JBL 4367 Review (was M2 'review')

[Purité Audio]

AJ so what is the 'ideal' solution?
Keith.

 

[amirm]

Oh and if your example above is mono bass, that's great for movies and Bieber. It won't cut it for Classical, Jazz or other acoustic music, sorry. YMMV.

Based on what volume of data? You have listening test results that show mono versus stereo for 80 Hz crossover?

 

[amirm]

No I want you to tell me how multisub EQ fixes nulls at 150Hz, 200Hz, 250Hz, 300Hz, 350Hz, 400Hz, etc etc?

Ok the answer: It CANNOT

No, the answer is that you are not reading the information provided to you. Tell me how you got a "null" at 400 Hz. Do you know the concept of modal density? How about the differential in what your left and right ear hear at those frequencies versus a single mic measurement? And do you listen in mono or stereo? You don't think the nulls from speaker don't remain nulls when the other is playing?

And this from AES paper I linked to earlier: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15154

"As a final note, there has been much controversy related to whether room corrections should attempt to equalize the loudspeaker/room above the room transition frequency (about 300 Hz). These experimental results provide evidence that broadband loudspeaker/room equalization above the room transition frequency can yield positive benefits, even when the directivity of the loudspeaker is not smooth or constant. In these tests, both preference and spectral balance ratings improved by filling in the 3 kHz dip in the loudspeaker’s sound power response."

There is a lot to this topic than superficial fixation with what a single microphone may show.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ so what is the 'ideal' solution?
Keith.

I don't know about "ideal", but check out the 2 links in my response to Frantz for one possibility.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Tell me how you got a "null" at 400 Hz. Do you know the concept of modal density?

Yes, learned it from this guy.
His "transition" area starts in around the 500hz area

Where you can clearly see peaks/nulls in a real room, as anyone who measures in real rooms can attest to, especially acoustically small ones.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Based on what?

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7868
http://www.akustinenseura.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/goldberg.pdf
And heaven forbid injecting 6db less power at LF....with the exact same onset response. No, let's create energy, then turn it into heat. Yay.
Ethan, you use one sub with "bass traps" right? Are you familiar with >LINK lateralisation?< Or the work of this guy:

 

[amirm]

Yes, learned it from this guy.
His "transition" area starts in around the 500hz area

No it starts around 200 Hz. It ends around 400 Hz. The actual range depends on room size.

Where you can clearly see peaks/nulls in a real room, as anyone who measures in real rooms can attest to, especially acoustically small ones.

They are dips, not nulls. Again this measurement is for a single microphone, not what two ears and a brain, hear.

It is also not corrected with EQ. This is post EQ with psychoacoustically aware measurement:

 

[amirm]

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7868
http://www.akustinenseura.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/goldberg.pdf
And heaven forbid injecting 6db less power at LF....with the exact same onset response. No, let's create energy, then turn it into heat. Yay.
Ethan, you use one sub with "bass traps" right? Are you familiar with >LINK lateralisation?< Or the work of this guy:

Where in those links it backs this statement you made: "Oh and if your example above is mono bass, that's great for movies and Bieber. It won't cut it for Classical, Jazz or other acoustic music, sorry. YMMV."

Where is the survey and listening test results for Classical, Jazz and other acoustic music that when you used summed mono below 80 Hz, it matters. You made sweeping statement about content. Do you have back up for that? If they are in your links, then quote them. What you are showing in JJ's slide does not. "Detecting" localization is not the same as user preference over smoother response.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Amir,

I would suggest you (and everyone else) read this free paper:
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160327/17839.pdf
By page 12 there are dozens of references and graphs showing room issues to 500hz and what EQ can and cannot do.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

"Detecting" localization is not the same as user preference over smoother response.

Lateralization. Please read what he wrote a bit more carefully and yes, the link is there to the AES paper.
Only your strawman claims smoother response isn't preferred.

 

[dallasjustice]

According to your paper, stereo bass "lateralization" can be identified down to 20hz. Of course, it may be an error down to 20hz. But let's assume down to 35hz. The only solution for that is stereo bass down to that frequency.

AJ, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe stereo bass is better or you believe multiple mono subs in strategic positions. I get the feeling you have an opinion but you a little reticent to let out. I'm okay with that. I've tried stereo subs and mono Welti in my room. The mono sub approach is best. It's not even close, IMO.

AJ so what is the 'ideal' solution?
Keith.

Apparently, stereo subs are the answer for AJ so he can identify "lateralization" down to 20hz.

Lateralization. Please read what he wrote a bit more carefully and yes, the link is there to the AES paper.
Only your strawman claims smoother response isn't preferred.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

According to your paper, stereo bass "lateralization" can be identified down to 20hz. Of course, it may be an error down to 20hz.

Yes, just like the authors indicated.

But let's assume down to 35hz. The only solution for that is stereo bass down to that frequency.

No need to assume, here, I'll quote for brevity:

and so we do conclude that lateralisation is possible at frequencies as low as 31.5 Hz (albeit marginal) and 40 Hz.

Am I not being clear when I say stereo, not mono down to 40-50hz?

Apparently, stereo subs are the answer for AJ so he can identify "lateralization" down to 20hz.

Nope, not my position. Stereo to 40-50hz is fine. Using variable gradients, so power can be controlled, instead of being wasted. Why your objection to such an approach? Have you experimented with and not liked it, or..???

AJ, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe stereo bass is better or you believe multiple mono subs in strategic positions. I get the feeling you have an opinion but you a little reticent to let out. I'm okay with that. I've tried stereo subs and mono Welti in my room. The mono sub approach is best. It's not even close, IMO.

Michael, my apologies if I wasn't clear. I use multi-subs to 40-50hz, mono. More output, less distortion, spatial averaging. I use non-mono i.e. stereo above 40-50hz, for my preferences, which include recordings with inter-aural phase differences, i.e. "stereo" content, all the way down such as classical jazz etc. just like I linked.
I make no claim, this might be preferred by you or others. Yes, I am a bit reticent to get into the decorrelated "wide" subs ala Dr Griesinger, as we are having difficulty enough here with just this base stuff! Or maybe bass.
No need to drag things off the really deep end imo.

cheers

AJ

 

[AJ Soundfield]

So Michael, I'm guessing you like the M...4367. You know, the speaker featured in this "review".
What did you think of my explanation why your guest may have thought them having less "resolution" than the YGs (assuming you weren't accepting the WBF "Engineers" reasons like "steel sound" and no magic XO parts, etc)?

cheers,

AJ

 

[dallasjustice]

I don't recall what you said.

I lived with the YG anat III for almost four years. I can't explain my friend's one year old auditory memory. I was using different DSP and target curve at the time. I also know the YG has a nasty off axis flare at 5.5khz which many new listeners think sound like more resolution.

I know my friend prefers the $15,000 JBLs over the $76,000 YGs. I agree with him. It's a superior speaker. It's also better than the vivid Giya G3, which is $40,000.

The reviewer in this review strikes me as your typical clueless reviewer with a joke room.

So Michael, I'm guessing you like the M...4367. You know, the speaker featured in this "review".
What did you think of my explanation why your guest may have thought them having less "resolution" than the YGs (assuming you weren't accepting the WBF "Engineers" reasons like "steel sound" and no magic XO parts, etc)?

cheers,

AJ

 

[amirm]

Amir,

I would suggest you (and everyone else) read this free paper:
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160327/17839.pdf
By page 12 there are dozens of references and graphs showing room issues to 500hz and what EQ can and cannot do.

Dr. Toole is a friend, colleague and teacher. He and I are joined at the hip in this domain. Should you find any divergence between what I say and what he says, it is a mistake .

To wit, this paper talks about the sins of X-curve. It is a story of using a good tool, in a completely wrong manner. As with Dr. Toole, I too have been working to increase awareness of this problem. See the article I just uploaded here: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/validity-of-x-curve-for-cinema-sound.204/. I had the privilege of hearing from Dr. Toole after he read it in WSR magazine stating how he was in agreement with it and was happy that I had written it.

Bottom line remains: EQ is a powerful tool to optimize in-room speaker response. Without it, you simply cannot have proper sound in your room. It can't be done.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I don't recall what you said.

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jbl-m2-review.190/page-6#post-4984

I lived with the YG anat III for almost four years. I can't explain my friend's one year old auditory memory. I was using different DSP and target curve at the time. I also know the YG has a nasty off axis flare at 5.5khz which many new listeners think sound like more resolution.
I know my friend prefers the $15,000 JBLs over the $76,000 YGs. I agree with him. It's a superior speaker. It's also better than the vivid Giya G3, which is $40,000.

Hmmm the post I linked above was this one http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18741-Jbl-4367&p=386721&viewfull=1#post386721 from 3/18/16

The reviewer in this review strikes me as your typical clueless reviewer with a joke room.[/QUOTE
I see nothing wrong with that room at all or any reason a well designed speaker shouldn't sound very good in there. Perhaps only objection would be the equipment stand, which should be lower.

If anything, I think JBL should have made them a bit taller, like the M2

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Dr. Toole is a friend, colleague and teacher.

Congrats. The great thing is, anyone can read that paper I linked and see all the graphs and where real in room issues begin.
Love Tooles quote the EQ can't fix speaker directivity. Yes, 100% agree!!!

Bottom line remains: EQ is a powerful tool to optimize in-room speaker response.

100% Agree. Now if we could just find someone who doesn't...

cheers,

AJ

 

[dallasjustice]

 

[dallasjustice]

The above is 1/12 per octave smoothed logsweep with Acourate filters to just JBL 4367 speakers; no subs here. The logsweep was only to 20khz. Pretty scary flat 6khz-20khz! The step is pretty vertical which shows the time domain with some DSP can make these two way uglies very coherent.

 

[NorthSky]

That 32Hz hole needs to be fixed. ...How?