JBL 305P MkII Review (Erin)

[XpanD]

What I noticed with my LSR305 (gen 1) is that the backplate resonates around ~250Hz, and much more strongly on one speaker than the other. After some investigation I found the routing in MDF was too small, so the bacplate was quite tightly jammed which worsened the resonance. E.g. it was very difficult to remove the backplate on that unit because of this, while on the other unit the backplate would basically fall off if unscrewed.

I can confirm this, also on a pair of gen 1s. One speaker in particular had a nasty buzzing around 210-220Hz, which would change in tone and frequency if I tightened or loosened some screws. It seemed especially sensitive to the screws around the bass port, weirdly enough.

Still thought they were great speakers for the money at the time I used them. (although nowadays I'd probably comb over Amir/Erin/Napier/the community's excellent work for a more modern alternative, there seem to be a few on the market now)

 

[More Dynamics Please]

Sounds to me like the issue is too much is being asked of these drivers. A quoted F3 of 49hz (on the 305s) is pretty low for a small box with a 5.25" driver. I'd expect without DSP these would be rolling off about 10hz above that.

The noaudiophile 308 review simply confirms what we've seen in other reviews of smaller speakers, both active and passive. They can produce decent bass and good overall fidelity at lower listening levels but fall apart when pushed to higher levels as in noaudiophile's living room testing. This is especially true of 2-way speakers where smaller bass drivers are tasked with the lowest bass through much of the mid-range. As noaudiophile found the 308 performed admirably at higher listening levels in his living room when crossed to his subs at 80 Hz, relieving its modest bass driver of lowest bass duties.

This would be the case to varying degree of all smaller speakers being tested, as reflected in the higher ASR preference rating score with sub than without as calculated by @MZKM. We don't see this confirmed in speaker listening tests that only test full range and not also with subwoofer support as noaudiophile did with the 308 but we can certainly assume it.

 

[richard12511]

Also that was my impression from my first glance but the spinorama of both which @MZKM posted above look more similar than I thought, with biggest difference Erins one having more resolution and a tad less treble:

View attachment 127550
View attachment 127551

Interesting, and you're right. Side by side they don't look all that different. For some reason, I remembered Amir's graph looking worse. There does still seem to be a slight difference, though, as evidenced by the Olive score. Erin's is scoring higher, despite being higher resolution(which usually lowers score). Maybe just the added brightness of Amir's sample? Probably just be sample variation of a budget speaker.

 

[hardisj]

The noaudiophile 308 review simply confirms what we've seen in other reviews of smaller speakers, both active and passive. They can produce decent bass and good overall fidelity at lower listening levels but fall apart when pushed to higher levels as in noaudiophile's living room testing. This is especially true of 2-way speakers where smaller bass drivers are tasked with the lowest bass through much of the mid-range. As noaudiophile found the 308 performed admirably at higher listening levels in his living room when crossed to his subs at 80 Hz, relieving its modest bass driver of lowest bass duties.

It is important to note that my issues with the bass occurred even in the nearfield at medium volume (80-85dB at a couple feet away):

The midbass does some things I do not like at all and generally sounds quite resonant. Let me give some specific examples:

• Howard Jones’ Everlasting Love has a 4-chord progression going in order from:
  • 225 Hz, 180, 150 and 60 Hz (approximately)
  • In the nearfield (~1 foot to mitigate room), the first note sounds very thin and not at all in line with the other notes. Audacity indicates all 4 notes should be at roughly the same audible level. This note - at ~ 225Hz - is right where a dip in the response indicates a possible resonance (cabinet; driver?).

 

[More Dynamics Please]

It is important to note that my issues with the bass occurred even in the nearfield at medium volume (80-85dB at a couple feet away):

Right, and we've seen this to varying degree in other reviews of smaller speakers tasked with trying to reproduce extended bass. The generalization is that it gets worse when listening at higher volume and can be mitigated to some degree by off-loading the lowest bass to one or more subwoofers.

 

[hardisj]

Right, and we've seen this to varying degree in other reviews of smaller speakers tasked with trying to reproduce extended bass. The generalization is that it gets worse when listening at higher volume and can be mitigated to some degree by off-loading the lowest bass to one or more subwoofers.

I believe you're missing my point. The issues I heard were specifically noted as being above 100Hz and particularly in the 225Hz region. These are beyond the sub-bass region and higher than I would expect to cross a 5-inch midwoofer at all. You can see the effects in the data as well which is independent of other frequencies (meaning, 80Hz doesn't effect 225Hz in a log sweep).

I don't disagree using a subwoofer would help with the lower bass. My point is simply that it would not get rid of the issues I specifically noted and those issues alone are enough to keep me from recommending this speaker.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

I believe you're missing my point. The issues I heard were specifically noted as being above 100Hz and particularly in the 225Hz region. These are beyond the sub-bass region and higher than I would expect to cross a 5-inch midwoofer at all. You can see the effects in the data as well which is independent of other frequencies (meaning, 80Hz doesn't effect 225Hz in a log sweep).

I don't disagree using a subwoofer would help with the lower bass. My point is simply that it would not get rid of the issues I specifically noted and those issues alone are enough to keep me from recommending this speaker.

I did get your point but failed to properly acknowledge. The further point I wanted to make is that we don't know exactly what compromises may have been made in trying to extend the bass performance of small speakers and what effect those compromises might have on the performance of the speaker >100 Hz, i.e. could JBL have improved the performance of the 305P in the 225 Hz range by giving up on chasing a few extra Hz of bass extension?

 

[sweetchaos]

@Maiky76 and @pierre please generate a PEQ profile for this.

I have these (as do many others) and I'm looking forward to testing the new EQ profile that you generate.

Pretty please. I'll give you a cookie...

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Corrections to Manufacturer's details:
Not a 5" midbass driver
Actually 4"

YES, woofers ARE actually the size that you see!
You see a 4" woofer
Now let me just stick this 24" monitor in an 80" frame and I'll sell you this 80" monitor
Why not measure the metal frame of the woofer as well?
PooF......Now it's a 6" woofer
If you are going to measure the surround just to pad your specs, then show some consistency and call the tweeter 1.25"
or measure the horn and call it a 6.3" tweeter
I don't care how manufacturers pad the specs
I measure what they actually are

Actually, the de facto standard for mid/woofer size is the metal frame diameter! (It should be cone diameter, but it is not!)
The de facto standard for dome tweeter (or midrange) size is the voice coil diameter, without the surround. There are exception when active diaphragm is complex in shape - such as ring radiator, "donut", etc., where actual frontal radiating area should be expressed as a nominal dome diameter.
The de facto standard for cone tweeter size is the active cone diameter.
Of course, dome tweeter in horn is simply the dome size (voice coil diameter), not the horn size.

 

[Maiky76]

@Maiky76 and @pierre please generate a PEQ profile for this.

I have these (as do many others) and I'm looking forward to testing the new EQ profile that you generate.

Pretty please. I'll give you a cookie...

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ. Please report any findings.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 4.93
With Sub: 7.00

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Not as Flat as i would expect, maybe because the multimedia usage?
• Peak in the midrange
• Looks smoother than the other set of data (despite lower resolution), production consistency?
• Broadly similar profile though

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height or just above
Horizontally, excellent anything goes up to 30deg off axis. a bit of toe in may help with HF.

EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• the EQ score looks very much like a -1dB shelf at HF on top of the LW EQ, the tone control on the back may do the trick

Score EQ LW: 6.1
with sub: 8.2

Score EQ Score: 6.4
with sub: 8.5

JBL 305 MkII APO EQ LW 96000Hz
May072021-130128

Preamp: 00 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 83.3 Hz Gain -1.63 dB Q 1.25
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 159 Hz Gain -1.3 dB Q 1.19
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1683 Hz Gain -3.3 dB Q 4.18
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3703 Hz Gain -1.72 dB Q 0.68
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 10179 Hz Gain -1.33 dB Q 0.44
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9501 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 6.17
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 17356 Hz Gain -3.39 dB Q 2.6

JBL 305 MkII APO EQ Score 96000Hz
May072021-125432

Preamp: 00 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 90.4 Hz Gain -1.24 dB Q 1.25
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 158 Hz Gain -1.55 dB Q 1.05
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1683 Hz Gain -2.82 dB Q 4.42
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3707 Hz Gain -1.72 dB Q 0.7
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 8843 Hz Gain -1.84 dB Q 0.37
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9889 Hz Gain -1.06 dB Q 4.67
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 17136 Hz Gain -3.39 dB Q 1.97

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal flat with EQ LW + slightly off axis

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[pierre]

@Maiky76 and @pierre please generate a PEQ profile for this.

I have these (as do many others) and I'm looking forward to testing the new EQ profile that you generate.

Pretty please. I'll give you a cookie...

Hello,

we already have multiple EQs for this one based on @amirm measurements. Manual is from @flipflop Here is a new one based on new measurements from @hardisj :

Here is the full EQ, I would keep only the first 7, after that the algorithm is just smoothing small imperfections which are unlikely to be
correct since there is some variability between speakers. Not that the preamp gain is conservative and include a 0.5 dB to minimise
risk of clipping.

EQ for JBL 305P Mark ii computed from ASR data
Preference Score 5.0 with EQ 6.4
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.7
Dated: 2021-05-07-07:10:56

Preamp: -1.2 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc 10237 Hz Gain -2.52 dB Q 0.13
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  1699 Hz Gain -2.85 dB Q 8.33
Filter  3: ON PK Fc   507 Hz Gain +1.28 dB Q 3.31
Filter  4: ON PK Fc  1229 Hz Gain +1.75 dB Q 10.35
Filter  5: ON PK Fc  9691 Hz Gain -0.67 dB Q 12.00
Filter  6: ON PK Fc 11585 Hz Gain +0.54 dB Q 7.32
Filter  7: ON PK Fc  7038 Hz Gain +0.66 dB Q 4.06
Filter  8: ON PK Fc  1456 Hz Gain -0.69 dB Q 12.00
Filter  9: ON PK Fc   578 Hz Gain -0.69 dB Q 12.00
Filter 10: ON PK Fc   683 Hz Gain +1.15 dB Q 11.35
Filter 11: ON PK Fc  2525 Hz Gain +0.57 dB Q 12.00
Filter 12: ON PK Fc  2283 Hz Gain +0.48 dB Q 12.00
Filter 13: ON PK Fc   733 Hz Gain +0.89 dB Q 12.00
Filter 14: ON PK Fc   703 Hz Gain -0.77 dB Q 12.00
Filter 15: ON PK Fc  1007 Hz Gain +0.57 dB Q 12.00
Filter 16: ON PK Fc  2130 Hz Gain -0.61 dB Q 12.00
Filter 17: ON PK Fc   831 Hz Gain -0.52 dB Q 12.00
Filter 18: ON PK Fc   512 Hz Gain +0.29 dB Q 12.00
Filter 19: ON PK Fc   482 Hz Gain -0.56 dB Q 12.00

Score change from 5.0 to 6.4. SPK is original SPeaKer S1 is manual S2 is autoEQ.

  JBL 305P Mark ii
         SPK   S1   S2
----------------------
NBD  ON 0.37 0.38 0.25
NBD  LW 0.32 0.36 0.19
NBD PIR 0.29 0.34 0.20
SM  PIR 0.49 0.95 0.87
SM   SP 0.81 0.96 0.91
LFX       44   42   44
LFQ     0.54 0.54 0.54
----------------------
Score    5.0  5.9  6.4
----------------------

 

[sweetchaos]

Thanks gents.

 

[flipflop]

Hello,

we already have multiple EQs for this one based on @amirm measurements. Manual is from @flipflop Here is a new one based on new measurements from @hardisj :
View attachment 128448
View attachment 128450
View attachment 128449

Here is the full EQ, I would keep only the first 7, after that the algorithm is just smoothing small imperfections which are unlikely to be
correct since there is some variability between speakers. Not that the preamp gain is conservative and include a 0.5 dB to minimise
risk of clipping.

EQ for JBL 305P Mark ii computed from ASR data
Preference Score 5.0 with EQ 6.4
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.7
Dated: 2021-05-07-07:10:56

Preamp: -1.2 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc 10237 Hz Gain -2.52 dB Q 0.13
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  1699 Hz Gain -2.85 dB Q 8.33
Filter  3: ON PK Fc   507 Hz Gain +1.28 dB Q 3.31
Filter  4: ON PK Fc  1229 Hz Gain +1.75 dB Q 10.35
Filter  5: ON PK Fc  9691 Hz Gain -0.67 dB Q 12.00
Filter  6: ON PK Fc 11585 Hz Gain +0.54 dB Q 7.32
Filter  7: ON PK Fc  7038 Hz Gain +0.66 dB Q 4.06
Filter  8: ON PK Fc  1456 Hz Gain -0.69 dB Q 12.00
Filter  9: ON PK Fc   578 Hz Gain -0.69 dB Q 12.00
Filter 10: ON PK Fc   683 Hz Gain +1.15 dB Q 11.35
Filter 11: ON PK Fc  2525 Hz Gain +0.57 dB Q 12.00
Filter 12: ON PK Fc  2283 Hz Gain +0.48 dB Q 12.00
Filter 13: ON PK Fc   733 Hz Gain +0.89 dB Q 12.00
Filter 14: ON PK Fc   703 Hz Gain -0.77 dB Q 12.00
Filter 15: ON PK Fc  1007 Hz Gain +0.57 dB Q 12.00
Filter 16: ON PK Fc  2130 Hz Gain -0.61 dB Q 12.00
Filter 17: ON PK Fc   831 Hz Gain -0.52 dB Q 12.00
Filter 18: ON PK Fc   512 Hz Gain +0.29 dB Q 12.00
Filter 19: ON PK Fc   482 Hz Gain -0.56 dB Q 12.00

Score change from 5.0 to 6.4. SPK is original SPeaKer S1 is manual S2 is autoEQ.

  JBL 305P Mark ii
         SPK   S1   S2
----------------------
NBD  ON 0.37 0.38 0.25
NBD  LW 0.32 0.36 0.19
NBD PIR 0.29 0.34 0.20
SM  PIR 0.49 0.95 0.87
SM   SP 0.81 0.96 0.91
LFX       44   42   44
LFQ     0.54 0.54 0.54
----------------------
Score    5.0  5.9  6.4
----------------------

The automated EQ looks a lot better than the EQ I made with Amir's low resolution measurements, so I'd recommended that you remove my EQ from the site. There's also not much to be gained by making a new manual EQ since the automated one is close to perfect.

 

[posvibes]

Here is the full EQ, I would keep only the first 7, after that the algorithm is just smoothing small imperfections which are unlikely to be
correct since there is some variability between speakers

Thank you for these settings, I tried them this morning and they work very well. I had both the boundary settings and HF Trim set to zero.

I quite like the clarity of the little JBL's and the first thing I noticed is that the eq settings suck out the air around female vocals by which I mean there tends to be an iciness around the voice, whereas with the eq setting the space around the vocal is warmer and tends to set it back on its heels into the general music landscape without recessing them. (This is not going well is it?).

I have a pair of Harbeth C7-ES2's that do vocals and piano very well and although I have got used to them, there is what I consider to be a touch of congestion in the bass transition from lower notes to the mid notes of the bass scale, not so much a hump but a little hangover, a blur.

I can imagine with a subwoofer the tonal balance would be a more homogeneous smoother sound with the 305p's and although they present the music in a different way from the Harbeth's they are not shamed in the comparison of the two.

 

[tifune]

):

Horizontal Contour Plot (not normalized):

Horizontal Contour Plot (normalized):

Given above + price, am I correct in thinking these would make good height speakers for 1-2 rows of seating if mounted horizontally?

 

[StuartC]

Not that I noticed when sitting as close as a couple feet away.

I bought some of these a few months ago on the back of an ASR review of the 306p (?). They were back in the box and return confirmed within an hour due to the hiss which was audible well beyond my work desk listening position of ~1m. Very disappointing since I wanted to like them, but since I wasn't going to run them at 80dB all day I couldn't ignore the constant hissing. Shame.

 

[noel_fs]

Love the review with many in depth tests.

One thing tho, seems your subjective opinions of the speaker performance is based on song mastering nuances plus using spotify as a source which is filled with garbo remasters and just makes it worse. Im not saying you are wrong in what you said (didnt fully read it), just that its profoundly flawed.

anyway, many thanks for the high quality reviews!

 

[tifune]

(didnt fully read it)

A+ review of the review

 

[dfuller]

One thing tho, seems your subjective opinions of the speaker performance is based on song mastering nuances plus using spotify as a source which is filled with garbo remasters and just makes it worse. Im not saying you are wrong in what you said (didnt fully read it), just that its profoundly flawed.

The material itself doesn't matter that much, so long as it's the same every time.

 

[hardisj]

Love the review with many in depth tests.

One thing tho, seems your subjective opinions of the speaker performance is based on song mastering nuances plus using spotify as a source which is filled with garbo remasters and just makes it worse. Im not saying you are wrong in what you said (didnt fully read it), just that its profoundly flawed.

anyway, many thanks for the high quality reviews!

I've got a library full of MFSL and AF remasters. Not the crap stuff. And I linked the Spotify list because those are the songs I use; not necessarily the exact same masters. I want people to understand there is more out there than chamber music to listen to speakers with. I have even purchased many original 80's masters from different countries of origin in hopes to find the "best" pressing. Not that it's ever really been necessary.