Thanks Terry. I love these mega comparisons. Due to some psycho COVID purchases and my inability to pass on an open box discount I decided to sell off some things. Dynaudios Evoke 20s consequently have left the building. Next on the chopping block are the JBL HDI 1600s and a tube amplifier. I have been running them together prior to the amp buyer picking up his purchase, and I continue to be impressed by the HDI 1600s. I may have to reconsider that parting of the ways. I'm sure you will ferret out all it's little foibles and shortcomings but they do it for me. I must not be alone. Before the Evokes were finally purchased, I had several people want to trade, confessing that already had three or four pair of speakers and just couldn't pull the trigger on another pair. heh.
Thank you for the review Terry i think this is gonna be my next speakers or Axiom M5HP!!!! Take also into consideration (of course if its possible) a review for Axiom M5HP i heard a very nice things for these speakers!!!Are made in Canada!!
@@crk140 these are amazing speakers but unfortunately i have to pay an extra serious amount for the customs too !! In the other hand the EU has an arrangement with Canada and we dont pay for customs for products that are made in Canada.But thank you for the recommendation!!!
Thanks Terry…..I'm with you…give me more bass….and tone-down the brightness. Don't know what the sensitivity is on The JBL's, but maybe a 300B tube amp could tweak them into a more pleasant listening experience and less "monitor"-like.
@@SinusPrimus you kind do really I know some machines approximate it but of course it’s not exactly the same. The same as a chamber is not the same as something like Jupiter than Dynaudio have. Either way it’s all just tools that mean something but never everything
Following Through on my commitment Terry, I've listen to the review, and was actually intrigued for first 8 minutes. Then, as I expected from a Studio (in this case passove) monitor speaker the sound as flat as in no depth and one dimensional imaging. Most studio monitors are designed to be near field listening, in order for the mastering engineer to get an accurate reproduction without room effects. As you masterfully explained, a flat curved doesn't necessarily translate into a 'Perfect speaker'. Thanks Terry.
I like the reviews without all the fluff. Enough information to continue researching the item but not those bloated audiophile words and going on an on about nonsense trying to describe a sound with subtle airy undertones and a slight crispness on the finish
excellent review! you mentioned how linear the jbl 4309 are, similar to the kef ls50 metas. trying to decide between those 2...perhaps the kef have a bit more of detail and offer a deeper, taller, wider soundstage?? or is it the other way around?
I just sold my pair of JBL 4365s that were too large for our living room, large and extremely heavy. But I miss their sound.Which makes me very interested in this model. I happen to own a sub as well. But what’d be the ideal amp I wonder? The 4365 sounded great with an old Linn 2250.
I think it shows the challenge of building a passive crossover factoring in frequency level and phase and the balancing act between them small dips in the response you won't hear anyway so its not the end of the world
Great review! To get a little more low end out of them try a parasound amplifier...like a JC5! Hegel top H590 would work too but is overkill. Maybe a Naim Supernait 3 or some Audionet amps.
You should be driving the JBL’s with a high current amplifier with at least 300 W RMS minimum, in my studio they would be driven by a professional power amplifier , LAB Gruppen probably, with 500w capability so that the amplifier is never stressed, in a studio the dynamics are extreme compared to finished mixed and mastered tracks.
They are rated to 150 watts at 4 ohms - the amp I used is rated to 150w at 8 ohms and 290 @ 4 - with 50 amps output current, its got plenty of minerals
0:36 What is the 4th speaker from the left? Nice to see two of them have ribbon tweeters. Like I said earlier, I look forward to the Quad Z2 review (far left), which I own, and hearing how it compares to the others in its price range. It's designed by the same guy (Peter Comeau) responsible for the Wharfedale Evo 4.2, so I'm betting it finishes at or near the top of the group.
In the review, you asked 'what is a Studio Monitor?" While I agree with your assertion that one characteristic is a neutral and flat response. But as Mr. Rivera commented one of the critical features is near-field presentation. I'm somewhat surprised that JBL proposes a minimum spacing of 6'. Of course what part of a studio is important. Near the mixing board, there isn't room, in most studios, for 6' spacing, especially for multi-track review. In the usually separate reviewing space, a more 'consumer' system with more space and often different sets of speakers are utilized. This is still technically in the 'studio.' I still have a pair of L300s but my more than a dozen 45xx from the '60-70s are gone. I don't think that i'm in the market for them, but I'll go find some to listen to and who knows... Cheers. d - From San Francisco.
I think the 6 ft minimum is in regards to keeping them without toe in until they are further apart. This is likely due to time alignment with the horn. Most horns have a minimum distance required for alignment. If you listen to them without toe in you can be closer. The “ideal” near field spacing is regularly stated as 67.5” in a studio environment, with the listener in slightly closer than 67.5”
I'd like to see the off axis response because compression horns generally narrow the dispersion angle. Therefore, if the on axis response is balanced, the off axis can be expected to be extremely bass heavy. This can be a significant problem anywhere near walls. It's a design that is OK for open air PA because the dispersed bass just keeps radiating out side and away from the audience area. It isn't too bad in an auditorium because there is distance for dispersion and possibly room treatment as well. It's a pathetic design in a small untreated room though. It doesn't look at all like a studio monitor, but rather a typical PA design. You have to be careful with this type of design. I had a pair very much like that, designed to be used as either pole mounted mains or stage wedges. As stage wedges, without EQ they were OK for the performers who's ears were on axis, but most of the bass power radiated under, over and around them, only to bounce off the stage surfaces and out into the audience which meant that whenever they were loud enough to be useful to the performers, they completely destroyed the house sound with overwhelming muddy bass. The answer to the house sound problem was EQ but this made the stage sound tinny and metallic. So there was absolutely no solution but to replace them with something that had a more tonally balanced dispersion pattern. You might suggest stage treatment but that is not a solution, it's an after the horse has bolted Band-Aid. Once the sound is out there, you can't take it back, you can only reduce it through absorption or dispersion, which is not actually fixing the problem as it still exists. OK you haven't got that particular situation, I just use it as an example of how shit that type of design can be. Most people buying cheap speakers, would not have acoustically treated rooms, probably just common dry wall (which is poor). This is why I want to see if the off axis response, is as bad as the design suggests that it may well be? I've been in HiFi over 40 years, in PA over 30 years and never seen a good small room implementation of this type of design. The whole point of compression drivers is to get efficient high power transfer from the tweeter driver into the tiny mass of air in contact with it's small light weight diaphragm. While that is needed at the high power levels of PA, it is just not needed at domestic power levels. A dome tweeter is more than adequate and gives a much smoother dispersion pattern. One of the absolute best budget speakers in recent years is the Andrew Jones designed Elac Debut series. I don't own a pair & have no stake in them, just suggesting they would most likely be a better bet. Your measurement graph is not anechoic, so not a valid comparison with ones that are.
@@ColocasiaCorm Not an Audiophile, I am nowhere near that kind of budget. I am speaking from 30 + years studying audio engineering texts and articles, managing and maintaining an auditorium PA, trying things out, measuring results & seeing what works and what doesn't. You know, the difference between a technician and an engineer is that the engineer does applied science. So, that means measuring and analysing data, to optimise systems. My training is as an analyst, that's what I do. So, your just plain jumping to wrong conclusions John.
Studio monitors are supposed to be designed for flat response and near field analysis of your music mix downs and mastering. I find studio monitors also serve well as speakers although you might want an EQ or a subwoofer with them depending on the monitor.
its from about 300hz that the room starts to dominate, they are not all exactly the same but close because the room dimensions and speaker placement matters 90%
We had a 1st gen Echo in our master bathroom for listening to music in the morning ru-vid.comUgkxABghAEkaIDGZfHRBH3D3rBrlraNmnC71 and while in the shower. I didn't realize how tinny and awful the sound output on the original Echo was until we replaced it with the Studio. It was a sonic upgrade far beyond what I was expecting. Just wow. I love it because it's like having speakers IN the shower. My friend likes it because the music is so loud that she can no longer hear me singing. So that's a win-win.
No sorry not looked at anything from Neumann. They popped up first when I did a Google search for studio monitor speaker that's only reason I used them as an example
These speakers give you what you feed them. Extremely accurate and neutral as a Studio Monitor should be. I personally believe they are the best because I want sound to be reproduced as it was intended. I think HIFI has gone in all kinds of directions.One reason is because not many have seen this caliber of accurate reproduction and the other reason is because everyone wants a different flavor of sound.
The cabinet dimensions are being dictated by that "bossy" compression driver's wave guide, and those woofers are going to feel so small they're going need counselling for an inferiority complex from a certified psychologist
I reckon EVERY speaker should HIDE imperfections..... we'd all be happy.... Cost us all a lot less... Conundrum! (Not active? Sure there's crap designs due to internal amp designs, but so can be crap external amps too.... Conundrum! $1700 ?? 6.5"? lol)
Only in the bass and that is the same situation as every room - except no-one shows you those measurements - the truth. Even with the rooms effects being prominent there are still clear differences.
I want to get some new speakers for a 2 channel stereo setup. I was considering the newly released classic JBL L100 12" floor standing or would you suggest that the 4309 which are part of the synthesis line would be a better fit? Thanks so much!
nice review, well done, too bad the darn things are $2k, clearly JBL is jacking up the $$$ in hopes that the name will help in ripping off anyone dumb enough to actually buy bookshelf's for the same price that anyone could get great towers for, hmmm noooo thanks! jbl, smh
Appearance wise I am sorry to say Typically JBL look cheap as chips shinny plastic horn and two lower ports cheap black plastic frequency adjustment knob and lastly the speaker terminals rubbish..JBL stands for Just Buy a Lemon 🍋
@@csaracho2009 I can swear in English just fine and that is what this comment from you deserves. But just in case ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LNs1zmBlhok.html
