JBL 4367 first listen

[LowPhreak]

Funny, I was looking at my S4600 and thinking the grain and vertical pattern, extremely simliar, but mine are Cherry. That made me think they could possabily use the same base veneer and then stain/coat to suit speices look?

Given what we've seen from JBL for the past several years, I would put nothing past them in the rush to maximize profits and "shareholder value". Even if, as DavidF said, reconstituted wood veneer costs not much less than veneers of common woods and they could easily afford to do better on cabinet finishes in a given price range, when they can squeeze another nickel of profit margin out here or there by cutting corners that's what they'll do. The less-than-stellar design of my 590's grilles is evidence of that.

Then call it "opportunity!" and "innovation!" and "success!" and assorted feel-good but vague terminology, because that's all they teach in business schools anymore. What it really is is bullshit that tries to justify profit-making and greed at the expense of all else.

[Dave M]

The 4367 is a good system for those who like the large Monitor format. It measures well, sounds detailed and musical but is lean in the bottom octave as are all of the post 1985 or so "Japan" product. The speed and excess excursion capacity of these systems makes them good candidates for EQ, or for the proper use of a subwoofer, say below 40 Hz.

Above Greg's comment is very reasonable for who knows Japanese market, and I know that very well. The reason why they do not need low frequency extension is not due to the room size, but due to a stereotype in Japan, JBL is THE speaker for acoustic music, especially for Jazz, and when they say Jazz, it means Jazz from 50s-60s. There is also a consensus in Japan that lighter woofer cone sounds better for acoustic music, weight ring on modern woofer is evil, artificial and DISCO.

The funny thing is, the most influential "HIGH END" audio magazine in Japan, STEREO SOUND (Stereophile equivalent) regularly hires about 6 top critics in Japan, and 3 critics out of 6 critics are using JBL / Altec based horn system as their own personal speakers (D130/375/075, S9500, 418A/TAD4001). Those 3 critics only listen to Jazz and classical music. The other 3 critics uses Magico, YG Acoutics and B&W, and they mostly listen to pop or female vocal music. Those 2 parties are fighting all the time, and it has been a good entertainment for Japanese audiophile.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Some of these rather ancient systems are highly sort after in Japan

Some years ago a theatre chain upgraded their movie sound system and someone bought up the old systems and sold a container load to the Japanese market

If anyone knows Thomas Dunkers web page - horns, there are numerous mentions of Japanese high efficiency horn systems.

They take jazz seriously over there.

In Japan (2008) l saw JBL 4343-4344 in jazz bars around Tokyo.
One had massive Pass Aleph 2 mono blocks driving the 4343s

The de facto boomy bass we love is really the effect of a big box with a maximally flat bass reflex tuning in the floor wall boundary.

The Japanese production uses the banana curve in the bass.

GT has mentioned this previously.

This results in a smooth bass but nothing like loudness effect or "boom" we are accused to.

The Japanese sound is certainly more hifi but l would not call that more enjoyable.

[audiomagnate]

Some of these rather ancient systems are highly sort after in Japan

Some years ago a theatre chain upgraded their movie sound system and someone bought up the old systems and sold a container load to the Japanese market

If anyone knows Thomas Dunkers web page - horns, there are numerous mentions of Japanese high efficiency horn systems.

They take jazz seriously over there.

In Japan (2008) l saw JBL 4343-4344 in jazz bars around Tokyo.
One had massive Pass Aleph 2 mono blocks driving the 4343s

The de facto boomy bass we love is really the effect of a big box with a maximally flat bass reflex tuning in the floor wall boundary.

The Japanese production uses the banana curve in the bass.

GT has mentioned this previously.

This results in a smooth bass but nothing like loudness effect or "boom" we are accused to.

The Japanese sound is certainly more hifi but l would not call that more enjoyable.

I don't equate lack of low end extension with "hifi."

[Ian Mackenzie]

You might not but HiFi is not about low bass.

I guess that is the point of the Japanese market and why they are voiced for them and not for western taste.

Just eq it like GT said .

[BMWCCA]

You might not but HiFi is not about low bass.

I guess that is the point of the Japanese market and why they are voiced for them and not for western taste.

Just eq it like GT said .

Hi-Fi means high-FIDELITY. To me, that means faithful sound reproduction. If the program material or the live performance in a recording has low bass, a high-fidelity system should be able to reproduce all frequencies across the spectrum at the same level as the original material. To me that means flat response as low as it can go. Sure, there might not be much program material under the roll-off point. Or there might be. But how will we ever know if the speakers can't be faithful to the original music? Fidelity = Faithful. The opposite would be "inaccurate".

My 4345 clones will reproduce the full range of an extended double-bass even at low levels in my living room, just as if the artist was sitting in the chair next to my speakers. C1 is approximately 33Hz which is still an octave above what the human ear hears. The 4345 is pretty flat to that point. So why roll it off if the frequency is there? And, if it is rolled-off, how it that being faithful to the original performance?

[pos]

My 4345 clones will reproduce the full range of an extended double-bass even at low levels in my living room, just as if the artist was sitting in the chair next to my speakers. C1 is approximately 33Hz which is still an octave above what the human ear hears. The 4345 is pretty flat to that point.

Are you sure of that?
Did you try and actually measure them at your listening position(s)?
Anechoic response is one thing (and an important one of course) but real world situations are pretty far from that in a living room.
The smaller the room the higher the frequency under which modes start to get noticeable, and of course the harder the wall the mode pronounced the modes.
That is one big difference between typical North American, European and Japanese rooms.
This is one area where HIFI needs EQ (as well as acoustical treatments, strategically calculated placements, etc.).
And even then, accuracy at LF takes a lot of effort and acoustical considerations, and are close to impossible to reach in a living room.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Okay

My reference to hifi (diddle dee) was a general statement and in the context of the discussion.

I guess if l could only read "one" word at a time l might start an endless discussion on the definition of hifi but that is not the point of this thread.

Btw, in terms of subject matter evidence have you actually listen to the 4367, the 4365, the 4338 or the 9800 or the 66000?

"Actually " l have.

To coin a phase from a senior member with vast experience and who's name I will not disclose "in comparison listening to the 4345 is not a hifi experience". God damn it.

So your definition of hifi is perhaps limited in its interpretation and maybe the 4345 is not a good yardstick to be pissing everyone off with who does not have the 4345?

[BMWCCA]

Okay

My reference to hifi (diddle dee) was a general statement and in the context of the discussion.

I guess if l could only read "one" word at a time l might start an endless discussion on the definition of hifi but that is not the point of this thread.

Btw, in terms of subject matter evidence have you actually listen to the 4367, the 4365, the 4338 or the 9800 or the 66000?

"Actually " l have.

To coin a phase from a senior member with vast experience and who's name I will not disclose "in comparison listening to the 4345 is not a hifi experience". God damn it.

So your definition of hifi is perhaps limited in its interpretation and maybe the 4345 is not a good yardstick to be pissing everyone off with who does not have the 4345?

I wasn't arguing in favor of the 4345 beyond an example against your assertion that less low-end in Japanese systems equates to more "hi-fi". It's fantastic that you've had the chance to listen to everything out there when I have not, and I don't have any need for proselytizing anyone to the cult of the 4345. I have over a dozen JBLs and they just happen to be my favorites. Sure many are nothing more than C35 030, 250Ti, and L7s. If JBL made the others available to normal folk to hear, I'd love to have a listen. No place I know within 600-miles of Virginia to do that. My response was to your definition of "hi-fi" being in opposition to bass extension. Quit reading any more into it. And I have an EQ in every system, mostly to compensate for low-level listening, if that matters to you.

Yes, I have done measurements of my 4345 in my room. Don't recall how low I measured and don't have the charts I used. It was a simple test with a tone generator we use for live-sound and a dB meter at the prime listening position when I was setting up the bi-amped 4345s. The room is fairly small, around 12'x16', well padded with furniture, with open outlets at each side opposite the speakers. I'd like nothing more than to try a 66000 or 67000 in my new house, but that's not going to happen. Doesn't mean I can't disagree with you.

Somehow your claiming I'm pissing someone else off seems to be the pot and the kettle all over again! Can't anyone disagree with what you post without being insulted?

And a happy holiday to all the scrooges who want to take me on for merely stating an opinion! Sheesh!

[Ed Zeppeli]

I have to agree with the assertion that fidelity = true to source. One cannot have reduced output at low frequencies (or any frequency for that matter) and still call it faithful to the source. Music is evolving and much of it is electronically generated. The fact that this transition isn't in line with the spectrum of traditionally classical instruments is redundant to the argument over whether a speaker system reproduces it accurately or not.

Luckily for us there are many more attributes besides frequency response to discuss when arguing over which system sounds better.

[pos]

I have to agree with the assertion that fidelity = true to source. One cannot have reduced output at low frequencies (or any frequency for that matter) and still call it faithful to the source.

True, but one cannot read anechoic bandwidth and assert much about in-(living)room LF response.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I have to agree with the assertion that fidelity = true to source. One cannot have reduced output at low frequencies (or any frequency for that matter) and still call it faithful to the source. Music is evolving and much of it is electronically generated. The fact that this transition isn't in line with the spectrum of traditionally classical instruments is redundant to the argument over whether a speaker system reproduces it accurately or not.

Luckily for us there are many more attributes besides frequency response to discuss when arguing over which system sounds better.

That's an ideal from an arm chair but in the real world engineering compromises exist and often aiming for more low end extended bass results in less than satisfactory performance everywhere else unless it was the size of morgue refrigerator. Lol.

If it was as easy as our friend above says on capital hill of his 4345 every loudspeaker on the planet would do it.
The simple fact is the 4345 is one of a handful of loudspeakers that can play bass at useful levels without undue distortion. Cubic inches matter.

I therefore find the notion of low bass a dead end argument as a necessary hifi attribute. Then of course there is the recording and the listening room.

Perhaps Pos might calculate the lowest useful bass in our friends room?

As GT has stated many times the new systems have superior resolution, transparency and much superior imaging.

When you actually hear these systems they have a far more refined presentation compared to the classic vintage sound.

From that perspective they are closer in presentation to other notable hifi loudspeakers than the vintage sound hence my remark.

Of course there are people who ritualistically listen to and do the same thing over and over and they like what they here.

The people that matter have purchased these systems and are entirely satisfied.

[rusty jefferson]

......The Japanese sound is certainly more hifi but l would not call that more enjoyable.

I don't equate lack of low end extension with "hifi."

You might not but HiFi is not about low bass.......

In the circles I move in, when someone says a system sounds "HiFi (ish)" it means a system that was popular in the mid '60s. Maybe a console with a Scott or Fisher amp, loose kinda tubby bass, restricted highs, and usually good midrange. Great for enjoying Sinatra or Ella.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well in the context of new Audio equipment (not high end) you only have to walk into a shop and listen

[hsosdrum]

This whole discussion is an example of how the idea that an audio system's only goal is to faithfully reproduce an acoustic event is just plain wrong. To those of you who agree about 'fidelity' to an acoustic event, I must ask you: Were you present when any of the recordings that you use for system evaluation were recorded? If not (and I bet you weren't), then how can you possibly know what they're supposed to sound like? You can't, of course. And without knowing what the recording is supposed to sound like, all bets are off about 'fidelity' to that original acoustic event. You may be able to make some rudimentary judgments about fidelity to some general ideas about how acoustic instruments often sound, but you can never really get any closer than that. And considering the huge number of variables that enter into the recording chain (the sound of the particular instrument, the player's technique, the room's effect on that sound, mic choice, mic placement, electronic alterations made by the producer/engineer, etc., etc.) that really isn't very close.

The simple fact is that an audio system's true purpose is to create an illusion, and that illusion can run anywhere from "Real humans are playing acoustic instruments in my listening room in real-time whenever I listen" to "The impact of that bass thump is shaking my teeth, just like it did at the EDM rave last month! This is the best audio system EVER!!!" Both illusions are equally valid as reasons to own and listen to an audio system. A system that excels at the first illusion may or may not excel at the second illusion, and visa-versa. This doesn't make either system right or wrong, it only makes them better or worse for a particular listener.

The more we understand that not everyone's the same and the less audio snobbery that's involved in discussing our hobby the better.