JBL Conceal C62 Invisible Speaker Review

[Blumlein 88]

The set up was a huge hit with our potential customers showing the extent to which we could produce good sound while having a totally invisible system. Note that there was a hidden subwoofer to augment it all. Also, that was not with this speaker. It was Amina, not JBL.

As bad as the frequency response is here, a lot of it can be corrected with EQ. The main issue is power handling and distortion in bass. If we have that, the rest we can get for non-critical listening. There are invisible speakers that can't produce any bass and distort like mad.

Yeah, I amended my post noting it was different speakers. I also didn't know you were using a hidden sub.

 

[amirm]

I'd personally put three small halfway okay speakers on that little shelf below the TV with a good appearance rather than have this speaker with its poor performance.

Initial perceptual effects of such a solution would be poor with sound not aligning with the image position. The "ventriloquist" effect will eventually set in with brain adjusting to that but will not make for good initial impression (which our demo living room was intended to do).

That would be on top of it defeating the clean look of that setting. I don't know why this is so hard to appreciate. People just don't want to look at speakers in their living rooms. I worked hard to hide the ones I am using:

You can see the little Revel on its side. Even though that is less optimal, I had to do that to make it look smaller than if it were vertical. This is about as far as I can take the compromise.

 

[DanTheMan]

Considering the manual states that its intended installation is behind 2 mm. plaster and paint, neither of us will be any wiser by guessing, nor by assessing it using measurements done not behind 2 mm. plaster and paint.

I’ve done a lot of plastering in my life and I’m absolutely sure I would not be able to apply the same application of plaster that anyone else who measured these speakers after their application of plaster would do. No one that has done any plastering work with has been able to do it as well as my work, but I’m sure there are more talented folks out there somewhere. I’m sure I couldn’t even get the same plaster layer on a second one that I did on the first. I definitely couldn’t get one uniformly 2mm. We should probably do at least 3 or more to get a better idea after building a jig to get the application as even as possible. Probably best to then use a mounting jig and an industrial sander to guarantee uniformity. Then we should test several brands and batches to account for availability considerations and a the different weight, densities and flexibility of the various brands. It seems like a lot of work for something that has no chance of being high fidelity and will need to measured in situ to get the best out of it anyway. I’d rather just stay guessing. YMMV

 

[Thomas_A]

I don't think any of the in-wall or in-ceiling stuff pretend to be the greatest in audiophile quality - it's more of a "i hate to see this sh*t anywhere in my room" proposition. Just like some people simply listen off their smartphone speakers. If you don't like the concept, it' not for you nor your priorities, and just scroll away.

I do it all tthe time when I know a product is not designed to fit my priorities - it's a waste of time to write a post claiming it should, since you're not in the target group.

I am certainly not against speakers and HIFi equipment which are designed to melt in or be invisible, rather the opposite. While I cannot use in-walls due to the wall construction in the current apartment, I paint my speakers - front height, surrounds, mains to be the same colour as the wall including cables. Regarding equipment the turntable and the slim line AVR is visible, the rest hidden. I remade my main active speakers to passives years ago to reduce equipment needed.

However I am quite certain there are other in-wall speakers that measures better than this one. For ”melting in without looking like speakers” the IKEA Symfonisk on-walls are way better than this one.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Initial perceptual effects of such a solution would be poor with sound not aligning with the image position. The "ventriloquist" effect will eventually set in with brain adjusting to that but will not make for good initial impression (which our demo living room was intended to do).

That would be on top of it defeating the clean look of that setting. I don't know why this is so hard to appreciate. People just don't want to look at speakers in their living rooms. I worked hard to hide the ones I am using:

You can see the little Revel on its side. Even though that is less optimal, I had to do that to make it look smaller than if it were vertical. This is about as far as I can take the compromise.

I don't know why this is so hard to appreciate. People just don't want to look at speakers in their living rooms.

I suppose as audiophiles who care a lot about music trying to hide the source of our enjoyment doesn't mean much. So yes it is hard to appreciate compromising heavily on performance for that. Some speakers are weird, or industrial, but some look good (for speakers). If you are going to listen you'll need speakers so hiding them would never occur to me. I have always understood why many, many more people would put up with stereo against one wall than would agree to have surround which ends up being all over the room. If you are so intent on invisibility then like I said earlier, sound quality is down the list of priorities. So much so I don't even know why discuss it. Testing it was good to know, but I'll drop out of the discussion now. It doesn't mean anything to someone like me.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I do like the solution. I don't like the performance.

I can see some people going toward such however. Just not me

Peace.

 

[DrCWO]

If you like to get really good sound get a decent speaker or horn with DSP. If you don‘t care get those in wall speakers for some background music.
To be frank I can‘t imagine to enjoy a movie like Terminator with 74dB spl

 

[DanielT]

I am certainly not against speakers and HIFi equipment which are designed to melt in or be invisible, rather the opposite. While I cannot use in-walls due to the wall construction in the current apartment, I paint my speakers - front height, surrounds, mains to be the same colour as the wall including cables. Regarding equipment the turntable and the slim line AVR is visible, the rest hidden. I remade my main active speakers to passives years ago to reduce equipment needed.

However I am quite certain there are other in-wall speakers that measures better than this one. For ”melting in without looking like speakers” the IKEA Symfonisk on-walls are way better than this one.

First, thanks Amir for the test. I think (and my many would agree with me) that speaker evaluations are the most interesting thing you do.

_____
Thomas.

In addition, with the Ikea SYMFONISK Picture Frame Speaker, you can choose from a lot of motifs. Here are some, a google image search I did:

However, I miss Hilma af Klint. Strange considering how popular she has become in recent years and that she was Swedish. That combo would be a slam dunk for IKEA.

Hilma af Klint - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Matt_Holland]

I don't think any of the in-wall or in-ceiling stuff pretend to be the greatest in audiophile quality - it's more of a "i hate to see this sh*t anywhere in my room" proposition. Just like some people simply listen off their smartphone speakers. If you don't like the concept, it' not for you nor your priorities, and just scroll away.

actually the category is huge and ranges from very bad sounding up to genuinely high-end in-wall speakers from brands like Meridian, Focal, Dali, Sonus Faber, KEF, B&W and many more. So I think it’s more about, “I hate to see this s*#t on my floor or shelf, but I want great sound”. Invisible speakers are a different category based mostly on “I didn’t want speakers or care about having sound in this room, but now I know you can get invisible speakers, and I have loads of money, I’ll allow it.”

A big factor with invisible speakers is the additional planning, installation effort and project management required by the installation company. Many installers just won’t go near them, particularly if they’ve had a prior bad experience.

 

[Matt_Holland]

It’ll reduce treble output and overall efficiency. Beyond that, hard for me to say exactly but it’s unlikely to do any better. Every application will be different but this is probably as good as it gets.

Actually, the treble response won’t be affected if the plaster layer is well bonded to the speaker surface. As I mentioned in a previous reply, the weight of the plaster reduces the midrange output (and changes the frequencies of any bending modes) and may extend the bass output slightly.

 

[fordiebianco]

Good Morning,

many thanks for the test @amirm . Interesting test and even more interesting speaker. I didn't know such application (invisible speakers) exist, but I can certainly understand that there will be a significant clientel for these. Until I moved in with my wife, I had no idea that there are people who don't like the look of (any) speakers and can happily live with the sound their flat panel TV produces (or an ancient kitchen radio, etc). Fortunately compromises have been made, so both my wife and me are happy with the outcomes.

Talking about compromises, it might be worth for some participants in this thread to remember how to hold a measured public discussion and to reassess their tone.

 

[Sal1950]

We have a dedicated theater so I did not plan for surround sound in our living room. Even if I had, there is no way I want ugly speakers grills on the walls. Or worse, put speakers behind us. I care about the clean look of our living room as much as my wife does.

So why bother with the living room at all?
I think what your really saying is that you already have a great theater to listen in.
So if the wife wants any ole crap sounding surround in the living room, she can have her invisiblables.
And you'll go in the other room.

 

[beagleman]

Have to agree with the forum members mentioning the IKEA picture frame speaker.

While not perfect either, it was for sure leaning towards HI-FI sound when I heard it; Nothing was horribly lacking or obviously wrong.

 

[dasdoing]

simply using the TV speakers?

they are all jokes.
you have to wonder why there isn't a single TV with real speakers (but thin) attached to sides.

2014 you had this https://sonypremiumhome.com/premium-television/X900B.php

 

[Spkrdctr]

Amir, since you are a JBL dealer, I wonder if my JBL Flip 5 speaker will blow the doors off of this? The graph is appalling. But at least we know how this type of speaker performs.

 

[Pinkynator]

Have to agree with the forum members mentioning the IKEA picture frame speaker.

While not perfect either, it was for sure leaning towards HI-FI sound when I heard it; Nothing was horribly lacking or obviously wrong.

Most unsurprisingly, Amir had tested it.

And yes, it is very good

 

[JakeK]

I'm not going to vote on these as I've nothing to compare them to. The fact you can get sound coming from a smooth wall makes them amazing and interesting. They don't sound amazing though but they may be acceptable as surrounds. The fact you have to plaster (mud) them into a wall and if they need replacing you have to tear holes in the wall makes them awful. So I'm an undecided panther.

I'm considering options for a new surround setup in the future and these are beyond my price and inconvenience band! Mostly the £1000s for installation etc. and too much hassle for me to build a false wall myself to put them in. If you have the money to pay for these to be installed and the wall re-skimmed and re-painted then maybe you have the budget for a higher end model with better sound.

 

[DSJR]

I remember working for a dealer that did huge B&O business and also started selling Bose before B&O levered out separates side away to get more 'floor space' and eventually all competition in that store (not a tale for today).

Thing is, even at B&O or Bose level (so maybe way under the kind of monetary installs being discussed here), people wanted to hide as much as possible away (B&O people did like to put the swanky cource/preamps on show with sliding doors and so on back then. Flat wall hung speakers regularly placed behind curtains, slim column speakers put into corners (they worded well despite this), Bose Acoustimass (we called them Acoustimess) with the pods set high up in corners and the woof-woof box behind the sofa. These people want a 'sound,' not a high fidelity analysis of the music they play and of course once a moving picture is involved, our brains switch to giving priority to that and any fidelity of sound is forgotten - Bose did an AV centre (Acoustimass 10?) and the sound was fine and dandy when watching films, but turn the telly off an dput a CD in the DVD/CD drive and the 'sound quality' dropped rapidly to a kind of 'glorified portable radio tone' spread around the room with added 'thump' for bass.

I'm becoming rapidly aware that my anecdotes are now from a bygone age (I can't help it - I apologise) but speakers like this one with other similar types will be fine sound producers in the AV rear/overhead context Amir has mentioned. i think sometimes, 'we' take accurate uncoloured sound reproduction a bit too literally and I mean, much as I'd love a pair of KH140's to use here as a modern cheaper take on the ATC 100A's I loved so much in my single days, the sheer bulk of the things and bluff grey? finish would NOT go down well - I'm amazed herself hasn't banned the cherry finish Harbeth SHL5s here and it's ME who'd finding them fugly, especially as I can't use them as much currently... She's talking of maybe different stands, but that's only a short term thing I suspect

 

[Rottmannash]

And that is what the review conclusions stated: "I can rule out the JBL Conceal C62 for music usage. What it does for surround and EQ, is hard to judge but likely can be made to be acceptable."


We have a dedicated theater so I did not plan for surround sound in our living room. Even if I had, there is no way I want ugly speakers grills on the walls. Or worse, put speakers behind us. I care about the clean look of our living room as much as my wife does.

But I do miss not having rear channels when we watch a movie for effects alone. So if I like to some day remedy that with invisible speakers if good enough fidelity can be had. Lest you want to say that no surround system is better than using these, that is the only option available to me.

when are we going to see photos of your theater?

 

[Rottmannash]

actually the category is huge and ranges from very bad sounding up to genuinely high-end in-wall speakers from brands like Meridian, Focal, Dali, Sonus Faber, KEF, B&W and many more. So I think it’s more about, “I hate to see this s*#t on my floor or shelf, but I want great sound”. Invisible speakers are a different category based mostly on “I didn’t want speakers or care about having sound in this room, but now I know you can get invisible speakers, and I have loads of money, I’ll allow it.”

A big factor with invisible speakers is the additional planning, installation effort and project management required by the installation company. Many installers just won’t go near them, particularly if they’ve had a prior bad experience.

We bought a pair of B&W in walls many years ago (appx 25 yrs?) and were very satisfied with the sound for 2 channel listening. Haven't found a use for them since we moved out of that house. We took them when we left .