How is the 4367?

[martin2395]

Guys, lately I've been looking at the 4367's, they get generally very favorable reviews but I just don't feel them (judging by the looks alone and materials used) at their price. My heart rate only seems to rise from stuff like old 434x and I'd actually like a pair of TAD 2401/2402 or the TSM-1/2 but they are getting unobtainium and and AFAIK are a boat anchor (too big for a doorstop ) if a unit goes bad. How would the 4367 stack up against those big TAD's with 4001's? Are they still much better than JBL? One would think at 3 times the used price, they'd better be.

[DerekTheGreat]

Hey Martin,

I can't tell you about those drivers or speakers, but I can tell you there is no correlation between price and listening enjoyment. My experience was with vintage Marantz gear of the blue face era. I bought a 510M power amp and ran it with a 3600 preamp. Damn pretty stuff it was, but that stuff was no match for the "scab" budget Adcom gear I ran while that stuff was being serviced. Years later, I still have the Adcom gear whereas the Marantz stuff is long gone.

Looking at the 4367, I can see I recognize it. Looking at the specs, I see that I most likely wouldn't be satisfied with them; 6ohm system sporting 94 dB sensitivity. While 94dB is a pretty decent number for sensitivity, I don't think I'd be 100% satisfied with it, as I'd need more amplifier than I could afford or my electrical system could provide. Not sure my Crown SR-II or PS-400's would enjoy seeing a 3ohm load while bridged. Furthermore, they appear to be down 6dB at 30hz. So I'd most likely need to find some subwoofers to compliment the system as well as more amplification. Perhaps the 4367 is superb on it's own, but it's running it's bass driver all the way up to 700hz and I haven't met a system yet which didn't benefit from subwoofers...

[Robh3606]

Hello

Find a pair and have a listen. You have to decide for yourself. As far as 30Hz I use 2216nd and you just add a little EQ and you are fine. I have a pair of 4344's that were bested by my 1400 Arrays so yeah those big blues are great speakers but in this day and age I would look at more modern gear. Depends again on what you are looking for.

Rob

[toddalin]

Stereophile was impressed with their "jump factor" but really not much else, and certainly not their soundstage. And while they improved after 3 weeks, he never notes what aspects "great" refers too.

Listening
My first three weeks of listening to the JBLs were pretty miserable. They sounded rhythmically disjointed, grayish, soft, bass shy, and so incapable of creating a soundstage that I at first thought I had connected them out of phase. This confused me, because the Harman rep had informed me that these were demo units, presumably with many hours of use. Yet, after about 200 hours of play, the 4367s had improved dramatically, and after 300 they began to sound great. I later learned that the pair I received had only a few hours on them. Mystery solved.

As expected, the big JBLs proved remarkable in their ability to play (very) loudly. Almost every speaker and amplifier combination reaches a point where you know to back off the volume control: The music begins to sound disorganized and strident, or it starts to compress, with the quiet parts getting louder but the loud parts remaining the same. Driven by a sufficiently powerful amplifier, the 4367s reached that point at appreciably higher volumes than any speaker I've heard in my home. I took advantage of this dynamic headroom to enjoy music that sounds best loud. Played at a plate-rattling volume I hadn't attempted before, the opening percussion on "Five Man Army" from Massive Attack's Blue Lines (16/44.1 rip from Virgin TOCP-53870), a record that has lost none of its rousing, innovative charge, sounded intensely satisfying and yet completely composed.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...or-loudspeaker

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...speaker-page-2

[Ian Mackenzie]

It’s highly subjective.

The more important thing is to choose a loudspeaker that will work in your room without being unduly compromised.

Attached are some frequency response curve of the 4344 and the 4367.

It’s a bit hard to make a definitive comparison but if you look at the bass response the 4344 holds up more level than the 4367 at 40 hertz. That 40 hertz thump could be an important cue for listeners of traditional JBL legacy systems.

[martin2395]

Hello Find a pair and have a listen. You have to decide for yourself. As far as 30Hz I use 2216nd and you just add a little EQ and you are fine. I have a pair of 4344's that were bested by my 1400 Arrays so yeah those big blues are great speakers but in this day and age I would look at more modern gear. Depends again on what you are looking for. Rob

That's the main problem, I'd have to buy blind - no chance for a demo, let alone at my own place. I suspect the 223x driver will reach lower but at the cost of lower SPL due to limited X-max. The 4367 seems to have a still suspension too. My heart says buy old TAD but my brain says forget it - no parts and extremely expensive.

[Ian Mackenzie]

It is awkward.

My closing thoughts:

Read as many reviews as you can from actual owners.

As l mentioned the final result can be room dependant.

These loudspeakers need a reasonable sized room to give their best.

If you have access to a HT processor with Dirac that may help moderate some of the irregularities in the bass. Try different enclosure and listening positions until you artist an acceptable result.

[sebackman]

I agree with Ian above.

I think you need to start by figuring out if you prefer the vintage sound in the older designs or the somewhat "in-your-face" of a transparent modern monitors. The 4367 and other newer constructions will sound wonderful on new material but will reveal the "flaws" in older material. Hence, many are arguing that vintage is better for older recordings but I think its just that newer designs are so superior on new well recorded music that when playing older music it sounds "worse" in comparison. In real life they are more faithful but you do get to hear the limitations of 40 year old recording technology, which you may or may not do in older designs.

Also agree with Robh3606, with some basic EQ with maybe +6db @35-40Hz the 2216 will take you as low as any 2235 and/or 2245 in a good cabinet.

Not all individuals like the analytical sound of a modern "monitor" and some even prefer brands that sport a "signature sound", ie alters the input. Only your ears can decide what is best for you and your room. I have respect for that as enjoying music in your own setting is the goal.

From an objective side the 4367/M2 (and alike) are miles more "correct" than any of the older designs. 2216 is hands down a better unit than 2235 in all aspects. Albeit 2235 is still a very good VLF unit below 350Hz. I would also like to add to member toddalins good experience above that getting the wave guide into "ear level" makes a significant difference and may warrant a stand of sorts. As toddalin points out units may eed break in but maybe more pronounced is our human function of "hearing memory". If we have heard a type of sound we get used to it and regardless if it is distorted from the input we will prefer that to a new sound until the point where we get used to the new sound and then we will prefer that and wonder how it was possible to settle for the distorted sound for so many years. "The circle of confusion" as Dr Toole calls it.

Hence I like the older 4-way designs better that often priced 4333/L300/4430 due to the difficulty to marry a 2235 to a driver in a decent size horn (XO >800Hz). Many try to solve that by using 2360 and other gigantic horns and lower the XO, but that creates other and IMHO worse compromises.

Regarding subs it is your preferences that matters. 2 x 15" with a good power amp is plenty in a normal room. If want to run HT with explosions and stuff you may need them, but for music I would start with just the 15"s. If you do decide on subs (get 4 or at least 2 of them if so) it opens many alternative ways as no normal individual at home needs a 15" "midrange"..... Then you can look at the 4349 with 4pcs 12" subs, one on the middle of each wall. Many (up to 4) is better than bigger.
https://www.harman.com/documents/multsubs_0.pdf

On a budget we get used Array 4892, swap in new VTX waveguides, new SL diaphragms and add subs. With a good DSP curve you get into M2 territory for $2-3000 and some work. And that is a fully active DSP system.

Unless your ears favor the vintage sound I would certainly not hesitate on a pair of 4367 or similar modern designs.
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/jbl_4367/

As for the TAD route, I would argue that the 4367 waveguides (and other new wave guides) are so superior to the older horn designs so even a modest driver would surpass even the TAD BE's in an older 2" horn. I have 476Be's and albeit being a small improvement compared to non Be there are other things affecting the sound in an other order of magnitudes as the room, placement, getting you drivers properly setup and so on.

Having had many 1", 1,5" and 2" drivers over they years I would not get stuck on the on-line worship of the older TAD solutions. They are no doubt very good but you can "get there" and further with other more cost efficient solutions.

If you are inclined you can build your own M2 or 4367 and there is a lot of data here on LHF to do so. Many of us has.

-And whatever route you go, do get a god size solid state amp to drive those big 15"s, they do need lot's of current to come alive. But when they do :-) .

My 25 cents
//Rob

[Robh3606]

That's the main problem, I'd have to buy blind - no chance for a demo, let alone at my own place. I suspect the 223x driver will reach lower but at the cost of lower SPL due to limited X-max. The 4367 seems to have a still suspension too. My heart says buy old TAD but my brain says forget it - no parts and extremely expensive.

I have for the most part have always built blind. When you DIY that's what you do.

So what resources do you have to build??? You have a measurement system and crossover simulation software??? You can for go the software if you go DSP but a measurement system is needed.

All of these older drivers be it JBL or TAD are rapidly ending their service lives as far as access to fresh re-cones. Buying used you can't be sure you are even getting original cones. Too spend a fortune on drivers where re-cones or diaphragm's are no longer available is fine if you are willing to take the risks involved.

I agree with Rob and would look at a modern system. You can get drivers and waveguides use DSP and get yourself up and running to see if you at least like the option.

Having built both and compared them, they are inherently different but are both a worthy build.

Rob

[Robh3606]

It’s highly subjective.

The more important thing is to choose a loudspeaker that will work in your room without being unduly compromised.

Attached are some frequency response curve of the 4344 and the 4367.

It’s a bit hard to make a definitive comparison but if you look at the bass response the 4344 holds up more level than the 4367 at 40 hertz. That 40 hertz thump could be an important cue for listeners of traditional JBL legacy systems.

Hello Ian

Yes but that doesn't address the biggest difference being the modern systems are CD designs that are easier to integrate into the room and have a much more predictable in room response compared the non CD heritage designs.

The overall in-room response is much more uniform on the CD systems. The difference is clearly audible off axis which is why the older systems are harder to get right. You also have a larger listening window and are not slaved to the 2405/077 very narrow vertical directivity.

I realize this is also preference but there are advantages built into the newer systems.

Rob

[martin2395]

Just a sidenote - no DIY, have no skill / place / materials for that. We're talking only factory built stuff I've had the 4343 for years so I'm quite used to the old vintage sound and I sold them just because I finally went the DIY route on the xovers and was getting tired of continuous tweaking. I agree TAD parts are insanely expensive and rare, I don't even know if the TD4001 diaphragms are still even being made? I mean, it's robust but all it takes is an angry amp or a rogue tube...do TAD's actually suffer from the diaphragm suspension cracking from their age? The JBL 435Be is also a pretty vintage unit already. It's a shame that JBL doesn't have anything between the 4367 and the K2 - going from the 4367 each subsequent model is double the price, with the DD67000's approaching 100 grand in Europe. p.s Sorry for the chunk of text, I can't seem to be able to add any spacing...weird.

[1audiohack]

Hi Martin;

Try this:

Go to settings, top right of the maroon page by your profile and the log out button, then to general setting in the drop down tree on the left, then almost to the bottom of the page there are three text editor setting, the bottom most basic is it.

Barry.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hello Ian

Yes but that doesn't address the biggest difference being the modern systems are CD designs that are easier to integrate into the room and have a much more predictable in room response compared the non CD heritage designs.

The overall in-room response is much more uniform on the CD systems. The difference is clearly audible off axis which is why the older systems are harder to get right. You also have a larger listening window and are not slaved to the 2405/077 very narrow vertical directivity.

I realize this is also preference but there are advantages built into the newer systems.

Rob

Hi Rob,

Yes l was only thinking about the bass when posted.

I think any room is the final arbiter in how any loudspeaker will or won’t perform.
Why l don’t agree with you in principle it needs to be pointed out that the best hifi loudspeakers are direct radiator designs that are NOT 100 x 100 cd in terms of dispersion across the freq ranges

No body told the consumer was the wrong approach and consumers buy them.

My view is that controlled directivity 90 x 60 (DD67000 ect) is more suitable for home listening that 140 x 100 dispersion. That is why JBL used them and they deliberately don’t offer those horns as spares. They are proprietary to the current consumer products.

Those 140x 100 M2 wave guided are meant for acoustic treated studios.

There are many points of view and l respect that.

In diy do as you wish but no one is holding your hand saying how it will turn out.

[Ian Mackenzie]

These Robert S post :

These are my thoughts only and if any one had or has a different point of view l respect that,

Referring the above post l believe that there are too many variables and inconsistencies in recording technology and techniques over the decades to make a generalisation about recording quality.

Some of the 60’s-70’s RCA vinyl label recordings are reported by purists as the best ever produced of classical and other genres.

The technology, the process flow and techniques used to bring artists work to a listener are many and varied. It has also changed significantly over the 60’s to current day.


For example in the 60’s -70’s in a period when Elvis Presley made his mark an artist could only enter the recording industry through a studio and a label that thought they were a commercially viable artist to market.

These studios had medium to large recording studios with known acoustics and control rooms that met recording standards. They used SOA mixing chassis consoles that were custom configured. Dean Jenson introduced discrete class A opamps in the 1970’s which raised the sound quality Bar for the motion picture and the recording industry following the transition from valve based mixers to solid state mixing consoles.

Rupert Neve’s classic class A consoles complete with custom wound interstate transformers are state of art technology today and cost more than a house to buy.

The narrative is that in the above era the faculties and equipment were generally consistent.

[Ian Mackenzie]

The exceptions were rock and other genres where live music was recorded by engineers using varying skill sets and techniques and equipment that wasn’t up to that of the major studios.

It’s also important to appreciate that most consumers only listened with consumer HiFi equipment they often tonally modified the sound and much less accuracy that the studio monitors used at the time. This equipment has significantly less dynamic range that a JBL based system.

Technologies arrived in the 1980’s and Denon, Sony and Fairlight started to introduce VCA controlled mixing consoles and digital recording machines. The started a change in the recording workflows where a group of artists could send their individual recordings to a central producer and engineer. No longer were artists required to all assemble at a recording labels major studio. This meant that in some cases some recordings were less well recorded and produced than others because the source recordings were not under sole control of a label.