JBL speakers are they really that good?
- Thread starter Ken Boyd
- Start date
Hartsfield1
New Member
I use the M2s and LSR6332s on a regular basis. They're extremely revealing of the mixing and mastering process, which is what they're designed to do. Unless you enjoy hearing every change made on the console, or you only listen to well mixed and mastered material, these speakers are not for you. I love both of these monitors but would never use them at home because they distract from the musical experience and focus your ears on the recording. I would also add that the LSR6332 is very difficult to position and setup due to its linear spatial design. Just when you think you've got both on axis and off axis correct you realize it's not.
DonQuixote99
just give me some truth
Hmmm...I suspect that persons who don't have significant mixing console hours under their belts would NOT hear every change made on the console through M2s and LSR6332s. The final audio processor, found between the ears, can operate in various ways, depending on use and training.
Last edited:
BMWCCA
Addicted Member
Of course I prefer well-mixed and mastered material. Doesn't everyone?
I'm pretty sure my JBL 4345s bi-amped with charge-coupled crossovers are pretty darn revealing. I've always preferred my JBLs not to mask, filter, or in any way dumb-down the source material. Funny, but I always thought that was the meaning of High-Fidelity!
JBLs in the house for over fifty-five-years here!
Hartsfield1
New Member
BMWCCA, I didn't mean to imply that all JBL speakers are poor choices for casual listening. I too have used JBL as my mains at home for many years. Since I enjoy a wide variety of recordings, and many of them were either poorly recorded and/or mastered, some monitors tend to make the already bad even worse. For instance, the JBL 120ti is a very forgiving speaker, whereas the LSR6332 is not. Your preference for the type of monitor will depend on what you want to hear. If accuracy is important, then something like the LSR6332 or M2, in a well treated room, is ideal. If, however, you want to kick back and just enjoy the music, a less critical speaker is more pleasant and less fatiguing (in my opinion).
Over the years I've come to realize that I need two pairs of speakers: one dome/cone-based and the other horn-based. After enough hours of critical listening you begin to discern which recordings were mixed and mastered on dome/cone-based monitors vs. horns. After using the dome/cone-based system for a few months, I notice my listening preferences begin to shift in favor of those recordings mastered on dome/cone-based systems. I pull the monitors and switch to horns, and the reverse happens. Older horns tend to accentuate reverb and delay, which results in a deeper and wider image. When these recordings are played back on domed/cone-based systems they sound rather dull and flat. The reverse is true of those recorded using dome/cone.
Modern recordings made with newer horn or dome/cone systems are not affected in the same way as they were in the past. It is far more difficult to differentiate which type of monitor was used.
Last edited:
I have to admit that I harbor an envy towards those who are so articulate and far more educated than I am when it comes to why they like what they like and how it was recorded and mixed and by which engineer and even the type of speaker that was used in the mixing.. It does however make me feel somewhat inadequate, especially when my wife thinks I know so much about audio, and then I read the posts like the one above and I realize that I don't know squat. But thanks be to my JBL4435's because when I light them up, I get a smile on my face and I say golly gee whiz they sound good.
Hartsfield1
New Member
Lux Man, I'm the one who's envious -wish I had a pair of JBL 4435s. What a great pair of CD horn speakers! Have you ever tried bi-amping them with an LMS?
BMWCCA
Addicted Member
Let me guess, you're one of the audiophiles who think tone-controls or EQ ruin the pathway?
You can easily dumb-down any "revealing" speaker. I used to tell people who complained about the 035ti just to put a square of toilet-paper in front of it and accomplish the same as the t3 crossover upgrade. Or, revolutionary idea, use the tone controls on your pre-amp to tailor the sound to what you want. I've had an EQ in nearly every system for over 40-years. My Soundcraftsmen Pro-Control Four has a "direct" switch which can run a direct path bypassing tone controls and the Pro EQ 44 at the touch of a button. Or I can engage it to compensate for Fletcher-Munson human ear characteristics at low volume.
If you feel the need to change speakers for a different sound, then why not simply use tone controls or an EQ and understand that you can regain your "straight-line" front-end characteristics at the touch of a button? I have over a dozen pair of JBLs and understand they all sound different. I love playing with them to realize each one's potential, and comparing the lesser with the greater systems. I don't believe a mastering engineer ran an un-EQ'd signal from every source, and I don't believe what he hears (or wants) is always the same as what I hear or want a recording to sound like. Some of my favorite recordings are direct to tape or digital with one or two mics. But you don't think the engineer carefully chose those mics for the tone he was looking for? Or the room? And who knows what speakers he was using to hear the results before tweaking the final version?
If you start with the most accurate speaker you can, the world is your oyster. If you limit what you can do with a speaker with a unique (not-flat) voice that is less revealing, you can't possibly have as many choices as you do with the more revealing system. My opinion, of course. And to each their own.
Hartsfield1
New Member
What can I say? You got me figured out. It's true, I don't use tone controls, or even a pre-amp per se. Those are all so passé, don't you think?
My system is rather crude and basic: just a ladder stepped volume control, DAC, and a couple of op-amps. (Cheap and efficient. Eh?) This receives a 24/96 bitstream from a digital mixing console which has upconverted the 16 bit audio files for processing by an array of studio plugins. At this point I can modify the sound in any way I want through multi-band parametric EQs, graphic EQs, noise gates, limiters, compressors, and effects. After which it's passed off to a 24/96 digital crossover that can correct for time and the special EQ needs of Constant Directivity horns, etc.
Unfortunately, that proverbial "button" would have to be truly magical because it would defy the laws of physics. Engineers have known for a very long time that compression drivers and horns have different characteristics from domes. You can't just use a set of tone controls, or an EQ, to make them perform in the same way. If this were true, then you could take any pair of speakers and make them sound identical to any other pair. This explains why JBL (or any other manufacturer) sees the need to make, not only different types of drivers, but enclosures as well. There is no magical all-in-one speaker system that can do all things.
Getting back to my original point -people who enjoy listening to life-like music reproduction (audiophiles?) would benefit from speaker systems that make the majority of the music they love sound as good as possible, within the limits of their listening environment. It is my contention that accuracy (to the average person) is not what they want out of a sound reproduction system. What they really want is for their music to sound good (life-like?) in the subjective way in which they perceive it. For instance, many people that use Audio Karma prefer tubes (valves), which are not as accurate as solid state (in purely scientific and engineering terms) because they find the subtle distortion of envelope delay to be pleasant. It would seem to me that they are more interested in the subjective overall tonality of their system than its accuracy (in an absolute sense). While I don't use tube equipment, I do agree with what they are trying to accomplish.
(Since I brought up 24/96 I would also like to offer a word of caution regarding it. See http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html.)
twiiii
Lunatic Member
JBL has had a storied history for sure. And yes their speakers have been voiced to be on the bright side. But that can be easily corrected. JBL also seems to limit the bass performance of the given speaker rather than let the speaker go into horrible distortion when over driven. They would rather limit the response to a particular speaker to 45 Hz for instance allowing life like levels than compromise the dynamic range by extending the response to 32 hz. Even their DD series the bass response is curtailed to allow full dynamic range. All speaker manufacturers when designing for the consumer market have to make educated guesses as to the balance of the sound spectra and how the speaker will be used in the home environment/ In the professional and commercial world, the parameters are more tightly controlled and the results more easily predictable. And you will have to give JBL credit. They have made many versions of the perfect mouse trap in attempts to make the consumer happy. And they have succeeded for the most part. When you realize most folks buying sound components don't really know what faithful sound reproduction is, its amazing , Klipsch, and JBL are still in demand.
Last edited:
BMWCCA
Addicted Member
I don't disagree with you. But I do find it funny that someone has implemented just such technology and even received a patent for it:
Click the blue text-link for more info. Got to wonder what they use for "reference" speakers?!
I doubt I could explain my 250ti's any better than this, well said! ^
Combined with my WOPL amp, and Conrad Johnson preamp, they are just plain amazing.
Kyluckyman
Well-Known Member
I just bought a used pair of JBL LC310-1 and am very pleased with them. Pushing them is my 80 wpc Yamaha A 760. I have some Kenwoods in the living room and other than those, I have been brand loyal to JBL.
BMWCCA
Addicted Member
Why have Levis remained popular ever since?
They tried to ditch the 501 a few decades ago but thankfully brought them back!