JBL 4309 Review (Speaker)

[Ngower]

Took receipt of these today. There's a ~1mm "pit" on one of the compression driver's metal cones. Is this anything that can impact the sound quality, or is it just purely cosmetic?

 

[NTK]

You mean a pit in the metal cone of the compression driver? If that is the extent of the defect, it is likely harmless. The metal cone is part of the stationary phase plug. The actual diaphragm is hidden inside the compression chamber. Drawing is from Alex Voishvillo's (Harman/JBL) D2 compression driver patent (US 8,280,091)

 

[Ngower]

You mean a pit in the metal cone of the compression driver? If that is the extent of the defect, it is likely harmless. The metal cone is part of the stationary phase plug. The actual diaphragm is hidden inside the compression chamber. Drawing is from Alex Voishvillo's (Harman/JBL) D2 compression driver patent (US 8,280,091)

View attachment 372347

View attachment 372348

Yeah. Around 2 o clock in the picture attached

 

[NTK]

Yeah. Around 2 o clock in the picture attached

It's most likely OK.

 

[testp]

measure at the same spot 2 speakers, but looks okey

 

[Ngower]

Approaching 75h of play time with these, not entirely sure where I stand on them. At times they can present things well and I'm enjoying the music, but then they'll come off shrill or dull with poor quality recordings. As an example, I listen to a lot of old jazz and the tape hiss is so annoying and grating with these.

It's possible that when the dust settles these will move into my HT setup and I'll look elsewhere for hi-fi speakers. But want to keep giving them a go as I'm also breaking in a new stylus on my turntable and that could be attributing to some of the harshness.

Will probably double my time with them before coming to a final say.

EDIT: Also, to close the loop on the prior posts re: damage, Harman rep stated it wasn't likely to be an issue and that tolerances on the cone are pretty lenient. Were it indicative of damage to the compression driver itself, that is more fickle, but this didn't raise any eyebrows for them.

 

[Ngower]

Swapped the HDI-1600 back into my stereo setup. I think the 1600 is a more "pleasing" sound overall, while the 4309 has higher highs (and lower lows), in terms of enjoyment, not frequency response. The 4309 is a more detailed speaker (to my ears) and that can often reveal blemishes in recordings that I'm not a big fan of. The 1600 is less fickle. They're both solid speakers and the 4309 is probably the better speaker in terms of what it can pull out of a recording, but the 1600 is a refreshingly "easy" listen compared to the 4309. Gonna be A/B-ing them for a while to see which stays.

 

[testp]

i would decide by looks, rest you can dsp with either..

 

[Ngower]

i would decide by looks, rest you can dsp with either..

There's tons of discussion in this and the 1600 thread on measurements and the like. There's very little "subjective" listening requirements. Just adding my perspectives there as the subjective listening is something like 98% of posters in this thread haven't done.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Approaching 75h of play time with these, not entirely sure where I stand on them. At times they can present things well and I'm enjoying the music, but then they'll come off shrill or dull with poor quality recordings. As an example, I listen to a lot of old jazz and the tape hiss is so annoying and grating with these.

It's possible that when the dust settles these will move into my HT setup and I'll look elsewhere for hi-fi speakers. But want to keep giving them a go as I'm also breaking in a new stylus on my turntable and that could be attributing to some of the harshness.

Will probably double my time with them before coming to a final say.

EDIT: Also, to close the loop on the prior posts re: damage, Harman rep stated it wasn't likely to be an issue and that tolerances on the cone are pretty lenient. Were it indicative of damage to the compression driver itself, that is more fickle, but this didn't raise any eyebrows for them.

Stating the mostly obvious here but a reminder that Hifi is short for high fidelity which means highly true to the source.
So poor recordings on high fidelity speakers will sound and should sound exactly as they are, poor.
Lowfidelity speakers, or mid fi, can mask this. Of course they don't bring out the ultimate excellence of good recordings. Still you might want to investigate that.

Fwiiw I just used mine for the 1st time in awhile, was blown away by how much more I enjoyed them over the other 4 sets of speakers I played with tonight. I didn't use any poorly recorded stuff tonight but that would not have done very well on any of these sets.
Still shocked at how much I like these speakers. They are never harsh to me(unless the recording is bad/harsh), just very real and live sounding. So engaging for me. I actually deeply relax when I use them. Oddly I was listening to the hivi 3.1 DIY set before them and those sounded harsh/rough to me and just kind of left me feeling not into it. Then these brought me back to enjoying myself. Well whatever. Enjoy!

 

[Ngower]

Stating the mostly obvious here but a reminder that Hifi is short for high fidelity which means highly true to the source.
So poor recordings on high fidelity speakers will sound and should sound exactly as they are, poor.
Lowfidelity speakers, or mid fi, can mask this. Of course they don't bring out the ultimate excellence of good recordings. Still you might want to investigate that.

Fwiiw I just used mine for the 1st time in awhile, was blown away by how much more I enjoyed them over the other 4 sets of speakers I played with tonight. I didn't use any poorly recorded stuff tonight but that would not have done very well on any of these sets.
Still shocked at how much I like these speakers. They are never harsh to me(unless the recording is bad/harsh), just very real and live sounding. So engaging for me. I actually deeply relax when I use them. Oddly I was listening to the hivi 3.1 DIY set before them and those sounded harsh/rough to me and just kind of left me feeling not into it. Then these brought me back to enjoying myself. Well whatever. Enjoy!

Hi-fi in this case is simply shorthand for my two channel stereo setup, I know what it means. I sold my 4309 last year, never was able to enjoy them. L82 Classics are currently serving hi-fi duty and provide a much more enjoyable listening experience for me.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Hi-fi in this case is simply shorthand for my two channel stereo setup, I know what it means. I sold my 4309 last year, never was able to enjoy them. L82 Classics are currently serving hi-fi duty and provide a much more enjoyable listening experience for me.

Sure that is why I said 'stating the obvious' to honor that you likely already understand. It is a public forum though so I figured it can't hurt as I don't know you and in any case a random casual user who visits may benefit from the reminder. So many people are still caught off guard by how some stuff is portrayed on HI fidelity gear.

I also had the L82's. I ended up selling them but not because I did not like them. In fact I loved them. Just too many speakers and I have subs so the good bass was a bit wasted.
They have superb bass response. Outstanding really. Ultra low distortion bass with a lot of perceived dynamic punch.
Not sure I personally found them easier on poor recordings vs the 4309, maybe a little. Definitely the bass output helps the perceived tonal balance.
You have tone controls? Definitely a must for handling older stuff right?
I used some PEQ tweaks on the 4309 to get the best sound out of them. Ultimately I think I just like that constant directivity though.
I have some more speakers to sell, once I get down to just a handful of pairs I might get another set of the L82. They were really fun and sounded great. Or maybe just spring for the 4349's. Well whatever. Anyway enjoy!

 

[Pmsalsa]

Swapped the HDI-1600 back into my stereo setup. I think the 1600 is a more "pleasing" sound overall, while the 4309 has higher highs (and lower lows), in terms of enjoyment, not frequency response. The 4309 is a more detailed speaker (to my ears) and that can often reveal blemishes in recordings that I'm not a big fan of. The 1600 is less fickle. They're both solid speakers and the 4309 is probably the better speaker in terms of what it can pull out of a recording, but the 1600 is a refreshingly "easy" listen compared to the 4309. Gonna be A/B-ing them for a while to see which stays.

Hi! Who was the winner for you and your ears?? I have them in my search for listen in my room (4x4 metres aprox) jazz/bossa nova/rock/funk/soul/r&b/house/blues.
Thanks for your comments!!

 

[Ngower]

Hi! Who was the winner for you and your ears?? I have them in my search for listen in my room (4x4 metres aprox) jazz/bossa nova/rock/funk/soul/r&b/house/blues.
Thanks for your comments!!

I use the 1600 in my home theater, sold the 4309, and use L82s as my hi-fi speakers.

 

[rwortman]

I just bought a pair on sale. I am quite surprised by how good they sound. Reminds me of a bigger, much louder version of the LSR 305’s I used to have.

On sale brand new for $1299 here: https://www.safeandsoundhq.com/prod...80mJPfUzSxXbqu1xPcQRp9Rt-FQ0Qn5xoC_XkQAvD_BwE