JBL L52 Classic review by Erin's Audio Corner

[thewas]

Written review isn't online yet so some screenshots of some important measurements:

Edit: Written review is now online too: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/jbl_l52_classic/

 

[fredoamigo]

I didn't expect anything better...distortion is a problem here!

 

[Chrise36]

I didn't expect anything better...distortion is a problem here!

Without seeing the video did he find it bright?

 

[napilopez]

For those who haven't watched video (you should!) these are actually my speakers! But I haven't listened to them yet as I shipped them straight to Erin. They were open box so I got a good deal. I purchased based on having really enjoyed and measured the larger L100 and L82, and I'd heard some good impressions of the L52s from others I trust.

For reference, here is my spin for the larger speakers speakers. Note, the L100 spin is based off incomplete, mostly front hemisphere data. It is from before I was confident in capturing full spins. The L82 spin is complete.

L100:

L82:


I'm going to paraphrase some of the stuff I've posted elsewhere, but I actually don't think the L52s data looks that bad. I'd probably rate it "fine" on amir's scale, and it has a 7.1 preference score with sub per Erin's data. For reference, the Revel M126Be is a 7.2 (almost surely a better speaker, but still).

Some thoughts on the data:

• The LW looks solid and PIR looks excellent. Jaggies don't concern me too much as long as the overall trend is good.
• Overall DI is quite good.
• The grill has a larger effect on the LW and directivity than I was expecting (this data is on patreon only at the moment), so that's disappointing, but the ER (and PIR, presumably) remains very good.
• There are some little resonances so I wonder if it would benefit from additional damping.
• The horizontal directivity is wide and when summed quite smooth. I (personally!) don't find polar maps useful and tend to find simple off axis SPL charts and individual spinorama components (sidewall reflections, total horizontal reflections, Horizontal ERDI) are more representative of the soundstage.
• In particular, I wanted a speaker that was down by less than roughly 10-15 db by 90 degrees off axis from 2-10khz, and this does just that. The usual big-waveguide speakers just lose too much energy off axis for my tastes (closer to 15-20dB in this region). I just never find that type of directivity super enjoyable, unless it's constant directivity like the D&D 8C (as opposed to controlled directivity).
• The vertical reflections are very solid so they shouldn't impact tonality too much. The offset tweeter helps with this.
• Vertical directivity seems good to 20-degrees off axis.
• I think a wide Q filter from the 1-4kHz regions overall would probably go a long way for helping some of the issues here, as dips are usually less audible than peaks.
• I will probably end up with 3 filters; EQ up from 700-1000, down around 1.6kHz, and then again at 4 kHz.
• I've never found distortion measurements to be reliable for anything in listening impressions, so that doesn't bother me. The compression bothers me a little more, but I'm not too worried with a sub.

None of the above invalidates erin's actual listening impressions of course, and I know from our discussions that he actually spent a lot of time finding the best-looking reference axis for this speaker (as with other of L-classic series, it's not at the tweeter) .

And I normally listen before measuring too. But that's how I'd interpret the data alone. I'll follow up with subjective impressions once I have them. Overall, it's clear JBL made some compromises for the retro design, but I think it's also clear they made some attempts to keep the tonality linear in room. Obviously unsuccessful for Erin. Hopefully it works for me .

 

[GXAlan]

I bought and returned this at my expense (shipping costs) during the pandemic. In case there is debate about the value of subjective comments:

Post in thread 'JBL Speakers on Sale'
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jbl-speakers-on-sale.37448/post-1329500

“Subjectively, there are moments where it has more bass than I would expect but it’s a very forward sound with what feels like a boosted midrange. It’s really clean, and I think genuine detail but I would guess some sort of weird boost in the midrange of at least 2-3 dB in the 3-4kHz range or something.”

@atmasphere has talked about distortion being one way our ear hears volume…

 

[kemmler3D]

These came out better than I would have guessed, but still not quite where I'd personally want them for $750-1K. You still have the Ascend stuff to contend with in that price range... but if I needed a speaker of this size, other options were ruled out and the WAF evaluation came back positive, I wouldn't be upset by having these in my house. The bass can be EQ'd and we'll just have to live with the distortion, but it's not the end of the world.

 

[napilopez]

These came out better than I would have guessed, but still not quite where I'd personally want them for $750-1K. You still have the Ascend stuff to contend with in that price range... but if I needed a speaker of this size, other options were ruled out and the WAF evaluation came back positive, I wouldn't be upset by having these in my house. The bass can be EQ'd and we'll just have to live with the distortion, but it's not the end of the world.

The bass bump is definitely intentional. I forgot who said it exactly but it's common with recent Harman bookshelf speakers as it's found to generally be preferred in their listening tests (don't quote me on that). Revel M16 has the same bump, as does the JBL HDI-1600, 4309, etc. Will EQ it down with a sub though.

Anyway, my partner is much less picky about speaker aesthetics than I am. I did consider ascend acoustics for this purchase but:

• I wanted tokeep the budget at a max of around $1000 for speakers
• The ascend acoustics are much less attractive design (in my opinion!!).
• Wide directivity was a major factor. The Sierra 1 V2(the only one in my budget) isn't as wide -directivity as these. It beams way more above 4kHz, down nearly 25 dB at 90-deg at 8kHz vs just ~15dB on the JBL.

There's honestly quite few speakers that have the kind of directivity I'm looking for in the price range. If upgraditis hits me again though, I'll probably just go straight for the philharmonic BMRs. Just saw Dennis is now selling them in a Satin Walnut finish that wasn't on the site when I ordered the L52s...

 

[DSJR]

The first speaker I heard with any pretense to then 'high end' was the L26 Decade fifty years ago (10" bass-mid and their cone tweeter of the time) and just befofre I moved my Saturday job from a provincial radio/lower end shop to a proper higher end store. These L26's when tested had a really nasty 3kHz peak which gave a nasal highly coloured tone sadly. Bass for me back then was incredible (possibly not now maybe). I wonder if that concept could be updated with their current 'dome' tweeter rather than a fugly waveguide that's on view all the time.

 

[kongkong]

I don't think it is good enough.
I don't want go back to past too much.
I want more jbl's horn diaphragms speakers or innovative speakers...
But it has good looking design for specific customers.

 

[restorer-john]

rather than a fugly waveguide that's on view all the time.

Remember back in the day when they called the cheap plastic moulding around the tweeter an "acoustic lens"? Now it's a "wave guide"...

Some, few, might have some "computer aided design" in them, the rest, not so much.

 

[napilopez]

The full data is now up on Erin's site: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/jbl_l52_classic/

This includes the data with the grille on. I'd already seen it on Erin's patreon, and I was disappointed the on axis was more jagged for something JBL calls "transparent". I mean, I've seen worse grille effects, but also better ones.

But upon closer inspection, the LW actually looks about the same overall quality as the grill off, and though collective DI curves are indeed worse, the ER with the grille on actually seems to directly improve some of the issues Erin heard as seen in the PIR. He said he made his listening tests with the grille off. (there's no available data for the off-axis response with the grille on, so it's hard to know how it affects horizontal directivity/soundstage).

Going back to this image of the PIR from the video:

There's no PIR for the grille-on version, but the ER is usually close enough. If we compare the ER for the grille on and off, we see the "dull snares" area is raised by a bit less than 1 dB, and the "sharp handclap region is decreased by about 1dB. (Note: My scaling is taller than what Erin and Amir use and makes the data look harsher relative to their presentation, but it's the CTA-2034 standard size).

And here's the LW comparison:

In the listening window, those problem regions are "corrected" a little more. And I'd bet the new dip at 3kHz is probably not as bad as it looks.

Would that have been enough to really fix what Erin heard? Eh, I'd be pretty surprised if so. But that does tell me it's quite possible the speakers may actually sound the same or a little better for some folks with the grille on after all. It also tells me JBL may have tuned the sound for the grille on, as in my experience they will often prioritize the PIR as much as or more than the direct sound for their home audio speakers. That said, and as I've said many times many times around these parts, it's up to the manufacturer to tell listeners the best way to use their speakers.

I don't think it is good enough.
I don't want go back to past too much.
I want more jbl's horn diaphragms speakers or innovative speakers...
But it has good looking design for specific customers.

For me it's honestly kind of the opposite. There are way too many waveguided speakers and horns with middle to narrow directivity, and JBL already has plenty of those that perform much more "pretty".

What there aren't enough of is good speakers with wide directivity. More three-way designs with small tweeters and shallow waveguides would be very welcome. More omnis, cardioids, etc.

 

[kongkong]

The full data is now up on Erin's site: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/jbl_l52_classic/

This includes the data with the grille on. I'd already seen it on Erin's patreon, and I was disappointed the on axis was more jagged for something JBL calls "transparent". I mean, I've seen worse grille effects, but also better ones.

But upon closer inspection, the LW actually looks about the same overall quality as the grill off, and though collective DI curves are indeed worse, the ER with the grille on actually seems to directly improve some of the issues Erin heard as seen in the PIR. He said he made his listening tests with the grille off. (there's no available data for the off-axis response with the grille on, so it's hard to know how it affects horizontal directivity/soundstage).

Going back to this image of the PIR from the video:

There's no PIR for the grille-on version, but the ER is usually close enough. If we compare the ER for the grille on and off, we see the "dull snares" area is raised by a bit less than 1 dB, and the "sharp handclap region is decreased by about 1dB. (Note: My scaling is taller than what Erin and Amir use and makes the data look harsher relative to their presentation, but it's the CTA-2034 standard size).

View attachment 352590

And here's the LW comparison:

View attachment 352591

In the listening window, those problem regions are "corrected" a little more. And I'd bet the new dip at 3kHz is probably not as bad as it looks.

Would that have been enough to really fix what Erin heard? Eh, I'd be pretty surprised if so. But that does tell me it's quite possible the speakers may actually sound the same or a little better for some folks with the grille on after all. It also tells me JBL may have tuned the sound for the grille on, as in my experience they will often prioritize the PIR as much as or more than the direct sound for their home audio speakers. That said, and as I've said many times many times around these parts, it's up to the manufacturer to tell listeners the best way to use their speakers.


For me it's honestly kind of the opposite. There are way too many waveguided speakers and horns with middle to narrow directivity, and JBL already has plenty of those that perform much more "pretty".

What there aren't enough of is good speakers with wide directivity. More three-way designs with small tweeters and shallow waveguides would be very welcome. More omnis, cardioids, etc.

It is good enough for life style audio and I respect your measurement and JBL l52 sound.

I said just my personal expectaction for JBL.

 

[atmasphere]

@atmasphere has talked about distortion being one way our ear hears volume…

That's not quite correct. What I've said (and is easily proven with simple test equipment) is that the ear uses higher ordered harmonics to sense the volume level. Since distortion often adds higher ordered harmonics, it can cause an audio presentation to sound louder than it really is.

 

[napilopez]

Remember how I pointed out that the preference score for the JBL L52(4.9/7.1) is pretty much the same as the Revel M126 Be(5.0/72)? Well, in a fun twist of fate, I saw a local listing for a pair of M126Be's at a ridiculously good price of $1600 for the pair (vs $4400 new) with just a few minor scratches and jumped on it. It's more than I wanted to spend, but I figured they would either be endgame speakers or I could resell them at no loss.

It's actually my first time listening to revel speakers, let alone owning them. Honestly, I'm really not a fan of the brand's aesthetics in general, which is why I've avoided them despite knowing they do a lot of things I like that few other brands do: blind testing, much wider directivity than most waveguided speakers, solid vertical directivity, optimizing for slightly off axis listening, etc. That said, the M126Be is definitely the best looking of the bookshelves, white woofer/waveguide and all.

It'll be interesting to compare the L52s with and without a sub given the similar Harman philosophy of optimizing for the PIR and overall directivity width. Of course, the L52 has asymmetrical directivity, but the cumulative sidewall reflections are at a similar level to the revels, both maintaining wider directivity than normal up to about 8 kHz.

 

[Stick Figure]

I bought the JBL L52 classic in the black edition. Very nice looking in my opinion.

 

[Stick Figure]

Remember how I pointed out that the preference score for the JBL L52(4.9/7.1) is pretty much the same as the Revel M126 Be(5.0/72)? Well, in a fun twist of fate, I saw a local listing for a pair of M126Be's at a ridiculously good price of $1600 for the pair (vs $4400 new) with just a few minor scratches and jumped on it. It's more than I wanted to spend, but I figured they would either be endgame speakers or I could resell them at no loss.

It's actually my first time listening to revel speakers, let alone owning them. Honestly, I'm really not a fan of the brand's aesthetics in general, which is why I've avoided them despite knowing they do a lot of things I like that few other brands do: blind testing, much wider directivity than most waveguided speakers, solid vertical directivity, optimizing for slightly off axis listening, etc. That said, the M126Be is definitely the best looking of the bookshelves, white woofer/waveguide and all.

It'll be interesting to compare the L52s with and without a sub given the similar Harman philosophy of optimizing for the PIR and overall directivity width. Of course, the L52 has asymmetrical directivity, but the cumulative sidewall reflections are at a similar level to the revels, both maintaining wider directivity than normal up to about 8 kHz.

I'm looking forward to the comparison. For me the Revel M126BE is my "dream speaker". I really like the L52 classic sound. I have them in a large room with a Klipsch sub.

 

[napilopez]

I'm looking forward to the comparison. For me the Revel M126BE is my "dream speaker". I really like the L52 classic sound. I have them in a large room with a Klipsch sub.

I am really enjoying the M126Be's, and they do look a fair bit better in person than in photos. Now the problem I have is that they make me want a center to match.

If I do end up liking the L52s there's a chance I'd just keep one M126Be as a center as I'm quite enjoying upmixing music these days, but it's just a little too tall for my setup anyway.

 

[ernestcarl]

The full data is now up on Erin's site: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/jbl_l52_classic/

This includes the data with the grille on. I'd already seen it on Erin's patreon, and I was disappointed the on axis was more jagged for something JBL calls "transparent". I mean, I've seen worse grille effects, but also better ones.

But upon closer inspection, the LW actually looks about the same overall quality as the grill off, and though collective DI curves are indeed worse, the ER with the grille on actually seems to directly improve some of the issues Erin heard as seen in the PIR. He said he made his listening tests with the grille off. (there's no available data for the off-axis response with the grille on, so it's hard to know how it affects horizontal directivity/soundstage).

Going back to this image of the PIR from the video:

There's no PIR for the grille-on version, but the ER is usually close enough. If we compare the ER for the grille on and off, we see the "dull snares" area is raised by a bit less than 1 dB, and the "sharp handclap region is decreased by about 1dB. (Note: My scaling is taller than what Erin and Amir use and makes the data look harsher relative to their presentation, but it's the CTA-2034 standard size).

View attachment 352590

And here's the LW comparison:

View attachment 352591

In the listening window, those problem regions are "corrected" a little more. And I'd bet the new dip at 3kHz is probably not as bad as it looks.

Would that have been enough to really fix what Erin heard? Eh, I'd be pretty surprised if so. But that does tell me it's quite possible the speakers may actually sound the same or a little better for some folks with the grille on after all. It also tells me JBL may have tuned the sound for the grille on, as in my experience they will often prioritize the PIR as much as or more than the direct sound for their home audio speakers. That said, and as I've said many times many times around these parts, it's up to the manufacturer to tell listeners the best way to use their speakers.


For me it's honestly kind of the opposite. There are way too many waveguided speakers and horns with middle to narrow directivity, and JBL already has plenty of those that perform much more "pretty".

What there aren't enough of is good speakers with wide directivity. More three-way designs with small tweeters and shallow waveguides would be very welcome. More omnis, cardioids, etc.

When evaluating, are you only going to listen to the speakers as-is with no additional EQ above the bass region? I’m thinking that now you have the detailed anechoic information might as well use it when applying EQ — to taste.

 

[napilopez]

When evaluating, are you only going to listen to the speakers as-is with no additional EQ above the bass region? I’m thinking that now you have the detailed anechoic information might as well use it when applying EQ — to taste.

Yeah, I'm more concerned with soundstage performance than I am with timbre tbh. I suspect this just needs a few filters to get it where I'd want it to be, unless it responds very poorly to EQ, which it shouldn't. I actually think there are potential advantages to asymmetrical tweeters for this... but we'll see. The sonic issues seem to mainly relate to the peaks in the FR, so addressing them should also reduce some of the distortion too, if that's affecting things at all.

 

[napilopez]

Every once in a while, I feel a little like I have no idea what I'm doing and this hobby is silly. Today is one of those days.

The L52s arrived yesterday, and I've listened for several hours comparing back and forth with the Revel M126Be. With no EQ or subs, at first glance... I like them a lot. I was expecting and even hoping the M126Be would beat them easily, like they did the Def Tech D9's, but that didn't happen. I wanted my speaker search to be over with, but I wanted to just do due diligence since I said I'd compare the Revels and JBLs (Both also clearly sound better than the def techs to me, btw.)

At this point there are several layers to my potential biases:

• I liked the L82 and L100 a lot, so I expected to like the L52 originally.
• But I respect Erin's listening impressions like few others, so my expectations were lowered considerably by his impressions.
• But I thought the spin data for the L52 looked quite decent overall despite some on-axis problems, and had heard of others who liked them a lot.
• But I know the M126Be was likely Harman's top blind-tested bookshelf when it came out.
• But the L52s are so cute!
• But the Revels cost $4400. They have to be better!
• But wouldn't it be cool if the underdog was just as good?!

Make of all that what you will, but here's my main takeaway: the M126Be and L52 sound much more alike than different to my ears. The biggest differences aren't even in overall tonality to me. Here are some immediate impressions after about 5 hours total of listening.

I think the L52 seem to have a slightly wider, more diffuse soundstage, which I prefer. It seems harder to tell the sound is coming from the speakers themselves. But the Revel seem to create a noticeably taller soundstage, despite adjusting for tweeter height, so the impression is of a slightly bigger sound with a bit of extra precision. Overall it's a wash; the soundstage sounds great to me on both speakers, with a similarly sized sweetspot.

Out of the box, in my space, the L52s have the better bass. Much more enjoyable impact/kick almost surely thanks to that 100hz bump, without really being boomy. The revel digs deeper, but on most music the added kick is preferable. This is, of course, going to be room dependent and is completely EQ-able.

At my listening distance of about 7 feet and what I consider "too loud" listening levels, compression and distortion seem to be non-issues. I spent a good amount of time listening louder than I ever do outside of testing and I couldn't notice any meaningful differences in dynamics. Both sounded really good to me in this regard.

Out of the box, the L52 seems generally correct with timbre. Some tracks sounded a bit more correct on the Revels, others on the L52s. Probably an edge overall to the Revels, and vocals do generally sound a little less colored on the revel, but not by much. The L52 is a bit more forward, so I can see how Erin heard some harshness, but it's not as forward as most Focals, for example. The positive to this, to me, is that I think it sounds better at lowish volumes.

The timbre between the two gets even closer with the grille on the JBLs, but the soundstage seems just a hair more diffuse, maybe? I think I'm okay with leaving the grilles on for now. I like how they look at it helps my brain not pinpoint sounds to the tweeter. Haven't messed with the treble knob much.

To the point of timbre similarities, both the L52 and M126Be seem to work equally well with a revel M105 as a center on Atmos music/ surround/upmixing. I even tried using a Frankenstein pair of the M126Be and L52 for a hot second and it didn't sound half bad, despite the slightly different sensitivity!

More than anything, this has been a good reminder that most speakers from the Toole school sound more similar than different, especially when they have similar directivity trends (the L52 is asymmetrical, but cummulative early reflections are quite similar to the Revel.)

Right now, for my personal tastes and needs, I do think the M126Be is probably a little better overall. I also have no doubt it's the more consistent speaker. From living room to living room, track to track, and listener to listener the Revel would probably end up winning more comparisons.

But for me, without even reaching for EQ yet the L52 have left me very satisfied. I'm fairly confident I could EQ away most of the flaws I could hear, and they just weren't that big a deal to me anyway. Besides, I'd also have to EQ the revel to get the bass impact I get from the L52 too.

I'd like to spend a bit more time comparing, but if anyone's in the NYC area and wants a good deal on the M126Be's, there's a chance of a used pair going on sale soon...

(Made a few edits)