Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 347

Thread: JBL 4367 first listen

  1. #61
    Senior Member frank23's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    356
    Yeah, I go to a 2123 10" mid at 150Hz that goes to the 2344 at 1600Hz and is used to 16kHz compensated. Sounds wonderful.

    On topic:
    Every now and then I check the site that has a pair of new 4365 for sale to see if they have a 50% off sale, but alas, it still hasn't happened...

  2. #62

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Urbandale, Iowa
    Posts
    142
    I agree with the reviewer on SET amp use. Why pay big money for a speaker who's strengths include fabulous dynamics and very low distortion and then couple it with a very low powered amplifier? It's like buying a 500 hsp sports car and then putting a electronic governor on it. I know amp choice is subjective and people will site the "soul" etc of SET sound, but in my opinion SET's are obviously colored and measurements known to correlate with sonic outcome corroborate this. Among the problems are not only high distortion, but asymmetrical waveform clipping and significant high output impedance induced frequency response errors, plus very low damping factor. As much as possible, I prefer my "soul" or "magic" to come from the performance, not the equipment. So for pursuit of neutrality no SET's. For pursuit of subjectively enjoyable sound anything seems to go these days.

    I would find it far more useful if reviewers remarks about tonal balance referred to a frequency range (in hz) rather than describing the lower midrange as warm and the lower treble as bright as these do not mean the same thing to everybody. They definitely are not laid back sounding like so many speakers today that have a BBC like presence range (2khz-5khz) dip. Of course one can use the 4367's front panel controls to adjust this range as well as the top octave to taste. The most obvious departure from tonal neutrality is some excess of energy in the 80hz-200hz area. I agree they are quite coherent sounding with very good driver blending. He is right that the 4367 does not have much bottom octave bass (20-40hz). The best I am able to get with my 4367's in several different rooms firing down the long wall with listening position well away from walls is flat to 50-60hz quickly drooping to 6db or more down at 40hz. I think something closer to flat to 30hz-40hz is possible firing the short dimension with the couch closer to the back wall for some boundary reinforcement. This arrangement often allows a wider speaker spacing relative to the listening position which I happen to like. With a low tuning of 32hz and loads of output capability, EQ can also be safely used to extend the bottom end.

    The 4367's sense of aliveness is the sonic knock out punch here. They have that live sound with no sense of strain as the SPL's climb. If you play in a band and are used to the sound of live drums and electric bass etc, you will love these. To me the 4367 delivers all of the strengths of JBL Pro speakers while still achieving surprisingly low levels of coloration that are normally reserved for the better "audiophile" speaker brands. Reviewing audio isn't easy!

  4. #64
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    12,193
    Quote Originally Posted by jpw View Post
    With a low tuning of 32hz and loads of output capability, EQ can also be safely used to extend the bottom end.
    Yes and G.T. has suggested this many times with all his designs.

  5. #65
    Senior Member audiomagnate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado and Georgia
    Posts
    1,022
    Most Japanese live in tiny apartments with lots of neighbors nearby. Live levels and extended bass response are simply not an option, so it's only natural that they would gravitate towards low output amps. Kind of like folks with limited funds out of necessity becoming fans of affordable "vintage" gear.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Urbandale, Iowa
    Posts
    142
    audiomagnate: Lol on your affordable so likes vintage comment.....

  7. #67
    Senior Member BMWCCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,735
    Quote Originally Posted by audiomagnate View Post
    Kind of like folks with limited funds out of necessity becoming fans of affordable "vintage" gear.
    Guilty!
    But while I enjoy the less-than $4k I have in my whole system with 4345s, I ponder how long it will take the DD67000 to get to my price range given they've already depreciated over 50% when you look at new-in-box "demo" units offered by "dealers" versus the manufacturer's MSRP. I'm looking at used ads as low as $31,000 for a pair.

    I just paid $10k for a car I've wanted since it was $50k new twelve-years ago. If current trends are any indication, I should be able to justify the DD67000 in maybe five more years, as soon as that decimal moves one notch to the left.
    ". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Urbandale, Iowa
    Posts
    142
    BMWCA: I must confess to be envious that you only have $4k in what must be an excellent system that is probably appreciating. On the other hand, I am enjoying my DD67's today, not five years from now. I suspect something closer to $18k-$20k will be the depreciation floor for them in excellent shape. As time goes on inflation and high technology will drive top of the line products even further up in cost making used attractive even at this high price. I also enjoy vintage audio having just bought an old but new to me McIntosh MC-2125. After recapping it I am surprised at how good it is even though it is not the last word in transparency, bandwidth and detail when compared with a new MAC amp.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Urbandale, Iowa
    Posts
    142

    actual 4367 vs 1400 Array in home comparison

    I just delivered a pair of 4367's to an old customer for an in home trial. I was there a few hours helping him tear down his Array 1400's and set up the 4367's. He ended up enthusiastically trading in his 1400's.

    He has a McIntosh MEN-220 digital room correction device so both speakers were auto corrected for the comparison. After correction the significant natural deep bass extension advantage of the 1400 was minimal*.

    The 1400 Array images more like a conventional direct radiating audiophile speaker, disappearing better, where the 4367's imaging would be better described as a focused wall of sound.

    The quality of the bass on the 1400 was it's biggest drawback. It was subjectively thicker and slower with less snap and impact than the 4367 and noticeably more muddy despite being corrected. Coherence from top to bottom was compromised on the 1400 for this reason. Comparatively the 4367 sounds almost like a one way system and it's dynamics are nearly constant with frequency where the 1400's woofer clearly can't keep up with the vertical horn.

    Still there is a bit more sense of space and naturalness to the mids and highs with the vertical horn array on the 1400. While still measuring very smoothly, the 4367's balance is a bit more forward and aggressive in the broadband midrange and treble. The 1400 is more laid back and tonally warmer rather like a receiver whose bass tone control is set to 1 o'clock where conversely the 4367 has the treble control set to 1 o'clock. The difference in balance strikes me as more than just a frequency response difference. It might be helpful to think of the the 4367's presentation as one of sitting closer to the stage and the 1400 Array a bit further back.

    Like others here, I can't help but wonder what JBL's best parts and construction might yield with the Array configuration. All in all though, the 4367 was the big winner in this specific comparison.

    *I will add the caveat that after hearing and measuring these speakers in three different environments now, I feel that EQ is probably more necessary for them (versus the 1400 or other quality similar priced speakers) to sound their best as well as to have adequate bass extension to the 30-40hz region.

  10. #70
    Senior Member pos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,627
    Quote Originally Posted by jpw View Post
    Like others here, I can't help but wonder what JBL's best parts and construction might yield with the Array configuration.
    That would be the original Timbers Arrays:
    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...imbers-amp-DIY
    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post350237




  11. #71
    Senior Member pos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,627
    4313B reported that GT stated that if he had to do it again he would probably use a single 15" instead of the 15"+12" arrangement.
    So nowadays he would probably use a 2216nd (or 2216nd-1 if done with a passive filter).
    As he also unplugged the 045Be this would result in a two way.

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    761
    What happens if you lay the 4367 on the side?
    Then you get the vertical horn

  13. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,939
    Correct.

    The key in this design is minimising enclosure related diffraction along the long axis of the horn.

    If you compare a tall narrow baffle loudspeaker to a short wide baffle loudspeaker the imaging of the narrow loudspeaker is always superior.

  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Correct.

    The key in this design is minimising enclosure related diffraction along the long axis of the horn.

    If you compare a tall narrow baffle loudspeaker to a short wide baffle loudspeaker the imaging of the narrow loudspeaker is always superior.
    I see. Makes sense.
    I thought it was the vertical dispersion that was the key.

  15. #75
    Senior Member srm51555's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by audiomagnate View Post
    Kind of like folks with limited funds out of necessity becoming fans of affordable "vintage" gear.
    Guilty of this also. But for me after years and years of buying affordable gear I realized one day that if I sold all of the items that were collecting dust I'd be able to build one really nice system.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Jbl 4367 ? .....
    By joeinid in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 06-08-2019, 10:47 PM
  2. Where can I listen to S4A?
    By Harryup in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2006, 06:22 AM
  3. Pls listen to this
    By Alex Lancaster in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-10-2005, 06:29 PM
  4. First Listen - 4430s.
    By sfellini in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-25-2005, 10:54 AM
  5. Listen to a Paragon
    By paragon in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-25-2005, 05:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •