That would be similar to angling the cabinet with regard to point 1 alone, but then the two axis (crossover and horn) would not be parallel anymore, contrary to geometrically angling the cabinet which addresses both points.
This could probably be useful for final tweaking tho
If placing it "correctly" it will be lifted 16" above the floor to match the screen. This is, according to JBL, approved at my listening distance. So no matter what, I will not be sitting in the direct line between woofer and horn. The question is if there is a difference by turning it around.
Regarding adjusting delay, this is not possible as I am using the stock M2 with BSS presets (which are not editable).
As long as you are inside the listening window you should be good
Hi,
I do have the M2 waveguide mounted upside down i my Compact Monitor, albeit the woofer i still below the waveguide. I have measured the waveguides both ways and there is no difference. But please be aware that if you turn them 90 degress they do differ as they are not symetrical vertical and horizontal .
Regarding the stock JBL BSS settings there is no problem what so ever to add room EQ and delays as you see fit to the original JBL topology. Please PM for more info. I do have such system operational.
For what it is worth, my current system is wall hanged behind a roll down screen at about 2/3 and tillted down as per POS reply above. Works just fine. Subs are floor standing.
I'm also building an upgrade using 1400PRO & M2 and they will also be wall mount and "doubble" upside down, wavegude upside down and woofer on topp.
kind regards
//Rob
The solution to the problem changes the problem.
-And always remember that all of your equipment was made by the lowest bidder
Wasn't really sure where to post this as we have so many M2 threads... but here goes.
I finally had time for a serious listening session with a pair of these bad boys. The system uses Crown amplification with the BSS/SDEC front end and was tuned by JBL with their ARCOS system.
First, I must say that the room tuning was spot on. The bass was extremely articulate, extended, punchy... DEEP and all you could possibly hope for.
Second, yes it is true the M2 wave guides do image extremely well and while maybe not quite the "you can sit anywhere in the room" imaging as some may suggest, the image is stable and definitely not requiring your "head in the vise" that you get from some audiophile systems. That said, I did find the sweet spot and it was sweet.
The mids and highs were smooth and peak free... definitely no horn sound to these, but I miss the articulation and snap of the Everests. I also felt the the over all sound was slightly veiled. Maybe after living with Everests for a number of years I am damaged goods and no longer have an objective view point, but to me the 4" Be driver on the arguably less wonderful horn simply sounds more exciting and gives me more of the raising the hair on the back of the neck joy that I love.
I would love to get that DSP correct bass though... wow! Not sure how much is the speaker and how much is the ARCOS setup.
Widget
I appreciate your objectivity! Folks tend to forget that the main purpose of these systems is mainly as a tool for recording engineers and related activity. Different systems have particular characteristics. That strange horn cannot provide the impact of a tractrix or similar horn (physics) and if you are a brass player it will probably bother you . . . a lot. A good brass section should make your hair stand on end! So, there is a lot of art here. A four way rig has special qualities that musicians will like as well; perhaps the most rewarding of home hi fi systems (hence the popularity of the old 43xx systems). I'm not surprised the Everests are so enjoyable being a later expression of the same person. I like the term Hi Fi. Recreate the experience of live performance. It's not an engineering lab. Science + art.Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Thanks Mr Widget!
Fuel for my fire.
Barry.
If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.
100% agree.
Widget, thank you for your well respected input.
Thanks,
Scott
My experience is much the same as yours, Mr. Widget. The Everests have a midrange "snap" which is not as good on the M2s. I have heard this on S9900 as well, so I believe it is a trademark of the 4" compression drivers.
I do think they are close in performance and with clarity/smoothness advantages to the M2s. I ended up buying the M2s, so I might be a little biased though.
When I auditioned both the M2 and DD67000 systems while working at Harman my impression of both speakers' midrange character was 180-degrees out of phase with Widget's. To my ears the M2 midrange had more articulation and snap, while the DD67000 midrange sounded more veiled. To my ears the DD67000 provided an interpretation of the music while the M2 provided the music, period. YMMV, of course.
.....or the room? If there's large nulls or nodes (or both) in a room these processors aren't going to fix one thing without negatively impacting something else, no?
Sounds like you got to audition the M2 in a studio setting? Should (was) the room be damped, or diffracted for the M2 and Everest?
Was that in a double blind test?
No, it was a dealer's demo room with a fair amount of damping and a few bass traps. Both speakers were using the same sources and preamp, but different amplification.
Widget
It's certainly possible that since the Everests are my everyday speakers I have a bias, but to my ears the M2 was politely articulate where as the E2s are more exciting.
Widget
That's very nice you got to compare both in the same room with the same source. Folks on the east coast are jealous.
That's the result I would have expected.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote