JBL 4367 review by Erin

[fineMen]

I was just defending my opinion that there are universally accepted aesthetic standards ...

Really? Look (sic!), the JBL L300 (link above) placed the horn arrangement behind a curtain, as to say. The 4430 (link above) presented the horn, while driving men's daydreams, overtly. Both makes sense, especially because the L300's has quite sharp edges (guess from what I know). The M2 (link above) proudly, the 4367 (link above) awkwardly show the horn without a reason other than to copy the 4430's appeal. So connecting to the history of the brand, neither a necessity is satisfied, nor a convincing story is told. JBL makes advances to the 'knowing' customer by quoting a long gone success. The reputation is well earned, but.

I'm 193cm long, a 6,33 footer. Your chairs don't work for me. Ironically the Eames' copies, in the aesthetics, an office chair, that would put the adjustments in the hands of the 'knowing' user--as the M2. Neither Eames nor 4367 do. The Eames' for the tall me is a pain. Crackhead design, actually. The other, the Barcelona chair is not small, but too small to be used as intended (guess from what I know).

Now that the drivers obviously became very cheap in comparison to back in the days of 4430, I'm very very very confident that JBL will offer a 4-way next time. Whenever that will be.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

15" is there to provide high sensitivity. Nothing special about 15" and a horn.
Also, i'm not sure there are no competitors. JTR Noesis 212RT is a three way passive loudspeaker priced at 5600$ a pair. Measurements here:

OK, indeed there is nothing special about 15" and a horn (I am designing that combination regularly), but we need to compare apples to apples.
Yes, I know about JTR, but it slipped my mind. Finally we have competitor which may be equal or better than JBL 4367, at far, far lower price. Frequency response and power/directivity measurements are excellent, but there are no distortion measurements in that review - which I don't need, because Noesis 212RT uses BMS 4590 coaxial mid-high driver which I know in details. The one and only problem of BMS 4590 is very high second harmonic distortion (about 10%) of the high-frequency driver - that may or may not be a problem for home listening, regarding usual SPL levels.
Aesthetic design and finish of JTR 212RT is good, at least for me.

 

[fineMen]

... Noesis 212RT uses BMS 4590 coaxial mid-high driver which I know in details. The one and only problem of BMS 4590 is very high second harmonic distortion (about 10%) of the high-frequency driver ...

I was told is was a 60x60 horn, hence, me thinks, quite different from the JBL stuff, 4430 or 4367 or M2. The interference of the two bass/mid drivers does something likewise.

To the rescue of the BMS4590, You have to understand, that the level at which BMS measures the tweeter part of its coaxial design, is quite severely elevated in comparison to regular driver's measurements. Still it is on par.

4590

Curves

www.bmsspeakers.com

4550

Curves

www.bmsspeakers.com

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

I'm 193cm long, a 6,33 footer. Your chairs don't work for me. Ironically the Eames' copies, in the aesthetics, an office chair, that would put the adjustments in the hands of the 'knowing' user--as the M2. Neither Eames nor 4367 do. The Eames' for the tall me is a pain. Crackhead design, actually. The other, the Barcelona chair is not small, but too small to be used as intended (guess from what I know).

You get it all wrong, LOL. We are discussing aesthetic here (also ergonomic - for chairs). Your complaining about the size of those chairs is the same as complaining that shoe size 42 (8 in USA) will not fit your feet which need shoe size 46 (12 in USA)! But the aesthetic and ergonomic of both of these shoes are the same (if they are the same model), in spite of different sizes!
So what you have to do? Buy Eame's or Barcelona copies to your size! Aesthetic and ergonomic of both chairs are beyond reproach.

 

[fluid]

I wonder if it is possible for any review thread to avoid wandering into the weeds of looks and price. They are two things that are fixed and only relevant to the potential purchaser. Actual discussions of the measurements, listening impressions, analysis of the acoustic design, things that might be relevant to a wider audience seem a distant memory. A shame as the thread started out quite positively.

 

[fredoamigo]

I wonder if it is possible for any review thread to avoid wandering into the weeds of looks and price. They are two things that are fixed and only relevant to the potential purchaser. Actual discussions of the measurements, listening impressions, analysis of the acoustic design, things that might be relevant to a wider audience seem a distant memory. A shame as the thread started out quite positively.

i just read a very interesting analysis. after erin's measurements on DiyAudio Highly Asymmetrical Waveguides | diyAudio 4367. especially concerning the off-axis vertical response ..

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

To the rescue of the BMS4590, You have to understand, that the level at which BMS measures the tweeter part of its coaxial design, is quite severely elevated in comparison to regular driver's measurements. Still it is on par.

4590

Curves

www.bmsspeakers.com

4550

Curves

www.bmsspeakers.com

I understand all of that. Did I mentioned that I make for living by designing, building and selling professional loudspeakers?
You didn't pay attention to the details of distortion measurements of both 4590 and 4550. Second harmonic distortion graph for 4590 is raised only +10 dB, but for 4550 is raised +20 dB! So, for 4590 (high-frequency driver only) second harmonic distortion is 10% and third harm. dist. is 1%. Compare that for the 4550 with 2nd harm. dist. of 3% and 3rd harm. dist. of 0.3%. Big difference! Both dirvers are measured with 1 W input.
Distortion of BMS 4550 is on par with other high quality high-frequency compression drivers from other companies, but distortion of the high-frequency driver of BMS 4590 is below par.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

I wonder if it is possible for any review thread to avoid wandering into the weeds of looks and price. They are two things that are fixed and only relevant to the potential purchaser. Actual discussions of the measurements, listening impressions, analysis of the acoustic design, things that might be relevant to a wider audience seem a distant memory. A shame as the thread started out quite positively.

No, it is not possible for any review to avoid discussion about the price of the loudspeakers. Even if there are no potential purchasers, it is relevant to compare objective and subjective assessment versus price, especially when comparing different loudspeakers.

 

[fineMen]

You didn't pay attention to the details ...

I have to admit, yes, I was sloppy. But still, the level of the coax in the upper treble is about 8dB higher, and *relative* distortion is again about 8dB higher. I wouldn't especially at that level of 10+/-% @ 112dB @ 10kHz, give any relevance into a difference of a single % or so.

That level at the upper treble would mean at least 130dB over all the spectrum combined, and all Your high-fidelity intentions would be gone--ears gone, no 'reconing' available.

cu

ps: don't You admit that the principle design as 15" plus CD horn lense is a bit dated? For my humble evaluation design from leftovers I'm going 5 (five) way. For a reason, be assured. JBL will follow

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

If we read really closely, 4590 at 10 kHz has SPL=112 dB with 2nd harmonic at -21 dB which makes 8.9 % distortion. Model 4550 at 10 kHz has SPL=106 dB (only 6 dB lower, not 8 dB) with 2nd harmonic at -28 dB which makes 4 % distortion. That is over double amount of distortion - not a relevance per se, but that makes double amount of intermodulation distortion, which is much more objectionable.

I didn't understand how is it possible to "combine all spectrum to 130 dB". Combined mid and high spectrum of 4590 via passive crossover is plotted on the bottom diagram of Curves (your link): SPL=110 dB from 650 Hz up to 6 kHz, then SPL=112 dB from 6 kHz up to 20 kHz - all that with the same 1 W input. If you put 100 W to them, than you will get SPL=130 dB. But JTR Noesis 212RT has has sensitivity of 101 dB/2.83V/1m - that means BMS 4590 is padded down about 10 dB, so with 100 W amplifier it will output 121 dB at 1 m distance, not 130 dB. For 131 dB theoretically you need almost 1000 W amplifier, which will burn the drivers in a split second.

Is 15" plus horn dated? The same as 12" or 10" or 8" loudspeaker. Today 6.5" or 5.25" woofer is the norm, unfortunately.

 

[Zvu]

.............The one and only problem of BMS 4590 is very high second harmonic distortion (about 10%) of the high-frequency driver - that may or may not be a problem for home listening, regarding usual SPL levels...

It all depends on listening levels, of course, but i don't know what 10% are you talking about. Here are measurements of BMS 4590 in Jabo KH72 horn, distortion done at 90dB/1m loudness crossed over at 6.5kHz:



When talking about percents of distortion you should mention loudness at 1m.

What can be seen is that HD2 barely touches 1% mark at 90dB at frequencies of 6.5kHz and about 17kHz. Almost all Scan Speak tweeters go over 1% HD2 at 90dB. Also, it can be seen that higher harmonics than 2nd order are for all purposes nonexistent. Given that masking is quite strong for 2nd harmonic (Earl Geddes mentiones that even 20% can go unnoticed in listening tests with music), i can't see how would it be a problem.

Other than that, JBL 4367 reaches 1% distortion at 96dB/1m at 6.5kHz so it's at least 6dB better than BMS 4590/4592, i'll give it that.

 

[fineMen]

That is over double amount of distortion - not a relevance per se, but that makes double amount of intermodulation distortion, which is much more objectionable.

Did You ever measure the relation of HD2 in horns to IM? I did, but what is Your result?!

 

[fineMen]

... JTR Noesis 212RT ...

A very different concept regarding in-room listening, due to directivity 60x60.

Is 15" plus horn dated? The same as 12" or 10" or 8" loudspeaker. Today 6.5" or 5.25" woofer is the norm, unfortunately.

For sure a two way doesn't compete well with a clean three way. Except it is larger, which is the case here. I feel JBL will not get much further with optimizing their iconic 15" low/mids. Could even be, that regardless of the effort, my beloved JBL 2206 superseeds newer designs. You know, people seem to shy off a true measurement of IM, despite its reportedly detrimental effects?

 

[FrankF]

Interesting double blind test comparing the JBL M2 and the Revel Salon2 on the AVS forum. 5 years ago but not much has changed.

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/speaker-shootout-two-of-the-most-accurate-and-well-reviewed-speakers-ever-made.2907816/

 

[fineMen]

..., my beloved JBL 2206 ...

Just as a reminder, besides the celebration of a once successful attempt, namely the 4430.

A 12" runs from about 30Hz (subwoofer as an option) up to 200Hz or so. That would be, with DSP, nothing to worry about. From 200Hz to 800Hz a 8" or a 6" with some excursion capabilities left would take over. It mitigates the problems of vertical lobing to some degree. Foremost, it would prevent a lot of intermodulation. Let the 12" get to its limits, the mids were kept clean. Regarding directivity, the front baffle dictates the pattern more than the size of the driver. In doubt, what about four 4" drivers instead, with pattern control?

All bass capable drivers I encountered up to today showed severe problems with a resonating surround somewehre between 500Hz and 800Hz--even the 2206. But the latter is very well damped in this regard, which, to some, makes it even appear 'dull'. They say it is dull because it lacks the typical drama of speaker-sound, me thinks.

So perspectively, JBL cannot sell such, people would say, downgraded model well. It would happily keep up with a 15" loaded box, though. Especially with an appropriate subwoofer added, making it a four way.

To just position an other offspring of a, back in the day, genius concept as a new flagship doesn't convince me that much.

Data on intermodulation wasn't taken, right? I did. I worried. And then I thought besides all the nitty discussions about half a dB here or there, that could be something. Anecdotely it was worth it. So, it is on You, or on Harman. "Flagship" is a big word.

Sorry.

 

[tuga]

Just as a reminder, besides the celebration of a once successful attempt, namely the 4430.

A 12" runs from about 30Hz (subwoofer as an option) up to 200Hz or so. That would be, with DSP, nothing to worry about. From 200Hz to 800Hz a 8" or a 6" with some excursion capabilities left would take over. It mitigates the problems of vertical lobing to some degree. Foremost, it would prevent a lot of intermodulation. Let the 12" get to its limits, the mids were kept clean. Regarding directivity, the front baffle dictates the pattern more than the size of the driver. In doubt, what about four 4" drivers instead, with pattern control?

All bass capable drivers I encountered up to today showed severe problems with a resonating surround somewehre between 500Hz and 800Hz--even the 2206. But the latter is very well damped in this regard, which, to some, makes it even appear 'dull'. They say it is dull because it lacks the typical drama of speaker-sound, me thinks.

So perspectively, JBL cannot sell such, people would say, downgraded model well. It would happily keep up with a 15" loaded box, though. Especially with an appropriate subwoofer added, making it a four way.

To just position an other offspring of a, back in the day, genius concept as a new flagship doesn't convince me that much.

Data on intermodulation wasn't taken, right? I did. I worried. And then I thought besides all the nitty discussions about half a dB here or there, that could be something. Anecdotely it was worth it. So, it is on You, or on Harman. "Flagship" is a big word.

Sorry.

First you convince your target audience that a Spinorama is all that matters, then you design a speaker which Spins well.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

It all depends on listening levels, of course, but i don't know what 10% are you talking about. Here are measurements of BMS 4590 in Jabo KH72 horn, distortion done at 90dB/1m loudness crossed over at 6.5kHz:

When talking about percents of distortion you should mention loudness at 1m.

What can be seen is that HD2 barely touches 1% mark at 90dB at frequencies of 6.5kHz and about 17kHz.

We (me and @fineMen) were discussing factory (BMS) measurements of 4590:
https://www.bmsspeakers.com/fileadmin/bms-data/curves_compression/ferrite/bms_4590_curves.jpg

Also, I specifically mentioned that the factory measurements were done at 1W input, which gves SPL=112 dB/1m :

If we read really closely, 4590 at 10 kHz has SPL=112 dB with 2nd harmonic at -21 dB which makes 8.9 % distortion.

This distortion is much higher (at least double) than the majority of high-quality professional compression drivers at the same, high SPL level. To my ears BMS 4590 has his own "sound signature" at higher frequencies, no doubt because of the higher distortion. But I am talking about high SPL levels, typical of professional sound reinforcement. I don't know how BMS 4590 sounds (or measures) at lover, domestic SPL levels.

 

[Zvu]

....
This distortion is much higher (at least double) than the majority of high-quality professional compression drivers at the same, high SPL level. To my ears BMS 4590 has his own "sound signature" at higher frequencies, no doubt because of the higher distortion. But I am talking about high SPL levels, typical of professional sound reinforcement. I don't know how BMS 4590 sounds (or measures) at lover, domestic SPL levels.

Aren't we comparing BMS 4590/92nd to JBL 4367's compression driver JBL D2430K D2 ?

Untill we have 112dB/1m measurements of other drivers, we don't know if they distort less, more or much more than BMS 4590/92nd.

As far as i'm concerned, this forum is oriented on home listening regardless of intended purpose of measured audio equipment. I personally couldn't care less how BMS, or any other driver for that matter, behaves/measures/sounds at 112dB/1m.

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Did You ever measure the relation of HD2 in horns to IM? I did, but what is Your result?!

, people seem to shy off a true measurement of IM, despite its reportedly detrimental effects?

Yes, I did measurements on IntrerModulaton distortion, the results were horrific.
People simply don't want (or are not prepared yet) to see such ugliness...

 

[fineMen]

Yes, I did measurements on IntrerModulaton distortion, the results were horrific.
People simply don't want (or are not prepared yet) to see such ugliness...

I found that IM of horns/drivers do *not* follow the high H2. Even with HD2 as high as 5% the IM was well below 0,1%. I wonder why that is!