JBL Conceal C62 Invisible Speaker Review

[amirm]

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..

Since such coverage would have infinite variation, there is no way to test for it. The only logical thing to test then is the bare speaker.

Now, if you want to transfer $660 to the owner for the cost of the speaker, plus provide specifications how to treat said speaker to be the same how everyone else would use it, I can do further tests. Otherwise, I suggest getting some common sense that this kind of response:

Is not going to fix itself with some paint and mud on it.

 

[Sal1950]

Based on whose standard?

ASR standards, where you measure gear to separate the good, bad, and the ugly. And in this case it's shown to be quite ugly.
We should only hold gear to one standard for home reproduction, High Fidelity..

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

Maybe when watching movies. But for music repreduction FR is as important as 2ch or any where else.

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.

Once again I'm a bit shocked to learn you would build such a compromised surround system in your own home.

 

[amirm]

ASR standards, where you measure gear to separate the good, bad, and the ugly. And in this case it's shown to be quite ugly.

Well, that used to be my standards. Then folks said I can't compare AVRs to stand-alone DACs. So I created a completely separate scoring for them. When ranking this speaker, I did the same lest someone come and say, "how can you compare this invisible speaker to a box one sitting in a room?"

Regardless, as always, you have the data to decide otherwise. Nothing in the measurements were curved to give a break to this speaker. Warts and all were shown. For someone who doesn't care about invisibility, obviously these are terrible speakers. For someone who does, and can apply EQ as I did in my listening tests, much better sound can be had compared other alternatives such as not having any speakers at all.

 

[amirm]

Maybe when watching movies. But for music repreduction FR is as important as 2ch or any where else.

And that is what the review conclusions stated: "I can rule out the JBL Conceal C62 for music usage. What it does for surround and EQ, is hard to judge but likely can be made to be acceptable."

Once again I'm a bit shocked to learn you would build such a compromised surround system in your own home.

We have a dedicated theater so I did not plan for surround sound in our living room. Even if I had, there is no way I want ugly speakers grills on the walls. Or worse, put speakers behind us. I care about the clean look of our living room as much as my wife does.

But I do miss not having rear channels when we watch a movie for effects alone. So if I like to some day remedy that with invisible speakers if good enough fidelity can be had. Lest you want to say that no surround system is better than using these, that is the only option available to me.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Since such coverage would have infinite variation, there is no way to test for it. The only logical thing to test then is the bare speaker.

Now, if you want to transfer $660 to the owner for the cost of the speaker, plus provide specifications how to treat said speaker to be the same how everyone else would use it, I can do further tests. Otherwise, I suggest getting some common sense that this kind of response:

Is not going to fix itself with some paint and mud on it.

I'm asking again; how does 2 mm. plaster and paint affect the frequency response?

If you can't answer that, why do you think the measurements in the review are useful for assessing the speakers quality? -Common sense?

 

[Sal1950]

But I do miss not having rear channels when we watch a movie for effects alone. So if I like to some day remedy that with invisible speakers if good enough fidelity can be had. Lest you want to say that no surround system is better than using these, that is the only option available to me.

There in lies the rub, it sure ain't these speakers, I believe we both know that.

And the first time you watch to Top Gun or a Star Wars flight over, you'll turn them off and never use them again.
I've got to believe you have higher standards than these.

 

[DanTheMan]

I'm asking again; how does 2 mm. plaster and paint affect the frequency response?

If you can't answer that, why do you think the measurements in the review are useful for assessing the speakers quality? -Common sense?

It’ll reduce treble output and overall efficiency. Beyond that, hard for me to say exactly but it’s unlikely to do any better. Every application will be different but this is probably as good as it gets.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

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.

ALMOST. Yeah. I must be an outlier then. I also don't like the Harman curve(s).
I don't want the timbre to change on panning and live concert watching. -I'd like my surround to be HiFi thank you very much. IMO it's wrong to think people not doing critical listening with surround music taken into account atmos music taking off.
-How many people were in this statistic you show? -How was the tests performed? -Which sounds were used?

Regardless; the main purpose for this speaker is not only surround as you have shown similar type of speakers being used as mains from one your own company projects.

 

[amirm]

I'm asking again; how does 2 mm. plaster and paint affect the frequency response?

It will have second order effects relative to first order problems of this speaker.

If you can't answer that, why do you think the measurements in the review are useful for assessing the speakers quality? -Common sense?

Why don't you answer why you won't fund the money to do the testing as you demand. Or how much better off you would have been seeing no measurements like I post.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

It’ll reduce treble output and overall efficiency. Beyond that, hard for me to say exactly but it’s unlikely to do any better. Every application will be different but this is probably as good as it gets.

Considering the manual states that its intended installation is behind 2 mm. plaster and paint, neither of us will be any wiser by guessing, nor by assessing it using measurements done not behind 2 mm. plaster and paint.

 

[amirm]

ALMOST. Yeah. I must be an outlier then. I also don't like the Harman curve(s).

No, you are just confused as these are speakers and there is (almost) no such thing as "Harman Curves." Equalization compensated for room modes plus a gentle slope down from bass to treble which has been shown to be correct in general in other studies.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

It will have second order effects relative to first order problems of this speaker.

Thank you. Now what does that mean IR to the frequency response?

 

[amirm]

I don't want the timbre to change on panning and live concert watching. -I'd like my surround to be HiFi thank you very much.

You can use equalization to get similar tambre and that is how the speaker was recommended and only for non-music applications.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

No, you are just confused as these are speakers and there is (almost) no such thing as "Harman Curves." Equalization compensated for room modes plus a gentle slope down from bass to treble which has been shown to be correct in general in other studies.

I'm not confused. I was thinking of other stuff generally accepted as preferred.

 

[amirm]

I'm not confused. I was thinking of other stuff generally accepted as preferred.

You clear were, using terminology for Harman developed headphones in this context. That aside, we are not here to cater to single individual claims when not validated by any kind of research. Put more directly, what you think you like or dislike is of no importance to my work here.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Did anyone who heard this use of this horrid speaker in LCR + surround think it sounded good? I'd personally put three small halfway okay speakers on that little shelf below the TV with a good appearance rather than have this speaker with its poor performance. I know, not invisible, but if my speakers sounded as bad as the test results indicate I'd want them hidden too!

I do get there is such a thing as directional masking, and we aren't nearly as critical with 5 channels as one or two, but then if this speaker is okay, why not tell people any number of better cheaper speakers are just great only use them for 5.1. You only have to be okay with someone seeing your speakers to get more bang for your buck.

NOTE: This setup pictured I take it had different speakers. No idea if they were similar to the C62, better or worse.

 

[amirm]

Thank you. Now what does that mean IR to the frequency response?

That answer doesn't exist since you can't define what "that" constitutes. We could as I mention do a single test but that requires buying the speaker from the owner. If you are unwilling to fund that, then the answer is not that important to me. For me personally, I don't need that information. I already know the response is very bad mandating equalization.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

You clear were, using terminology for Harman developed headphones in this context. That aside, we are not here to cater to single individual claims when not validated by any kind of research. Put more directly, what you think you like or dislike is of no importance to my work here.

I was and am not. I thought of something that was also accepted as preferred. I wrote this before.
I know what the Harman Curve(s) are and what they are used for.

This is now the second time I feel the need to ask you to lay off the insults.

 

[amirm]

Did anyone who heard this use of this horrid speaker in LCR + surround think it sounded good?

The set up was a huge hit with our potential customers showing the extent to which we could produce good sound while having a totally invisible system. Note that there was a hidden subwoofer to augment it all. Also, that was not with this speaker. It was Amina, not JBL.

As bad as the frequency response is here, a lot of it can be corrected with EQ. The main issue is power handling and distortion in bass. If we have that, the rest we can get for non-critical listening. There are invisible speakers that can't produce any bass and distort like mad.

 

[amirm]

This is now the second time I feel the need to ask you to lay off the insults.

You have been rude and insulting from the start. You have contributed nothing to the discussion but repeating the same complains and making grandiose claims about fidelity that you can't back with any data. We have heard you and that is that. Move along....