• 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 One Series 104 Powered Monitor Review

Preference Rating
SCORE: 1.6
SCORE w/ subwoofer: 4.3

Again, rating is made for living rooms, near-field usage is different, so it's not as accurate of a score.
The only way I have been able to think of to adjust for this is to use NBD_LW over NBD_ON, in which case the score ignoring LFX jumps to 4.54. The calculation for PIR would still be off though, throwing off the SM_PIR score.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fTiwmNkvxgAB2H9r2Nvf9ItyaLrzwKpew69rIz9ix4I/edit?usp=sharing
As always, point out any mistakes.


Spinorama (1).png
Horizontal Directivity (1).png
Horizontal Directivity Normalized (1).png
Vertical Directivity (2).png
Vertical Directivity Normalized (4).png


EDIT: Can't embed them due to this site's configuration, and still testing it out, but here's the charts in "interactive" form, and it‘s auto-updated.
EDIT#2: Looks like Safari on iOS can’t display it as it’s too large, it works on Chrome for iOS though.
 
Last edited:
I had knocked the microphone out of alignment and that may be in play. I will need to level everything and see if that makes it go away.

Then again I measured at lower frequency and it is tilted the other way:
Due to the concentric driver this can only be due to vertical asymmetry of the baffle like also the asymmetrically located bass reflex port.
 
Being a coaxial design on-axis response is always going to be ragged. It is apparent that JBL have put some real design effort into managing some of the issues - the bass driver has a specialised surround design that is clearly intended to ameliorate some of the nasties. But no matter what, the design intent is almost certainly not to listen on-axis. Indeed desktop placement would place the designed listening axis at about 30 degrees up in the vertical, and possibly with some off axis sideways angle as well. On axis hole is arguably not so much a flaw as a design feature compromise. It would be very interesting to see what the horizontal directivity is like measured above the horizontal axis.

The manual says this about placement...

1579947657225.png


I'd set mine up exactly like this and was happy with the sound. After reading Amir's review, i've moved them about 15 degrees off the horizontal axis and subjectively they sound louder (I don't know about better). The drivers are around 23 degrees off the vertical axis according to my rusty trig.
 
Yeah, that 23 degrees is closer to what I suspect is the designed in sweet angle. Add in your 15 degrees horizontal, and the cumulative offset is probably getting close to my guestimate of 30 degrees. This is hardly unique to these speakers. It is very difficult to get coaxials good on axis, and the majority work best (and are designed to be) listened off the physical axis.

If the numbers were run assuming something like that angle as the listening axis the score may be significantly different.
 
Hi

I may have found the speakers for rear surround and Atmos ceiling speakers
Truth to be told results are mediocre but in the context of HT ancillary speakers (Atmos an rear surrounds speakers ) not much to complain for $200 total .
Still, somewhat of a letdown with respect to the 305.. but street price of $90 for a powered speaker ...
 
Hi

I may have found the speakers for rear surround and Atmos ceiling speakers
Truth to be told results are mediocre but in the context of HT ancillary speakers (Atmos an rear surrounds speakers ) not much to complain for $200 total .
Still, somewhat of a letdown with respect to the 305.. but street price of $90 for a powered speaker ...

Given their shape and lack of mounting holes, they may be quite difficult to mount. Also, there's only one amp per pair, so wiring the pairs across the room could be a challenge. I had thought about this myself and wondered if they could be wired in left and right pairs (i.e L Surround powers L Rear Surround), but Amir's discovery that the passive speaker is heavily EQ'd makes me question if this is a good idea.
 
the passive speaker is heavily EQ'd makes me question if this is a good idea.
Both speakers will be identically eq'd. It is just that the drive signal to the unpowered one escapes to be noticed. Your idea of side pair wiring makes perfect sense.
 
They are not Samsung speakers...lol... JBL!
:) Depends on how one looks at it, doesn't it?

https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-completes-acquisition-of-harman

:cool:

Those Dayton's are impossibly cheap for what they suggest to be offering !

https://www.amazon.com/Dayton-Audio-B652-AIR-Bookshelf-Speaker/dp/B00NOA58RS
I can only comment on what I have heard vis-a-vis these loudspeakers -- but I'd recommend managing your expectations.
I will say that the treble is pretty pleasant -- but I am an old guy with considerably attenuated ability to hear HF. :confused:
 
DISCLAIMER: I hope this isn't too off topic with this thread/review! If it is, feel free to move or delete it... I could start a separate thread if there's any interest!

I realize that there are significant variables (specifically, the built in amplification and EQ on this JBL), but -- from my perspective -- it would be interesting to compare the measurable characteristics of a loudspeaker using a small coaxial driver like this JBL with a similarly sized loudspeaker using a "full range" (extended range) driver such as the Fostex FE103En.

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-4-fullrange/fostex-fe103en-4-full-range/

1579961166911.png




https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...0e-diy-kanspea-4-full-range-speaker-kit-pair/
1579961620721.png

They are "kits" in the most nominal sense of the word -- the 'builder' only needs to wire the driver to the terminals and then screw the driver into the enclosure. :)

I wonder how much worse a "full range" driver like this (which "leverages" its round dustcap as a treble radiator, sort of evoking the use of a whizzer cone to extend treble response/dispersion) would measure, compared to the coax driver in this little JBL "monitor".

In full disclosure, I have a pair of the above-mentioned Fostex "Kanspea P1000" kit speakers, loaded with the above-mentioned drivers (note that two different drivers are available when purchasing the kit).

049 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

FWIW, the FE-103 family has been around since at least the mid-1960s. Radio Shack also sold various versions of this driver for many years (most under the R/S catalog number 40-1197).


1579961940407.png

source: http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1967/h048.html
... and, if you're really curious, you can see the minispeaker design touted in the catalog scan above at
https://www.americanradiohistory.co...lustrated/Electronics-Illustrated-1965-11.pdf
(Note the headline on the cover of that issue "A Particle Accelerator You Can Build" :) )

As an aside (but back on-topic in terms of the titular loudspeaker of this thread!), the target market segment for the JBL "One Series 104" seems to be pretty clear from their web page on the product:
https://www.jbl.com/studio-monitors/J104SET-US.html

1579961091413.png


It appears to be aimed at podcasters (and similar "digital" users).
 
Thank you for the review @amirm ! Loved seeing the 3D directivity balloon.

It tracks pretty closely with my own thoughts and measurements I made a while back, especially considering the different samples. In case anyone is curious for another data point...

Horizontal (listening window in grey):
1579962679512.png


Vertical:
index.php


Never got around to doing the bass summations and splicing, but major peaks and dips in the same places despite the different samples/methodologies:)

Most notable features are that on-axis dip and consistent off-axis hills at roughly 5-8K, so I think some care in positioning to balance the on and off axis highsis in order. Is clearly designed strictly for nearfield use and nothing else. JBL says they were meant to be played on a desk too, always leaving them a bit below axis, so that probably helps tame some of the otherwise brightsound.

Anyway, these have become a go-to recommendation for circa $100, sometimess less. The placement flexibility and good sound for the price makes them quite neat imo.

Got worried when I skimmed through the graphs before reading the text and just saw the passive measurements at first haha. Great idea to try to amplify it independently and see how much of it is EQ ! Which as it turns out, is quite a lot.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, these have become a go-to recommendation for circa $100. The placement flexibility and good sound for the pricemakes them quite neat imo.

I paid £70 for these on Black Friday which made them cheaper than the PreSonus Eris E3.5 that I had been considering for my little study. The cylindrical pill form factor is much easier to live with than the traditional box of the Eris on my small desk and I'm glad I bought the 104's instead.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Can you show that 3D-view of the JBL305? Really like that view.
 
Aha, I thought it was for all frequencies. I did not looks so carefully.
 
Thanks review amirm this speaker stuff is so interesting :p and what a good idea analyze passive verse active, for other tech noobs below should be active EQ on a close to same scales as the two passive/active graphs.

EQ.png
 
There is nothing wrong with testing lots of JBL speakers as there is a lot of interest in the brand here, and some of the budget models are real jems.
 
Back
Top Bottom