• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

JBL HDI-3600 Speaker Review

Alice of Old Vincennes

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
1,418
Likes
903
I think this plus a few other floorstanders measured so far examplify the issue with directivity when u place too many drivers along an axis (without using CBT magic). Hopefully this blows away the misconception that floorstanders / more drivers automatically = better.
It doesn't.
 

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,641
Likes
3,620
Location
Sweden, Västerås
Louder and cleaner ? even if you use a sub is any two way 6,5” design strong enough in the midbass ?

Here i’m All for the compromise of choosing 40 ish hz as the design goal for extension and assuming integration with subwoofers this gets you loud and clear performance in the range where they do work .

It is a nice engineering feat to produce small bookshelv speakers that extends to 30 hz it looks nice on paper but is meaningless as they never provide enough output in the bass anyway
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Great review Amir, hope you didn't mess your back up too much.
Every speaker at every price level has it's trade-offs.
I think JBL made some good choices here, IMO they should have done much the same for the 1600. Who expects a standmount with one 6.5 woofer to be a full range speaker? They gonna need a sub or two do wide range music or HT. They should have gave up some bottom extention in the 1600 for increased effiency. The pair I have here impressed the hell out of me with the low base response but seemed to lack muscle-impact. Maybe my own expectation bias. I won't go on since this thread is for the 3600. It is a wonderful speaker.
 

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,717
Likes
2,897
Location
Finland
Second floorstander tested here with NFS. Glad to see some issues with bass nearfield measurements handled. More info about that, Amir?

Factory specs tell 2 xo points but title says it's 2½-way - hmm. Vertical directivity says it is 3-way.
General Specifications
Enclosure Type: Bass-reflex design with rear-firing port High Frequency Transducer: 1-inch (25mm) Teonex compression driver Low / Mid Frequency Transducers: Three 6.5-inch (200mm) black Advanced Aluminum Matrix cone, cast frame woofers Crossover Frequency: 900Hz, 2000Hz Sensitivity (2.83V @ 1M): 90dB Nominal Impedance: 4 Ohm Recommended Amplifier Power: 20W – 250W Frequency Response: 38Hz – 30kHz (-6dB) Dimensions (H x W x D): 38.84 x 10.04 x 13.46” (986.5 x 255 x 341.9mm) Net Weight: 61.80 lbs (28.03kg)

Looks like this speaker is at best in home theater/multiway setup, as L/R mains. Narrow directivity and limited bass extension don't matter much then and I can't see specific flaws. For 2-ch music Revel speakers are better choice from Harman Group.
 

GXAlan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
3,868
Likes
5,954
The piano black finish and design looks great in Amirm's shot, MUCH better than the chintzy looking wood veneers. I'm not convinced JBL actually designed and conceived of these to be Synthesis line speakers though, they're about double the price they should be IMO. My gut instinct tells me Samsung might be pressuring them toward higher margin product, their M.O. is reshuffling product stacks and relying on marketing/branding to push up prices without the specs/performance/materials to actually back it up.

These appear to be the Japanese market Studio 6 speakers with completely different drivers, reusing the enclosures for cost savings. Similar to a Toyota Avalon vs Lexus ES350, or better stated, a BMW 320i vs an M3.

The Synthesis line has excellent in walls (SCL line) and on walls (SAM1HF/SAM2LF) and then high end S, K2, and Everest line. The monitors are a separate line. The Studio 5 used to be the entry level Synthesis system and HDI is its higher end replacement.

Still, the target curve for JBL and Revel are different.

Samsung acquired Harman for the automotive business primarily. They did recruit Allan Devantier and Jerry Moro before buying Harman outright. They have been pretty hands off from what I hear. Plus, Samsung has long been a fan of Harman:
https://1001hifi.blogspot.com/2016/10/samsung-high-end-audio1996.html
 

bigjacko

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
721
Likes
359
I think the choice of 2.5 way is because of cost and box construction. The three drivers are the same so JBL can source the drivers a lot and get them cheaper. The three drivers playing the same frequency can use only one set of crossover for all three drivers, another cost saving. The last is different woofers will need different enclosures, each enclosure might even need their own port depend on sealed or ported. Making more enclosures inside the box need more construction cost and harder to design. The whole volume of speaker will need to be bigger since each driver need their own enclosure. 2.5 way the whole volume can be used by three drivers at the same time, where as 3 way the volume has to be divided up. So there is a lot of things going on why they choose 2.5 way. I can't guarantee what I said here is right, so if someone with more knowledge please correct me.
 

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,641
Likes
3,620
Location
Sweden, Västerås
I think the choice of 2.5 way is because of cost and box construction. The three drivers are the same so JBL can source the drivers a lot and get them cheaper. The three drivers playing the same frequency can use only one set of crossover for all three drivers, another cost saving. The last is different woofers will need different enclosures, each enclosure might even need their own port depend on sealed or ported. Making more enclosures inside the box need more construction cost and harder to design. The whole volume of speaker will need to be bigger since each driver need their own enclosure. 2.5 way the whole volume can be used by three drivers at the same time, where as 3 way the volume has to be divided up. So there is a lot of things going on why they choose 2.5 way. I can't guarantee what I said here is right, so if someone with more knowledge please correct me.

My current speakers are 2;5” way too.

Just trying to get a grip on when this is the rigth compromise ? Others go full 3 way at lower price and spl capacity than this speaker ?
Kef and genelec do 3 way standmount/bookshelf but this can be optimum for coaxial drivers .
I think Neumann do some small 3 ways to .

Is it maximising spl in a reasonable smal enclosure and cost as HT can demand this more often than music
 

bigjacko

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
721
Likes
359
My current speakers are 2;5” way too.

Just trying to get a grip on when this is the rigth compromise ? Others go full 3 way at lower price and spl capacity than this speaker ?
Kef and genelec do 3 way standmount/bookshelf but this can be optimum for coaxial drivers .
I think Neumann do some small 3 ways to .

Is it maximising spl in a reasonable smal enclosure and cost as HT can demand this more often than music
I think everyone will have their own choice on what can be compromised and what cannot depend on their use case. It probably is a reasonable compromise for HT use if some people only care about SPL, cost and small enclosure. I can imagine there are a lot of people like this.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
I think the choice of 2.5 way is because of cost and box construction. The three drivers are the same so JBL can source the drivers a lot and get them cheaper. The three drivers playing the same frequency can use only one set of crossover for all three drivers, another cost saving. The last is different woofers will need different enclosures, each enclosure might even need their own port depend on sealed or ported. Making more enclosures inside the box need more construction cost and harder to design. The whole volume of speaker will need to be bigger since each driver need their own enclosure. 2.5 way the whole volume can be used by three drivers at the same time, where as 3 way the volume has to be divided up. So there is a lot of things going on why they choose 2.5 way. I can't guarantee what I said here is right, so if someone with more knowledge please correct me.
Yeah, you are probably right about that.
But... this is an expensive speaker. Maybe the target has been the ability to play at thx levels as L/R in a homecinema setup ?
The crossover at 900 Hz is still a bit to high in frequency for a 2.5 way loudspeaker this big.
They should have chosen about 500 Hz were the baffle-step correction is needed.

Any driver mounted on a baffle will have an f3 = 11,600/width of baffle in cm. A driver mounted on a baffle of 20 cm with will be down 3 dB at 11,600/20 = 580 Hz. Making the baffle 50 cm wide the f3 is reduced to 232 Hz. Enough for a midrange driver working from 300-400 Hz to release its full potential without baffle step compensation.
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,374
Likes
234,456
Location
Seattle Area
Second floorstander tested here with NFS. Glad to see some issues with bass nearfield measurements handled. More info about that, Amir?
Sure. There is a general assumption in the defaults for the system/software that bass frequencies are simple fields. That is, they are non-directional and so just a first or second order expansion is enough to describe them (essentially a sphere that just expands). This is true of say, a subwoofer as I tested before. What we are running into with these tall home speakers is multiple ports and multiple drivers that are not co-located. So even though the wavelengths are large and the sound generally omnidirectional, the soundfield still becomes somewhat complex due to mixing of these sources, requiring more orders of expansion.

Normally order of expansion is just parameter you type in but it is actually challenging to dial that into the software as it just doesn't like high order expansion for low frequencies. After playing with it I managed to get as much as 6 or 7th order expansion there. This did two things:

1. Brought up the broad bass response. We have seen this deficiency in a number of my reviews. Usually it is quite minor in bookshelf speakers because their low frequency sound field is not complex (one driver and one port). And there is not much deep base.

2. Lesson that shelving/suckout down at 20 to 30 Hz. This one is a partial fix. To get better the measurements need to be made farther away from the speaker so the samples better represent the far field.
 

dinglehoser

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
108
Likes
226
Sure. There is a general assumption in the defaults for the system/software that bass frequencies are simple fields. That is, they are non-directional and so just a first or second order expansion is enough to describe them (essentially a sphere that just expands). This is true of say, a subwoofer as I tested before. What we are running into with these tall home speakers is multiple ports and multiple drivers that are not co-located. So even though the wavelengths are large and the sound generally omnidirectional, the soundfield still becomes somewhat complex due to mixing of these sources, requiring more orders of expansion.

Normally order of expansion is just parameter you type in but it is actually challenging to dial that into the software as it just doesn't like high order expansion for low frequencies. After playing with it I managed to get as much as 6 or 7th order expansion there. This did two things:

1. Brought up the broad bass response. We have seen this deficiency in a number of my reviews. Usually it is quite minor in bookshelf speakers because their low frequency sound field is not complex (one driver and one port). And there is not much deep base.

2. Lesson that shelving/suckout down at 20 to 30 Hz. This one is a partial fix. To get better the measurements need to be made farther away from the speaker so the samples better represent the far field.

Is the curve correct below 100hz? JBL's own specs indicate a -6dB cutoff of 38Hz, which generally comports with the ~42Hz knee in your frequency response chart. But there's a roughly logarithmic curve from 100Hz on down that results in 38Hz being -16dB down. That seems wildly off of JBL's usually in-the-ballpark advertised specs.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,875
Likes
6,673
Location
UK
These get deep enough for most music. This way you get 90db sensitivity and very loud max volume. At this price point it is assumed home theater folks will have subs and music bass heads will as well. Why stress these drivers? Go for dynamics instead. Let the sub shake the house as it should.
Yeah, I can see all your points there, that makes sense. Though in my experience with messing around with my JBL 308's I disagree with your first sentence that these towers have deep enough bass for most music, I've noticed positive effects with playing around with Low Shelf Boosts whilst hitting the same Harman Curve so I've experienced some comparisons with deeper bass extension into the lower bass frequencies with all other things being equal...it might be a case of what you don't know you don't miss (in terms of testing 'subtle' bass extensions into lower bass frequencies on the same system).
Acording to JBl own site these are 2,5 way speakers so that would explain that the woofers are the same.

I think this is the compromise they choosen , i would think that dedicated midrange could integrate and perform better.
Yes, I'm along the same lines of thinking as you on your last sentence there.
Well, there is the question why Jbl have the crossover frequency as high as 900 Hz for the two woofers?. They should instead have the crossoverpoint where the baffle-step correction is needed. And thats a bit lower, maybe at 500 Hz.
With different woofers they also could have had a lower tuning frequency. Maybe 10 Hz lower. But in that case, a three-way crossover would have been needed.
Maybe the selling- target for these loudspeakers are hometheatre? And used with a subwoofer?
Ah, ok, there's 2 crossovers, I had thought there was just one when I first read the review. When you talk about 3 way crossover being needed if they went with different woofers, do you mean 3 crossovers or is that different terminology? If they had 3 different woofers all targeting different frequency ranges and the tweeter, then that would require 3 crossovers, one between each of the drivers, is that what you mean? As it currently stands with this tower speaker I now understand that there are two crossovers, one between the woofer that handles the lowest bass before the other 2 woofers that are targeted to the mid range, and then one between those & the tweeter. (On reflection I think my problem is that I don't understand the difference between a 2.5 way system and a 3 way system.)
 
Last edited:

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,641
Likes
3,620
Location
Sweden, Västerås
Yeah, I can see all your points there, that makes sense. Though in my experience with messing around with my JBL 308's I disagree with your first sentence that these towers have deep enough bass for most music, I've noticed positive effects with playing around with Low Shelf Boosts whilst hitting the same Harman Curve so I've experienced some comparisons with deeper bass extension into the lower bass frequencies with all other things being equal...it might be a case of what you don't know you don't miss (in terms of testing 'subtle' bass extensions into lower bass frequencies on the same system).

Yes, I'm along the same lines of thinking as you on your last sentence there.

Ah, ok, there's 2 crossovers, I had thought there was just one when I first read the review. When you talk about 3 way crossover being needed if they went with different woofers, do you mean 3 crossovers or is that different terminology? If they had 3 different woofers all targeting different frequency ranges and the tweeter, then that would require 3 crossovers, one between each of the drivers, is that what you mean? As it currently stands with this tower speaker I now understand that there are two crossovers, one between the woofer that handles the lowest bass before the other 2 woofers that are targeted to the mid range, and then one between those & the tweeter. (On reflection I think my problem is that I don't understand the difference between a 2.5 way system and a 3 way system.)

Some woofer(s) handles all the music from bass up to where the treble takes over and some woofer(s) do bass up to some frequency and no more . It would be reasonable to think one woofer is “2 way” ?

A true 3 way relieve the midrange from any bass so it well does only midrange :)
 

VintageFlanker

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,940
Likes
19,692
Location
Paris
Strangely, the HDI series managed to be distributed in France. Even stranger are the prices, "cheaper" than in US somehow: 1699€ for HDI-1600, 3299€ for 3600 and 4399€ for the 3800.:)

Speaking of which, @amirm, any plan to measure their TOTL 3800? Is there any chance that the bigger horn, larger drivers and the crossover may "fix" this total mess? :
Screen Shot 2020-05-02 at 10.24.15 PM.png


Between the white washed oak and this color, I take this.
Not me. I hate piano black so much since my Silver 10s... Cool aesthetics, but just a huge micro-scratches/dust magnet, whatever how much you take care of it.
 
Last edited:

bigjacko

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
721
Likes
359
Yeah, you are probably right about that.
But... this is an expensive speaker. Maybe the target has been the ability to play at thx levels as L/R in a homecinema setup ?
The crossover at 900 Hz is still a bit to high in frequency for a 2.5 way loudspeaker this big.
They should have chosen about 500 Hz were the baffle-step correction is needed.

Any driver mounted on a baffle will have an f3 = 11,600/width of baffle in cm. A driver mounted on a baffle of 20 cm with will be down 3 dB at 11,600/20 = 580 Hz. Making the baffle 50 cm wide the f3 is reduced to 232 Hz. Enough for a midrange driver working from 300-400 Hz to release its full potential without baffle step compensation.

I thought it only has one crossover, but it actually has two. If the bottom woofer is dedicated for bass, I do think 900 Hz is too high, it could of tuned lower for more sub bass. Since there are two crossover points, I think it should be 3.5 way, because 0.5 way just means one driver playing the same frequency as another driver.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,875
Likes
6,673
Location
UK
Some woofer(s) handles all the music from bass up to where the treble takes over and some woofer(s) do bass up to some frequency and no more . It would be reasonable to think one woofer is “2 way” ?

A true 3 way relieve the midrange from any bass so it well does only midrange :)
The crossover at 900Hz doesn't behave the same way as the crossover at 2000Hz then? I'm thinking because if it did behave the same it would eventually hand off all of the frequency response to the "next speaker up", does the low bass woofer never fully hand over to the 2 mid range woofers, is that the crucial part of 2.5 way?
 

TimVG

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2019
Messages
1,181
Likes
2,573
I suspect the crossover in terms of basic designs is similar to the Revel Concerta2 series - in which case the white paper from those series sheds some more light on the matter

https://www.excelia-hifi.cz/revel/data/revel-concerta-2-tech.pdf

As noted it is a compromise in favor of more efficiency and overal power handling compared to a classic three way with similar drive units and cabinet. The tradeoff being a more narrow vertical listening window.
 
Top Bottom