ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Huh? I can say that the 530 is deff not bright, not even close at all. You need to listen dude.Legend
DBR62 - laid-back
HDI1600 - boom-tizzzz, thin
S530 - bright
Huh? I can say that the 530 is deff not bright, not even close at all. You need to listen dude.Legend
DBR62 - laid-back
HDI1600 - boom-tizzzz, thin
S530 - bright
I know hence the "a voicecoil doing it directly".I mean that the Uni-Q driver has the tweeter surrounded by the mid range (which vibrates).
Huh? I can say that the 530 is deff not bright, not even close at all. You need to listen dude.
Well, people have been through this a few times on this forum, but they don't only test in mono. It seems that for research purposes with wide samples they tend to focus on mono listening, but they certainly don't only listen in mono when designing speakers.
If decades of research tell you you get the same results when ranking speakers in stereo and mono, but mono gets you there more quickly/with more confidence, why wouldn't you do critical listening in mono?
Listening tests show that the best speakers are the least flawed, and its easier to determine flaws in mono, therefore listening in mono makes sense.
Imo it's not that different that picking specific tracks to test a speaker. Even within stereo, some tracks are much more revealing than others of a speaker's flaws.
Cool beans but it's got nothing to do with op.I agree with all you've written, with the exception that I don't assessing performance (flaws) and tasting are interchangeable.
While I can't pass judgement on these speakers as I've heard none of them, I will say that in my experience, a "mushy low end" on a speaker capable of decent bass extension and output seems to always be a room bass balance issue
I'm with Amir in that I think the bass response is intentionally designed. Many of the JBLs seem to follow this pattern: slight bass boost > slight dip > flat to elevated midrange and treble.The JBL has a 4dB boost centered at 100hz. At low frequencies that is getting close to double the perceived volume. Perhaps it is a speaker bass balance issue.
I don't disagree with you, not in the slightest. I'm just interested in whether or not we can, over time, see if there's more than frequency response alone that explains what Amir reacts to. There's no point in measuring all the other stuff like distortion and CSD if we're not interested enough to find out what they actually mean.If he listened to the speaker before he measured it I would be closer to your viewpoint. However, I am not complaining about this at all (though I acknowledge why others would), as I think it would be too big a PITA to set up that part of the review properly. To me it's a nice bonus, but in no way shapes my opinion of the speaker. I think the results so far show that it shouldn't.
Thanks for another awesome review!
I think the grey finish looks quite cheap and 'plasticky'. For me, the curved sides and flat top seem to make it worse looking. The gloss black is what I would go for (if I had the dough, haha).
And this graph in the specific:
Some follow-up questions if I may:Of course. It is the recommended practice based on research. See AES paper,
Comparison of Loudspeaker-Room
Equalization Preference for Multichannel,
Stereo, and Mono Reproductions: Are
Listeners More Discriminating in Mono?
It's horses for courses.
Listening in mono may prove more adequate to evaluate some aspects of loudspeaker performance but to assess imaging you need two speakers playing simultaneously (one channel each). One on the parameters that afects imaging is pair matching which cannot be evaluated in mono.
Don't feel too bad, I did exactly the same, I was confused by why the stereo pair were wonky, and I had no idea where the 4th speaker fit in.Sometimes, I try to analyze things before paying enough attention to the whole of what is presented.
In this case, I found myself trying to understand this "mono" speaker setup.
Duh.
It's not a speaker setup.
Jump to conclusions, much?
It didn't in this case. It was justification after the fact! I saw some issues in the response so was not prepared for it to sound so good. It was after that which I concluded what I like is what I explained above.But just for the sake of putting it out there, I don't think something like this, which is more or less what we have so far, will be useful in the future for such a project.
"The sound from the JBL HDI-1600 in a word is stunning! That extra bass and very good power handling gives full satisfaction. The flat mid-frequencies means all the detail is presented as it should making for a delightful contrast with that bass response."
Mostly because it is clear that the measurements had some sort of impact in his listening.
It is a confusing paper as its main thesis was the value of equalization but as a side-effect, they also found out that differences between mono, stereo and multi-channel was as I reported. So in this context you have to ignore the EQ side and just focus on number of channels.Sometimes, I try to analyze things before paying enough attention to the whole of what is presented.
In this case, I found myself trying to understand this "mono" speaker setup.
Duh.
It's not a speaker setup.
Jump to conclusions, much?
I don't disagree with you, not in the slightest. I'm just interested in whether or not we can, over time, see if there's more than frequency response alone that explains what Amir reacts to. There's no point in measuring all the other stuff like distortion and CSD if we're not interested enough to find out what they actually mean.
Ahh, I see. Okay. Nice. Be well.Have we met?
And you seem to have missed the joking smiley...mister.