Just in: JBL 4367 versus JBL S4700 comparison

[jpw]

Just got both speakers in stock plus S3900. Neither the 4367 or S4700 is broken-in yet but I could not wait to do the A-B comparison. Both retail at $15,000 pair.

The room is new and medium sized at about 15 foot by 20 foot with suspended 9.5 foot ceiling and the speakers are setup on the short wall about 46" out from the rear wall and 36" from the side walls. I listened about 6 feet off the back wall using a MAC C52 preamp and MC-601 mono block amps. The speaker tape marks may change as I spend more time with the new room and speakers, but I believe I am in the neighborhood of where they will ultimately end up.

The 4367's external cabinet volume is about a foot great at 8 cubic foot versus 7 cubic foot on the S4700. At 135 lbs, the 4367 is 15 lbs heavier but I don't know for sure if this is just because the cabinet is bigger or because it has a thicker baffle or more bracing. The two way 4367 uses a single D2 compression driver/horn from 700hz on up, where the three way S4700 uses a two way horn loaded top end with the 175nd HF and 138nd UHF compression drivers. Midrange crossover frequency is 700hz on the 4367 and 800hz on the S4700 with the UHF coming in at 12khz. The woofer in both speakers is the same (2216nd). Both are rated at 300 watts RMS.

The 4367 is front ported where the S4700 is ported out the back, sometimes a disadvantage if they must be placed close to the rear wall. The 4367 is shorter but wider. The proportions of the S4700 are more pleasing and of course it was designed to look more at home in a living room. The 4367 needs a short 6-7 inch high riser or stand to sound proper. This is a unneeded extra cost and an annoyance that JBL should have designed around. The S4700 does not require a stand or riser as it is a true floor standing speaker.
When I asked my regional JBL sales manager if the S4700 was going to be discontinued he said definitely not. Their different looks means they will probably serve two different customers.

Both rated at 94db and 6 ohms. Treble is rated -6db down at 40khz on both speakers, bass response is rated -6db at 30hz for the 4367 and -6db at 38hz for the S4700. Perhaps the extra cubic foot in volume allows the 4367 to be tuned slightly lower.

I started listening to the S4700 first, which impressed me more than I remember from my last time with them a couple of years ago. The 4367 was listened to with a makeshift 5 inch mdf riser bring the middle of the compression driver to about 37 inches off the floor.

-Sensitivity subjectively seems about the same. No surprise here.
-I could not hear a meaningful difference in bass extension between them at this point in the listening tests with so little playing time on them. Neither speaker seemed to make 40hz flat.
-The 4367 has a more open transparent and natural midrange and treble, as well as a larger soundstage.
-The 4367 has better driver integration sounding more coherent, more like a one way speaker. It gets reasonably close to the way the M2 sounds through out the broadband midrange.
-Bass snap and character is very similar, a strong point for both speakers.
-The 4367 is slightly more reserved and relaxed sounding overall.

More to come....................

[srm51555]

Thanks for posting, can't wait to hear more as they get broken in.

[jpw]

Just got both speakers in stock plus S3900. Neither the 4367 or S4700 is broken-in yet but I could not wait to do the A-B comparison. Both retail at $15,000 pair.

The room is new and medium sized at about 15 foot by 20 foot with suspended 9.5 foot ceiling and the speakers are setup on the short wall about 46" out from the rear wall and 36" from the side walls. I listened about 6 feet off the back wall using a MAC C52 preamp and MC-601 mono block amps. The speaker tape marks may change as I spend more time with the new room and speakers, but I believe I am in the neighborhood of where they will ultimately end up.

The 4367's external cabinet volume is about a foot great at 8 cubic foot versus 7 cubic foot on the S4700. At 135 lbs, the 4367 is 15 lbs heavier but I don't know for sure if this is just because the cabinet is bigger or because it has a thicker baffle or more bracing. The two way 4367 uses a single D2 compression driver/horn from 700hz on up, where the three way S4700 uses a two way horn loaded top end with the 175nd HF and 138nd UHF compression drivers. Midrange crossover frequency is 700hz on the 4367 and 800hz on the S4700 with the UHF coming in at 12khz. The woofer in both speakers is the same (2216nd). Both are rated at 300 watts RMS.

The 4367 is front ported where the S4700 is ported out the back, sometimes a disadvantage if they must be placed close to the rear wall. The 4367 is shorter but wider. The proportions of the S4700 are more pleasing and of course it was designed to look more at home in a living room. The 4367 needs a short 6-7 inch high riser or stand to sound proper. This is a unneeded extra cost and an annoyance that JBL should have designed around. The S4700 does not require a stand or riser as it is a true floor standing speaker.
When I asked my regional JBL sales manager if the S4700 was going to be discontinued he said definitely not. Their different looks means they will probably serve two different customers.

Both rated at 94db and 6 ohms. Treble is rated -6db down at 40khz on both speakers, bass response is rated -6db at 30hz for the 4367 and -6db at 38hz for the S4700. Perhaps the extra cubic foot in volume allows the 4367 to be tuned slightly lower.

I started listening to the S4700 first, which impressed me more than I remember from my last time with them a couple of years ago. The 4367 was listened to with a makeshift 5 inch mdf riser bring the middle of the compression driver to about 37 inches off the floor.

-Sensitivity subjectively seems about the same. No surprise here.
-I could not hear a meaningful difference in bass extension between them at this point in the listening tests with so little playing time on them. Neither speaker seemed to make 40hz flat.
-The 4367 has a more open transparent and natural midrange and treble, as well as a larger soundstage.
-The 4367 has better driver integration sounding more coherent, more like a one way speaker. It gets reasonably close to the way the M2 sounds through out the broadband midrange.
-Bass snap and character is very similar, a strong point for both speakers.
-The 4367 is slightly more reserved and relaxed sounding overall.

More to come....................

"The 4367 is slightly more reserved and relaxed sounding overall". In fact I turned the UHF control up .5db on the 4367. I did not find the S4700 too aggressive, just a bit more up front in the upper midrange and treble. In fact they sounded more balanced than what I remember from when I listened to them before, but that was in a different room.

[Dave_72]

aye yi yi...i'm beginningto think that the S4700 is the black sheep of the family regarding the synthesis line...sorry, i've developed a complex...and i can't sell them because they are worthless after being bashed around here and on other sites..blah..

[1audiohack]

My memory isn't what it used to be but I don't recall anyone bashing the 4700's. No one fully agrees on much when it comes to audio but not loving something doesn't make one a hater.

For the record, I quite like them.
Barry.

[Dave_72]

My memory isn't what it used to be but I don't recall anyone bashing the 4700's. No one fully agrees on much when it comes to audio but not loving something doesn't make one a hater.

For the record, I quite like them.
Barry.

sorry my humor does not come accross on the interwebs...anyway, in all seriousness not bashing but it seems the general consensus is that its not as good as the other models in the synthesis line...

anyway, thanks i appreciate that...

[jpw]

Dave 72, no need to have anxiety over the S4700 vs 4367. In the 10 months my store has had both models on hand, the sales has been about even between the two models. The S4700 looks better to most people and does not need a riser to bring the speaker to the proper height. This is not a trivial matter. The 4367 is muddy and muffled sounding without getting it off the ground. Fabricating a riser that both looks good, does not degrade the sound through resonance etc, and is within most people's ability to design and construct is not easy. Even on a proper riser the difference between the speakers is not that great. Remember that us audiophiles love to split hairs, even hairs that sometimes are not really there. They have far more in common than not. For all of these reasons, I would think that they would probably be easier to resell than the lesser known more niche 4367.

[Dave_72]

Dave 72, no need to have anxiety over the S4700 vs 4367. In the 10 months my store has had both models on hand, the sales has been about even between the two models. The S4700 looks better to most people and does not need a riser to bring the speaker to the proper height. This is not a trivial matter. The 4367 is muddy and muffled sounding without getting it off the ground. Fabricating a riser that both looks good, does not degrade the sound through resonance etc, and is within most people's ability to design and construct is not easy. Even on a proper riser the difference between the speakers is not that great. Remember that us audiophiles love to split hairs, even hairs that sometimes are not really there. They have far more in common than not. For all of these reasons, I would think that they would probably be easier to resell than the lesser known more niche 4367.

thnks for your time in typing this...it's just that the s4700s don't get as much praise as say, the 1400 array's, and even the s3900s, generally speaking. maybe because they haven't been really reviewed other than that little article in robb report that wasn't even mentioned on the synthesis website.


http://robbreport.com/electronics/ho...idcentury-vibe

i bet no one here has seen this...

anyway, i do know what matters is if i like the product, and i do...but at the same time, it just bugs me to find out that the damn things aren't up there with the k2 and everest..not to say comparable, because those 2 are beasts, but the s4700s don't get too much love, and i think they deserve it because they blow away the competition ie b&w, atc, and tannoy for starters..

[hsosdrum]

I was quite enamored of the S4700 the several times I was able to audition it while I worked at Harman. I found it extremely neutral throughout the midrange region, with good 3-dimensional soundstaging and a superbly realistic dynamic presentation, even at low listening levels. My only real complaint about it was that I thought GT voiced it a bit lean for my tastes in the bottom end. (Based on how GT's designs sound to me, I think he and I are simply satisfied by different sonic presentations below around 90Hz.) I thought that the S4700 was superior in all respects to the S3900.

I left Harman before the 4367 came about and have not heard it at all, so I cannot offer any comparisons between it and the S4700. What I can say is that except for the M2, the S4700 is my favorite current JBL speaker.

[bubbleboy76]

I heard S4700 at an large hifi-exibition in my home town, and it was the best speaker at that show with a vast margin. Fantastic speaker. One of the best I have ever heard.

[pos]

I thought GT voiced it a bit lean for my tastes in the bottom end.

It is probably impossible to get more low end without using EQ with that particular driver (hence the -1 version in the 4367).

Why not lengthen the port a bit (potentially on the exterior side) to hit a 27Hz tuning and then apply the same type of EQ+shelving as used in the M2 ?

[bubbleboy76]

It is probably impossible to get more low end without using EQ with that particular driver (hence the -1 version in the 4367).

Why not lengthen the port a bit (potentially on the exterior side) to hit a 27Hz tuning and then apply the same type of EQ+shelving as used in the M2 ?

I would rather add one or more subwoofers, if possible.

[bubbleboy76]

I was quite enamored of the S4700 the several times I was able to audition it while I worked at Harman. I found it extremely neutral throughout the midrange region, with good 3-dimensional soundstaging and a superbly realistic dynamic presentation, even at low listening levels. My only real complaint about it was that I thought GT voiced it a bit lean for my tastes in the bottom end. (Based on how GT's designs sound to me, I think he and I are simply satisfied by different sonic presentations below around 90Hz.) I thought that the S4700 was superior in all respects to the S3900.

I left Harman before the 4367 came about and have not heard it at all, so I cannot offer any comparisons between it and the S4700. What I can say is that except for the M2, the S4700 is my favorite current JBL speaker.

hsosdrum, it would be interesting to hear your opinion of 4429 and 4365. Did you audition them?

[hsosdrum]

hsosdrum, it would be interesting to hear your opinion of 4429 and 4365. Did you audition them?

Although I wrote the owner's manuals for both the 4429 and 4365 (along with the S4700, S3900, Everest DD67000/65000 and M2), I was never able to audition either of them. I was only able to audition the hi-end models if GT or one of the other engineers had them set up in a soundroom. The lab had 4 soundrooms that were being used during the development of various Harman products — JBL and Revel speakers as well as Levinson and HK electronics, so the rooms were constantly in use and there was no way I could take over a soundroom and set up a demo simply on my own. Because of this I was never able to hear the K2, 4365, 4429 or any of the Arrays while at JBL. (A good friend of mine owns Array 1400s and I've heard them many times at his home, but I haven't heard any of the other Array models.)

Being a big fan of 15" 3-way speakers, the ones I always really wanted to hear were the 4365s. Every time I walked past the pair that resided in the lab I imagined just how much ass they must kick with Metallica's black album or Led Zeppelin II blasting through them.

[Mr. Widget]

Being a big fan of 15" 3-way speakers, the ones I always really wanted to hear were the 4365s. Every time I walked past the pair that resided in the lab I imagined just how much ass they must kick with Metallica's black album or Led Zeppelin II blasting through them.

Funny, during week I had a pair in my home I never blasted either of those two albums or even considered it.

That said, I'm sure you are right. They did play well at lower SPLs and yet still kicked butt when cranked up.


Widget