75 years of JBL: 75 years of Loud + Clear!

[MAB]

I’m pre-emptively a bit disappointed by the 12“ woofer in what appears to be a new flagship system + what seems like a variation of the relatively cheap (but nevertheless very well performing) D2 driver. Was beryllium not good enough for a flagship? The 476be exists, after all, and is made by JBL. So does/is the 1500al. Should have just made the DD67000 into a real three-way imo

I don't find Beryllium very compelling. Many manufactures offer models with Be as an upgrade, the times I have listened I don't think the Be upgrade sounds better than the non-Be versions. Plenty of bad sounding Be tweeter applications exist, lots of great sounding speakers lack Be. While I haven't measured a speaker with Be tweeters, the datasheets are widely available. Here is the Radian 850PB series CD, BE and Aluminum diaphragms. The Be version has large resonance at 10kHz, 20kHz, etc. The aluminum diaphragm version may have a hint of the same resonance at 20kHz, but the resonance has no peak at 10kHz. Aside from the bad resonances in the audible bad the Be driver has, the responses are otherwise remarkably similar. I wonder what audible advantage the Be driver has, if any.

Here are the ScanSpeak Illuminator D3004 Be and textile dome tweeters. The Be has slightly higher efficiency, does have different response in the 3-6 kHz, has resonances and a more uneven response. I have a hard time understanding which is going to be better, both responses are useable, and the resonances are not as bad as the Radian Be Compression Driver above. I would say this Be tweeter has less obvious resonance than most Be models where a comparison to like model with other materials is available. The Be version has significantly narrower dispersion, which will be less ideal in some speakers, may be a good thing in others. Waveguides will change this though, so don't want to make too much of it.

Lots of tweeters have good response above 10kHz. Be often adds resonances not present in non-Be tweeters, right in the region where they allegedly have benefits. Some have these resonances well above our hearing limit, but those tend to be even larger, like this ScanSpeak D2908 Be tweeter:

I think Be is woo woo, a distraction, expensive, hard to work with, makes driver integration more difficult, yet not likely to achieve better sound. Maybe I am just too cheap though.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I don't find Beryllium very compelling. Many manufactures offer models with Be as an upgrade, the times I have listened I don't think the Be upgrade sounds better than the non-Be versions.

I hear you. Many manufacturers do all manner of silly stuff for marketing purposes... bi-wiring terminals being one of many examples.

That said, Be has very real advantages when used correctly. Here is one example in compression drivers. In JBL Tech Note 1 volume 8 they explain why a competitor has superior performance due to their use of Be. They then explain how they get around it with their novel surround technique... but the key here is that by using Be, the mass break point of the driver is raised a full octave higher than would otherwise be the case when using aluminum.

 

[jeffaegrim]

@MAB I completely understand the sentiment and appreciate your examples, but I was talking strictly about compression drivers, where the more expensive material still seemed to make sense in some applications from my limited understanding. The post above this one by @Mr. Widget further illustrates what I meant

 

[MAB]

I hear you. Many manufacturers do all manner of silly stuff for marketing purposes... bi-wiring terminals being one of many examples.

That said, Be has very real advantages when used correctly. Here is one example in compression drivers. In JBL Tech Note 1 volume 8 they explain why a competitor has superior performance due to their use of Be. They then explain how they get around it with their novel surround technique... but the key here is that by using Be, the mass break point of the driver is raised a full octave higher than would otherwise be the case when using aluminum.
View attachment 451218

That's a great example.
Agree, Be can have advantages. I wonder that Radian and ScanSpeak don't get the same good result, nor do the now seemingly discontinued Seas Be domes. The off-axis behavior the domes from ScanSpeak and other manufacturers won't matter in a waveguide. I like the 2441 response though, very useable. So is the D2. Is it better to control the resonance with perhaps a gentle rolloff, or is it better to push the resonance an octave higher? I admit I don't know.

 

[mhardy6647]

I think Be is woo woo, a distraction, expensive, hard to work with, makes driver integration more difficult, yet not likely to achieve better sound. Maybe I am just too cheap though.

Don't forget toxic! All the best audiophile-grade materials are.

 

[MAB]

@MAB I completely understand the sentiment and appreciate your examples, but I was talking strictly about compression drivers, where the more expensive material still seemed to make sense in some applications from my limited understanding. The post above this one by @Mr. Widget further illustrates what I meant

Like I said, it's a tradeoff. Here is the D2 in an M2 lens. It sounds glorious, mostly because of the lens and because of the driver's ability to be crossed over low with the 15" woofer.

Would re-engineering this in Be allow even better sound? I don't know. The D2 certainly does what it is supposed to do all the way up to 20 kHz. I actually think many Be tweeters are a mess. Not so for the TAD4001 and a few others that do appear to have superior characteristics.
Would it be more important than the actual integration of the drivers and crossover as a speaker? I really don't think so.

Be certainly would drive up the cost. And these are already out of most of our budgets. I agree with your overall point, for their new flagship, what new does it bring if not Be? I find it unlikely it sounds better than an M2 which is a fraction of the cost with amps and DSP, or a 4367 for comparison to a passive model.

 

[MAB]

Don't forget toxic! All the best audiophile-grade materials are.

All the best things in life are toxic!

 

[jeffaegrim]

Like I said, it's a tradeoff. Here is the D2 in an M2 lens. It sounds glorious, mostly because of the lens and because of the driver's ability to be crossed over low with the 15" woofer.
View attachment 451239
Would re-engineering this in Be allow even better sound? I don't know. The D2 certainly does what it is supposed to do all the way up to 20 kHz. I actually think many Be tweeters are a mess. Not so for the TAD4001 and a few others that do appear to have superior characteristics.
Would it be more important than the actual integration of the drivers and crossover as a speaker? I really don't think so.

Be certainly would drive up the cost. And these are already out of most of our budgets. I agree with your overall point, for their new flagship, what new does it bring if not Be? I find it unlikely it sounds better than an M2 which is a fraction of the cost with amps and DSP, or a 4367 for comparison to a passive model.

Appreciate the discussion and I absolutely agree with your last point(s). The M2 with its readily available components is furthermore a good contender for DIY, which imo makes it one of the best current bargains in HiFi - even with the cost of professional woodwork included.

I have a 1“ CD with an aquaplas-covered titanium dia playing from 750-20khz in my speakers and just got my hands on a pair of TADs. I’ll know soon enough for myself through measuring/listening whether there is something to the whole beryllium thing or not

I also remain very curious about the way this new series measures. Hopefully we will get to see something substantial soon.

P.S. there are subjective listening reports that can be found online of people trying more expensive drivers behind an M2 lens and describing a perceived improvement in sound, though I wouldn’t know whence this improvement would be coming from…

 

[MAB]

Appreciate the discussion and I absolutely agree with your last point(s). The M2 with its readily available components is furthermore a good contender for DIY, which imo makes it one of the best current bargains in HiFi - even with the cost of professional woodwork included.

I have a 1“ CD with an aquaplas-covered titanium dia playing from 750-20khz in my speakers and just got my hands on a pair of TADs. I’ll know soon enough for myself through measuring/listening whether there is something to the whole beryllium thing or not

I also remain very curious about the way this new series measures. Hopefully we will get to see something substantial soon.

P.S. there are subjective listening reports that can be found online of people trying more expensive drivers behind an M2 lens and describing a perceived improvement in sound, though I wouldn’t know whence this improvement would be coming from…

I did the DIY M2 route. I'm really happy with the results.
I never heard a different compression driver on the M2 lens. I would be happy to experiment, but cost limits that, and the sound I have is so good I don't wonder too much. But I do wonder, and look forward to measurements and details about your TAD CDs.

 

[MAB]

Appreciate the discussion and I absolutely agree with your last point(s). The M2 with its readily available components is furthermore a good contender for DIY, which imo makes it one of the best current bargains in HiFi - even with the cost of professional woodwork included.

One thing I am interested in. I naïvely tried to make a 3-way with a 6" midrange driver. It didn't work out, I was unable to get the midrange integrated with the woofer and tweeter. Problems with my approach were pointed out in this thread :

JBL M2 Clone

I recently measured a JBL D2430K compression driver and M2 lens. My goal is to build an M2 clone. The speakers are going to go into individual boxes allowing me to stack the woofer and D2 into an M2, or even include a midrange. I got a pair of B&C 5NDL38 for cheap, and if they don't work I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I regret I haven't updated the thread, I have better SPINs on both the 2-way and attempted 3-way configs.

So I am interested in what JBL does with these new 3-way designs they are rereleasing. They should ship one to Amir. If he would have me, I would drive up to help load it on the NFS!

 

[WillBrink]

I don't find Beryllium very compelling. Many manufactures offer models with Be as an upgrade, the times I have listened I don't think the Be upgrade sounds better than the non-Be versions. Plenty of bad sounding Be tweeter applications exist, lots of great sounding speakers lack Be. While I haven't measured a speaker with Be tweeters, the datasheets are widely available. Here is the Radian 850PB series CD, BE and Aluminum diaphragms. The Be version has large resonance at 10kHz, 20kHz, etc. The aluminum diaphragm version may have a hint of the same resonance at 20kHz, but the resonance has no peak at 10kHz. Aside from the bad resonances in the audible bad the Be driver has, the responses are otherwise remarkably similar. I wonder what audible advantage the Be driver has, if any.

Such as Focal which sounds like two pans being banged together? Not an application I enjoyed at all the times I have heard them.

 

[AnalogSteph]

One thing I am interested in. I naïvely tried to make a 3-way with a 6" midrange driver. It didn't work out, I was unable to get the midrange integrated with the woofer and tweeter. Problems with my approach were pointed out in this thread :

JBL M2 Clone

I recently measured a JBL D2430K compression driver and M2 lens. My goal is to build an M2 clone. The speakers are going to go into individual boxes allowing me to stack the woofer and D2 into an M2, or even include a midrange. I got a pair of B&C 5NDL38 for cheap, and if they don't work I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I regret I haven't updated the thread, I have better SPINs on both the 2-way and attempted 3-way configs.

The midrange is way smaller than either the tweeter horn or woofer, that alone should have been a clue. It would have required a big ol' waveguide to match the dispersion (with a mouth approaching the size of a 15" driver), an opportunity to address the horn lip protruding over the midrange baffle as well. A 3-way based on a 15" should probably have proportions more like a Genelec 1238A to make sense. Alternatively you could do a 2.5-way or 3-way with a second 15" driver, maybe there is a model that would be more suited to either a midrange or woofer (the latter could be even bigger) compared to the 2216Nd.

 

[mhardy6647]

Such as Focal which sounds like two pans being banged together? Not an application I enjoyed at all the times I have heard them.

For some reason, your analogy brought to mind a favorite old Stereo Review cover.

Mind you, these Electrovoice "Wolverine" LS-12 twincone "fullrange" drivers, while quite nicely made and impressively inexpensive in their time, aren't the most sonorous reproducers extant. They probably wouldn't better trash can lids pans if employed as percussion instruments.

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/70s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1977-08.pdf

 

[MAB]

The midrange is way smaller than either the tweeter horn or woofer, that alone should have been a clue. It would have required a big ol' waveguide to match the dispersion (with a mouth approaching the size of a 15" driver), an opportunity to address the horn lip protruding over the midrange baffle as well.

Agreed. It wasn't my most serious or best attempt. The results were worse than I expected.

I'm not able to shave off that lip , but I did measure the arrangement with the lip flush with the stack, and the interference didn't show up as dramatically as I thought.

A 3-way based on a 15" should probably have proportions more like a Genelec 1238A to make sense. Alternatively you could do a 2.5-way or 3-way with a second 15" driver, maybe there is a model that would be more suited to either a midrange or woofer (the latter could be even bigger) compared to the 2216Nd.

I currently have it set up as a 2.5-way with two sealed 2216Nd per channel. It works great. I need to update the M2 DIY thread with recent measurements. I'm getting ready to build the final versions with good acceptable looking cabinets instead of the modular things I made. I am on the fence between the 2-way clone or the 2.5 way. Perhaps I can post the two for comparison. Even with a poll!

 

[Sal1950]

For some reason, your analogy brought to mind a favorite old Stereo Review cover.

I remember having that issue, Back then I had sub's to all the current mags, wish a few were still around.
Too bad that level of involvement in Hi Fi totally died.

I did the DIY M2 route. I'm really happy with the results.

M2's were always my dream speaker but never could afford them or fit them in my room. (factory or DIY)
I had to settle for HDI 3600's instead,. But 4 of them plus the 4500 center sounds incredible here.

 

[jeffaegrim]

I need to update the M2 DIY thread with recent measurements. I'm getting ready to build the final versions with good acceptable looking cabinets instead of the modular things I made. I am on the fence between the 2-way clone or the 2.5 way. Perhaps I can post the two for comparison. Even with a poll!

Please do, it’s a very ambitious and interesting project, though I’m sure your system sounds amazing either way it’s set up. I also totally get the point about not being super interested in swapping out compression drivers. If anything, supplementing the build with another 2216nd like you did is the much more interesting route

 

[srm51555]

P.S. there are subjective listening reports that can be found online of people trying more expensive drivers behind an M2 lens and describing a perceived improvement in sound, though I wouldn’t know whence this improvement would be coming from…

Greg Timbers provided some data on harmonic distortion between the D2, 476mg, and 476be.

JBL M2 Reference Master Monitor Review

Here's some measurements of 18Sound 4015 Beryllium compression driver on the M2 waveguide; Raw response without EQ, measured relatively near-field from several angles and averaged. Ungated in a reflective room, so wiggles are reflections; After EQ, taken from 70 cm distance (laser-measured)...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[fredoamigo]

I don't know if it's a fake, but I think it is, because the positioning of the speakers seems very strange on the EVEREST .

 

[Sal1950]

I don't know if it's a fake, but I think it is, because the positioning of the speakers seems very strange on the EVEREST .

IDK, They do seem to be popping up everywhere., Time will tell.
Not exactly a budget leading models. LOL

JBL adds three new models to its Summit Series | Darko.Audio

Say hello to Makalu, Pumori and Ama.

darko.audio