JBL Master Reference Monitor

[edgewound]

The M2 being (intended to be) paired with the Crown amps using active crossovers, would be an apples-to-oranges comparison to the passive-crossover 1400.I feel that the better comparison would be the consumer / Synthesis version of the M2: the 4367. Comparing the 4367 to the 1400 I feel that the 4367 is a more accurate speaker.

FWIW...I have a customer that works for a well known manufacturer of Architectural Loudspeaker Systems. He traded away his Array 1400 for the 4367...and totally regrets it. BTW...The 4367 has a completely different horn than the M2 waveguide.

[Robh3606]

FWIW...I have a customer that works for a well known manufacturer of Architectural Loudspeaker Systems. He traded away his Array 1400 for the 4367...and totally regrets it. BTW...The 4367 has a completely different horn than the M2 waveguide.

Hello Edgewound

Yes and the 1400 has the DF slot vertical which makes a difference with the imaging. That was my point the M2 and 1400 waveguide/horn don't image the same way.
I find the M2 more natural sounding not as forward, better sense of depth and voices can be sound surprisingly real a more in the room feel. That and the image is rock solid without exaggeration.

To explain that the 2344 I found to image extremely well but they sounded a bit forward and it detracted from the presentation. When I went over to the PTH1010 it was less precise and sounded more natural. The M2 has the extreme image lock but no artificial forwardness. Not sure if that makes any sense but that's my take on it.

That said the 1400 is fine system that I will be keeping mine.

Rob

[SaturationPt]

FWIW...I have a customer that works for a well known manufacturer of Architectural Loudspeaker Systems. He traded away his Array 1400 for the 4367...and totally regrets it. BTW...The 4367 has a completely different horn than the M2 waveguide.

Everyone has their preference. After spending too much time listening and shopping, I chose the 4367.

You are correct, the M2 and 4367 have the same horn driver, but a different waveguide, the 4367 being a later design and for a slightly different application.

Similarly, the M2 and 4367 have the same design woofer, the earlier 2216ND in the M2 and later 2216ND-1 in the 4367. JBL's published reason being lower frequency and easier break-in on the ND-1 with a more compliant suspension and higher-mass cone.

The cabinets are also different, the M2 being taller and narrower, the 4367 shorter and deeper, with close to identical volume.

I think that they're all fine speakers, preference and application being the reason to lean one way or another.