.
My original post was referring to the comments at the bottom of the page from Kang Sound
Kang Sound • a month ago
Review is spot on... just set this up with the DX-1 setting with a Chord Mezzo 75 for the high's with the Nuforce reference 9SE Monoblocks for the Bottom with the Chord Prima Pre Amp and One Cd Player and the Dave Dac...... Much better than my JBL 4345's... extremely detailed , airy, and t precise tight bass .
I only compared the XPL200A with 4341 and L300 myself. I do not have 4345. I agree that XPL200 need some help from bass section.
I have a pair of JBL 4645Cs to go with XPL200A. That was why I am using a pair of BSS FDS360s for 3 way stereo configuration:
250Hz - 65Hz for 2214H-1 in XPL200A
65Hz and below for 2242H in 4645C
Cheers,
Best JBL ever?
I would say DD65000, DD66000, DD67000, K2-S9900 and M2 come close to them
I have not heard any of this models but I have play with all of the driver parts that are using in them
I have listening to M2 clone speakers with the original parts and also with 1501Al-1 and 476Be and for me K2 and Everest parts are slightly better than 2216Nd and D2430K
Ari
Yes, and my comments were about that part of your post. I said there was one sentence in two-sentence comment comparing the XPL to the 4345. Who knows what that 4345 owner is doing with original crossovers, goofy bi-amp switch, etc. I suspect the L7 may have a better LF driver than the XPL. Seems like a lot of people are passing around a pair of XPLs and writing Internet content as a result. Someone must have been padding an Ebay auction! Let me know when you see a pair for a reasonable price and I'll set up a comparison between the XPL200, 250ti, L7, 4345, and L150A and report back!Originally Posted by timca
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
I guess this is what makes it such an interesting field.
My perception is that certain listeners focus on a set of subjective nuances while ignoring others.
I mean why do some listeners crave the latest Quad electrostatics and hate other dynamic loudspeakers?
I personally found the 4343 st John Nebels stomped on the LSR 6332 monitors as they sounded compressed compared to the 4343s.
We also compared Johns 4435, they are one of my all to
E favourites. They have superior speed and midrange Clarity over the 4430😂.
That means the M2 is a winner in my book
Because at best, audio reproduction creates the illusion that real humans are making music in real time, and different people are satisfied by different illusions. There is no such thing as audio reproduction that 100% of listeners will interpret as being 100% accurate (or 100% satisfying) 100% of the time.
IMHO there is to much emphasis on reducing coloration in speakers. All speakers have coloration's some are more than others but what is important to me is does the coloration bother you?
My 1400's are neutral and mellow particularly when A - B with my old L212's. They are chesty, honky and edgy and alive - the coloration's add to the sound.
This is where I get to the "there is no perfect system" so I have to have several to be happy.
Example, my 4350's have Everest drivers and are multi amped with powerful DSP and if I chase the flat lines (magnitude and phase) too far they loose the "life" that I love when they are less processed. My big Ubangi/Community stack suffers this as well.
This may very well be due to my personal integration limitations but there is an edginess that I and many of my friends associate with live music.
I have 1400's as well and I love them, but, they are not the end all for me.
Barry.
If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.
4350 for dynamics.
DD55000 for looks
1. M2
2. 4311
My reasoning is simple
The M2 is the most technologically advanced design that delivers real world advancement in audio reproduction not offered in any prior JBL design
You might ask the definition of best ever? Each to his own
The 4310:4311 sold more an any other jbl
May have made them a "best value given price and performance" when they were introduced, but would be tough to argue today given what they're selling for now and what else is available.
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
