JBL M2 Reference Master Monitor Review

[Medul]

JBL 4367 review by Erin

Written review https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/jbl_4367/

www.audiosciencereview.com

The 4367 klippel results mirror the Harman measurements closer than the M2 results. Speculation, but this makes me suspect the M2 wasn't just a smoothing difference vs. Harman, but was more likely aggressive DSP correction to make the prettiest spin for marketing.

Also surprising that the DSP'd M2 has a rougher response than the analog 4367... Really puzzled trying to understand what happened here.

A little disappointing--and not making excuses--but the pretty Harman spin-o-Rama nonetheless demonstrates the M2 system's potential when properly calibrated in-room.

I don't know if we are still investigating on the "bad response" of this speaker on the lows and mids, but: if it's really related to cabinet resonances, I'm really wondering about the impact of supporting the speaker by the side, and not by the bottom.

I mean, if an eigen mode induces a motion of the side pannel, it can have a greater impact on the measurements if the speaker is supported by this same pannel. Furthemore, the mass of the speaker applied on the side pannel may also have an impact on the mechanical behavior and on the frequency of this eigen mode. It could be the reason why the frequency response of the 4367 is flatter than the M2 even if they share the almost same woofer, because Erin measured the M2 laid on its side, and the 4367 standing.

What do you think?

(Sorry for my english :s)

 

[Bartl007]

I don't know if we are still investigating on the "bad response" of this speaker on the lows and mids, but: if it's really related to cabinet resonances, I'm a really wondering about the impact of supporting the speaker by the side, and not by the bottom.

I mean, if an eigen mode induces a motion of the side pannel, it can have a greater impact on the measurements if the speaker is supported by this same pannel. It could be the reason why the frequency response of the 4367 is flatter than the M2 even if they share the almost same woofer, because Erin measured the M2 laid on its side, and the 4367 standing.

What do you think?

(Sorry for my english :s)

Sample to sample variation could also be to blame. Perhaps an inadequate amount of polyfill/stuffing was used in this particular speaker that was tested. One of my 3 M2's had a rubbing voice coil on the woofer that required replacement under warranty. I've heard of other owners with woofers that were totally inoperable upon receipt needing replacement from Harman.

 

[Bugal1998]

I don't know if we are still investigating on the "bad response" of this speaker on the lows and mids, but: if it's really related to cabinet resonances, I'm a really wondering about the impact of supporting the speaker by the side, and not by the bottom.

I mean, if an eigen mode induces a motion of the side pannel, it can have a greater impact on the measurements if the speaker is supported by this same pannel. It could be the reason why the frequency response of the 4367 is flatter than the M2 even if they share the almost same woofer, because Erin measured the M2 laid on its side, and the 4367 standing.

What do you think?

(Sorry for my english :s)

Interesting thought. Such a discussion about vibrational modes and resonances is beyond my knowledge level to engage constructively. But side mounting is an accepted application for the M2, so I’d be surprised if it altered the response as seen in the measurements. I really suspect it boils down to JBL applying less EQ in the production tunings than was used in the perfect measurements shown in the marketing materials… but just a guess.

 

[jfiveeight]

I don't know if we are still investigating on the "bad response" of this speaker on the lows and mids, but: if it's really related to cabinet resonances, I'm really wondering about the impact of supporting the speaker by the side, and not by the bottom.

I mean, if an eigen mode induces a motion of the side pannel, it can have a greater impact on the measurements if the speaker is supported by this same pannel. Furthemore, the mass of the speaker applied on the side pannel may also have an impact on the mechanical behavior and on the frequency of this eigen mode. It could be the reason why the frequency response of the 4367 is flatter than the M2 even if they share the almost same woofer, because Erin measured the M2 laid on its side, and the 4367 standing.

What do you think?

(Sorry for my english :s)

Popping in here to confirm that Erin measured the 4367 on its side as well.

 

[jmpsmash]

2 points.

The M2 is a large speaker. Even with 1+ inch thick panels, it will resonate. For the rectangular box shape, the amount of support is rather minimal relatively speaking. This is where the Stereophile / Atkinson type panel accelerometer measurement can be useful to have.

The M2 2216ND and the 4367 2216ND-1 woofers have very similar look but the T/S param are very different. With extra aquaplas the Fs is lower and Vas of the 2216ND-1 is higher.

 

[Newman]

The M2 is a large speaker. Even with 1+ inch thick panels, it will resonate. For the rectangular box shape, the amount of support is rather minimal relatively speaking. This is where the Stereophile / Atkinson type panel accelerometer measurement can be useful to have.

JBL would not be unaware of the potential for the panels to resonate. The claim coming from their general direction (perhaps it was Sean Olive, IIRC?) is that sufficiently careful design and blind listening tests have shown that they don’t resonate in a way that is audible.

 

[Medul]

JBL would not be unaware of the potential for the panels to resonate. The claim coming from their general direction (perhaps it was Sean Olive, IIRC?) is that sufficiently careful design and blind listening tests have shown that they don’t resonate in a way that is audible.

I agree, but still the limit "that is not audible" is not what I would call a clear statement...

 

[Medul]

2 points.

The M2 is a large speaker. Even with 1+ inch thick panels, it will resonate. For the rectangular box shape, the amount of support is rather minimal relatively speaking. This is where the Stereophile / Atkinson type panel accelerometer measurement can be useful to have.

The M2 2216ND and the 4367 2216ND-1 woofers have very similar look but the T/S param are very different. With extra aquaplas the Fs is lower and Vas of the 2216ND-1 is higher.

Exactly, and this is why I mentionned "almost the same woofer". The difference between both references can also explain the measurements difference.

Edit: I just read Erin's review and noticed that he also thinks that this resonance in the 400-600Hz range is directly related to the woofer itself and that things have been improved on the 2216ND-1.

 

[Absolute]

I had the same concern earlier in the thread, but as Erin demonstrated he went out of his way to confirm it was a woofer/box issue and not a measurement issue.

JBL M2 Reference Master Monitor Review

You can't compare a toy speaker like the D&D to a serious speaker like the JBL M2. Thanks Erin. You forgot /s

www.audiosciencereview.com

Me and some others have confirmed with our own measurement of the 2216nd that the dip is there.

 

[Pulkass]

These measurements are good, but not what I would consider state-of-the art. I'm kind of disappointed.

JBL in the end disappoint, ever, very very expensive, not enough bracing inside, for example, look at the flimsy binding posts !!!

 

[FaFaFa]

I am considering a purchase, I have a few questions for you
have you ever compared the m2 with the 4349, array 1400 and s3900?
I'm interested in live impact, great dynamics and powerful bass, involvement and zero listening fatigue.
I'm interested in all of them so if you have pictures of comparisons I'd be delighted to read your thoughts!
Also I wanted to ask if the M2s can also be listened to at low volume and occasionally in a more nearfield position.
I like the big, full-bodied sound...
Any clues very much appreciated as I'm trying to clear my head and it's not very easy... Thank you.

 

[Bugal1998]

I am considering a purchase, I have a few questions for you
have you ever compared the m2 with the 4349, array 1400 and s3900?
I'm interested in live impact, great dynamics and powerful bass, involvement and zero listening fatigue.
I'm interested in all of them so if you have pictures of comparisons I'd be delighted to read your thoughts!
Also I wanted to ask if the M2s can also be listened to at low volume and occasionally in a more nearfield position.
I like the big, full-bodied sound...
Any clues very much appreciated as I'm trying to clear my head and it's not very easy... Thank you.

I have not done any comparisons with the speakers you mentioned, so I’m no help there.

Personally, I’m satisfied with the bass, dynamics and impact of the M2, though I get even better results with a subwoofer in the system. Listening fatigue will come down to the room and related setup, including final EQ. I listen to my system for hours at a time with no fatigue. When appropriately EQ’d, the M2 is capable of delivering a big full-bodied sound (at least to my ears), reaching down to below 20hz in my room.
They work fine at low volume, but every speaker has a perceived shift in tonality due to our ear’s/brain’s non-linear perception of equal loudness across various frequencies; an EQ profile optimized for low volume listening could help maintain the desired tonality.
The user manual mentions a minimum listening distance of 46” when the speaker is elevated by 16” (with minimum listening distances increasing as speaker elevation height to clear mixing consoles increases); it doesn’t specify if a shorter distance could be used if the speaker is on the floor. If you take 46” as the minimum recommended distance you can decide if that’s close enough for your near-field listening.

All of the EQ and listening-level profiles I’ve mentioned could be implemented with the built-in DSP of the Crown amps if they’re used. I should also mention that the increasing directivity of the horn above 10k is audible, and it took experimentation with the amount of speaker toe-in and the amount of >10k EQ boost to dial in the tonality to my liking. Once dialed in I just get swept away listening to music for hours at a time, and that’s the highest speaker compliment I know how to give.

Good luck with your search!

 

[Newman]

Listening fatigue will come down to the room and related setup, including final EQ.

Also some kinds of music are fatiguing to listen to for long, even to a live audience…not always unintentionally either. Plus, some mastering is fatiguing.

So, I think “zero fatigue” is an unrealistic order for a system that has transparency as a goal. It actually needs a system that coats everything in treacle….and is volume-limited. Who needs that?

 

[Bugal1998]

Also some kinds of music are fatiguing to listen to for long, even to a live audience…not always unintentionally either. Plus, some mastering is fatiguing.

So, I think “zero fatigue” is an unrealistic order for a system that has transparency as a goal. It actually needs a system that coats everything in treacle….and is volume-limited. Who needs that?

Great point, Newman. I--perhaps incorrectly--interpreted his requirement as 'zero speaker induced fatigue', but if @FaFaFa truly meant zero fatigue even when it's inherent to the music, then another speaker might be better... Or he could establish various eq presets to make things more listenable when needed.

 

[FaFaFa]

Great point, Newman. I--perhaps incorrectly--interpreted his requirement as 'zero speaker induced fatigue', but if @FaFaFa truly meant zero fatigue even when it's inherent to the music, then another speaker might be better... Or he could establish various eq presets to make things more listenable when needed.

that's the right interpretation: zero speaker induced fatigue
If for two hours I listen to not very well recorded punk music, perhaps a live event, at high volume, at the end I may be well charged but a little fatigued

However, on the m2s I'm stuck on the fact that some people say that although they go down to 20hz to get a fuller sound they add a sub. Then wouldn't it be enough to take one of the other speakers I mentioned and add the sub directly? For example, the 4349, which to me seems the same as the m2, only with a smaller litre capacity... Or even two s3900s placed on two subs... What do you think?

 

[Bugal1998]

that's the right interpretation: zero speaker induced fatigue
If for two hours I listen to not very well recorded punk music, perhaps a live event, at high volume, at the end I may be well charged but a little fatigued

However, on the m2s I'm stuck on the fact that some people say that although they go down to 20hz to get a fuller sound they add a sub. Then wouldn't it be enough to take one of the other speakers I mentioned and add the sub directly? For example, the 4349, which to me seems the same as the m2, only with a smaller litre capacity... Or even two s3900s placed on two subs... What do you think?

Having never heard those speakers, I couldn't say, though they may beam a bit less above 10k than the M2.

Unless someone really cranks the bass, the difference with subs is subtle... But multiple subs may deal with room response issues better due to placement flexibility.

All I can say is that I personally don't feel like the M2 is wasted when running subs.

 

[fredoamigo]

As for listening at low volume, a "12 (4349) or better a "15 (M2) will always do better than two "10 (S3900) at least that's my opinion ... but I do not know what is "low volume" for you?

I like the big, full-bodied sound.

The M2's are Formula 1's for experienced drivers without many concessions with all that implies in the implementation, while the 4349's are Cadillacs much more comfortable and simple in a "domestic" implementation with a "full-bodied" sound .

 

[FaFaFa]

As for listening at low volume, a "12 (4349) or better a "15 (M2) will always do better than two "10 (S3900) at least that's my opinion ... but I do not know what is "low volume" for you?


The M2's are Formula 1's for experienced drivers without many concessions with all that implies in the implementation, while the 4349's are Cadillacs much more comfortable and simple in a "domestic" implementation with a "full-bodied" sound .

For me, low volume is that of a normal conversation or slightly higher, excluding those who also shout while talking
Do you think two 4349 + subs have the same quality and can take as an m2? I also mean in terms of punch and size of sound and instruments, soundstage...

 

[fredoamigo]

.
Having listened to the 4349s, they have excellent dynamics and the sound you are looking for "full-bodied" but you will get a softer "kick in the ass" on the bass drum than with the M2 or 4367... for the soundstage of the 4349 it's good but again it all depends on the interaction with your room, the implementation and the listening distance but don't expect them to "disappear" as easily as a direct radiator ... anyway their big strength is the dynamics and to make it short they are not speakers for audiophiles but for musicians ...
but the best thing is that you listen to them yourself and study them to get a better idea...https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...jbl-4349-review-studio-monitor-speaker.22686/

 

[Bugal1998]

or the soundstage of the 4349 it's good but again it all depends on the interaction with your room, the implementation and the listening distance but don't expect them to "disappear" as easily as a direct radiator ... anyway their big strength is the dynamics and to make it short they are not speakers for audiophiles but for musicians ...

Is the 'disappearing as easily' comment about the 4349 based on personal experience or generally held expectations about horn/waveguide speakers?

I only ask because every other HDI horn/waveguide with which I have extensive experience (JBL 308p, 708p, M2) completely vanishes. It's like the speaker isn't even there.

You are obviously correct that room interaction also matters, but what you're describing would make the 4349 an outlier among it's relatives.