JBL 104-BT Teardown
-
Welcome to ASR. 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
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Thanks @oversky
Here are real experts in this forum: Is this teardown better or worse than this?
And again, thanks in advance, my motherlanguage is not english, please be kind
KR
Here are real experts in this forum: Is this teardown better or worse than this?
And again, thanks in advance, my motherlanguage is not english, please be kind
KR
Following are JBL 104-BT measured by Moving Microphone Method with EQ ON.
The speakers are placed 8cm above the desktop, and toed in,
The distance between Listening Point and tweeter is 70 cm.
The tweeter centers are below ear height around -20 degree,
Therefore, the 10k dips are expected from spinorama data.
But I didn't expect the 4k dips.
The peaks below 60 Hz are from periodic pink noise.
I don't know why.
Sweep tone measurements do not have this problem.
The dips at 80 and 160 Hz in left channel are room mode.
Tried several room treatments, but still not finding a good solution yet.
The peak at 117 Hz is also a room mode, but not trimmed enough with EQ.
This shows the MMM is not very accurate at low frequency due to spacial average.
However, JBL 104-BT has more problems above 2k Hz,
Therefore, I choose MMM instead of one time sweep tone method.
The speakers are placed 8cm above the desktop, and toed in,
The distance between Listening Point and tweeter is 70 cm.
The tweeter centers are below ear height around -20 degree,
Therefore, the 10k dips are expected from spinorama data.
But I didn't expect the 4k dips.
The peaks below 60 Hz are from periodic pink noise.
I don't know why.
Sweep tone measurements do not have this problem.
The dips at 80 and 160 Hz in left channel are room mode.
Tried several room treatments, but still not finding a good solution yet.
The peak at 117 Hz is also a room mode, but not trimmed enough with EQ.
This shows the MMM is not very accurate at low frequency due to spacial average.
However, JBL 104-BT has more problems above 2k Hz,
Therefore, I choose MMM instead of one time sweep tone method.
SmackDaddies
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
- Messages
- 175
- Likes
- 360
I am endlessly amused and baffled that so much attention is paid to speakers which are pure crap
It's a love affair with the gear. I've done it too and found myself delving deeply into stuff that was not really worthy of the time investment.
Hi in general many thanks share your data and experience so far ... : )
That said try understand how much important it is that the curve named "Directivity index" is fair smooth and none jagged when looking at the normal Spinorama plot, any none smoothness and jagginesh for that"Directivity index" curve will mean the quality looking into other detailed spindata charts will show varius system flaws.
To express what i mean see below comparison where left columb is JBL One Series 104 charts verse right columb charts that is of Genelec 8341A SAM, study that "Directivity index" curve in the upper Spinorama charts for both systems and see how low of a quolity that curve is for JBL One Series 104 and therefor the lower charts will look none ideal/flawed. From 400Hz to 3kHz JBL One Series 104 is okay and documented into the "Directivity index" curve, below that 400Hz point it goes abrupt pure omni and above 3kHz it go into a mess of interference. In principle because of all that jagginesh for JBL One Series 104 curves it's really not fixable using EQ, but have all the fun you can have trying to EQ the system...
Last edited:
They certainly aren't the best small speakers but sound much better than the score suggested and are far away from crap. The very important frequency range from 300Hz to 4kHz is okay to good. They sound bright in the near field especially on axis but otherwise okay, which this and other reviews also confirm. On the plus side you get a very good soundstage and image and good bass and spl for such a small speaker.
With the right angle and moderate eq I had enjoyed music and video content as desktop speakers.
To my surprise they are even okay as tv speakers without eq in a mid size room.
I found following suggestions very useful.
The position where I put speakers is pure crap.
The right speaker is in the corner.
The left speak is in the middle of my room width.
I guess that's why I have 80 and 160 Hz dips.
bennybbbx
Addicted to Fun and Learning
and additional this jbl have a very low hiss so they are able to put very near. and the more near can get them, the less room influence you get. and less room influence is more hifi. I think it is important to have it exact on ear height. this also make distance to desktop larger so less reflection level from that
@oversky
for measures i use smoothing ERB and then such small gaps are not so much. you can try eq if you like the sound with boost better. anyway use many measure positions is a trick to get nicer measurements. there need correct best in that way what humans with auricle directivitiy hear. use a headphone measurehead is not need, i have only this, it is also usefull when have a plastic auricle that can put on omnidirectional measure microphone.
I get better results with a aurical measure head minidsp hear https://www.soundimports.eu/de/mini...EhDuQBDn_jheNcstB4pG-8kHWxdGOQtxoCvA8QAvD_BwE .. when compare a omnidirectional measure and with simulate ears can see wy room curves have a falling slope. because a speaker in a stereo triangle give more mid and high freq as when in middle. this happen because diffrent reflections in auricle i guess. Results for the JBL 104 BT no eq both
@oversky
for measures i use smoothing ERB and then such small gaps are not so much. you can try eq if you like the sound with boost better. anyway use many measure positions is a trick to get nicer measurements. there need correct best in that way what humans with auricle directivitiy hear. use a headphone measurehead is not need, i have only this, it is also usefull when have a plastic auricle that can put on omnidirectional measure microphone.
I get better results with a aurical measure head minidsp hear https://www.soundimports.eu/de/mini...EhDuQBDn_jheNcstB4pG-8kHWxdGOQtxoCvA8QAvD_BwE .. when compare a omnidirectional measure and with simulate ears can see wy room curves have a falling slope. because a speaker in a stereo triangle give more mid and high freq as when in middle. this happen because diffrent reflections in auricle i guess. Results for the JBL 104 BT no eq both
I agree with you.
The vocal band should have more weighting than other frequency.
Does anyone know whether the scores have such weighting in the formula?
I forgot to mention I have some desktop treatments to get such result.
The red book shelf creates a slope and prevent reflection from desktop surface to my ears.
The wood board prevents the reflection of the left speaker to right wall .
The plastic prevents the reflection from the corner.
The general idea to make the speakers, computer screen, and the wall form a "flush mount sytem"
I know it does not look nice.
I will make it look better after all room treatment experiments.
I hope there is an Estimated In-room Response for near field.
The "in wall mount" is clever. I would place the speaker higher to lower the desk reflection. If a higher image doesn't bother you placing the speakers even above the monitor with a tilt is very good to lower the influence of the desk reflection.I forgot to mention I have some desktop treatments to get such result.
The red book shelf creates a slope and prevent reflection from desktop surface to my ears.
The wood board prevents the reflection of the left speaker to right wall .
The plastic prevents the reflection from the corner.
The general idea to make the speakers, computer screen, and the wall form a "flush mount sytem"
I know it does not look nice.
I will make it look better after all room treatment experiments.
I am sorry to say but the red book doesn't really prevent any significant reflection. Acoustic waves doesn't work like "light beams" diffraction is a major thing due to the wavelength, therefore you can't cast acoustic shadows or build acoustic mirrors with such small parts in the relevant frequency range.
Edit: Is this a foil above the speaker? It might transmit a lot of the frequency content and might not work that good as a "wall".
bennybbbx
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I forgot to mention I have some desktop treatments to get such result.
The red book shelf creates a slope and prevent reflection from desktop surface to my ears.
The wood board prevents the reflection of the left speaker to right wall .
The plastic prevents the reflection from the corner.
The general idea to make the speakers, computer screen, and the wall form a "flush mount sytem"
I know it does not look nice.
I will make it look better after all room treatment experiments.
here is a reflection calculator. there can see which main reflections peak and dips you get http://www.mh-audio.nl/acoustics/FFR.html on a desktop the table is simular as a floor. if it realy work i dont know. it output a peak at 530 hz but i get dip at around 500 hz.
if you have some foam you get results from the caluclator where to place foam on sidewall and you can hear yourself if it give usefull results or not. at least it is the only foam position calculator i find. if there are others let know
As you mentioned, now I recall that I did try a higher position.
The sound image is over the computer screen,
so I decide to go back to current setting.
The red slope did shows difference from measurement.
But I forgot to save the data, and too lazy to do it again.
It's not a perfect solution, but acceptable one.
I need desktop space for mouse moving and other stuffs.
And yes, that is a foil above the speaker.
The measurement shows OK result.
I will try some other material,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Thanks for this interesting website.
I will try it in the weekend.
SmackDaddies
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
- Messages
- 175
- Likes
- 360
I still own these, though they get very little use. The only time I have found them useful is set up in a very nearfield situation listening to electronica or house music. that I found they do well because of their nearfield imaging.
bennybbbx
Addicted to Fun and Learning
such small speakers are for nearfield desktop usage. if you want hear midfield, farfield ( 1.5 meter or more meter away from speaker) the advantage of coaxial design is reduce and bigger speaker give of course more low bass or need a subwoofer. there is a table show distance and strength of direct to indirect sound. more hifi is more direct sound. https://www.genelec.com/correct-monitors
this speaker is expensive but i believe sound in nearfeald great too
this speaker is expensive but i believe sound in nearfeald great too
Last edited:
Okay I agree that there are definitely many better speakers out there if size isn't a problem especially with higher listening distance than 1m. The 104 didn't provide anything exceptional except the imaging.
For me they are a cheap good enough solution for instances where the small size is important and the placement of speakers isn't good and an overall better speakers can't shine anyway.
Last edited:
Finally got a measurement mic to the office. These are the results of a Sonarworks SoundID Reference mic shoved into the back of an EVO 4, about 1" from speaker, 0° mic calibration loaded:
Well, I guess my present EQ is better than nothing and an improvement on the low end, but it's clearly no match for the mess at about 1.8 kHz up... Guess I found where the last bit of remaining harshness was coming from.
Some EQage is improving matters at least:
It's a bit of a dumpster fire, so a complete fix may not be trivial. Doesn't sound bad like this though.
Well, I guess my present EQ is better than nothing and an improvement on the low end, but it's clearly no match for the mess at about 1.8 kHz up... Guess I found where the last bit of remaining harshness was coming from.
Some EQage is improving matters at least:
It's a bit of a dumpster fire, so a complete fix may not be trivial. Doesn't sound bad like this though.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
