Flattest response between 2000hz - 20 000hz

[Robh3606]

"This is currently JBL's approach with horns. In theory it certainly makes sense, but in my practical exploration the offense of equalization is far worse than a less than ideal power response."

Yes but the one of the benefits of this approach is that it makes any EQ used less offensive. With your on axis and power response are closely matched the use of EQ doesn't destroy the on axis response and also has the added benefit requiring less EQ for flat in room response. You can't EQ in flat power response. If your are trying to take a speaker measure flat that has curves that are markedly different, and try to fix it with EQ you are going to have problems. My thing with EQ is I don't understand how it is offensive if it's done right unless of course it is improperly used to compensate for issues with the design such as poor in room response due to design issues of the loudspeaker.

It is also there philosophy with the evolution of the smaller broadcast monitors. Take a look at the improvements in the DI curves over time. They have been headed this way since the begining of the 44xx series. Take a look at the driver baffle placement and crossover points. You can see the effects in the curves. Same with the 6300 series and LSR.

On another topic which sounds better. Using the Q of the horn to EQ the compression driver or using the crossover to do it electrically???

Rob

[Mr. Widget]

On another topic which sounds better. Using the Q of the horn to EQ the compression driver or using the crossover to do it electrically???

I guess that is my point exactly. To my ears, having listened to and personally experimented with both, I prefer to let the horn do it... well to be honest, I have heard precious few horns do it well. The only JBL horn that does it well (to my ears) is the 2397. Beyond that, some of the tractrix designs do it well, and I really like the TH4003. 99% of the horns out there don't work for me. I suppose if you are going to compare a 23XX to a 23XX', then I may agree that the use of an equalized bi-radial is the way to go.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

"My thing with EQ is I don't understand how it is offensive if it's done right unless of course it is improperly used to compensate for issues with the design such as poor in room response due to design issues of the loudspeaker."


I agree with you in principle 100%. That said, in my practical experience listening to bookshelf systems, to $100K+ systems, in rooms ranging from spare bedrooms to purpose built mastering rooms, I have enjoyed more systems that exhibit less than ideal DI characteristics than those that excel in this area. The systems that I am referring to are not beam machines, but they are not those with textbook perfect DI characteristics either.

This is not a scientific survey and is purely anecdotal, but that has been the conclusion that I have come to for my own personal choices. There are many factors that cloud the issues, but I simply want to point out that there is the possibility that someone who is interested in critical two channel playback may not find the constant directivity horns and their associated networks the desirable choice despite the measured and theoretical advantages of the design.

A side note. (From my already off topic adventure.)

I recently had the pleasure to listen to two systems at another forum member's home. We listened to a pair of LSR6332s and a pair of 4333As. They were in different rooms, with different electronics. Despite the fact that the 4333As were far less spatially accurate, less tonally accurate, have horrible time and phase alignment, and were designed before the use of directivity index considerations in JBL's monitor design, I really preferred listening to them. I was shocked. I am not a huge fan of that era JBL monitor, and have criticized aspects of that monitor many times before, but the hell with all of that, the hell with theory... it was simply more fun to listen to music through. I wish I could have stayed longer and listened to more.


Widget

[edgewound]

My thing with EQ is I don't understand how it is offensive if it's done right unless of course it is improperly used to compensate for issues with the design such as poor in room response due to design issues of the loudspeaker.

Rob

I believe that using EQ to fix the response of a speaker system just adds more gunk to the playback....especially if it's used to boost the HF response. The gain structure of the system becomes compromised and more distortion and noise is introduced into the program being played back. My favorite way to listen to speakers in 2-channel to unveil the sound quality is to go CD direct into the power amp....no pre-amp no tone controls...CD to amp to speakers....no added flavoring. Of course I'm referring to listening for enjoyment...not live sound where an EQ might be necessary to tailor the system to the venue.

[Robh3606]

Hey Widget

"There are many factors that cloud the issues, but I simply want to point out that there is the possibility that someone who is interested in critical two channel playback may not find the constant directivity horns and their associated networks the desirable choice despite the measured and theoretical advantages of the design."

Sure I can see that. We all hear things a bit different. If certainly enjoy my XPL's and many very good sounding speakers are not designed along these lines. I can see where these would be advantages such as sound reinforcement, monitoring and Movie house systems. I can see advatages at home as well but as you say there is more than a smooth power curve.

"Despite the fact that the 4333As were far less spatially accurate, less tonally accurate, have horrible time and phase alignment, and were designed before the use of directivity index considerations in JBL's monitor design, I really preferred listening to them. I was shocked."

Fun is where it's at and they certainly are just that.

Rob

[Robh3606]

"My favorite way to listen to speakers in 2-channel to unveil the sound quality is to go CD direct into the power amp....no pre-amp no tone controls...CD to amp to speakers....no added flavoring."

Hello Edgewound

You know I have a small system at work where I go from a Sony ES carosel directly into the amps. The amps are Urie 6211 running L20T3 and I amazed at how good this simple system sounds.

Rob

[edgewound]

"My favorite way to listen to speakers in 2-channel to unveil the sound quality is to go CD direct into the power amp....no pre-amp no tone controls...CD to amp to speakers....no added flavoring."

Hello Edgewound

You know I have a small system at work where I go from a Sony ES carosel directly into the amps. The amps are Urie 6211 running L20T3 and I amazed at how good this simple system sounds.

Rob

Hi Rob...

I really think it becomes a scenario where "less is more"...ya know? More music and detail seem to come through from the simpler signal path.

[scott fitlin]

Hi Rob...

I really think it becomes a scenario where "less is more"...ya know? More music and detail seem to come through from the simpler signal path.

Always!

[Zilch]

I'll hide the EQ in the passive crossovers.

You'll never know the difference....

[edgewound]

I'll hide the EQ in the passive crossovers.

You'll never know the difference....

That'll work...no mucked up gain chain

[Mr. Widget]

I'll hide the EQ in the passive crossovers.

You'll never know the difference....

Packing your ears with cotton, putting the speakers in another room, or just leaving them disconnected also works...


Widget

[Earl K]

Hi Niklas

- Here is a driver that does very well between 2K & 18K . Don't let this low price put you off. This is a very high quality driver . If these are for surrounds in a HT system / then these would be my first choice .

- Note : It has a Mylar™ diaphragm which has a more "damped" sound quality to it than most metals can obtain ( excluding the use of ferrofluid in the gap ). I happen to like its' texture. It sits somewhere between phenolic and titanium ( yes that's a wide range of textures ) . This diaphragm is reminiscent of a well damped aluminum diaphragm ( like the Altec 288 or 902 ).

- These are Italian drivers / so I doubt if it would make much sense to buy from Parts Express & move them back across the Atlantic ocean ( These are Parts Express Prices ) .



- You can see that these represent a very modest outlay of cash / for the hobbiest .

<> EarlK

[whgeiger]

I would agree. If you do not need or want a lower crossover point, then the 2001 or 2002 will most likely be the drivers of choice if cost is no object. They are bargains compared to the 4003, but are still on the pricey end. Actually, TAD suggests that the 2002 is good above 400Hz, but I kind of wonder about that.

This is currently JBL's approach with horns. In theory it certainly makes sense, but in my practical exploration the offense of equalization is far worse than a less than ideal power response. There are many successful speakers on the market that also go against this theoretical ideal. (Most all dome based designs have a narrowing of power response with increase in frequency, and there are many that are quite successful.) As I mentioned above in post #7, I do believe this is and area open for debate.

Widget

WW,


Most of my posts here are usually 'pooh-poohed’ on the basis of the specious ‘theory vs. practice’ argument. This is utter nonsense as the latter is nothing more than implementation of the former when a rational design path is taken. If the recommendations made are followed intelligently, coupled with some modicum of craftsmanship, superior results can be obtained. Bent nails are not the fault of a misused ball-peen hammer. Loudspeaker components designed to cover an audience at a rock concert are usually unsuitable for use in a confined, at-home venue. Typically, when modest equalization makes the music 'sound bad', what is being revealed are imperfections in the source or other system component(s). The degree of signal mangling that takes place to get to the recording stage makes what happens afterward some what a trivial matter so long as the reproducing system is of decent quality and not in need of repair.

Regards,

WHG

[Niklas Nord]

Earl K, interesting. I will look into that !! B&C -drivers !

[Robh3606]

Hello whgeiger

"Most of my posts here are usually 'pooh-poohed’ on the basis of the specious ‘theory vs. practice’ argument. This is utter nonsense as the latter is nothing more than implementation of the former when a rational design path is taken."

To be honest I find some of your posts difficult to understand. You have a very diverse membership in this forum with all different levels of expertise and understanding. It would not be a bad idea if you took a minute to type in an example in practical use so all can understand what you mean. This is not a slight and hope it is taken in the spirit I have written it.

"Loudspeaker components designed to cover an audience at a rock concert are usually unsuitable for use in a confined, at-home venue."

I was about to say no way and then I thought about it. If you look at the classic statement speakers like the Paragon, Heartsfield and Everest they all use the TOTL sound reinforcement drivers. After that point the basic drivers have their roots in the R+D from the SR drivers but there are modification such as aguaplased diaphrams and charge coupled networks. Looking at the newest 9800 there are no drivers used that are not modified. That said I think that these type of driver is certainly suitable if used correctly in their original state. All of the Statement speakers are the best they can do at their time. I think we would all agree that even in their unmodified forms the drivers are certainly capable of providing an enjoyable listening experience providing they are set up correctly.

"Typically, when modest equalization makes the music 'sound bad', what is being revealed are imperfections in the source or other system component(s)."

That I would have to agree with you. I don't see EQ as the great evil that many do. As with anything else it has to be implemented correctly.

Rob