• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

JBL 4309: Spinorama and measurements

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,918
Likes
7,244
Location
NYC
Shoop de woop, I've got another spinorama scoop. This is the new JBL 4309.

JBL%204309%20Pair%20in%20Walnut%20(1605%20x%201605).png


A retro-looking bookshelf speaker with a wider than usual baffle despite a 6.5-inch woofer.

4309 Spin.png


The speaker sounds good, there's a narrow directivity mismatch at the crossover due to the vertical, can't say it's been super audible. Resonance at 1kHz, but flattish response otherwise. Superb imaging, very nice dynamics given the size. Mostly tonally neutral; I noticed a slight lack of energy in the low mids more than i did the messiness at the crosover, which gave it a slightly hollow sound compared to the Genelecs 8341A I'd just been listening to beforehand.

4309 Combo Directivity (hor).jpg


ER Horizontal:
4309 ER Horizontal.png


ER Vertical
ER Vertical.png


Grill vs no grill (it only covers the woofer and ports):

4309 grille.png

Unless it affects directivity somehow, nothing wrong with using the grille at all.

More measurements and thoughts later. I have more speakers to measure so it's easier for me to just get the spins out the way at first than to go about formatting all the rest of the data.
 
Last edited:

sabbot

Member
Joined
May 7, 2021
Messages
23
Likes
22
Location
Kawasaki
Many thanks for the spins and first comments!

Would be also interested in a comparison 4309 vs HDI-1600 vs L82 from your other measurements.

I like what JBL is doing there, but I'm still puzzled by the positioning of all these speakers. Besides the before mentioned there are also the 4306 and 4312g, though different concepts, market prices are not too far off. Confusing.
 
OP
N

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,918
Likes
7,244
Location
NYC
Many thanks for the spins and first comments!

Would be also interested in a comparison 4309 vs HDI-1600 vs L82 from your other measurements.

I like what JBL is doing there, but I'm still puzzled by the positioning of all these speakers. Besides the before mentioned there are also the 4306 and 4312g, though different concepts, market prices are not too far off. Confusing.

If I had to rank these based purely on audio memory and my own listening preferences, it'd be L82>4309=>HDI-1600. Note that I listened to the L82 in a different (and probably better, acoustically) living room, so take that all with a grain of salt.

But as some of you know I prefer wider directivity speakers, and the L82 is a fair bit wider; sidewall ER reflections seem to be a good 3dB louder relative to the listening window compared to the other 2. I really liked its more expansive soundstage.

The 4309 and HDI-1600 seem roughly in the same class to me, and in fact, their measurements are very similar overall. The observed differences are definitely too small to be notable without direct comparison probably. But if I had to compare... the 4309 is a little more jagged but I actually think it images a little better, and from the measurements it seems to have slightly better horizontal directivity so that makes sense (the HDI-1600 bunches up a bit in the top few octaves). I also felt like I noticed the lack of top octave energy more on the HDI-1600. But the HDI maybe sounded a little more neutral.
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,477
Likes
3,500
Excellent directivity!

Thanks!

Price is around 2,150 € / pair, from what I see.
 

Valentin R

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
168
Likes
226
If I had to rank these based purely on audio memory and my own listening preferences, it'd be L82>4309=>HDI-1600. Note that I listened to the L82 in a different (and probably better, acoustically) living room, so take that all with a grain of salt.

But as some of you know I prefer wider directivity speakers, and the L82 is a fair bit wider; sidewall ER reflections seem to be a good 3dB louder relative to the listening window compared to the other 2. I really liked its more expansive soundstage.

The 4309 and HDI-1600 seem roughly in the same class to me, and in fact, their measurements are very similar overall. The observed differences are definitely too small to be notable without direct comparison probably. But if I had to compare... the 4309 is a little more jagged but I actually think it images a little better, and from the measurements it seems to have slightly better horizontal directivity so that makes sense (the HDI-1600 bunches up a bit in the top few octaves). I also felt like I noticed the lack of top octave energy more on the HDI-1600. But the HDI maybe sounded a little more neutral.

interesting

So like the price indicates

1st JBL L82 $2500

2nd JBL 4309 $2000
3rd JBL HDI1600 $1800

all very close sonicly with different aesthetics
 
OP
N

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,918
Likes
7,244
Location
NYC
interesting

So like the price indicates

1st JBL L82 $2500

2nd JBL 4309 $2000
3rd JBL HDI1600 $1800

all very close sonicly with different aesthetics

Oh I'd forgotten about the hdi being cheaper lol. The L82 also has the obvious advantage of the 8-inch woofer too, for those who like to listen loud. Although the compression driver has its benefits in that regard too for the highs
 

Valentin R

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
168
Likes
226
Napier does it image better than the L82
Did you listen to them in the far field or as a studio monitor ? did you use and find the tone control useful
 

pierre

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
602
Likes
1,311
Location
Switzerland
Score is 4.7 and jump to 6.3 with an EQ.

filters0.png

filters1.png

filters2.png


Optimisation start at 300hz and stop at 16kz. I would keep the first 9 PEQs or maybe just the first 5.

Code:
EQ for JBL 4309 computed from Misc data
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.8
Dated: 2021-05-18-11:40:59

Preamp: -0.2 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  1181 Hz Gain -3.49 dB Q 0.53
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  6753 Hz Gain -2.68 dB Q 0.80
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  1642 Hz Gain +3.33 dB Q 4.35
Filter  4: ON PK Fc   665 Hz Gain +2.26 dB Q 2.06
Filter  5: ON PK Fc 13528 Hz Gain -2.56 dB Q 4.17
Filter  6: ON PK Fc   946 Hz Gain -1.94 dB Q 12.00
Filter  7: ON PK Fc  9422 Hz Gain +2.17 dB Q 7.21
Filter  8: ON PK Fc  2066 Hz Gain -1.33 dB Q 10.40
Filter  9: ON PK Fc   801 Hz Gain +1.18 dB Q 11.43
Filter 10: ON PK Fc  1310 Hz Gain +0.48 dB Q 12.00
Filter 11: ON PK Fc   597 Hz Gain -0.79 dB Q 12.00
Filter 12: ON PK Fc  1498 Hz Gain -0.94 dB Q 12.00
Filter 13: ON PK Fc   346 Hz Gain +0.61 dB Q 1.58
Filter 14: ON PK Fc  3693 Hz Gain -0.85 dB Q 3.57
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 12268 Hz Gain -1.12 dB Q 12.00
Filter 16: ON PK Fc  5792 Hz Gain +0.82 dB Q 12.00
Filter 17: ON PK Fc  1365 Hz Gain +0.41 dB Q 12.00
Filter 18: ON PK Fc  7397 Hz Gain -0.64 dB Q 12.00
Filter 19: ON PK Fc  1079 Hz Gain +0.40 dB Q 12.00
Filter 20: ON PK Fc  1182 Hz Gain -0.47 dB Q 12.00

Thanks @napilopez for the data and the hard work.
 

TimVG

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
978
Likes
1,806
I see these are bi-wirable. Chances are these could improved by optimising the crossover (time allignment) with a minidsp as the main "issues" seem to be located there. Would love to see the vertical behaviour in detail.
 

Maiky76

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
287
Likes
2,020
Location
French, leaving in China
Shoop de woop, I've got another spinorama scoop. This is the new JBL 4309.

JBL%204309%20Pair%20in%20Walnut%20(1605%20x%201605).png


A retro-looking bookshelf speaker with a wider than usual baffle despite a 6.5-inch woofer.

View attachment 130171

The speaker sounds good, there's a narrow directivity mismatch at the crossover due to the vertical, can't say it's been super audible. Resonance at 1kHz, but flattish response otherwise. Superb imaging, very nice dynamics given the size. Mostly tonally neutral; I noticed a slight lack of energy in the low mids more than i did the messiness at the crosover, which gave it a slightly hollow sound compared to the Genelecs 8341A I'd just been listening to beforehand.

View attachment 130176

ER Horizontal:
View attachment 130179

ER Vertical
View attachment 130180

Grill vs no grill (it only covers the woofer and ports):

View attachment 130182
Unless it affects directivity somehow, nothing wrong with using the grille at all.

More measurements and thoughts later. I have more speakers to measure so it's easier for me to just get the spins out the way at first than to go about formatting all the rest of the data.


Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 4.8
With Sub: 6.5

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Not particularly flat.
  • some issues in the 1k range (LF surround?)
  • difficult to tell without the full data set but the DI are nice.
JBL 4309 no EQ Spinorama.png

EQ design:

I have generated One EQ. The APO config file is attached.
The LW EQ and Score are so close that there is no point in splitting them.
That's the strength of their waveguide.
Quite a bit of work though and that might NOT suit the buyer who like them in the first place...

Score EQ: 6.4
with sub: 8.2

Code:
JBL 4309 APO EQ 96000Hz
May212021-112432

Preamp: -1.6 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.1 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.19
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 112.5 Hz Gain -4.7 dB Q 1.16
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 967 Hz Gain -3.61 dB Q 6.46
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1224 Hz Gain -2.27 dB Q 5.36
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1691 Hz Gain 1.5 dB Q 4.88
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2091 Hz Gain -2.15 dB Q 5.48
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4105 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 1.58
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7700 Hz Gain -1.37 dB Q 2.2
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 9437 Hz Gain 2.36 dB Q 4.82

JBL 4309 EQ Design.png


Spinorama EQ
JBL 4309 EQ Spinorama.png


Zoom PIR-LW-ON
JBL 4309 Zoom.png


Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements
JBL 4309 Radar.png
 

Attachments

  • JBL 4309 APO EQ 96000Hz.txt
    482 bytes · Views: 16
Last edited:
OP
N

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,918
Likes
7,244
Location
NYC
Score is 4.7 and jump to 6.3 with an EQ.

View attachment 130429
View attachment 130430
View attachment 130431

Optimisation start at 300hz and stop at 16kz. I would keep the first 9 PEQs or maybe just the first 5.

Code:
EQ for JBL 4309 computed from Misc data
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.8
Dated: 2021-05-18-11:40:59

Preamp: -0.2 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc  1181 Hz Gain -3.49 dB Q 0.53
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  6753 Hz Gain -2.68 dB Q 0.80
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  1642 Hz Gain +3.33 dB Q 4.35
Filter  4: ON PK Fc   665 Hz Gain +2.26 dB Q 2.06
Filter  5: ON PK Fc 13528 Hz Gain -2.56 dB Q 4.17
Filter  6: ON PK Fc   946 Hz Gain -1.94 dB Q 12.00
Filter  7: ON PK Fc  9422 Hz Gain +2.17 dB Q 7.21
Filter  8: ON PK Fc  2066 Hz Gain -1.33 dB Q 10.40
Filter  9: ON PK Fc   801 Hz Gain +1.18 dB Q 11.43
Filter 10: ON PK Fc  1310 Hz Gain +0.48 dB Q 12.00
Filter 11: ON PK Fc   597 Hz Gain -0.79 dB Q 12.00
Filter 12: ON PK Fc  1498 Hz Gain -0.94 dB Q 12.00
Filter 13: ON PK Fc   346 Hz Gain +0.61 dB Q 1.58
Filter 14: ON PK Fc  3693 Hz Gain -0.85 dB Q 3.57
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 12268 Hz Gain -1.12 dB Q 12.00
Filter 16: ON PK Fc  5792 Hz Gain +0.82 dB Q 12.00
Filter 17: ON PK Fc  1365 Hz Gain +0.41 dB Q 12.00
Filter 18: ON PK Fc  7397 Hz Gain -0.64 dB Q 12.00
Filter 19: ON PK Fc  1079 Hz Gain +0.40 dB Q 12.00
Filter 20: ON PK Fc  1182 Hz Gain -0.47 dB Q 12.00

Thanks @napilopez for the data and the hard work.

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 4.8
With Sub: 6.5

Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Not particularly flat.
  • some issues in the 1k range (LF surround?)
  • difficult to tell without the full data set but the DI are nice.
View attachment 131017
EQ design:

I have generated One EQ. The APO config file is attached.
The LW EQ and Score are so close that there is no point in splitting them.
That's the strength of their waveguide.
Quite a bit of work though and that might suit the buyer who like them in the first place...

Score EQ: 6.4
with sub: 8.2

Code:
JBL 4309 APO EQ 96000Hz
May212021-112432

Preamp: -1.6 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43.1 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.19
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 112.5 Hz Gain -4.7 dB Q 1.16
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 967 Hz Gain -3.61 dB Q 6.46
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1224 Hz Gain -2.27 dB Q 5.36
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1691 Hz Gain 1.5 dB Q 4.88
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2091 Hz Gain -2.15 dB Q 5.48
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 4105 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 1.58
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 7700 Hz Gain -1.37 dB Q 2.2
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 9437 Hz Gain 2.36 dB Q 4.82

View attachment 131016

Spinorama EQ
View attachment 131018

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 131014

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements
View attachment 131015
Thank you folks! Interesting that the 4309 performed significantly worse than the HDI-1600 (amir's measurements had it at a 5.7.), even though in practice they are really very similar.

4309 v hdi.png


More in depth, I believe the 4309 has slightly better horizontal directivity and i thought it had slightly better imaging.

If I were choosing between these two speakers, I'd personally just go with which I liked the looks of more.

Btw, forgot to share the HF knob settings. Unfortunately, it only has a very subtle effect but it's better than nothing.

4309 hf.png
 

sweetchaos

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
The Curator
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
1,881
Likes
4,453
Location
BC, Canada
Wow, so these 2 have almost indistinguishable on-axis frequency response?
Fascinating...

I guess it makes sense, same 6.5" driver and 1" tweeter (although the waveguide seems different?).
The JBL 4309 seems like a big speaker, but it's basically the same size as the HDI-1600...which threw me off. o_O

1621577136230.png

1621577147575.png

https://comparesizes.com/comparison/JBL-4309-vs-JBL-HDI1600/1621577100760

I do like the look of both speakers. :D
 
OP
N

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,918
Likes
7,244
Location
NYC
Wow, so these 2 have almost indistinguishable on-axis frequency response?
Fascinating...

I guess it makes sense, same 6.5" driver and 1" tweeter (although the waveguide seems different?).
The JBL 4309 seems like a big speaker, but it's basically the same size as the HDI-1600...which threw me off. o_O

View attachment 131045
View attachment 131047
https://comparesizes.com/comparison/JBL-4309-vs-JBL-HDI1600/1621577100760

I do like the look of both speakers. :D

I like the look of the 4309 but cannot stand the look of the HDI-s :D. So it's definitely be the 4309 for me.

Also yes, I keep on thinking the 4349 is the same speaker as the 4309 because they look so similar in photos but they are completely different sizes!

By the way the woofer on the HdI and 4309 are different. The HDI uses an aluminum woofer, the 4309 a paper one. And yeah, the waveguides are different too. The compression driver is the same though. The 4309 is also rated for slightly higher sensitivity, although this is not something I tested (I should really bring the multimeter out with me sometime)
 

Spocko

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
854
Likes
1,580
Location
Southern California
Shoop de woop, I've got another spinorama scoop. This is the new JBL 4309.

JBL%204309%20Pair%20in%20Walnut%20(1605%20x%201605).png


A retro-looking bookshelf speaker with a wider than usual baffle despite a 6.5-inch woofer.

View attachment 130171

The speaker sounds good, there's a narrow directivity mismatch at the crossover due to the vertical, can't say it's been super audible. Resonance at 1kHz, but flattish response otherwise. Superb imaging, very nice dynamics given the size. Mostly tonally neutral; I noticed a slight lack of energy in the low mids more than i did the messiness at the crosover, which gave it a slightly hollow sound compared to the Genelecs 8341A I'd just been listening to beforehand.

View attachment 130176

ER Horizontal:
View attachment 130179

ER Vertical
View attachment 130180

Grill vs no grill (it only covers the woofer and ports):

View attachment 130182
Unless it affects directivity somehow, nothing wrong with using the grille at all.

More measurements and thoughts later. I have more speakers to measure so it's easier for me to just get the spins out the way at first than to go about formatting all the rest of the data.
Loving that you listened to the 8341A first as it's like cleansing your palate with pickled ginger or a whiff of coffee beans. I too am disappointed by the the dip in the mids just below 2K - isn't this a critical area?
 
OP
N

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,918
Likes
7,244
Location
NYC
Loving that you listened to the 8341A first as it's like cleansing your palate with pickled ginger or a whiff of coffee beans. I too am disappointed by the dip in the mids just below 2K - isn't this a critical area?

You know, it's weird. 1-2kHz should be a really critical area but for some reason I just never seem to hear much of a problem from this kind of bump/dip combo in that region. For some reason, problems like this rarely seem to be very audible to me. I tend to notice it more if there's just a large dip or large bump in region rather than this sort of bump dip combo. Overall I notice issues below 1kHz and above 2kHz much more.

It might also just be that most other speakers show a directivity error at a bit of a higher frequency range anyway, so this not much worse of an issue.

It might just be some anomaly. Your mileage may definitely vary.
 

Valentin R

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
168
Likes
226
You know, it's weird. 1-2kHz should be a really critical area but for some reason I just never seem to hear much of a problem from this kind of bump/dip combo in that region. For some reason, problems like this rarely seem to be very audible to me. I tend to notice it more if there's just a large dip or large bump in region rather than this sort of bump dip combo. Overall I notice issues below 1kHz and above 2kHz much more.

It might also just be that most other speakers show a directivity error at a bit of a higher frequency range anyway, so this not much worse of an issue.

It might just be some anomaly. Your mileage may definitely vary.

Napier

So what’s your final thought of the JBL 4309
Dinámica
Did you use the HF tone control
 
OP
N

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,918
Likes
7,244
Location
NYC
Napier

So what’s your final thought of the JBL 4309
Dinámica
Did you use the HF tone control

I did try it but found the default setting worked well for me. I liked the 4309 a lot! I think I preferred it slightly to the HDI-1600, but they're supremely close overall and it's hard to know without a direct comparison.

Could just be i prefer the 4309's looks =] the only thing in the data I can point to is that I actually think the 4309 has smoother horizontal directivity than the HDI-1600, which bunches a little around the upper treble, and the HDI-1600 has a more noticeable dip at 10kHz, which I did actually find quite audible. Obviously the 4309 has a more.obvious error in the presumably more critical 1.8kHz region, but again, it didn't bother me too much.

As the 4309 is a little better in the directivity department, I think I'd pick it and EQ. I think it's a great option for those that appreciate a retro look; you get a cool looking speaker that has a couple of flaws but nonetheless sounds great.
 

ralph

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
32
Likes
34
Location
Ländle, Germany
Many thanks for the spins and first comments!

Would be also interested in a comparison 4309 vs HDI-1600 vs L82 from your other measurements.

I like what JBL is doing there, but I'm still puzzled by the positioning of all these speakers. Besides the before mentioned there are also the 4306 and 4312g, though different concepts, market prices are not too far off. Confusing.

Recently I've listened to JBL 4306 , HDI-1600 and L82. The shop had a special price for the 4306 and they were convinced that it was by far the best offer (with the lowest price) among the 3. However with the music for my listening I've found the 1600 to offer the best soundstage and voices sounded great. Had little time to listen to 4306 but got the impression that it pronounced some details which was interesting but not necessarily right. The L82 was close to the 1600.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom