JBL Stage A130 Review (speaker)

[MarkWinston]

Hey, no apology necessary Mark. Your earlier post made it sound like you thought measurements should be totally ignored. But without measurements we are stuck with subjective opinions only, and we know that our own opinions are always better than everyone elses. So in my opinion, measurements get us in the ballpark, but purchasing requires listening. It sounds like you agree with that?

Measurements first but definitely need to listen, even more so when the speaker is pricey. Lucky me, the A130 is cheap so I lost just a little when I sold it off but imagine losing 20 - 30 - 40% with a 5000 bucks speaker.

 

[pio80]

Was it really unnecessary or you didn’t try it?

With the port opened you want the crossover to be at 66Hz.

I tried of course , I felt like something was missing..however I think I never done this before so I need some time to become accustomed..
Thanks

 

[notabenem]

Here's a thread with some disassembly info from august 2021. So whoever has an older piece, may check theirs, if anything is 'off': https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/jbl-stage-a130-2-way-bookshelf-speakers-–-full-review.9237/

 

[dominikz]

99.99% it's not a measurement error. They've both measured the same speakers enough times for us to know that their results are incredibly reliable and produce nearly identical results. They are using the same machine after all .

It's gotta be either sample variation or a stealth design change.

I agree - my experience with another JBL (LSR305) showed me that sample-to-sample variation in budget monitors is very real:

Interestingly I managed in this case to get a better match by initially swapping the tweeters between units, and ultimately by buying a replacement tweeter for one of them:

So my guess is that cheap tweeter units might differ quite a lot in response shape and sensitivity.

 

[notabenem]

Another thing I have actually noticed that while the woofer is marketed as 5.25", actual diameter is just 4.68" (measuring including the black rubber 'moving' part, not the plastic ring around it).

 

[pozz]

It's from this post, lol, a member did it. I forgot about your post on S&R's study! It's very useful, I'll have to bookmark it. Shame it's only monitors, though(of course, that's what S&R covers).

I suspect the deviations are worse among passive speakers in general because you don't have the ability to build individualized EQ compensation into each speaker. Though lower end actives probably don't have any either, since this requires costly additional technician time for each unit.

I deliberately avoided listing passive speakers. There are a few that Goertz measured. I can update the sheet and that thread with those but it will likely take several weeks before I have time to comb through his reviews again. Most useful thing using that data would be to generate a plot of error vs. $, although we likely won't have to many entried to work with when all is said and done.

 

[abdo123]

Another thing I have actually noticed that while the woofer is marketed as 5.25", actual diameter is just 4.68" (measuring including the black rubber 'moving' part, not the plastic ring around it).

the woofer is 6.5" inch, you're confusing this with the A120.

 

[Buckster]

abdo123 - I think you may be confusing this model with another as from JBL specs seems to be:

A130 - 5.25 inch driver
A120 - 4.5 inch driver

 

[notabenem]

the woofer is 6.5" inch, you're confusing this with the A120.

I started to suspect that you measured the JBL Arena 130. But those have a 7" woofer (BTW: isn't that HUGE for a bookshelf?), so probably not.

 

[abdo123]

I started to suspect that you measured the JBL Arena 130. But those have a 7" woofer (BTW: isn't that HUGE for a bookshelf?), so probably not.

my bad it's indeed 5.25"

 

[ob1]

I know it is of limited value, but I thought I would share my own measurements with my JBL A130 in Acourate, ports closed and grilles on. They were done in room with my Umik1 at a distance of about 2.05meter (around 6.7 feet) at around 75 dB SPL (very roughly checked with my phone SPL meter). My Umik was calibrated by Cross spectrums labs, but that was about one year ago. I cannot say if measured values have drifted over time. Measurements are smoothed as per Acourate psychoacoustic response, frequency dependent window being shown is 15 cycles for both low and high frequencies.

When I find the time, I will try and and make new measurements, this time with REW. Need to check Napilopez post about gating measurements.

Please excuse my limited skills and lack of understanding.

To my untrained eyes, the frequency response is still reasonably smooth from 100 Hz to 15 kHz, yet since it is smoothed, it is not fully representative. At the very least, I think the treble is well matched in my particular pair.

EDIT
I tried my hands at gated measurements, but it seems my measurements were tainted with lots of reflections. In the end, I have still settled to post my REW measurements as is, not gated, this time ports open and grilles on.

 

[richard12511]

I know it is of limited value, but I thought I would share my own measurements with my JBL A130 in Acourate, ports closed and grilles on. They were done in room with my Umik1 at a distance of about 2.05meter (around 6.7 feet) at around 75 dB SPL (very roughly checked with my phone SPL meter). My Umik was calibrated by Cross spectrums labs, but that was about one year ago. I cannot say if measured values have drifted over time. Measurements are smoothed as per Acourate psychoacoustic response, frequency dependent window being shown is 15 cycles for both low and high frequencies.

When I find the time, I will try and and make new measurements, this time with REW. Need to check Napilopez post about gating measurements.

Please excuse my limited skills and lack of understanding.

To my untrained eyes, the frequency response is still reasonably smooth from 100 Hz to 15 kHz, yet since it is smoothed, it is not fully representative. At the very least, I think the treble is well matched in my particular pair.

EDIT
I tried my hands at gated measurements, but it seems my measurements were tainted with lots of reflections. In the end, I have still settled to post my REW measurements as is, not gated, this time ports open and grilles on.

Treble response looks a little hot(too flat) for 2m. I would expect those measurements to represent a speaker with a shelved up treble(anechoic). It's hard to tell though from in room measurements. I could be wrong. Could you take a gated(to remove the reflections) on axis measurement at 1m? That would give a better idea of what the true response looks like.

Edit: Sorry, I missed your edit. Thanks for trying the gated method. What window did you use?

 

[thewas]

Thanks for trying the gated method. What window did you use?

As he writes the frequency dependent window with 15 cycles for both low and high frequencies that Acourate recommends for room correction, at 15 cycles it is of course not just anechoic but also has not as much room response as the default 500 ms REW one, so something in between. At 2 meters LP measuring you cannot get usually anyway a clean anechoic response as the floor reflection is too close to the main one.

 

[ob1]

As he writes the frequency dependent window with 15 cycles for both low and high frequencies that Acourate recommends for room correction, at 15 cycles it is of course not just anechoic but also has not as much room response as the default 500 ms REW one, so something in between. At 2 meters LP measuring you cannot get usually anyway a clean anechoic response as the floor reflection is too close to the main one.

Thank you Richard12511 and thewas for your input.
-I agree that the measured response is too hot.
-Assuming I've understood Napilopez great post on gated measurements in REW, I had important reflections starting at an early 2.5ms after the initial peak. I've tried different windows, starting with 5.0ms and going lower, but I felt it did not bring noticeable improvements, since the usable window (without reflections) was so short. There isn`t much I can do to counter the floor reflections, but I will try to redo my measurements at 1.0m instead and if possible, in a more open space, yet still indoor.

Again, I appreciate your comments, thank you.

It goes without saying that this will never provide an answer to whether Amir and/or Erin`s measurements are more representative of what one can expect of the JBL A130. Still, I thought that if a few members post their measurements, one can get a crude idea of what to expect.

 

[buzwork]

I wonder if the woofer in this particular model is special to have good enough linear response and low distortion then the center channel (Stage A130C ) can be sacrificed to make a pair of brand new well made speaker with new tweeter and crossover.

There is no A130C. I'm guessing you mean A125C? (The only other center in the Stage line is the A135c which has six 3" woofers.)

 

[pio80]

I'am still fighting with these heh (I put 66hz on crossover , ports opened and I achieved a satisfactory effect of smoothness but jbls sound the best without). After Erin's review I've done a quick comparision side by side: Elac Dbr62 vs Jbl Stage 130 without the sub. And...quick sessions, first impression :
Jbls sound better!!! , better clarity, better sound timbre, more liveliness and more bass(what we're hearing , not what we're feeling of course). Elac eq flat , a130 mids and highs dropped more or less, 3 people listened.
I don't know anything anymore...

 

[Head_Unit]

Is it just me, or is the tweeter response really weird? Am I missing something? It just dies like a rock thrown off a cliff, then is responding down to below 100 Hz...I'd expect a continuing attenuation slope-?!?

 

[Presently42]

It just dies like a rock thrown off a cliff, then is responding down to below 100 Hz...I'd expect a continuing attenuation slope-?!?

These graphs are not terribly accurate: @amirm simply puts the microphone close to the driver and measures the response - the drivers cannot be acoustically separated, short of shorting one electrically, or removing the driver; so the response seen is the driver, plus whatever response is bleeding in to that one from the other drivers (and the port).

 

[witwald]

I had important reflections starting at an early 2.5ms after the initial peak. I've tried different windows, starting with 5.0ms and going lower, but I felt it did not bring noticeable improvements, since the usable window (without reflections) was so short.

I would stick with the 2.0m measuring distance, as this promotes driver integration at the measuring location, which is more typical of listening distance when the loudspeaker is in use.

Judging by the 2.5ms first reflection, your loudspeaker was mounted approximately 1 metre above the floor. If you raise it higher (e.g., to 2 metres), then that will increase the delay on that first reflection. Keep in mind that the length of the window applied to the time history will effect the response at low frequencies. It is important to entirely remove any of the response that is associated with the first reflection, otherwise it will corrupt your nominally on-axis measurement, making it non-representative of anechoic conditions. The window can be rectangular, or something like a one-sided Tukey window, where the last 10–15% of the impulse response is attenuated down to zero. The one-sided Tukey window will serve to smooth the high-frequency response a little, while introducing errors in the low-frequency response.

 

[theyellowspecial]

I'am still fighting with these heh (I put 66hz on crossover , ports opened and I achieved a satisfactory effect of smoothness but jbls sound the best without). After Erin's review I've done a quick comparision side by side: Elac Dbr62 vs Jbl Stage 130 without the sub. And...quick sessions, first impression :
Jbls sound better!!! , better clarity, better sound timbre, more liveliness and more bass(what we're hearing , not what we're feeling of course). Elac eq flat , a130 mids and highs dropped more or less, 3 people listened.
I don't know anything anymore...

How close are the speakers to side walls? The DBR62 can sound pretty soft (lack "liveliness" and clarity) in a small room with close proximity sidewalls because of the reflections from the ultra-wide dispersion. You can alleviate this effect if you cross the speaker axis in front of the listening position. Even so, they didn't really work in my room. The A130s work better in my room before EQ as well. Frequency response isn't everything.