JBL LSR 308 in the house

[RayDunzl]

What do you mean by "spatial"

Sit in the sweetest spot and close eyes and listen to "stereo".

Definition of spatial
1: relating to, occupying, or having the character of space
2: of or relating to facility in perceiving relations (as of objects) in space

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

They're on sale ($50 off each one) till the end of the year here.

Don't have a live link. Where is "here?"

Tim

 

[RayDunzl]

Where is "here?"

U.S.?

$50 "Instant Rebate" from JBL so the going street price is $199 each instead of $249 each till Dec 31.

Who? Essentially all the usual suspects - Amazon and 3rd parties there, Sam Ash, Sweetwater, MusiciansFriend, VintageKing, etc...

 

[fas42]

Sit in the sweetest spot and close eyes and listen to "stereo".

Definition of spatial
1: relating to, occupying, or having the character of space
2: of or relating to facility in perceiving relations (as of objects) in space

OK, so in respect to my earlier question, "hearing the acoustic cues on the recording" then. This is a low level detail thing, that which typically separates the men from the boys, with playback systems. I presume your MLs are doing this better, for a variety of reasons.

One can bounce from one speaker to the next, in an endless pursuit of making that better - or, stop with what one has, and refine the system overall to get the level of "spatial" desired ...

 

[RayDunzl]

Another Beer Saturday listening session with my Audio Buddy John has come and gone.

I may not yet have found an optimal position for the JBLs, which factors into my preliminary conclusion below:

Very enjoyable for off-axis casual listening. They don't draw attention to themselves with any blatant faults. I easily forget I'm listening to these instead of those, given a little time to forget what the last switch was.

With on-axis critical beer fueled comparative listening, the stereo image they produce in my mind is demonstrably inferior to that perceived from my crappy 19 year old unloved poorly rated by scientific investigation into listening opinion of what sounds good hybrid electrostatic dipoles. The location of the JBLs was in-board of the main speakers, a bit narrower than ideal, but still, the opinion holds with other positions I've tried, although without a second opinionater present.

The remote switching takes about 2 seconds:
With the JBL playing, select an unused source, select the Zone 1 preamp output, select a valid source, and the Martin Logans play from Zone 1. Select and unused source, select Zone 2, select a valid source, and the JBLs play from Zone 2.

I suppose I should reverse the Zones from which each set of speakers play, but I've never noted a difference in the pre-outs for the two zones previously. Zone 2 mormally serves as my unadulterated source measurement and shown no measureable aberrations fron Zone 1.

So, no giant killer here, but not a bad little speaker. I'll keep them. Just don't stare at them too hard with your eyes closed. They'll serve duty in the garage, on the patio, and other occasions where a modicum of portability is a prime asset.

I will try some nearfield listening next, which may be more closely related to their intended purpose. All the locations I've tried to date would be more suitable for listening room mains than small studio monitors. Beside (outboard), in front of, farther in front of, and on the other side (inboard) of the main speakers were the locations attempted so far, with and without external DSP correction.

 

[amirm]

Good to know. Thanks for continued reports Ray.

 

[RayDunzl]

It's not easy for me to describe sound... So, I've tried to keep it brief. Maybe I can enlist the help of a ghostwriter from the other place.

I'm still not convinced they can't be good at what I want them to do to my brain, a little more experimentation is in order.

But, the above is the basic result from Saturday and corresponds to my own earlier opinion.

He said "They shout at you" "I hear the box" "The sound is in the room, instead of that end of the room vanishing"

Things like that. All perception things.

It is interesting to try to piece together what's going on, though.

---

Hmm, I thought I was listening to them right now, but I'm not. I need to switch back! I had gone to the on-axis position for another little A/B listen. The JBL are currently outboard of the ML (and a little too high where they sit). Like I think I said, they're very fine for off-axis, the tubbiness I think I thought I heard before has become less of a sore spot somehow.

 

[RayDunzl]

One other thing...

When John was here and we were listening to image/soundstage, I got up and said "I'll put it into mono now" and did.

John said "It's still in stereo".

Sure enough, at the couch it sounded funky, standing in the middle of and all but behind them it didn't.

So, still not convinced about the how and why of their interaction with the room. Maybe they're a lot more picky than I expected considering they have a newfangled Linear Spatial Reference waveguide on the twiiter.

 

[Thomas Savage]

Thanks for that Ray.. Can't beat the validity of beer fuled listening appraisals.

 

[amirm]

I think you may have mentioned this but how do they compare to the Infinity speakers you had bought?

 

[RayDunzl]

I think you may have mentioned this but how do they compare to the Infinity speakers you had bought?

I didn't mention that in this thread...

They were pleasingly listenable too. Certainly worth the $200/pair paid. It was in April of 2015.

John came over for Beer, and didn't even know I had bought them. They were standing directly in front of the reQuests, and in the overly dimmed room, invisible from the listening position - flat black grilles directly in front of more flat black grilles.

I told him "something" was different but not what - so, don't look too hard as you enter the room.

He guessed pieces other than speakers (it would be all but unthinkable for me to replace them), though he did note the change in the high frequencies.

---

I don't remember specifically how they imaged, probably because it was inconvenient to switch back and forth, so that could be reexamined in light of the new evidence.

They were in the room for a week or so, didn't miss them when they were gone to Mother's (R.I.P.) room.

I suppose I could pull them back out and play some more.

Just guessing, I'd say very similar to the JBLs, to my deaf ears. Up-front soundstage, don't remember the stability of it, maybe better, as I don't remember criticizing that in the same way.

---

The thing that initially attracted me to the ML was they didn't sound like "speakers", and haven't lost that sense through the years. There's something very clean and satisfying about them to me. My guess now that I'm a little more educated if still lacking proper religious indoctrination would be that they exhibit three measurable traits which may be at odds with accepted doctrine:

1. Lower distortion and of lower order at normal and comparable listening levels.

2. Phase in the mid to high frequencies remains measurably flat even at the listening position. The JBL and Infinity phase looks insane comparatively, though when measured at one meter, the JBL phase looked similar to the ML at the listening position. Whether that is specifically audible remains unknown.

3. Less dispersive radiation pattern. The room has less influence in the range of the panel (180Hz up on these).

There may be a fourth trait in their quasi-line source radiation pattern, but that is not single-point measurable by the mic at the listening position.

---

As for DACs sounding the same, on another occasion, when I had replaced my DAC1 with a DAC2, and with no idea anything had been changed, with the lighting normal, and no hint he was being tested, we played the first tune of the sitting down portion of the evening, and I could see him sensing "something". I paused the playback at the end of it and he said "What did you DO?"

I played dumb for a bit until he'd given his impressions.

So, another data point, on another topic.

 

[fas42]

The thing that initially attracted me to the ML was they didn't sound like "speakers", and haven't lost that sense through the years. There's something very clean and satisfying about them to me. My guess now that I'm a little more educated if still lacking proper religious indoctrination would be that they exhibit three measurable traits which may be at odds with accepted doctrine:

Which is the name of the game - as soon as you "hear speakers" then it means more work has to be done to improve the system, in whatever areas are lacking. Actually, those MLs look like they are, or are very similar to, the model used by an audio acquaintance I visited a few times some years ago. Like most setups, it did a few things rather well, but was quite poor when the "wrong" recordings were played - this was an electronics side of things issue, as they normally are - the chap wasn't interested in such things, he was into the "gotta get the FR perfect!" mindset ...

 

[fas42]

He said "They shout at you" "I hear the box" "The sound is in the room, instead of that end of the room vanishing"

Things like that. All perception things.

It is interesting to try to piece together what's going on, though.hey're very fine for off-axis, the tubbiness I think I thought I heard before has become less of a sore spot somehow.

This is where the "make them feel as solid as a bank safe" technique is needed - if you just drop them down casually on a convenient "shelf" they will always sound like a shouty box - the audio friend down the road uses "microscopic", old Tannoys, the bass/mid driver is hardly bigger than the treble units on some speakers - but he's gone to fairly decent - I would do much more - efforts to "massify" them; result is that on a good night they pump out a nicely big, satisfying sound stage.

 

[RayDunzl]

A little mono pink noise test just now:

ML has a fairly well defined "center" to the hiss.

JBL much less defined.

That, perhaps, verifies John's "It's still in stereo" perception when I made the music source mono last Saturday. The speakers have been moved since then, though.

It could be its "wide HF dispersion" working against itself in my "untreated for first reflection" room that is smearing the image.

The phase relation between the two channels has, in my prior experimentation, a great affect on stereo perception of complex sounds at the sweet spot.

---

Playing with one channel reversed:

JBL doesn't sound nearly as different as the ML does, leading me to believe the JBL presentation in my room doesn't yet have a coherent wavefront meeting my ears.

ML is very much "in phase", JBL somewhere between in and out of phase between the two speakers.

---

Room? Probably. Speaker defect? Probably not. Nearfield listening will tell something more, later.

 

[amirm]

Construction seems super budget but then again, $200 each for an active speaker leaves no room for much.

 

[Blumlein 88]

A little mono pink noise test just now:

ML has a fairly well defined "center" to the hiss.

JBL much less defined.

That, perhaps, verifies John's "It's still in stereo" perception when I made the music source mono last Saturday. The speakers have been moved since then, though.

It could be its "wide HF dispersion" working against itself in my "untreated for first reflection" room that is smearing the image.

The phase relation between the two channels has, in my prior experimentation, a great affect on stereo perception of complex sounds at the sweet spot.

---

Playing with one channel reversed:

JBL doesn't sound nearly as different as the ML does, leading me to believe the JBL presentation in my room doesn't yet have a coherent wavefront meeting my ears.

ML is very much "in phase", JBL somewhere between in and out of phase between the two speakers.

Room? probably. Speaker defect? Probably not. Nearfield listening will tell something more.

When I was trying to decide between 305 or 308s I decided upon the 305 wondering about the larger cabinet being a negative. Haven't had an excellent situation to compare the two side by side, but the 305 may be a better thing in having the smaller cabinet. I did later add the subwoofer for use in a larger room than my original purposes (which were monitoring recordings while mixing). I did find it odd the 305s have the xover set a bit lower in frequency than the 308s. The 305s do a nicely centered pink noise signal though I can't compare it to your ML setup obviously. My Soundlabs do the pinpoint thing with noise only about as well as the 305 in the same room (there are other differences). Best speakers I had for pinpoint point pink noise were ESL63s and Acoustat Twos. The Acoustats in the narrow extremely specifically defined sweet listening spot would do a knife edge narrow pink noise rendition. Of course move your ears 6 inches and hear only one channel.

 

[RayDunzl]

When I was trying to decide between 305 or 308s I decided upon the 305

I read the pros and cons of the 305 vs 308, still went for the bigger one.

Intended purpose is casual - garage, patio, and just playing around with them here in the Batcave.

They do very well for not-in-the-sweet-spot duty where wide dispersion is a plus.

Someday I may actually need new speakers, so, investigating for future reference.

Construction seems super budget

They don't have a cheap look or feel to them.

Despite my protests, I like them.

 

[fas42]

Best speakers I had for pinpoint point pink noise were ESL63s and Acoustat Twos. The Acoustats in the narrow extremely specifically defined sweet listening spot would do a knife edge narrow pink noise rendition. Of course move your ears 6 inches and hear only one channel.

This sort of thing I do with with a true mono recording, have never tried some type of noise signal. With a recording, and competent playback the image never jumps to the nearer speaker, the perspective remains consistent no matter how far off centre one goes. But something like pink noise has zero spatial qualities to it, I wonder how that would fare in the listening - next time the system is working at a high enough level I'll check it out ...

 

[RayDunzl]

But something like pink noise has zero spatial qualities to it

Therefore, if you hear spatial qualities (something other than dead center hiss when in the sweet spot) then spatial qualities are being improperly added somewhere.

Correlated pink makes a centered hiss. Both channels contain the same data. You should hear nothing "off center".

Uncorrelated pink makes a wide hiss. You should hear an equal level of all frequencies of hiss from far left to far right. Each channel has pink noise, but the data is, at the least, not aligned.

Out-of-phase correlated pink should sound distinctly different, spatially, than the in-phase rendition, spread across left to right, but uncomfortable. Every bit on the left side is being negated by the bit on the right. If the channels were combined electronically, the result would be silence.

Out of phase uncorrelated pink should sound essentially the same in or out of phase because there is no correlation between the speakers whether they are in or out of phase, but both are producing pink noise. Any frequency may come at any time from any location whether the two speakers are "in phase" or not.

I find all to be of some of some use, spatially.

 

[fas42]

Unfortunately, very few of my music recordings contain pink noise as tracks, or other pure noise as part of their creative design. Therefore, listening to such types of test tracks tells me very little about how well music is played back - strangely, listening to music replay tells me a great deal about how well the system is at, well, music replay. Very unscientific I realise, but hey, I'm that sort of guy! But if you know about some fabulous non-spatial recordings that will keep me entertained for hours, I'll be pleased to hear about them ...