Jbl 4367

[dallasjustice]

Please elaborate!

The peak at (1,0,0) reduced by almost 10db but the out of polarity rear wall "sink" sub caused a null at 35hz. We tried the "sink" at MLP and then again at halfway point between MLP and rear wall(delay rear sub); same result. We also tried an asymmetric XO on rear sub at 45hz and then another one at 30hz. The results were much choppier than the in polarity Welti setup. Other than the peak at 1,0,0, it's very smooth and the peak is easy to EQ. The only problem with this setup is that 1,0,0 peak is made a little louder with subs setup this way. But it's still easy to EQ to flat.

As you know, it's much easier to fix a modal peak than it is to deal with null cancellation between two opposing subs. The only way to fill in the 35hz null would be to delay the rear sub substantially. Uli did the math. It was an unacceptably long delay; not worth it IMO.

It's fun to play with these things. It's like trying to solve a complicated puzzle. Even if a new solution eludes, it's still a good learning experience (euphemism for failure).

Bottom line is the Welti midwall 2 sub setup is in "tall cotton", as we say in Texas. It don't get much better, IME.

 

[Gregadd]

Thanks! The WBF proofreader.

Your well come

 

[bromide]

I just had a marathon subwoofer setup session with Uli yesterday. We tried a couple of exotic sub setups. Turns out the simple Welti 2 sub midwall was the best setup.

Did you look at doing FLO ? Supposedly they can do all that simulated in a computer. I don't think FLO itself is priced too badly (for a guy buying $7500 speakers), but if they have to make a 3D CAD model of every last detail of your room as a pre-req step... that could be expensive. Must be fun to play with, though, and get an idea what works and what doesn't. That's why I thought Keith's use of the Welti method for those too poor to afford modeling was a pretty strong endorsement.

 

[amirm]

Did you look at doing FLO ? Supposedly they can do all that simulated in a computer. I don't think FLO itself is priced too badly (for a guy buying $7500 speakers), but if they have to make a 3D CAD model of every last detail of your room as a pre-req step... that could be expensive. Must be fun to play with, though, and get an idea what works and what doesn't. That's why I thought Keith's use of the Welti method for those too poor to afford modeling was a pretty strong endorsement.

FLO simulations cost $5K or so from what I recall so it is not cheap relative to the cost of Michael's speakers. If you do want to do it Michael, let me know and I will connect you with Keith. The FLO analysis is what was used in our theater to create these simulations I have shown before:

 

[Nyal Mellor]

Did you look at doing FLO ? Supposedly they can do all that simulated in a computer. I don't think FLO itself is priced too badly (for a guy buying $7500 speakers), but if they have to make a 3D CAD model of every last detail of your room as a pre-req step... that could be expensive. Must be fun to play with, though, and get an idea what works and what doesn't. That's why I thought Keith's use of the Welti method for those too poor to afford modeling was a pretty strong endorsement.

You'll be getting the "lite" version of that when we do your low frequency optimization

Single seat rooms, or even single seating row rooms, especially ones that are rectangular or mostly rectangular are pretty straightforward to optimize, or don't even require optimization. Some variation on the Welti placement options with delay and EQ as required normally delivers the goods. Optimization is REALLY useful for multi-row and strangely shaped rooms, or rooms with the seating area placed asymmetrically to the room centerline.

 

[Nyal Mellor]

The peak at (1,0,0) reduced by almost 10db but the out of polarity rear wall "sink" sub caused a null at 35hz. We tried the "sink" at MLP and then again at halfway point between MLP and rear wall(delay rear sub); same result. We also tried an asymmetric XO on rear sub at 45hz and then another one at 30hz. The results were much choppier than the in polarity Welti setup. Other than the peak at 1,0,0, it's very smooth and the peak is easy to EQ. The only problem with this setup is that 1,0,0 peak is made a little louder with subs setup this way. But it's still easy to EQ to flat.

As you know, it's much easier to fix a modal peak than it is to deal with null cancellation between two opposing subs. The only way to fill in the 35hz null would be to delay the rear sub substantially. Uli did the math. It was an unacceptably long delay; not worth it IMO.

It's fun to play with these things. It's like trying to solve a complicated puzzle. Even if a new solution eludes, it's still a good learning experience (euphemism for failure).

Bottom line is the Welti midwall 2 sub setup is in "tall cotton", as we say in Texas. It don't get much better, IME.

Curious as to the cause of the 35Hz null. My understanding of the source/sink method is that the rear is delayed and polarity inverted, therefore the two subs, if identical, should be in full time alignment over their operating range. There shouldn't be any phase cancellation nulls, at least from the subwoofer interaction. Could it be SBIR?

 

[DaveC]

This has always intrigued me...

http://www.spatialaudio.us/black-hole/

 

[bonzo75]

This has always intrigued me...

http://www.spatialaudio.us/black-hole/

Spiritofmusic owns that one.

 

[reverendo]

today I finally had the chance to listen to Michael's system again. he was kind enough to make time, especially because I was pretty curious in regards to the speaker and the resulting changes. the last time that I had been there he still had the YGs and it had been a benchmark experience mainly in regards to how clean LFs could sound like. I'm not a bass-head, but the articulate, precise and DEEP LFs of his system had me realize how much of that I was missing in my listening sessions at home and started an still unsolved itch for an upgrade in speakers. it had also been the only situation in which I felt that an amplifier was actually able to really control the YGs. btw, for what it's worth: I make pretty specific mental and written notes, which helps me immensely even when there is a considerable time between auditions. however, it still continues to be extremely subjective, so ymmv.
my main impressions today where as following:

• significant change in sound stage
• significant change in "sweet spot"
• more than significant change in dynamics
• some change in resolution

I'll try to quickly elaborate on each of these
sound stage with the JBLs (and maybe other changes, although I'd probably attribute them to change of speakers) was wider and significantly deeper. layering and depth was better and so was panning. height was inferior, though.
sweet spot - much wider now. with the YGs I was aware that I couldn't move much without altering the sound stage, which made me a little more tense in my sitting position than today. with the JBLs I felt comfortable to move around more, turn my head more without losing sound stage. this resulted in a physically more relaxed listening session and, in my opinion, will probably make quite a difference in the way music can be appreciated on a daily basis.
dynamics - this was something that I only became conscious of at the end of the listening session. macro dynamic swings were more natural, which might explain why I didn't observe it right away. macro dynamics are very different now than with the YGs. since I don't listen to music loud it isn't about how loud you can play, although they seem to be able to play plenty loud, but how effortless the macro dynamic swings were. on the other hand, micro dynamics weren't as refined as with the YGs, which, in my opinion, might have to do with the next item
resolution - I personally felt that the system lost somewhat in resolution and transparency. there is more immediacy, but it's slightly less refined and clear than I recall. HF decay suffered somewhat. If I were to use a visual analogy, I'd say that some sharpness was gone from the picture. now, this is compared to what I heard last time and in no way means that resolution was lacking. anyone who knows Michael is aware that his path in audio is one of a search for neutrality and faithful reproduction of the source material, not afraid to abandon the trodden path in order to achieve the sound he visualizes.
Last, but no least: coming back home the itch for a small speaker that can deliver better and deeper LFs is back full throttle. there's something that full range does to the whole harmonic spectrum (not only the LFs) that is lacking in my system, especially because I love full-blown Mahler, but I'm guessing that it just might be a matter of physics. at least I know I have a place where I can experience that in spades. thanks again, Michael. I hope to be back soon.

 

[DaveC]

Nice review. I'd look at crossover component and wire quality, this can effect resolution / fine detail in a major way.

 

[dallasjustice]

Thanks Andre! I enjoyed listening with you today. I listened more to Snarky Puppy. We should go see them 5/19 at the Granada.

today I finally had the chance to listen to Michael's system again. he was kind enough to make time, especially because I was pretty curious in regards to the speaker and the resulting changes. the last time that I had been there he still had the YGs and it had been a benchmark experience mainly in regards to how clean LFs could sound like. I'm not a bass-head, but the articulate, precise and DEEP LFs of his system had me realize how much of that I was missing in my listening sessions at home and started an still unsolved itch for an upgrade in speakers. it had also been the only situation in which I felt that an amplifier was actually able to really control the YGs. btw, for what it's worth: I make pretty specific mental and written notes, which helps me immensely even when there is a considerable time between auditions. however, it still continues to be extremely subjective, so ymmv.
my main impressions today where as following:

• significant change in sound stage
• significant change in "sweet spot"
• more than significant change in dynamics
• some change in resolution

I'll try to quickly elaborate on each of these
sound stage with the JBLs (and maybe other changes, although I'd probably attribute them to change of speakers) was wider and significantly deeper. layering and depth was better and so was panning. height was inferior, though.
sweet spot - much wider now. with the YGs I was aware that I couldn't move much without altering the sound stage, which made me a little more tense in my sitting position than today. with the JBLs I felt comfortable to move around more, turn my head more without losing sound stage. this resulted in a physically more relaxed listening session and, in my opinion, will probably make quite a difference in the way music can be appreciated on a daily basis.
dynamics - this was something that I only became conscious of at the end of the listening session. macro dynamic swings were more natural, which might explain why I didn't observe it right away. macro dynamics are very different now than with the YGs. since I don't listen to music loud it isn't about how loud you can play, although they seem to be able to play plenty loud, but how effortless the macro dynamic swings were. on the other hand, micro dynamics weren't as refined as with the YGs, which, in my opinion, might have to do with the next item
resolution - I personally felt that the system lost somewhat in resolution and transparency. there is more immediacy, but it's slightly less refined and clear than I recall. HF decay suffered somewhat. If I were to use a visual analogy, I'd say that some sharpness was gone from the picture. now, this is compared to what I heard last time and in no way means that resolution was lacking. anyone who knows Michael is aware that his path in audio is one of a search for neutrality and faithful reproduction of the source material, not afraid to abandon the trodden path in order to achieve the sound he visualizes.
Last, but no least: coming back home the itch for a small speaker that can deliver better and deeper LFs is back full throttle. there's something that full range does to the whole harmonic spectrum (not only the LFs) that is lacking in my system, especially because I love full-blown Mahler, but I'm guessing that it just might be a matter of physics. at least I know I have a place where I can experience that in spades. thanks again, Michael. I hope to be back soon.

 

[Folsom]

Nice review. I'd look at crossover component and wire quality, this can effect resolution / fine detail in a major way.

This sounds exactly like the problem with the resolution.

 

[dallasjustice]

This sounds exactly like the problem with the resolution.

There's no "problem" with the JBL's resolution. IMO, the resolution impression Andre refers to is a common impression people get listening to YGs. Since I owned the YGs and listened to them and measured them for four years I feel comfortable with Andre's auditory memory.

The YG Anat speaker and the YG Sonja (same as my YG anat III) always exhibit an off axis flare at 5.5khz.

To a casual first time listener, this anomaly will sound like the speaker is highly detailed. Over time, this anomaly can sound very harsh with horns and electronic rock music. Ultimately, it's not a good thing.

As I've stated before many times, all speakers are a collection of compromises. In this case, I strongly feel that the JBLs are superior speakers to any other I've owned. This includes the YG Anat III and the Vivid Giya G3.

 

[reverendo]

There's no "problem" with the JBL's resolution. IMO, the resolution impression Andre refers to is a common impression people get listening to YGs. Since I owned the YGs and listened to them and measured them for four years I feel comfortable with Andre's auditory memory.

The YG Anat speaker and the YG Sonja (same as my YG anat III) always exhibit an off axis flare at 5.5khz. View attachment 26319

To a casual first time listener, this anomaly will sound like the speaker is highly detailed. Over time, this anomaly can sound very harsh with horns and electronic rock music. Ultimately, it's not a good thing.

As I've stated before many times, all speakers are a collection of compromises. In this case, I strongly feel that the JBLs are superior speakers to any other I've owned. This includes the YG Anat III and the Vivid Giya G3.

That would make a lot of sense. And even comparing casual listening experiences I still would prefer the JBLs because of the aforementioned subjective differences, especially the effect the widened sweet spot had.

 

[DaveC]

Well, with JBL being a "pro" brand they may not use the best quality xo parts and wire and it might be worth looking into and experimenting with a bit. OTOH, I'd expect brands like YG and Vivid to use premium parts. This can make a massive difference in detail. It's true emphasized treble can be heard as detail but truncated reverb trails and fine detail that is just missing mean detail is being smoothed out, which is what lower quality wire and caps will do inside a speaker. Also, copper interconnect cables will forever limit your system, you'll never hear all the detail...

 

[Rodney Gold]

vivid use a generic van den hul wire and very average X/over parts..

According to our friend blizzard.....their x/overs were rubbish

 

[dallasjustice]

I posted a picture of the crossover in #24. Here it is again for all you parts jockeys.

 

[DaveC]

Very large gains in resolution could be made with improved xos and wire. Just replacing the steel push-connectors with a soldered connection is very audible. You could try a replacing a couple of series caps to the compression driver with Jupiter copper foil caps and see what you think... if you like the results I'd consider building external xos for them.

 

[dallasjustice]

Very large gains in resolution could be made with improved xos and wire. Just replacing the steel push-connectors with a soldered connection is very audible. You could try a replacing a couple of series caps to the compression driver with Jupiter copper foil caps and see what you think... if you like the results I'd consider building external xos for them.

How would you know the optimal EQ, crossover frequency and slope needed for best power response measured in an anechoic chamber?

 

[DaveC]

How would you know the optimal EQ, crossover frequency and slope needed for best power response measured in an anechoic chamber?

I wouldn't redesign the xo, just upgrade parts... Jupiter copper caps, foil inductors and Mills resistors. UPOCC silver or silver/gold alloy wire. Furutech binding posts, maybe Neutrik speakons to go from the external xo to the speaker cabinet.

I built these for a friend's AMT Rock Monitors with the big ESS Heil tweeters several years ago, the improvement over stock xos was massive. Yes, the middle inductor should be on it's side... The caps are Clarity ESA, more budget friendly vs the Jupiter copper caps.