Dirty Weekends vs JBL Studio 590

[bruhl001]

The way I see it, for a model that has the credentials of someone the likes of Greg Timbers and the resources of JBL behind their creation, there’s a very good chance something much better than average will result. And it did. This is no different than what A.Jones has been doing with Pioneer and Elac which has generated tons of buzz in the industry. Except JBL failed miserably to market this concept of design execution. Pioneer failed, too. Elac did not and is enjoying the success of their strategy.

The problem for the Pioneer/Andrew Jones venture was it was a Budget Speaker/Pioneer Badge venture. Slap a German badge on it and success. Still don't understand JBL's failure.

 

[bruhl001]

It has horns - many people HATE horns. You can thank Klipsch for that. Andrew Jones is a great designer. He understands economy of scale and how to design to a price point. Many don't.

Zu speakers while efficient are not accurate, that is the issue with single drivers augmented with supertweeters. On the other hand, Horns are not accurate over a wide bandwidth either. It is hard to compare them since they are different types of speakers.

People who like JBL want the new L100's , which seem to be selling well.

JBL should have to pay royalties to Maxell

 

[tomlinmgt]

It has horns - many people HATE horns. You can thank Klipsch for that. Andrew Jones is a great designer. He understands economy of scale and how to design to a price point. Many don't.

Zu speakers while efficient are not accurate, that is the issue with single drivers augmented with supertweeters. On the other hand, Horns are not accurate over a wide bandwidth either. It is hard to compare them since they are different types of speakers.

People who like JBL want the new L100's , which seem to be selling well.

I wasn’t aware of the sales of the new L100’s. And those things aren’t cheap. Interesting. Nostalgia is obviously working and the vibe/style of models like the L100 and Heresy seems to be a huge factor for the buying public. Prior to the Studio series, JBL hadn’t offered anything compelling in terms of bang for the buck. Klipsch has had no problem selling their horn designs to the home theater crowd and has enjoyed success in that market...so I suppose your comment about nobody wanting a horn design is limited to the 2-channel crowd. And I wouldn’t disagree with that.

 

[bruhl001]

I wasn’t aware of the sales of the new L100’s. And those things aren’t cheap. Interesting. Nostalgia is obviously working and the vibe/style of models like the L100 and Heresy seems to be a huge factor for the buying public. Prior to the Studio series, JBL hadn’t offered anything compelling in terms of bang for the buck. Klipsch has had no problem selling their horn designs to the home theater crowd and has enjoyed success in that market...so I suppose your comment about nobody wanting a horn design is limited to the 2-channel crowd. And I wouldn’t disagree with that.

If you take a look at the most influential reviewers like Guttenberg, Z, Darko and Zero Fidelity you'll find almost universal praise for Klipsch and JBL horn designs in a 2 way system. Klipsch is especially on fire these days.

 

[bruhl001]

I would not call them the most influential any more with Forums and bloggers taking over

Not difficult to see their influence by reading forums/bloggers. Guttenberg is especially influential.

 

[bruhl001]

Why do you find it difficult to understand that merit may have nothing to do influence. Guttenberg is not clueless, the fact he has made a living giving his opinion about audio equipment is a testament to that

 

[RGA]

Equating tobacco scientists to what Floyd Toole has accomplished in the field of acoustics demonstrates your sheer idiocy.

Yes my example was of the extreme hyperbole type because I tend to find most nuanced arguments don't get anywhere.

The point is that there is this thing in science and elsewhere called "Conflict of Interest" - when Coca Cola tells you that their product tastes better than Pepsi - and then conducts a blind test to prove it - one has to not just nod their heads in agreement and say - well Coke has a white paper and see look there are photos of the blind test so ... Coke is better. Science requires peer review independent tests and all of the tests need to have what is called "validity"

A person buys 2 loudspeakers in stereo for his home - Usually in some sort of set-up the resembles an equilateral triangle and connected to his choice of amplifier CD player turntable. The further away from this "usage" the test becomes the less validity the test holds. One can test a car on rollers at the plant but that is not the same as testing the car on a winding road in the snow.

But we live in a world where it is becoming much more difficult to audition speakers so Harmon is pretty smart to try and convince people to buy their speakers after reading a white paper - don't listen - just trust us that our speakers are best to buy because they beat speakers that measure different.

 

[bruhl001]

Yes my example was of the extreme hyperbole type because I tend to find most nuanced arguments don't get anywhere.

The point is that there is this thing in science and elsewhere called "Conflict of Interest" - when Coca Cola tells you that their product tastes better than Pepsi - and then conducts a blind test to prove it - one has to not just nod their heads in agreement and say - well Coke has a white paper and see look there are photos of the blind test so ... Coke is better. Science requires peer review independent tests and all of the tests need to have what is called "validity"

A person buys 2 loudspeakers in stereo for his home - Usually in some sort of set-up the resembles an equilateral triangle and connected to his choice of amplifier CD player turntable. The further away from this "usage" the test becomes the less validity the test holds. One can test a car on rollers at the plant but that is not the same as testing the car on a winding road in the snow.

But we live in a world where it is becoming much more difficult to audition speakers so Harmon is pretty smart to try and convince people to buy their speakers after reading a white paper - don't listen - just trust us that our speakers are best to buy because they beat speakers that measure different.

You really have no clue...I don't like nuance either.

 

[RGA]

I guess you’re saying Toole fudged his research to favor Revel, Infinity, and JBL loudspeakers rather than those companies making design decisions based on research that he (mostly) did before joining Harmon.

That said, not everyone values the same design goals as the majority of listeners in blind tests.

Well the problem with what the majority likes is that we end up with the Big Mac as the biggest selling burger because most people are least offended by BLAND taste. And McDonald's scientists and marketing folks figured this out long ago - it's the same way the movie industry and music industry put out the same schlock over and over and over.

Having a speaker designed by what most people like is great for companies moving as many products as possible. Indian food is spicy and that isn't going to every fly in a big way to North American tastes. It will never sell the way the Big Mac sells. Even though you might run tests saying it healthier, has a vastly superior spice palette, is vastly more sophisticated and all the other arguments for its superiority - the MASSES always choose "bland".

Most people like all sorts of crap and the marketing science teams out there always want to know what that is and keep repackaging it - the third Spiderman reboot - the fourth - people want it - let's dole it out.

Music is arguably more appalling so let's make a speaker that does Taylor Swift extra special. Let's not build stuff for the majority - I don't want a McSpeaker chosen by the majority of listeners in a DBT. Why? Because the "majority" are the same people who are Big Mac Chomping, auto-tuned Justin Beiber loving, Marvel movies are DEEP types. (I cried at Endgame and Avatar ... FFS no thanks to the majority)

Besides, the DBT is supposed to be an individual test. To really know you must first know what speaker curve you gravitate to not what 50 out of 55 others gravitate to. You might agree with the 5 - those 5 might be the 5 that don't like Beiber, don't eat Big Macs and don't think Marvel movies are DEEP. And the test has to be high in terms of Validity and Reliability. Toole has been good at the latter - not really the former.

What a Valid test would look like - it has to mirror the way audiophiles listen to their stereos - So here are a few examples:

1) the room should mirror the end users room
2) the set-up needs to be the same - 2 speakers in a equilateral triangle to the listeners(not one speaker center of the room at locked in listening distance.
3) Amplifier must be something the manufacturer and or end user would own. So if a speaker is designed for low power 300b SET amps - the amplifier in the test needs to have that amplifier. This is the way the typical owner would listen. Some speakers are more or less affected by the kinds of damping factor put them - so no one size fits all 1000 watt SS amplifier.
4) the control of volume during listening is controlled by the end user. At home a stereo owner will often put the volume up or down during a track - maybe several times - that has to be part of the test.

Basically validity (the old term was called the "Range Rule") means that any test has to closely follow the exact same parameters as would be used normally.

Having said all the above - I have no problem with anyone who wants to buy the JBL over the Zu based on the measurements - free country - well sort of - and it's your money. I just like to put in the notes that things here are not infallible. I too use Rottentomatoes to check what the "majority" of film critics think before deciding whether I want to spend my $20 at the movies - so I understand that folks would want to check the measured performance before spending $1,500 - but I do point out that there are movies that critics didn't love that I did and movies that I felt were overrated trash that they loved.

And going by the critics when I am out of step with them - costs me $20 - if I am out of step with them on speakers - I am out $1,500.

Umm - So Listen for yourself!

 

[RGA]

You really have no clue...I don't like nuance either.

Don't like nuance? Say it isn't so.

 

[Jeff K]

Well the problem with what the majority likes is that we end up with the Big Mac as the biggest selling burger because most people are least offended by BLAND taste. And McDonald's scientists and marketing folks figured this out long ago - it's the same way the movie industry and music industry put out the same schlock over and over and over.

Having a speaker designed by what most people like is great for companies moving as many products as possible. Indian food is spicy and that isn't going to every fly in a big way to North American tastes. It will never sell the way the Big Mac sells. Even though you might run tests saying it healthier, has a vastly superior spice palette, is vastly more sophisticated and all the other arguments for its superiority - the MASSES always choose "bland".

Most people like all sorts of crap and the marketing science teams out there always want to know what that is and keep repackaging it - the third Spiderman reboot - the fourth - people want it - let's dole it out.

Music is arguably more appalling so let's make a speaker that does Taylor Swift extra special. Let's not build stuff for the majority - I don't want a McSpeaker chosen by the majority of listeners in a DBT. Why? Because the "majority" are the same people who are Big Mac Chomping, auto-tuned Justin Beiber loving, Marvel movies are DEEP types. (I cried at Endgame and Avatar ... FFS no thanks to the majority)

Besides, the DBT is supposed to be an individual test. To really know you must first know what speaker curve you gravitate to not what 50 out of 55 others gravitate to. You might agree with the 5 - those 5 might be the 5 that don't like Beiber, don't eat Big Macs and don't think Marvel movies are DEEP. And the test has to be high in terms of Validity and Reliability. Toole has been good at the latter - not really the former.

What a Valid test would look like - it has to mirror the way audiophiles listen to their stereos - So here are a few examples:

1) the room should mirror the end users room
2) the set-up needs to be the same - 2 speakers in a equilateral triangle to the listeners(not one speaker center of the room at locked in listening distance.
3) Amplifier must be something the manufacturer and or end user would own. So if a speaker is designed for low power 300b SET amps - the amplifier in the test needs to have that amplifier. This is the way the typical owner would listen. Some speakers are more or less affected by the kinds of damping factor put them - so no one size fits all 1000 watt SS amplifier.
4) the control of volume during listening is controlled by the end user. At home a stereo owner will often put the volume up or down during a track - maybe several times - that has to be part of the test.

Basically validity (the old term was called the "Range Rule") means that any test has to closely follow the exact same parameters as would be used normally.

Having said all the above - I have no problem with anyone who wants to buy the JBL over the Zu based on the measurements - free country - well sort of - and it's your money. I just like to put in the notes that things here are not infallible. I too use Rottentomatoes to check what the "majority" of film critics think before deciding whether I want to spend my $20 at the movies - so I understand that folks would want to check the measured performance before spending $1,500 - but I do point out that there are movies that critics didn't love that I did and movies that I felt were overrated trash that they loved.

And going by the critics when I am out of step with them - costs me $20 - if I am out of step with them on speakers - I am out $1,500.

Umm - So Listen for yourself!

Umm- So you must have missed the, “That said ....” part of my reply.

 

[Mister Pig]

Most speakers that are in a higher price class than the 590's will have finer cabinets, aesthetics and more exotic drivers but in terms of absolute performance....???

I think my 4365 will be better in performance.

Cheers
Mister Pig

 

[Mister Pig]

What you want is a pair of the 1400 ARRAY!

 

[Guest159]

Most speakers that are in a higher price class than the 590's will have finer cabinets, aesthetics and more exotic drivers but in terms of absolute performance....???

You can bet your bottom dollar I'll put my Focal 936's next to a pair of 590 any day of the week, and not only will they look vastly better, they will totally out-class the 590 in sound. The closest competition JBL has to the 936 is the L100 Classic, and those sure wouldn't make me rethink my purchase.

If you take a look at the most influential reviewers like Guttenberg, Z, Darko and Zero Fidelity you'll find almost universal praise for Klipsch and JBL horn designs in a 2 way system. Klipsch is especially on fire these days.

I've never even heard of those guys except Guttenburg, and his opinions are about as beige as opinions get. Yes, their cheaper products are pretty good value for the money, but when Klipsch attempted to play with the big boys in the higher end, they pretty much failed. I wouldn't call the reviews I read on the Palladium series good.

If you really think a $1000 pair of speakers sounds as good as a $5000 pair of speakers, I'm going to guess you've never heard $5000 speakers. $5000 is, in my estimation, the price point where you're getting about 90% of what $20,000 speakers do. I've listened to plenty of roughly $1000 speakers. Ain't no mystery to me why they can't ask more.

 

[Mister Pig]

You can bet your bottom dollar I'll put my Focal 936's next to a pair of 590 any day of the week, and not only will they look vastly better, they will totally out-class the 590 in sound. The closest competition JBL has to the 936 is the L100 Classic, and those sure wouldn't make me rethink my purchase.



I've never even heard of those guys except Guttenburg, and his opinions are about as beige as opinions get. Yes, their cheaper products are pretty good value for the money, but when Klipsch attempted to play with the big boys in the higher end, they pretty much failed. I wouldn't call the reviews I read on the Palladium series good.

If you really think a $1000 pair of speakers sounds as good as a $5000 pair of speakers, I'm going to guess you've never heard $5000 speakers. $5000 is, in my estimation, the price point where you're getting about 90% of what $20,000 speakers do. I've listened to plenty of roughly $1000 speakers. Ain't no mystery to me why they can't ask more.

Its good you found a cheap pair of speakers you can like.

Cheers
Mister Pig

 

[jazzmans]

What you want is a pair of the 1400 ARRAY!

shaddup, you! These are simply out of my price range, or I'd expect I'd like them just fine.

oh, and these are far superior to my JM labs, focal cobalt 816s. fwiw

 

[stereofanboy]

Well, they weren't settling for $1000 earlier today. Apparently, the sale is over and they're back up to $2000/pair.

 

[Mister Pig]

shaddup, you! These are simply out of my price range, or I'd expect I'd like them just fine.

oh, and these are far superior to my JM labs, focal cobalt 816s. fwiw

Those 1400 ARRAY are unusual looking, think people hate or love the looks. They say the vertical array of the horn with no baffle surrounding it results in remarkable imaging abilities. And those 590 seem to have a similar arrangement to the horn layout.

I almost bought a pair of 1400, until I got lucky and bought my 4365 which were only a year old. While very pleased with them, I bet I would have liked those 1400 ARRAY also.

Those 590 you bought is what I would probably recommend to most folks looking for a $1000 pair of speakers, as long as the cosmetics are acceptable to them. Not the most classic of looking speakers, but you could do worse.

Cheers
Mister Pig

 

[jazzmans]

Those 1400 ARRAY are unusual looking, think people hate or love the looks. They say the vertical array of the horn with no baffle surrounding it results in remarkable imaging abilities. And those 590 seem to have a similar arrangement to the horn layout.

I almost bought a pair of 1400, until I got lucky and bought my 4365 which were only a year old. While very pleased with them, I bet I would have liked those 1400 ARRAY also.

Those 590 you bought is what I would probably recommend to most folks looking for a $1000 pair of speakers, as long as the cosmetics are acceptable to them. Not the most classic of looking speakers, but you could do worse.

Cheers
Mister Pig

2k a pair, not 1k.

If I ever find a pair of the 11k Synthesis 1400, I'll be sure to try them out, but the 590 is 'sort of' the poor mans Synthesis.

 

[Mister Pig]

2k a pair, not 1k.

If I ever find a pair of the 11k Synthesis 1400, I'll be sure to try them out, but the 590 is 'sort of' the poor mans Synthesis.

Thats right they price them as singles.

Thats the thing about the upper end JBL, they get sold off in a couple of years as you have early adopters who buy them, but sell them because they want to early adopt something else. The second buyers who are value conscious are excited they pick up a pair of speakers they could not afford new, and they hold onto them. So you don't see them in the second hand market after that.

When my 4365 were offered in Japan and Asia, which is the market they were designed for, the MSRP was 21K a pair. I bought mine for $8K, less than a year old and in perfect shape. I could not afford them at their original MSRP. So I appreciate them every time I listen to them.

I don't think I have read about how you find them to sound yet.

Cheers
Mister Pig