How is the 4367?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Back then on my diy 4343 system some recordings were chalk and cheese. The jazz genres were generally of higher production standards than pop or rock genres. The exceptions were groups signed to major labels like Pink Floyd, the Eagles and Fleetwood Mack who had the funds to employ highly capable engineers and producers and top studio facilities.

The Blue Note label, Chesky, A&M and others were generally of superior vinyl and CD playback. This particularly applied to imported pressing. Billy Joel albums and Neil Diamond were excellent recordings as a rule while Deep Purple live recordings sounded compressed.

There are a number of narratives here. A key one is that the 4343 could readily discern the quality of a recording. It was designed for mastering.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Enter the 1990’s and the use of the portable recording solution lead to more inconsistencies in recordings that opened up. Digital recordings were being mastered for both vinyl and CD. The source recordings were in many cases being farmed out to individual artists if they were unable to attend an event.

At this stage DA consumer playback was in its adolescence and consumers had mixed feelings over vinyl and cd recordings. Audiophile purists preferred hi end moving coil cartridges to a CD play back and the Linn Sondek LP12 became a benchmark.

I can personally attest that a Sheffield Lab Direct Disc vinyl recording has significantly greater dynamic headroom than its CD version. This is a Fact.

[Ian Mackenzie]

What l found in the early 2000’s was that my diy 4345 system used with Pass Labs hi end amps made much of my vinyl collection as a so so hifi experience. I attribute this to improved drivers, crossovers and much superior amplifiers that l built using Pass Labs Aleph designs. These were high power SE mostfet amplifiers up to 140 watts. The lack of class AB crossover distortion was very noticeable on the 2307 horn and 2405 slot radiator with charge coupled crossovers.

The narrative here transparency of your electronics and passive crossovers cannot be underestimated in terms of revealing a good or a less than enjoyable recording. This is a Fact.

[Ian Mackenzie]

JBL applied aquaplas coatings to their consumer statement systems from the 1990’s up till today to tone back the live analytical qualities of their titanium and BE diaphragms.

The new M2 based drivers offer a new approach. But some hifi retailers won’t stock the M2 because it’s too analytical and their customers are put off by it.

That’s a Fact.

The narrative here is it depends on the Bar you set yourself. Better as in analytical isn’t necessarily going to bring a more enjoyable listening experience. Dynamic range, low distortion and micro dynamic resolving power does improve the listening experience.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Mixing and matching play equipment is as much an art as it is a science.

I Intend to favour strong low end linearity, tonal accuracy, micro dynamics (piston range limited drivers) tonal purity (low distortion) and dynamic range over outright analytical accuracy and imaging for home listening.

Listening to mistakes and imperfections in a recording not in my opinion what the hobby is about. It’s about enjoying emotional connection with your favourite tunes.

This is why l like using a Rega Planar 3 Turntable with a moving magnetic cartridge for playback of my popular vinyl music collection and my VPI Prime Turntable and Kesiki Purple Heart cartridge for my most revered vinyl albums.

I do enjoy streaming from my JBL Synthesis processor when time permits.

My front 7.1.6 system are M2 clones and l regularly swap out for other JBL systems.

Cheers

Ian

[martin2395]

See, that what bugs me the most....the 4367/M2 driver feels like a cheapo compared to Be drivers, hence I have trouble believing the 4367/M2 have a more detailed presentation (which I prefer) than let's say a TAD 4000 series.

[sebackman]

Ian, I agree with you that the goal is to enjoy music and every pair of ears are different. Rooms are different. Preferences are different. I certainly don't hink there is any final recipe that will suit all. That is the beauty of our hobby.

The newer designs are objectively better (as in more faithful to the original signal) in transforming electrical signals to acoustic signals in pretty much all aspects. I think we all agree on that.

When it comes to applying new technology in the recording industry I could not agree with you more. The fast development in the recording technology and exponential increase of competition (everyone can record now), not least from the portability of recording capabilities, has generated some really lousy recordings and songs (even if the last is subjective).

So, from a listening perspective you may well be right in all your comments, even if the objective technology has improved.

And no doubt very pronounced analytical capabilities of a system/speaker would certainly not appeal to everyone. That is the basis for the most of the HiFi industry.

The fact that the tools has improved does not mean that the outcome does. Not seldom do we see the opposite. I don't think many of us listen for faults and the reference of "flaws" was just that in many systems artifacts are not as audible as with a "very analytic setup". They are there, they have always been there but we have just have not heard them the same way before.

My point was not that age of a recording precludes the music or a specific recording from being more enjoyable than newer versions of the same. A well made vintage recording is almost always "better" (more enjoyable) than a mediocre contemporary ditto.

But a well made new recording will bring a new dimension when played on a modern and analytic/transparent system, which to a large extent is due to technology (limited by room). Of course given that the level of craftmanship behind the knobs are similar.

That is just me using too many words to say "martin2395 I recommend buying a modern system, given a choice".

If budget and space permits, buy a vintage system in addition. And a keg of beer.

Martin2395, I would not worry too much about the driver technology. All equipment is made to a price point for marketing. JBL decided that they cannot create enough margin at the given price point with a 4" driver in the 4367, or even M2, so they developed a new unit that meets their needs. Technology moves forward. This is based upon their experience but also where the perceived market is for each application (and the 4" is old technology going EOL). K2 are statement speakers and price is not as sensitive for some buyers, I guess.

4367 and M2 would not get the amount of positive reviews if they were not genuinely spectacular speakers for what they are intended for. I agree with Ian that 4367 may be easier to use in residential room compared to M2 which is aimed for the controlled environment in a studio. There is nothing precluding additional DSP to be added to a pair of passive 4367 to go after the last few millimeters that the DSP in the M2 strive to do. Or use Dirac.

I find 4367 in their original form hard to beat. At prices I have seen on the secondary market lately there are really very few competitors. 2216Nd is a great woofer in the correct box with a well designed filter. However, I would argue that the wave guide is the icing on the cake. -And at that price point the 2430K drivers are very capable, even compared to the BE's. I have both (not TAD).

I need to add, given what I have written in other threads, I personally prefer the 4" drivers but JBL never made that combination. -Except för the 4365, the K2's and some PA boxes (probably missed some). That is why I'm stuck in the DIY swamp, with all that comes with it.

Many of my friends has the opposite view and most I know used D2 (2430K) drivers in their builds even if they had the 4" (K2) as an option.

If you need to play that loud some of the JBL alternatives to 4367 is to go M2, vintage 4-way monitors (can also be an excellent choice), bring the big check book and go K2 or go the DIY route as some of us.

There are of course many other very good JBL factory speakers like S4700, 4365, 4349, Array 1400 and more. Some of them can be found in the used market at real appealing prices. Large boxes are out of fashion. And they do not have Bluetooth built in....

Kind regards
/Rob

[Robh3606]

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.

Hello Ian

Oh OK so you believe the room is dominate and that directivity is secondary. I can understand that however using DIRAC or any other EQ system will be more beneficial using CD speakers.

As I see it any CD system independent of dispersion pattern will be more room friendly. As far as 140 X 100 vs say 90 X 60 I don't see an issue with either. They can both work well.

As far as cone and domes their directivty can be excellent like Revels or down right awful where where it's not considered as an important aspect.

I like a stable image and soundstage and tonality that doesn't change if you move 3 ft. Hence my DIY preference for 100 x100 starting with 2344, 2342, PTH1010 and M2.

Back to the Revels for a minute. This is right from Erin's Corners review of Performa 226Be

"Dispersion and Off-Axis Response:

Horizontal dispersion is approximately ±65° out to 10kHz and about ±50° out to 20kHz.

Vertical dispersion is approximately ±80° out to 10kHz and about ±60 out to 20kHz°. This is the widest vertical dispersion I have measured to date.

The wide horizontal and vertical dispersion help give this speaker a wider sweet spot, a larger soundstage and a more balanced tonality as there is no large shift in directivity through the crossover region thanks to

the relatively steep crossover slopes implemented between drive units. "


I don't understand why you say this "the best hifi loudspeakers are direct radiator designs that are NOT 100 x 100 cd in terms of dispersion across the freq ranges" and why 140 X 100 is limited to treated control rooms.

Clearly this is not always the case. Take a look at the attached non normalized plots for the M2 vs the Revel.

From my own experience my Performa F206's sound more like my passive M2 than my Array 1400's which are 90 X 60 WRT soundstage and imaging.

It's really a mixed bag there are no hard rules.

Rob

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hi Rob,

Sorry my bad typo on the beach should read “while l agree with you in principle”

There are always exceptions to the rule. I accept that.

My point was more around Controlled Directivity over a specific angle and range of frequencies.

Edit
l personally used the 2245/2122 with the 2344/2425 for a year or so in a typical living space with windows and flat wall surfaces. It certainly worked well enough but l subjectively found the 100 x100 pattern of the 2344 washed out or overly diffused compared to the 2407/2307 with a 2425 driver+2405. The later to me was subjectively more precise. I found favour with the 2344/2425 on certain genres like classical but less so on rock and popular genres.

At John Nebel’s elaborate JBL basement we compared his 4343 with the 4435 side by side. The 4343 were subjectively better on Jazz than the 4435. The 4435 scored better on classic music.

I look forward to auditioning the 2344/2425 again in my new media room with full acoustic treatments.

Beyond that l think it comes down to personal preferences and what works in a particular room.

I think the DD67000 is more like 100 x 60 because for cosmetic reasons and because first reflections off walls, the ceiling and a floor are destructive in a SOA home listening room.

A constant 60 vertical angle is better than 80 narrowing down to 40 at high frequencies. However, l will surprise many of you when l publish my 2407/2307 polar response curves.

The M2 and it’s nearfield cousins are designed for acoustically treated control rooms and home studios where the absorption and diffraction is uniform over all six surfaces. If you look carefully at Tool’s work he refers to rooms with uniform acoustic absorption particularly at first reflection points which otherwise bounce straight to the listener. At higher frequencies the sound reflected off all surfaces is like rays of light that then cloud the direct ray to the listening position. The RTA delay or reverberation time of these scattered rays kills the accuracy of the direct sound to the listener with blurring. Moving closer to a nearfield listener position helps.

In a correctly treated room is where a wide pattern 140 x 100 CD wave guide shines. This is well recognised is control room acoustics so the artist and the mix engineer hear virtually the same thing. This is not the case with the 43xx systems.

The vast majority of home living listening spaces have minimal effective acoustic treatments at the first reflection points.

People interpret this as an Imbalances in upper midrange and high frequencies intensity. To temper this people EQ the wave guide at high frequencies. It’s a band aid on the real role of acoustic treatments. Greg Timbers suggested to me that 1 - 2 db per octave attenuation 1.5 khertz may be beneficial when using the M2 wave guide at home.

So controlled directivity has benefits for diy use at home.

Overall we are all talking the same thing just from different user perspectives.

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.
While l 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]

See, that what bugs me the most....the 4367/M2 driver feels like a cheapo compared to Be drivers, hence I have trouble believing the 4367/M2 have a more detailed presentation (which I prefer) than let's say a TAD 4000 series.

I agree it seems odd. You have to find an owner and try and audition.

The point made earlier about longevity and the high prices is a real consideration.

Btw other manufacturers like BMS, 18Sound and Radian made drivers that have similar performance but not exotic prices.

While the JBL Be diaphragm is the one to have it’s the only one that reaches up to 20,000 hertz with really needing a super tweeter. Greg Timbers has commented that he could tell if the 045be was on or off in the SD67000. (Details of the crossover are important to understand when interpreting this comment).

Whereas other Be diaphragms with the Mylar surround seem to stop being effective much above 10,000 hertz according to reports by users.

This is where the M2 driver and the older acquplas coated titanium diaphragms win.

A Be diaphragm may sound like it has a bit more clarity but if it fails to offer high freq brilliance is it worth the money shelling out on a matching super tweeter?

I would argue that as a diy pursuit no. This is because the 2450 series jbl drivers are much less costly and it’s a much simpler implementation for diy

[martin2395]

I know the 2450, in fact I had them in my 4343's with 3155 crossovers and with Radian 1245-16 but would really prefer to stay well clear of any DIY. I want something that 'just works'

[sebackman]

Hi Martin,

Where in Europe are you?

With that kind of monetary investment it may prove a good idea to find the nearest dealer that can demo both 4367 and the K2's, so you can make a call for your selves.

If it is just a one day travel, which will reach most of Europe, it should not be very costly. There are many cheap ways to travel nowadays.

I have a spare pair of hot-rodded Array 4892 with PRO1400 woofers and 2450SL's on a modern VTX waveguide + needed BSS DSP (and tailored dsp curve). Together with some good subs it would take you very close to the exotics you are mentioning at a fraction of the cost. And they are ready to run. And in Europe. :-) . Pm if of interest.

Here are some used alternatives
https://www.hifishark.com/search?q=jbl+4367
https://www.hifishark.com/search?q=jbl+k2

Kind regards
//Rob

[martin2395]

Hi Rob, I'm in the Netherlands. We have JBL / Revel shop here in the city but the DD67000 is a special order only, even for a demo. Same goes for the K2's. Not sure who imports the Studio Monitor line but I think it's a different dealership, would have to ask.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hi Martin,

I respect you now want thing that just works.

In Canada Joseph Crowe had been developing hifi loudspeakers using an improved version of the Tad bi radial horn. Joseph designs the passive crossover for his clients and the horn to match the drivers.

If you want a nice looking wood horn look no further at a fraction of the cost.

https://josephcrowe.com/collections/600hz-horns

[Ian Mackenzie]

Buying sight unseen

This may seem common sense but unfortunately people do buy without enough auditioning and without dealer support.

A case study

A few years ago l visited some of Greg Timbers own clients who were interested in evaluating a prototype tri amp active crossover for use with the Jbl DD67000.

The owner of one system heard it in a NY dealer show room and ordered the system from an unknown seller in the USA.

He was using a Passlabs XVR1 analogue active crossover sold to him by Greg. The guy had been tweaking the DD67000 which he upgraded from a DD66000 and at the time l met him he had removed the 045 uhf driver and had it mounted atop the system.

His sentiment was that he was not entirely happy with the loudspeakers since owning them for several years.

A friend bought it sight unseen on the basis of the other users decision.

I spent several days listen and checking everything before starting the evaluation of the prototype active crossover.

The room was rectangular about 20 x 30 feet
There wasn’t a lot of furniture in the room. An office swivel chair was used for listening.

I don’t remember all the changes l made but l ended up with the main woofers set as the inner woofers in a tri amp configuration with a cascaded 700 hertz 4th order + 290 hertz 2nd order filter on the outer woofers and a 4th order 700 hertz filter on the inner main woofers .

It’s sounded more coherent and balanced than it did originally. But l personally found the office chair about 8 inches too high to obtain the best blend of the woofer and the horn at about 3 metres.

Ironically the owner had found the woofer and horn crossover unhappy and he was at this stage trying different diy settings on the Pass XVR1. Unfortunately the output levels of the XVR1 change when you change the filter slopes from 6,12,18 or 24 db.

The user liked the changes by questioned the need for a specific listening height.

The overall experience since the purchase made the user sceptical of the loudspeaker.

After l left he changed it back to how he had.

There are several take aways here

Not having local dealers support to set up the system can leave you in the dark. Hearing it in a show room is no real indication of what it will be like at home. Going off the reservation and making changes can be a time consuming journey. Any loudspeaker is going to need some setting up adjustments before obtaining the best results. A dealer should be able to help you with that.

The DD67000 is very large system requiring a room at least 1 1/2 metres wider than both loudspeakers with a 1 1/2 metre space between them. It’s a very good loudspeaker but users would be encouraged to assess their listening room before the purchase and consider adding the latest DEQX active crossover with advanced dsp room correction.
Room treatments should be arranged by an expert in the field of hifi room acoustics.

When l got back we talking about it. The consensus was that unfortunately if users don’t seek advice or don’t follow advice there’s not much that can be done and it’s best to leave them too it. Nelson Pass’s input was that dependent on the region language can influence the sensitivity and threshold of the human ear to certain sounds. Th I s apparently starts with an infant learning the language from the mother.

So there are a multitude of reasons why one person’s listening experience will be different from another’s. Coming here with questions can help weigh up with a consensus of common sense what to do next. But the decision should not be rushed. Once you buy it you own it with all the idiosyncrasies.

Closely following a know JBL design is a sure fire way of getting a good result. Spinning your own design isn’t necessary a simple and straightforward process. This applies to dsp crossover networks where there is a limited knowledge of the drivers/horn and woofers and a very limited understanding of dsp crossovers. I have seen people spend a large sum on JBL S98000 components only to see it all on the market 12 months later out of sheer frustration. It takes real skill and experience with designing a loudspeaker from scratch and even then sometimes it just doesn’t come together.