JBL Conceal C62 Invisible Speaker Review

[amirm]

Even when fitted in one of its back boxes an Amina measures and sounds nothing like its intended to unless it is flush with a drywall surface, filled correctly all around the edges and then skimmed over with 2mm of compound.

I did that in testing this JBL. I used wide tape (blue painter's) to create a very gradual surface to the baffle in about 6 to 8 inches (with backing foam). As to skim coat, if it is a sacrificial sample, we could do that as well.

These products take incredible amount of work and motivation to test them. This one as I mentioned in the review, actually got measured twice. I test them because it would be good to discover the good from bad among the speakers in the class.

 

[amirm]

I really couldn't give a dang what some idiot with far more money than sense does. He's spent a fortune on that room and
ended up with some decidedly second rate sound quality.

Based on whose standard? People want just some surround sound to enjoy a movie. Anyone can appreciate sounds coming from behind them or the ambiance that a multi-channel system can create. In contrast, many people can't tell the flaws in the reproduction system of any kind. Note that in every one our installs we deploy DSP/EQ and measurements to get the optimal sound we can. With Amina speakers, we used limiters in crown amps to protect them as well. You don't want one of these speakers to die while maliciously mounted in the wall!

Harman research shows that in multi-channel, we are much less sensitive to frequency response errors which benefits these types of installations.

All of these projects are finished in class 5 drywall. No way you want to go through that expense to build a perfectly smooth wall and then punch holes in it left and right to stick in-wall speakers. In that living room we had to deploy really high-end motion detectors and such that were almost invisible as well.

As I noted, even in our own living room I want to install invisible speakers for the rear channel. Absence that, we are living with just the front speakers. Not ideal at all.

 

[Mikig]

I can't understand all this fuss over this speaker. we are not talking about a critical listening sample.

Amirm has reviewed and measured a speaker, which I would define for "aesthetic" use, particular, for particular installations, which will be used in environments different from those that we audio lovers are used to handling.

These speakers will go into environments where the final aesthetics, therefore their "physical non-presence" counts more surely than the sound performance.

Do you know how many people, including my lady don't like to see speakers, amplifiers, decoders, remote controls, cables, subwoofers around the living room??!!

 

[Mr. Widget]

My comment was on the measured performance of the reviewed speaker. Hidden or not, it is garbage.

With such certainty, I urge you to never buy one.

 

[Thomas_A]

With such certainty, I urge you to never buy one.

Not until such a speaker would show something that mimics HiFi.

 

[Mr. Widget]

As I noted, even in our own living room I want to install invisible speakers for the rear channel. Absence that, we are living with just the front speakers. Not ideal at all.

I missed this previously.
We have used thy type of speaker for in-ceiling and in-wall surrounds on numerous projects. They can work surprisingly well in this application. Another interesting feature is that due to their nearly perfectly hemispheric dispersion, they are extremely difficult to localize.

This said, I would strongly urge you to try out the competition as well. These are probably not the best example in this category.

 

[pablolie]

Invisible or not, this speaker is garbage. It should be possible to get much better result for a built-in speaker.

I don't think any of the in-wall or in-ceiling stuff pretend to be the greatest in audiophile quality - it's more of a "i hate to see this sh*t anywhere in my room" proposition. Just like some people simply listen off their smartphone speakers. If you don't like the concept, it' not for you nor your priorities, and just scroll away.

I do it all tthe time when I know a product is not designed to fit my priorities - it's a waste of time to write a post claiming it should, since you're not in the target group.

 

[Ron Texas]

I have quite a few built in speakers in my house which are not hooked up to any source. Maybe it would be aesthetically better if they weren't there at all.
Thank you for another great review @amirm

 

[amirm]

This said, I would strongly urge you to try out the competition as well. These are probably not the best example in this category.

I have one more in the queue and just asked my folks if we can source others to test. For now, the C62 meets the minimum bar for me in this application.

 

[thewas]

I don't think any of the in-wall or in-ceiling stuff pretend to be the greatest in audiophile quality - it's more of a "i hate to see this sh*t anywhere in my room" proposition. Just like some people simply listen off their smartphone speakers. If you don't like the concept, it' not for you nor your priorities, and just scroll away.

While generally what you write is true there exist few exceptions like for example

Source and more: https://assets.kef.com/pdf_doc/ci/Ci5160RLM-THX-info-sheet-EN-20231010-V2.pdf

 

[RobL]

Sonance’s version of these looks to measure better but are considerably more expensive.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well if a high end living room has these speakers, it sure is not going to have high end sound. I guess there is a market, but sound quality must be at best 5th on the list of important qualities. A speaker for someone who merely cares about hearing something, but not much else in regards to sound. Yuck!

 

[Dialectic]

I had a client who paid for a pair of Steinway Lyngdorf in-walls with custom boundary woofers. By every objective and subjective measure they were significantly superior to any invisible speaker. We were able to hide the right channel behind a fabric panel. The subs were concealed in the cabinetry of the room, but the left channel was a color matched in-wall speaker grille.

I was called back to make the system sound "better" after the interior designer fixed the speakers. The designer placed a very large framed piece of artwork with glass on top of the speaker. There was nothing I could do to "fix" it.

Had we just gone with lower cost and lower performing invisible speakers, the results would have been better. Not everyone is willing to see speakers or even a speaker grille on their walls.

You've described a good reason not to let interior designers in your house.

Another good reason is that they almost invariably steer you towards trendy furnishings that will look silly in five years, at which time you'll feel compelled by your status anxiety to pay for their business again.

 

[MatthewS]

I have one more in the queue and just asked my folks if we can source others to test. For now, the C62 meets the minimum bar for me in this application.

C86?

 

[IamJF]

For what they are ... I expeted to be way worse! it's not that easy to excite a surface and get a useful frequency response without resonances. (what they also didn't achieve but it coule be way worse. With some EQ this could be enjoyable for watching TV.
On the other side ... for watching TV a soundbar can do the job. That would be way more convenient and cheaper and easier to upgrade.

As suround speakers these are probably a more serious option. The lack of hf would be less of a problem, the ultra wide radiation is perfect for that and when sitting close SPL level is probably ok.

It's a tool for architects, not for home cinema installer ;-)

 

[simnick]

C86?

C83

 

[GXAlan]

As I noted, even in our own living room I want to install invisible speakers for the rear channel. Absence that, we are living with just the front speakers. Not ideal at all.

Will 4” cubes like the Meyer MM4XP be non-intrusive enough? They come in white or black (though you can paint match to sample).

What I wonder is if I can just use them to reflect off the wall like the Ultra Reflex in reverse.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I did that in testing this JBL. I used wide tape (blue painter's) to create a very gradual surface to the baffle in about 6 to 8 inches (with backing foam). As to skim coat, if it is a sacrificial sample, we could do that as well.

These products take incredible amount of work and motivation to test them. This one as I mentioned in the review, actually got measured twice. I test them because it would be good to discover the good from bad among the speakers in the class.

Would you care to answer how we are able to assess good or bad from the measurements without the plaster layer and paint on top..
You previously claimed the frequency response was not going to change with 2 mm. top layer / paint. -Why is that?

Based on whose standard? People want just some surround sound to enjoy a movie. Anyone can appreciate sounds coming from behind them or the ambiance that a multi-channel system can create. In contrast, many people can't tell the flaws in the reproduction system of any kind. Note that in every one our installs we deploy DSP/EQ and measurements to get the optimal sound we can. With Amina speakers, we used limiters in crown amps to protect them as well. You don't want one of these speakers to die while maliciously mounted in the wall!

Harman research shows that in multi-channel, we are much less sensitive to frequency response errors which benefits these types of installations.

All of these projects are finished in class 5 drywall. No way you want to go through that expense to build a perfectly smooth wall and then punch holes in it left and right to stick in-wall speakers. In that living room we had to deploy really high-end motion detectors and such that were almost invisible as well.

As I noted, even in our own living room I want to install invisible speakers for the rear channel. Absence that, we are living with just the front speakers. Not ideal at all.

That position goes against what I think to be an important rule of thumb IR to surround sound;

You obviously want close to the same tonality between all your speakers in a surround setup. Else the immersion can be destroyed quickly.

If you want invisible sound though, huge compromises must be accepted.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Seems like the (much less expensive) approach of a transducer and a piece of -- well, pretty much anything (typically suspension ceiling material) -- is cheaper and might even yield better results(?). I think drywall will work, too. I am just sayin'.

You know... this kind of thing.

I didn't watch the video but I guess it's one of those transducers you can glue or mount upon flat surfaces?

I have a couple of those. The sound varies extremely compared to what it is mounted to/uses as membrane. Not surprising. I can't imagine using it for anything remotely useful other than a gimmick. I admit I had much fun trying out different materials and surfaces.

 

[amirm]

That position goes against what I think to be an important rule of thumb IR to surround sound;

You obviously want close to the same tonality between all your speakers in a surround setup. Else the immersion can be destroyed quickly.

Destroyed? No way. Put even the crappiest speaker behind you and have it make a sound. You are claiming you wouldn't then think there is some sound behind you?

No one here is talking about building the ideal system. That would have the best fidelity and be invisible. We can't have that. A speaker like what is being reviewed like this is going to have compromised performance. Question is, how much does it matter in surround duty. Here are the research results I referred to in my post:

Olive, Devantier & Hess,” Comparison of loudspeaker-room equalization preference for
multichannel, stereo, and mono reproductions: Are listeners more discriminating in mono?”
AES, Convention, Munich (May 2008)

The No EQ system which has the worst frequency response errors was accepted to be almost the same as all the other versions with correct response in multichannel (black). They rated it lower in stereo and then much lower in mono showing that we are much more forgiving of response errors in multichannel systems.

The explanation here is is easy to intuit: we get so lost int he beauty of surround systems that we almost forget frequency response errors. In other words, it is contrary to what you claim.