JBL 4349 Review (Studio Monitor Speaker)

[YSC]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the JBL 4349 2-way Studio Monitor (passive). All of you were too cheap to buy one so I had to do it myself. Out of my own money no less! Luckily I got a discount from the retail cost of US $7,500 for a pair.

Note: our company, Madrona Digital, is a dealer for Haman, parent company of JBL. So feel free to read as much bias as you like into the following review.

The 4349 has the familiar look of "giant studio bookshelf" of the past:

View attachment 125315

The walnut finish though makes it more suitable for domestic use especially if you leave the woofer grill on (I took mine off for all of my testing as you see above). Typical of many Pro products there are a couple of trim controls but they only act on the tweeter. Response will be shown in the measurement section. The main measurements are with the dip switches at 0 dB setting.

As you can see above, this thing is not small. It is also not light. It took us to lug it around and with just the ports as handles, it was not easy!

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I performed over 1400 measurement which resulted in error rate of less than 1% until 10 kHz where the error started to linearly climb. So don't go by micro detail of the response in that region.

Testing temperature was around 69 degrees F.

Reference axis for measurements was the center of the tweeter (by eye). Grill was not used in either measurements or listening tests.

Measurements are compliant with latest speaker research into what can predict the speaker preference and is standardized in CEA/CTA-2034 ANSI specifications. Likewise listening tests are performed per research that shows mono listening is much more revealing of differences between speakers than stereo or multichannel.

JBL 4349 Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 125316

I must say, I did not at all expect this kind of response from any product coming out of Harman. The dip at the crossover? I finished the measurements late at night and was miserable till I listened to the speaker today. Clearly a shelving boost is implemented for the tweeter. Fortunately if you turn the dip switches to -1, you should be able to knock that down:

View attachment 125317

The big trough occurs in my measurement "lab" when the mic is aligned with tweeter axis. I moved the mic down to the logo between the tweeter and woofer and the dip shrank to what you see in the spin data. So ignore that.

Back to crossover issue, here is our near-field measurement:

View attachment 125318

Looks to me like the woofer response is drooping too much before the tweeter gives it a hand and hence the dip there. Not sure if the tweeter could handle the load there. There are also a couple of port resonances that interfere with the response.

Our early window response is similar to on-axis which bodes well for ability to EQ:

View attachment 125319

The dip gets worse with floor and ceiling reflections. I am lucky in having a super thick carpet (4 inches or so) and tall ceilings.

Edit: forgot the PIR graph:

View attachment 125346

The star of the show is the tweeter and its directivity:

View attachment 125320


View attachment 125321

Have we seen anything this pretty? It looks textbook correct. Shame about the crossover dip before it.

Vertically, you are better off being at or below tweeter axis. I sat below it for listening tests:

View attachment 125322

An excellent supporting cast is the ultra low distortion in bass:

View attachment 125323

This thing is as good as many excellent headphones at 86 dBSPL as far as distortion!

View attachment 125324

Strange though to see the tweeter complain at higher amplitudes.

Waterfall shows some resonances due to the port:

View attachment 125325

I felt the cabinet during music and it was solid as a rock so these are acoustic ones.

Finally, impedance is substantially higher than typical 2-way speaker at 8+ ohm:

View attachment 125326

JBL 4349 Listening Tests
I must say I was in bad, bad mood before listening tests started. Had the bad measurements on top of killing myself dragging this speaker up to second floor where my listening test is. Turned on the music and wow, there was hardly much to complain about! Speaker was highly efficient and was able to pump out dynamics that were startling at times. There was a bit of brightness despite me sitting lower than the treble so I dialed in the dip switches to -1 and -1. Standing up I could hear more highs but it would be tricky to balance the clarity I was hearing versus increase high frequency energy.

I wanted to see the effect of that crossover dip so dialed in an EQ for it:

View attachment 125327

As with headphones, I could here a slight opening up of the sound and more forward/pleasant representation of female vocals I was listening to. Overall effect though was small due to the bandwidth being low (1 kHz or so). The eye was bleeding due to the graphs far more than the ear seemed to care!

I had to put in the dip at my usual 105 Hz to tame a room mode. It was not necessary for the JBL 4349 but was in what to come: comparison to my Revel Salon 2 next to it. Figured one of you rascals would ask me about it so I figured I do the work now! Immediate reaction was wow, the Salon 2s have far deeper bass. Visual impression of 4349's massive woofer (compared to Revel's) makes one think there is a ton of deep bass but there is not. To match the Salon 2 would you need a sub. That on the other hand meant that the 4349 didn't activate the room modes much so had a light, tight and dynamic bass.

Beyond the bass the impression of the two speakers was so different. The salon 2 was producing a smooth, highly integrated sound column. The 4349 seemed to have a dual character where it would be come extremely lively with high frequency dynamics. This was super pleasurable but less refined than Salon 2's reserved but excellent reproduction. My thought during the whole affair was that you really wanted both of these speakers and use them based on mood and music.

This is one of few good sounding speakers that don't have the "Revel sound" to me. It is a different way of solving the same problem.

Conclusions
As indicated above, objective test results left a sour taste in my mouth post measurements. It was not until I listened to the speakers that I got what this speaker is all about:

1. Marketing says you have to have a huge woofer and tweeter. Don't care what else you do but it has too have this retro look.

2. Engineering says so they want to compete with a party speaker. Let's build the least broken, best version we can.

So no, the 4349 is not objectively perfect. That crossover dip pushes it out of the running compared to any modern studio monitor. What it is, is re-implementing an old speaker configuration with the best know-how they could put in there. An active version would have dealt with the deficiency there but the formula did not allow it. Fortunately we can put EQ in front of the speaker and remedy that.

A side note. I hardly ever come home from a show thinking of replacing my speakers with anything I see there. The only exception was a set of large horn speakers that had dynamics that I could not replicate with my Salon 2s. The 4349 allowed me to get there and so points to high efficiency mattering. People routinely underestimate how much power it takes to reproduce dynamics well. Even my high power amplifier struggles to push the Salon 2 there. But with 4349, that struggle disappeared with a bunch of headroom left.

I am going to put the JBL 4349 on my recommended list. Go ahead and hate on me due to objective measurements above. I am ready to take it!

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150

ok, here comes the hate, just to fulfill what you expect

But purely looking at the measurement and estimated in room response it don't look that bad, just not top notch flat but with slightly boosted bass above 60hz, and a mild dip at cross over region, so it to me should be expected to sound nice as is and great after EQ, for the uneveness I believe human ears isn't that sensitive to 2-3db of difference, especially in a stereo setup. maybe it's the low distortion making up some of the plus side?

 

[voodooless]

The bigger brother D2340k is struggling below 1500 hz and really stretching it in the M2 application to reach the 792 hz crossover at a steep LR 36 acoustic slope.

Then that thing is just not as good as the price implies

Way cooler to have next to the telly than most slim-boxes. Picture from a random dude on the internet with fugly speakers to prove my point

They do look quite nice indeed

 

[Count Arthur]

These are usually placed on low stands, sometimes tilted back. Would that have an effect on that dip around 1.5Khz, were they tuned/designed to be used on low stands?

 

[ctrl]

The spinorama would certainly look better if -10°v would be implemented as the on-axis. It's possible through the NFS software to recalculate the curves, if Amir is interested in that.

In this case, @amirm did everything right, because the user manual explicitly states:

Whereby I do not know whether Amir has actually read the user manual
If the manufacturer recommends the tweeter axis, then the measurements should be taken that way.

but that trough between 1-2 kHz is butt ugly

I can only agree with you and others. The 700-2000Hz range seems to be the speaker's weakest point.
A lot comes together in this frequency range:

a) BR port resonance around 1kHz, leading to a high Q hump.

Would actually expect that, for example, a "ringing" is audible with hard piano strokes around 1kHz (C6).

b) Driver surround resonance?
c) Possibly already slight breakup of the woofer cone


d) Directivity mismatch in the frequency range 1-2kHz

Already the horizontal 30° frequency response is striking and the 60° frequency response shows a clearly pronounced dip in the 1-2kHz range - related to the axis frequency response.

 

[TimVG]

In this case, @amirm did everything right, because the user manual explicitly states:
View attachment 125391
Whereby I do not know whether Amir has actually read the user manual
If the manufacturer recommends the tweeter axis, then the measurements should be taken that way.




I can only agree with you and others. The 700-2000Hz range seems to be the speaker's weakest point.
A lot comes together in this frequency range:

a) BR port resonance around 1kHz, leading to a high Q hump.
View attachment 125414
Would actually expect that, for example, a "ringing" is audible with hard piano strokes around 1kHz (C6).

b) Driver surround resonance?
c) Possibly already slight breakup of the woofer cone
View attachment 125415

d) Directivity mismatch in the frequency range 1-2kHz
View attachment 125417
Already the 30° frequency response is striking and the 60° frequency response shows a clearly pronounced dip in the 1-2kHz range - related to the axis frequency response.

The spinorama data is presented at 2m distance. As I said before if you were to listen on the horn center from 3-4-5m away, you'd be much closer to the actual acoustical axis as well

 

[Objectivist01]

After amir's review of several harman products, one thing is clear. Harman makes the best consumer audio speakers with real engineering. My money goes to harman group next time

 

[ctrl]

The spinorama data is presented at 2m distance. As I said before if you were to listen on the horn center from 3-4-5m away, you'd be much closer to the actual acoustical axis as well

It would certainly be interesting to see what would happen if CEA2034 were calculated for 4m. Would it make the curves more even overall or would it amplify individual frequency ranges extremes - or both.
Then the phase relation of the BR port resonance to the woofer/horn would also shift a bit.

 

[Kachda]

For $7500 dollars (or even well below it), this is not a great showing. If this was a non-Harman speaker, it would have got skewered for very little bass , dips in FR and resonances. Justifying this with 'dynamics' and low distortion is what this forum constantly criticizes 'audiophools' for.

Therefore, I have to conclude significant bias in this review for the subjective portion.

 

[Matias]

After amir's review of several harman products, one thing is clear. Harman makes the best consumer audio speakers with real engineering. My money goes to harman group next time

This JBL 4349 model and an equivalent priced Revel F226Be are worlds apart in my opinion, so I would be careful to make a generalized statement about the Harman group.

 

[hex168]

Then that thing is just not as good as the price implies



They do look quite nice indeed

There are quite a few 1" exit compression drivers that can be crossed at 1K, let alone dual-diaphragm 1.5" drivers. I wonder if JBL is prioritizing 120+ dB output capability over optimizing for normal, if somewhat loud for the home, listening levels.

 

[beagleman]

That 3dB response dip in such an important frequency region for such an expensive speaker is unforgivable, IMHO, even though some of the other measurements are good. I hope JBL/Harman/Samsung/whoever-is-running-the-show-over-there-these-days’ engineers fix this. It can’t be that hard to revise the crossover and tweak the drivers. Otherwise, meh.

Probably unavoidable really.

Woofer is too big and can only go so high, and almost any typical horn like that can only go so low and maintain power handling.

If they crossed one higher or the other lower, most likely higher distortion and limited SPLs

 

[TimVG]

It would certainly be interesting to see what would happen if CEA2034 were calculated for 4m. Would it make the curves more even overall or would it amplify individual frequency ranges extremes - or both.
Then the phase relation of the BR port resonance to the woofer/horn would also shift a bit.

Well if the curves were based on the acoustical axis in this case (-10v or close to it, in Amir's data), at 4m you'd only be a couple of degrees of the center of the horn. Win-win.

 

[voodooless]

There are quite a few 1" exit compression drivers that can be crossed at 1K, let alone dual-diaphragm 1.5" drivers. I wonder if JBL is prioritizing 120+ dB output capability over optimizing for normal, if somewhat loud for the home, listening levels.

Doesn't matter how many there are, you only need one Don't care too much about the dual diaphragm. If you want annular, get Faital HF1440. It works down to 700 Hz. BMS has coaxes down to 300 Hz, as does B&C. All of them are annular. BMS also has some 1" drivers that can go down to 850/900 Hz in studio or home environments.

 

[JohnBooty]

Justifying this with 'dynamics' and low distortion is what this forum constantly criticizes 'audiophools' for.

This is an absolutely wild thing to say.

When we speak of those things, we're talking about an objectively and repeatably measured property of the speakers. It's the literal opposite of audiophool talk.

I had to edit this post for civility several times before hitting "Post reply" because wow, that's just an unbelievable statement.

 

[Vintage57]

Can someone with more computer savvy than me, almost everyone. Do a comparison post showing the measured results between the JBL 4349 and KH310 results posted by Amir.
Either measurements matter or they don’t, which is it?

 

[Frank Dernie]

Can someone with more computer savvy than me, almost everyone. Do a comparison post showing the measured results between the JBL 4329 and KH310 results posted by Amir.
Either measurements matter or they don’t, which is it?

I am one of the several here who are sceptical about a single number badge of merit which some hold dear.
I give consideration to the whole suite of measurements, though, and consider them most important,
FWIW I would put both the KH310 and this JBL on a short list to listen to with the idea of evaluating for myself whether the mid range accuracy of the former or the low distortion and narrower directivity of this one appealed to me most.
Almost every other speaker so far tested here does not come up to snuff for my use, usually simply too small to go loud enough at my listening distance.

 

[Colonel7]

I may be wrong of course, but the buyer for this speaker is not comparing these to SOTA speakers even though he's got the cash for them. Imagine if goes something like this...

Walks into speaker dealer interested in xyz speaker at xyz $ range. Spies the JBL, "Look at those! They're so cool. I love them! What are they?"

" jBL 4349 sir"

"Couldn't afford JBL back at Animal House University. But we had Cerwin Vegas and rival frat had Klipsch...oh the parties we had. We thought they sounded great but that's probably nostalgia.". Looks sheepishly at 4349s. "What do they sound like?".

Salesman starts calculating commission. ..and cues up some Boston. " Here you go"

"Well dayum! Those sound incredible! Even better than I remember....Can you throw in the stands?"

 

[Morla]

thank you very much for the review @amirm. I Hope no back pain was involved.

It allows me to look closer at a pair of GGNTKT M1S which are even less expensive than the 4349.

 

[TimVG]

Can someone with more computer savvy than me, almost everyone. Do a comparison post showing the measured results between the JBL 4329 and KH310 results posted by Amir.
Either measurements matter or they don’t, which is it?

The measurements matter. But one must be careful with interpretation. Again, if the spinorama would show the main axis as what is currently being shown as -10°v, we'd have a different picture.

The KH310 is a nearfield monitor and a very good example of one. The 4349 is clearly a loudspeaker to be enjoyed at greater distances, but not at 1 meter, not even at 2 unless you want to listen with your head in a (vertical) vice.


Here is the 4349 on its best measuring axis (-10v) against the Neumann (green)

 

[JohnBooty]

Either measurements matter or they don’t, which is it?

What do you mean by this? You don't think that low distortion (the selling point of this speaker according to Amir's review) is a measurable property?

Please explain.

Measurements matter a lot, but correlating them to user preference is a work in progress. The "Harman score" correlates fairly well with average user preference but is not perfect (and does not claim to be) and there will always be room for individual preference as well.