JBL LSR305P MKii and Control 1 Pro Monitors Review

[daftcombo]

Could this speaker be concerned by the temperature problem?

 

[edechamps]

Here it is although I am not sure it is the low resolution data or high.

@MZKM @pierre FYI, my automated consistency checking code has flagged the Early Reflections Directivity Index data in that package to be incorrect - as in, it's inconsistent with the other curves.

See for example the 6,061.52 Hz data point. "Early Reflections DI" in "Directivity Index.txt" says 3.54792 dB, and that's also what we find if we subtract "DI offset" (49.9794 dB) from "Early Reflections DI" (53.5273 dB) in "CEA2034.txt".

Problem is, that 3.54792 dB figure is wrong. Indeed, according to the curves in the dataset itself, Listening Window at this frequency is 83.2517 dB, while Early Reflections is 81.7077 dB. That means the DI is 1.544 dB, not 3.54792 dB.

This is also apparent in the original review, where the Early Reflections DI in this image uses the wrong figures:

I'm just bringing this up so that people are aware in case they get confusing results from analysing the data. In any case, we already know the Early Reflections curve is wrong anyway since it uses the wrong formula. This problem is a bit different however, because in this case the DI is also inconsistent with the other curves, in other words, the data is inconsistent with itself.

Fortunately, out of the 81 datasets that @amirm provided thus far, this is the only one that has this particular problem. The DI figures are self-consistent in all other datasets.

 

[daftcombo]

Do people listen to the 305p mk2 with toe-in or pointing straight?

 

[daftcombo]

I've been experimenting with them today, and I think they sound great without toe-in (not bright) in my smallest 7 m^2 room.

 

[scribley0]

Has anyone played with Boundary EQ and HF Trim an kept the setting?

View attachment 72121

At the risk of sounding 'uncultured and insensitive' - I feed my 306P's with a DX7 Pro + high bitrate source material and after repeated listening tests, I cannot actually hear any discernible difference at all when experimenting with different 'EQ and Trim' combinations ! I would be very interested to know about other users experiences.

Also on the subject of the dreaded 'hiss' issue. mine have been in daily use for two months now and whilst I confirm they had very low level of hiss at very close range when straight out of the box, they have settled in during that period and have now lost completely any hiss that they once had.

These are accurate and really enjoyable speakers, I do urge anyone to take a listen for themselves and to make up their own mind on whether references to hiss are based on fact, and whether anyone else that had hiss before - still does to the same extent ? Perhaps also the manufacturer made some changes more recently (after reading the discussions here ?), maybe some other equipment I was using in the room that was causing interference has now been removed, or I have a rogue pair - as mine now don't hiss.

 

[Maiky76]

Hi,

At long last, here is my take on the EQ.
Note:
I just implemented a routine to automatically export the EQ I design as APO/Peace config file.
I suggest you use Peace on top of EQ APO:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/peace-equalizer-apo-extension/

You just need to import the file as @sweetchaos (thanks for pointing the info) shows here :
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-community-project.14929/page-14#post-536526

I have attached a the config file to import.
Note that there is an automatically generated Preamp gain that is based on the actual peak gain of the EQ rounded up for a tiny bit of headroom in the hope of avoiding digital clipping.

Spinorama no EQ:
Score: 4.64

EQ Design:
Score with EQ: 6.78
EQ in APO format:

JBL 305P mkII APO EQ
October212020-144805

Preamp: -1.6 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 160 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 2.04
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 567 Hz Gain 1.68 dB Q 0.98
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 822 Hz Gain -1.49 dB Q 5.63
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1755 Hz Gain -3.32 dB Q 5.3
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3219 Hz Gain -2.51 dB Q 2.52
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5007 Hz Gain -2.43 dB Q 4.31
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 6667 Hz Gain -1.82 dB Q 11.3
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 8730 Hz Gain -1.02 dB Q 10.5
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 10251 Hz Gain -1.79 dB Q 3.1
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 16212 Hz Gain -2.27 dB Q 5.01
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 17190 Hz Gain -2.1 dB Q 3

Corresponding Spinorama:

Zoom on PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Handsome improvements:

Rather than showing the raw directivity I applied the EQ to the complete Spinorama data set:
EQed LW:

Probably better if listened 15deg off-axis on the horizontal plan:

The vertical directivity seems better than many but still better stay within +/-10deg of the tweeter axis

here is the EQed directivity which might be better way to visualize than a straight normalization as this way, one should avoid normalizing to some artefacts only present in the ON curve

Normalized:

Given the price and the EQed performance, that is really a great speaker if the hiss is not an issue...

As usual the rest of the data is attached.

If you try the config file please report if you experience any issue.
Tanks in advance.

 

[richard12511]

Hi,

At long last, here is my take on the EQ.
Note:
I just implemented a routine to automatically export the EQ I design as APO/Peace config file.
I suggest you use Peace on top of EQ APO:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/peace-equalizer-apo-extension/

You just need to import the file as @sweetchaos (thanks for pointing the info) shows here :
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-community-project.14929/page-14#post-536526

I have attached a the config file to import.
Note that there is an automatically generated Preamp gain that is based on the actual peak gain of the EQ rounded up for a tiny bit of headroom in the hope of avoiding digital clipping.

Spinorama no EQ:
Score: 4.64
View attachment 88972
EQ Design:
Score with EQ: 6.78

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 160 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 2.04
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 567 Hz Gain 1.68 dB Q 0.98
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 822 Hz Gain -1.49 dB Q 5.63
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1755 Hz Gain -3.32 dB Q 5.3
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3219 Hz Gain -2.51 dB Q 2.52
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5007 Hz Gain -2.43 dB Q 4.31
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 6667 Hz Gain -1.82 dB Q 11.3
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 8730 Hz Gain -1.02 dB Q 10.5
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 10251 Hz Gain -1.79 dB Q 3.1
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 16212 Hz Gain -2.27 dB Q 5.01
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 17190 Hz Gain -2.1 dB Q 3

View attachment 88976
Corresponding Spinorama:
View attachment 88973
Zoom on PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 88975
Regression - Tonal
View attachment 88974
Handsome improvements:
View attachment 88977
Rather than showing the raw directivity I applied the EQ to the complete data Spinorama data set:
EQed LW:
View attachment 88989 Probably better if listened 15deg off-axis on the horizontal plan:
View attachment 88987
The vertical directivity seems better same many but still better stay within +/-10deg of the tweeter axis

View attachment 88979
here is the EQed directivity which might be better way to visualize than a straight normalization as this way, one should avoid normalizing to some artefacts only present in the ON curve
View attachment 88988
Normalized:
View attachment 88983

Given the price and the EQed performance, that is really a great speaker if the hiss is not an issue...

As usual the rest of the data is attached.

If you try the config file please report if you experience any issue.
Tanks in advance.

Whoa! That's a huge jump in score. So the EQed version of these score better than the EQed version of the Revel M105?

 

[sweetchaos]

I have this speaker, and the EQ makes an impressive difference!

@ flipflop created another set of EQ filters (put together on @ pierre's github), and with EQ, the preference rating jumped to 7.1 (with no sub).
You can see the EQ'd graphs here (just click on "Ref vs EQ" on top first).
I was using his EQ just before @Maiky76 posted his set.

You really can't go wrong with either one.

 

[ernestcarl]

Whoa! That's a huge jump in score. So the EQed version of these score better than the EQed version of the Revel M105?

There are other variables to consider... like the distortion. So... the Revels are likely still going to have the upper hand in that depaetment.

 

[dachiznitt]

I have these speakers and used REW and a calibrated mic to verify "my" in room response because the EQ settings published by others didn't sound quite right to me. Sure enough, huge differences in my measurements on my desk / room which resulted in different EQ settings. Now, love the sound.

 

[daftcombo]

Has someone measured the effect of Boundary EQ and HF Trim settings?

I found this for the Adam T5V and would like to see the same kind of info for the 305p :

 

[daftcombo]

I have this speaker, and the EQ makes an impressive difference!

@ flipflop created another set of EQ filters (put together on @ pierre's github), and with EQ, the preference rating jumped to 7.1 (with no sub).
You can see the EQ'd graphs here (just click on "Ref vs EQ" on top first).
I was using his EQ just before @Maiky76 posted his set.

You really can't go wrong with either one.

Listening to the speaker EQed by flipflop right now.
Lot less bright. But bass heavy.
I will have to toe-in again I guess.

 

[sweetchaos]

Listening to the speaker EQed by flipflop right now.
Lot less bright. But bass heavy.
I will have to toe-in again I guess.

Here's a comparison between flipflop and maiky76 EQ:

EDIT: Uploaded a better version

 

[daftcombo]

Here's a comparison between flipflop and maiky76 EQ:
View attachment 89532
EDIT: Uploaded a better version

Super, I will try maiky's because I thought flipflop's lack treble and is too dark.
It could well be a matter of toe-in (maiky advises 15° aand flipflop on-axis IIRC - whereas I am at around 20° I think).

 

[pavuol]

Don't know if this was mentioned:

“Design My JBL” contest
/ was sold at Amazon

 

[Robbo99999]

Don't know if this was mentioned:

“Design My JBL” contest
/ was sold at Amazon

I dunno man, I reckon the white is one thing, could probably deal with that, but the cartoons on the side make me want to barf! It'd be ok in a child's den out in the treehouse with Bart Simpson or something!

 

[prasanth.nath]

I have an LX Studio set up. I have never been entirely happy about it - not to mention too many tales of woe about Hypex DLCP.
Bought a JBL 305p mk II, during festive season (here at India), and I can clearly hear that this little thing is just so "right".
Sigh. I wonder how many more hours I will have to spend to get to the bottom of this.

Eagerly looking forward to Amir's review of Lx Mini.

 

[etzelo]

Hi,

At long last, here is my take on the EQ.
Note:
I just implemented a routine to automatically export the EQ I design as APO/Peace config file.
I suggest you use Peace on top of EQ APO:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/peace-equalizer-apo-extension/

You just need to import the file as @sweetchaos (thanks for pointing the info) shows here :
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-community-project.14929/page-14#post-536526

I have attached a the config file to import.
Note that there is an automatically generated Preamp gain that is based on the actual peak gain of the EQ rounded up for a tiny bit of headroom in the hope of avoiding digital clipping.

Spinorama no EQ:
Score: 4.64
View attachment 88972
EQ Design:
Score with EQ: 6.78
EQ in APO format:

JBL 305P mkII APO EQ
October212020-144805

Preamp: -1.6 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 160 Hz Gain -1.1 dB Q 2.04
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 567 Hz Gain 1.68 dB Q 0.98
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 822 Hz Gain -1.49 dB Q 5.63
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1755 Hz Gain -3.32 dB Q 5.3
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3219 Hz Gain -2.51 dB Q 2.52
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5007 Hz Gain -2.43 dB Q 4.31
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 6667 Hz Gain -1.82 dB Q 11.3
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 8730 Hz Gain -1.02 dB Q 10.5
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 10251 Hz Gain -1.79 dB Q 3.1
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 16212 Hz Gain -2.27 dB Q 5.01
Filter 11: ON PK Fc 17190 Hz Gain -2.1 dB Q 3

View attachment 88976
Corresponding Spinorama:
View attachment 88973
Zoom on PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 88975
Regression - Tonal
View attachment 88974
Handsome improvements:
View attachment 88977
Rather than showing the raw directivity I applied the EQ to the complete Spinorama data set:
EQed LW:
View attachment 88989 Probably better if listened 15deg off-axis on the horizontal plan:
View attachment 88987
The vertical directivity seems better than many but still better stay within +/-10deg of the tweeter axis

View attachment 88979
here is the EQed directivity which might be better way to visualize than a straight normalization as this way, one should avoid normalizing to some artefacts only present in the ON curve
View attachment 88988
Normalized:
View attachment 88983

Given the price and the EQed performance, that is really a great speaker if the hiss is not an issue...

As usual the rest of the data is attached.

If you try the config file please report if you experience any issue.
Tanks in advance.

Hi, can you provide some information on how to EQ properly? I tried to equalize it so that the listening window curve became as flat as possible, am i doing right?

 

[Maiky76]

Hi, can you provide some information on how to EQ properly? I tried to equalize it so that the listening window curve became as flat as possible, am i doing right?

Hi,
Try to follow the linked threads:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...tudio-monitor-review.15963/page-7#post-514164

And here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...7v-spinorama-and-eq-inside.17283/#post-560611

Each room/speaker location will have a different LF signature and a different reflection pattern.
The PIR (Predicted In-room Response) is supposed to be a reasonable estimator of the actual in-room response, at least in the frequency range where the speaker is dominating.
The EQ I provide are targeted at maximizing the *speaker* performance to give the user a decent starting point for the final in-room integration that will undoubtably require additional EQing to deal with the room/speaker location LF contribution.
Contrary to some, I perform an almost full band EQing as I don't see how leaving a big bump or though in the 50Hz - 500Hz range, when we know it's there and we can correct it, can be beneficial even if subsequent EQ in the same range will be applied during room integration.
I'd rather start with as clean a (speaker + anechoic EQ) system as possible before dealing with the room, but that's me.

Regarding the scoring method itself, models in general, not just in audio, are judged with two main criteria:
- Can it describe what we observe reasonably well?
- Do the predictions derived from the model hold against new observations?
The first criterium is covered in the original paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Ratings_of_Around-Ear_and_On-Ear_Headphones

I agree with you we need more data for the second criterium to be more understood.
We have some data point from the Harman team comparing different speakers with different PIR shapes and EQing targets but this not as detailed as the first paper.
And you are right that it would be great if we could compare different EQ strategies:
example of a possible way can be found here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-zero-speaker-review.13717/page-9#post-504910

 

[etzelo]

Hi,
Try to follow the linked threads:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...tudio-monitor-review.15963/page-7#post-514164

And here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...7v-spinorama-and-eq-inside.17283/#post-560611

Each room/speaker location will have a different LF signature and a different reflection pattern.
The PIR (Predicted In-room Response) is supposed to be a reasonable estimator of the actual in-room response, at least in the frequency range where the speaker is dominating.
The EQ I provide are targeted at maximizing the *speaker* performance to give the user a decent starting point for the final in-room integration that will undoubtably require additional EQing to deal with the room/speaker location LF contribution.
Contrary to some, I perform an almost full band EQing as I don't see how leaving a big bump or though in the 50Hz - 500Hz range, when we know it's there and we can correct it, can be beneficial even if subsequent EQ in the same range will be applied during room integration.
I'd rather start with as clean a (speaker + anechoic EQ) system as possible before dealing with the room, but that's me.

Regarding the scoring method itself, models in general, not just in audio, are judged with two main criteria:
- Can it describe what we observe reasonably well?
- Do the predictions derived from the model hold against new observations?
The first criterium is covered in the original paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Ratings_of_Around-Ear_and_On-Ear_Headphones

I agree with you we need more data for the second criterium to be more understood.
We have some data point from the Harman team comparing different speakers with different PIR shapes and EQing targets but this not as detailed as the first paper.
And you are right that it would be great if we could compare different EQ strategies:
example of a possible way can be found here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-zero-speaker-review.13717/page-9#post-504910

Thanks a lot!