JBL Master Reference Monitor

[1audiohack]

You are closer to on than off in my opinion.

[Robh3606]

The way I see it is to look at the amount of EQ needed. The less the better. The simpler the passive network or the least amount of DSP to me equals the most optimized horn/waveguide.

Rob

[Ian Mackenzie]

Agreed.

JBL appear to be moving more toward "systems integration" approach with implementation.

If you open Ti Dome last link the story covers the point you make.

My own impression is that while the 0435 performed admirably in the 9800 K2 this driver was originally designed for Pro Sound wave guides above 1Khertz. However the 9800 horn was introduced to take advantage of the 0435 performance with the 1500AL.

Having heard the 9800 K2 I think JBL worked hard on passive crossover & enclosure design to get a good blend with the 1500AL. I have also heard some diy 9800 horn clones that did not seem a good marriage with the 1500AL where reliance was held to automated crossover like the DEQX.

I don't think the skill an experience of the designer can be replaced with a wonder box.

[baldrick]

I dont know if its a dum question

but is it posible that a certian wave guide is designed spesificaly and optimization for a compresion driver

lets say D2430 and M2 Horn

wouldnt a 436BE deserve a optimized horn to blend spesificaly with the 1500AL


or is this way off

I've used 2435/435BE With PT-H waveguides... was not too impressed, 435BE sounds good With H9800 horn in K2.

A forum member have compared D2430 With 2450SL on different DIY/JBL horns and prefered 2450SL, but most people who have heard D2430 in M2 horn seems to love them.

Several have said that TAD TD4001 sound fairly good in most horns but excellent in TAD TH4001 horns, but other drivers in TH4001 only sounds OK.

So my guess is pretty much the same, some drivers/horns work very well With some special drivers/horns but not necessary good if you mix

[Ian Mackenzie]

[QUOTE=Several have said that TAD TD4001 sound fairly good in most horns but excellent in TAD TH4001 horns, but other drivers in TH4001 only sounds OK.

So my guess is pretty much the same, some drivers/horns work very well With some special drivers/horns but not necessary good if you mix[/QUOTE]

The Tad 4001 driver and the TH-4001 horn has been discussed Dr Bruce Edgar as it performed less well on his Tractrix horns. If you google and read Edgars rational its quite interesting and lends to the fact that Dr Edgar is one of the leading horn designers.

[Valentin]

So it is not a plug and play situación specialy talking of a crítical listening función as a studio monitor

[hsosdrum]

Quote: "I don't think the skill an experience of the designer can be replaced with a wonder box."

As implemented in the M2 the DSP is no more a "wonder box" than is the passive network in any more conventionally-designed speaker. In the case of the M2, think of the DSP as the network. The same skill and experience lavished on the passive network of a high-end speaker was lavished on the DSP of the M2.

During its development the M2's DSP went through many iterations; each one was subjected to intensive listening tests and measurements, the same as a passive network would be. (Perhaps more.) I was part of the M2 listening evaluation panel and heard at least six different versions of the M2 DSP during the speaker's development as well as the final (production) version of the M2. With each iteration of the DSP the developers sought to solve for specific sonic goals, and the speaker got better and better each time I heard it. This process is the same as that of an engineer trying different versions of a passive network with different component values and having the results of each evaluated by a listening panel.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the M2 is truly the result of a "systems approach" to its design and execution; if any of its parts is changed (2216Nd woofer, D2 tweeter, Image Control waveguide, enclosure, DSP) the resulting speaker simply won't be an M2 any more. You may like it better, but the speaker you'll be liking won't be an M2.

From the listening experience I mentioned earlier I can tell you that the M2 is truly a magical speaker: it's the only speaker I've ever heard that makes me feel like I'm hearing exactly what is on the recording, with absolutely nothing added and with absolutely nothing missing. With all other studio monitors and high-end speakers I always feel like I'm hearing a presentation of the recording that is the vision of its designer. Not with the M2. Through the M2 I feel like I'm hearing everything that's in the recording exactly how it really is on the recording. That's what makes this speaker such a valuable tool for people who spend their lives recording sound: They can trust it.

I realize that this comes dangerously close to sounding like a bunch of hype, but I've been in the audio industry for nearly 40 years, have been a musician for over 50 years and have been recording music for 30 years. I've heard thousands (many thousands) of speakers during that time (including JBL, Altec, Genelec, KRK and Tannoy studio monitors as well as lots of audiophile "flavors-of-the-month"), and to my ears the M2 represents a paradigm shift away from all of them. If I could afford to spend twenty thousand bucks there would be a pair in front of me right now as I type this in the control room of my home studio.

[Mostlydiy]

Interesting read

/Mostly

[mech986]

Quote: "I don't think the skill an experience of the designer can be replaced with a wonder box."

As implemented in the M2 the DSP is no more a "wonder box" than is the passive network in any more conventionally-designed speaker. In the case of the M2, think of the DSP as the network. The same skill and experience lavished on the passive network of a high-end speaker was lavished on the DSP of the M2.

During its development the M2's DSP went through many iterations; each one was subjected to intensive listening tests and measurements, the same as a passive network would be. (Perhaps more.) I was part of the M2 listening evaluation panel and heard at least six different versions of the M2 DSP during the speaker's development as well as the final (production) version of the M2. With each iteration of the DSP the developers sought to solve for specific sonic goals, and the speaker got better and better each time I heard it. This process is the same as that of an engineer trying different versions of a passive network with different component values and having the results of each evaluated by a listening panel.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the M2 is truly the result of a "systems approach" to its design and execution; if any of its parts is changed (2216Nd woofer, D2 tweeter, Image Control waveguide, enclosure, DSP) the resulting speaker simply won't be an M2 any more. You may like it better, but the speaker you'll be liking won't be an M2.

From the listening experience I mentioned earlier I can tell you that the M2 is truly a magical speaker: it's the only speaker I've ever heard that makes me feel like I'm hearing exactly what is on the recording, with absolutely nothing added and with absolutely nothing missing. With all other studio monitors and high-end speakers I always feel like I'm hearing a presentation of the recording that is the vision of its designer. Not with the M2. Through the M2 I feel like I'm hearing everything that's in the recording exactly how it really is on the recording. That's what makes this speaker such a valuable tool for people who spend their lives recording sound: They can trust it.

I realize that this comes dangerously close to sounding like a bunch of hype, but I've been in the audio industry for nearly 40 years, have been a musician for over 50 years and have been recording music for 30 years. I've heard thousands (many thousands) of speakers during that time (including JBL, Altec, Genelec, KRK and Tannoy studio monitors as well as lots of audiophile "flavors-of-the-month"), and to my ears the M2 represents a paradigm shift away from all of them. If I could afford to spend twenty thousand bucks there would be a pair in front of me right now as I type this in the control room of my home studio.

Thanks, a very interesting commentary.

[hlaari]

I think at there will be interesting to know how 476Be/Mg will work on the M2 waveguide
there is possible at the M2 waveguide were designed for the D2430K driver and will not work as well with 476Be/Mg


Ari

[ivica]

I think at there will be interesting to know how 476Be/Mg will work on the M2 waveguide
there is possible at the M2 waveguide were designed for the D2430K driver and will not work as well with 476Be/Mg


Ari

HI hlaari,
I believe that we have to wait for a long time to pass, until someone would decide to "discover" the answer.

regards
ivica

[Valentin]

Quote: "I don't think the skill an experience of the designer can be replaced with a wonder box."

As implemented in the M2 the DSP is no more a "wonder box" than is the passive network in any more conventionally-designed speaker. In the case of the M2, think of the DSP as the network. The same skill and experience lavished on the passive network of a high-end speaker was lavished on the DSP of the M2.

During its development the M2's DSP went through many iterations; each one was subjected to intensive listening tests and measurements, the same as a passive network would be. (Perhaps more.) I was part of the M2 listening evaluation panel and heard at least six different versions of the M2 DSP during the speaker's development as well as the final (production) version of the M2. With each iteration of the DSP the developers sought to solve for specific sonic goals, and the speaker got better and better each time I heard it. This process is the same as that of an engineer trying different versions of a passive network with different component values and having the results of each evaluated by a listening panel.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the M2 is truly the result of a "systems approach" to its design and execution; if any of its parts is changed (2216Nd woofer, D2 tweeter, Image Control waveguide, enclosure, DSP) the resulting speaker simply won't be an M2 any more. You may like it better, but the speaker you'll be liking won't be an M2.

From the listening experience I mentioned earlier I can tell you that the M2 is truly a magical speaker: it's the only speaker I've ever heard that makes me feel like I'm hearing exactly what is on the recording, with absolutely nothing added and with absolutely nothing missing. With all other studio monitors and high-end speakers I always feel like I'm hearing a presentation of the recording that is the vision of its designer. Not with the M2. Through the M2 I feel like I'm hearing everything that's in the recording exactly how it really is on the recording. That's what makes this speaker such a valuable tool for people who spend their lives recording sound: They can trust it.

I realize that this comes dangerously close to sounding like a bunch of hype, but I've been in the audio industry for nearly 40 years, have been a musician for over 50 years and have been recording music for 30 years. I've heard thousands (many thousands) of speakers during that time (including JBL, Altec, Genelec, KRK and Tannoy studio monitors as well as lots of audiophile "flavors-of-the-month"), and to my ears the M2 represents a paradigm shift away from all of them. If I could afford to spend twenty thousand bucks there would be a pair in front of me right now as I type this in the control room of my home studio.

thanks for your input

[macaroonie]

Ditto , many thanks for that background. Illuminating to say the least.

[Valentin]

just at got them

[Mostlydiy]

Looking good there Valentin, If I said I wasnt jealous I would be lying.

/Mostly