JBL 4309 Review (Speaker)

[DMill]

disagree - a speaker may sound much better in stereo than in mono. and a speaker that may sound good in mono may not sound as good in stereo than another speaker that sounds less good in mono.

and as i said before, i (and most people are interested in how a pair of speakers sound, not how a single speaker sounds.

doug s.

I‘m not sure I agree. Wouldn’t then the opposite be true? That any problems a single speaker may have would be doubled in stereo?

 

[doug s.]

I‘m not sure I agree. Wouldn’t then the opposite be true? That any problems a single speaker may have would be doubled in stereo?

except that's not borne out in listening. quad speaker shown above is one example.

doug s.

 

[Newman]

All speakers sound better in stereo. But if a speaker is bad in mono, it will still be bad in stereo. With that understanding, there is no need to add more variables and complications to testing. Especially when those perceptions will be impossible to reproduce in others' rooms. Harman went through this years ago and concluded the same.

disagree - a speaker may sound much better in stereo than in mono.

Did you not read his first sentence?

and a speaker that may sound good in mono may not sound as good in stereo than another speaker that sounds less good in mono.

I’m afraid the evidence is the opposite of that. Toole tested that idea and found it was not true.

and as i said before, i (and most people are interested in how a pair of speakers sound, not how a single speaker sounds.

Toole’s conclusion is that the order of preference of speakers, established in mono, does not change when testing in stereo. Only the magnitude of the differences is diminished, because, he concludes from the evidence, listening in stereo diminishes/masks our ability to discern.

I‘m not sure I agree. Wouldn’t then the opposite be true? That any problems a single speaker may have would be doubled in stereo?

No, as explained above, because stereo listening masks problems.

except that's not borne out in listening. quad speaker shown above is one example.

That’s right: although the Quad stays in last place, the gap does not double in stereo, it is instead masked.

 

[doug s.]

Did you not read his first sentence?

I’m afraid the evidence is the opposite of that. Toole tested that idea and found it was not true.

Toole’s conclusion is that the order of preference of speakers, established in mono, does not change when testing in stereo. Only the magnitude of the differences is diminished, because, he concludes from the evidence, listening in stereo diminishes/masks our ability to discern.

No, as explained above, because stereo listening masks problems.

That’s right: although the Quad stays in last place, the gap does not double in stereo, it is instead masked.

sorry, i disagree. it's not borne out in listening. some speakers that sound worse than others in mono then sound better in stereo. and that's all i'm interested in - how does it sound in stereo. i don't care how it sounds in mono.

ymmv,

doug s.

 

[Newman]

Sorry, your disagreement contradicts evidence collated from controlled listening tests. Your disagreement with that is invalid unless it is more than anecdotal. Got any evidence to show?

 

[Chromatischism]

Actually, for testing purposes we're only interested in how a single speaker performs because adding multiple speakers creates too many variables that complicate testing and which make it impossible to recreate by others. There's no reason to believe that the best speakers in mono would not still be the best in stereo, and it's been found to be best way to reliably do blind speaker testing.

 

[GXAlan]

I‘m not sure I agree. Wouldn’t then the opposite be true? That any problems a single speaker may have would be doubled in stereo?

except that's not borne out in listening. quad speaker shown above is one example.

Exactly. It should have double the problems but it surprisingly doesn’t. It’s one reason the Bose 901 sounds so good in blind testing if properly calibrated.

If you look at the actual published Harman paper, it basically shows that in stereo the differences get a lot smaller.

The reason for testing in mono is to have the “most predictable” estimate of how something sounds without actually hearing it.

That said, I think a speaker that measures well in mono always sounds pretty good in stereo. A speaker than measure poorly may sound great or worse in stereo. It’s less predictable.

Can a speaker that loses to another in mono with when compared to the same speaker in stereo? Yes. We see that depending on the metric you are looking on.

If advising someone a good speaker to buy online, I will rely on the spinorama. If advising someone regarding a list of speakers to audition, I am going to offer a range of speakers.

There's no reason to believe that the best speakers in mono would not still be the best in stereo, and it's been found to be best way to reliably do blind speaker testing.

If spatial quality is the priority, KEF goes from second to first place when comparing mono vs. stereo in Dr Toole’s data

 

[doug s.]

Sorry, your disagreement contradicts evidence collated from controlled listening tests. Your disagreement with that is invalid unless it is more than anecdotal. Got any evidence to show?

the quad speaker test is all the "more than anecdotal" evidence i need. it clearly sounds better w/two.

doug s.

 

[Chromatischism]

the quad speaker test is all the "more than anecdotal" evidence i need. it clearly sounds better w/two.

doug s.

Was anyone saying it doesn't sound better in stereo?

 

[doug s.]

Was anyone saying it doesn't sound better in stereo?

the quad faired poorly in the mono tests and did fine in the stereo test. and, re: mono or stereo. one person in the prior evaluation gave the highest rating to the kef when in mono, but no one gave it the highest rating in stereo.

look, asr can do whatever it wants. and folks can use or not use their recommendations as they see fit. it's simply nothing i place value on, as far as speaker recommendations go. even in mono, this particular jbl speaker has turned of some folks who have said they'd never consider it, due to how it measures; others say they would because of the way it sounds. for me, it the asr review is just a data point, which i found because i was looking for info about it. it's gotten mostly good/great reviews from those who listen to it - in stereo. and the fact that amir liked its sound in mono certainly doesn't hurt it...

and, fwiw, re: the quads, regardless of how it's reviewed, i've never heard them - in stereo - sound good to these ears - yes, they do some things well but the overall sound is not what i'd want to be listening to. but some people love them. at the end of the day, when it comes to speakers, it's a crap shoot who will like what, and which speaker is preferred more or less over another.

my system is actively quad-amped, (24db/octave active x-overs), no dsp or room treatment. it measures pretty flat in my room from 20hz-20khz, using a pink noise generator and spectrum analyzer to adjust the volume of each driver. subs (including 2nd pair ~20' behind the listening) area <50hz; mid-bass drivers 50hz-175hz; horns 175hz-7khz; ribbon tweeters >7khz. i think it sounds great. others may prefer a different sonic signature.

ymmv,

doug s.

 

[testp]

~99% here, will agree mono to be better test for speaker performance than stereo and majority will actually experience this in real world too, 1% have the opposite opinion, it's ok.
ymmv back at ya

 

[Newman]

the quad speaker test is all the "more than anecdotal" evidence i need. it clearly sounds better w/two.

the quad faired poorly in the mono tests and did fine in the stereo test. and, re: mono or stereo. one person in the prior evaluation gave the highest rating to the kef when in mono, but no one gave it the highest rating in stereo.

Just to be clear, you are misinterpreting the Floyd Toole graphic.

If he thought the evidence was showing that speakers have different strengths and weaknesses and relative preferences in stereo than they do in mono, that would have been a big deal, and he would have said so. He would also be smart enough to realize this means mono tests are not really useful for listeners who will be listening in stereo, ie your conclusion. But that is not his conclusion, not at all.

Read Toole’s own conclusions, where he says that the evidence supports a conclusion that listening in stereo dulls our ability to discern.

The stereo results in that graphic are basically ‘a wash’. In statistical terms, if error bars (confidence intervals) had been superimposed on the stereo chart, they would overlap.

If experimenters conduct an experiment and the error bars overlap, it means they can’t validly say the experiment is showing anything at all. In other words, it’s a bad experiment, dominated by statistical noise/randomness. Yep, we are talking about using stereo for speaker evaluations.

It’s all in his books. He made a mini-summary on ASR, link.

 

[doug s.]

Just to be clear, you are misinterpreting the Floyd Toole graphic.

If he thought the evidence was showing that speakers have different strengths and weaknesses and relative preferences in stereo than they do in mono, that would have been a big deal, and he would have said so. He would also be smart enough to realize this means mono tests are not really useful for listeners who will be listening in stereo, ie your conclusion. But that is not his conclusion, not at all.

Read Toole’s own conclusions, where he says that the evidence supports a conclusion that listening in stereo dulls our ability to discern.

The stereo results in that graphic are basically ‘a wash’. In statistical terms, if error bars (confidence intervals) had been superimposed on the stereo chart, they would overlap.

If experimenters conduct an experiment and the error bars overlap, it means they can’t validly say the experiment is showing anything at all. In other words, it’s a bad experiment, dominated by statistical noise/randomness. Yep, we are talking about using stereo for speaker evaluations.

It’s all in his books. He made a mini-summary on ASR, link.

nothing you have said, or that toole concluded, contradicts what i've said, re: the data that was shown.

one person preferred the the kef in mono; no one preferred the kef in stereo. the quad, while still the least preferred, closed the gap when in stereo, vs mono.

doug s.

 

[Newman]

...but the statistical noise means we can't conclude they weren't guessing.

 

[doug s.]

...but the statistical noise means we can't conclude they weren't guessing.

so don't bother with listening tests at all, even with audiophiles, audio journalists and recording pros, under blind test conditions, huh?

i also found it interesting that spatial qualities were all over the map, depending on type of music being played.

and, certainly, room size/shape/type makes a huge difference, regardless of whether or not it's mono or stereo. toole mentions that size of room vs speaker dispersion characteristics would also effect listener evaluations. my set-up is in a very large room, with openings to other large large spaces. i imagine it would sound like ass in a small room. maybe ok, but not as good in a medium sized room.

test all you want in mono. i listen in stereo.

doug s.

 

[Ron Texas]

the quad faired poorly in the mono tests and did fine in the stereo test. and, re: mono or stereo. one person in the prior evaluation gave the highest rating to the kef when in mono, but no one gave it the highest rating in stereo.

look, asr can do whatever it wants. and folks can use or not use their recommendations as they see fit. it's simply nothing i place value on, as far as speaker recommendations go. even in mono, this particular jbl speaker has turned of some folks who have said they'd never consider it, due to how it measures; others say they would because of the way it sounds. for me, it the asr review is just a data point, which i found because i was looking for info about it. it's gotten mostly good/great reviews from those who listen to it - in stereo. and the fact that amir liked its sound in mono certainly doesn't hurt it...

and, fwiw, re: the quads, regardless of how it's reviewed, i've never heard them - in stereo - sound good to these ears - yes, they do some things well but the overall sound is not what i'd want to be listening to. but some people love them. at the end of the day, when it comes to speakers, it's a crap shoot who will like what, and which speaker is preferred more or less over another.

my system is actively quad-amped, (24db/octave active x-overs), no dsp or room treatment. it measures pretty flat in my room from 20hz-20khz, using a pink noise generator and spectrum analyzer to adjust the volume of each driver. subs (including 2nd pair ~20' behind the listening) area <50hz; mid-bass drivers 50hz-175hz; horns 175hz-7khz; ribbon tweeters >7khz. i think it sounds great. others may prefer a different sonic signature.
View attachment 333172
ymmv,

doug s.

A sure cure for boredom.

 

[Newman]

test all you want in mono. i listen in stereo.

So do I...and multichannel. The difference between us is that I know how to avoid drawing wrong conclusions from experimental evidence, and you don't. Plus, when someone tries to help you understand, you put your fingers in your ears. I've led the horse to water, but sometimes the horse prefers to die of thirst. So be it.

 

[doug s.]

So do I...and multichannel. The difference between us is that I know how to avoid drawing wrong conclusions from experimental evidence, and you don't. Plus, when someone tries to help you understand, you put your fingers in your ears. I've led the horse to water, but sometimes the horse prefers to die of thirst. So be it.

sorry, you just drew another wrong conclusion.


doug s.

 

[AlexOak]

I have an opportunity to pick these up as a demo pair with only a couple small scratches on the back corners for $1000. I’m in Sweden they go for $2500, should I do it?

 

[doug s.]

I have an opportunity to pick these up as a demo pair with only a couple small scratches on the back corners for $1000. I’m in Sweden they go for $2500, should I do it?

sure, why not? that's the best way to shop. you may really like them; if so, you got a great deal. if not, you can sell them w/o taking a big financial hit.

doug s.