• 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 Stage A130 Review (speaker)

I got these speakers the other day and am very pleased with them. I am new to "Audiophile" speaker setups, but have been into headphones for quite some time and wanted a better sounding speaker set.

My current setup is using a very old Sony AV Receiver, so I'm assuming this is the limitation of the setup and I've paired it with a Klipsch R-12SW From costco for $150. The Sub has a ton of power and decent sounding, but def not the cleanest bass I have heard, for my purpose, it works well.

I also noticed these speakers do sound much better, to me, without the covers on them. I'm not sure if I'm crazy in this, but the highs and detail sounds far better without them.

Question: If I were to upgrade to a newer, higher end AV Receiver, is there going to be a significant advantage when running it in 2.1 (JBL Stage 130 and the Klipsch subwoofer)?

I got this one for free and it is rated at 100w/channel so it has plenty of power, just not sure if the older processer (2003) and technology is severely limiting the sound potential of these speakers.
 
Jman841 said:
I got these speakers the other day and am very pleased with them. I am new to "Audiophile" speaker setups, but have been into headphones for quite some time and wanted a better sounding speaker set.

My current setup is using a very old Sony AV Receiver, so I'm assuming this is the limitation of the setup and I've paired it with a Klipsch R-12SW From costco for $150. The Sub has a ton of power and decent sounding, but def not the cleanest bass I have heard, for my purpose, it works well.

I also noticed these speakers do sound much better, to me, without the covers on them. I'm not sure if I'm crazy in this, but the highs and detail sounds far better without them.

Question: If I were to upgrade to a newer, higher end AV Receiver, is there going to be a significant advantage when running it in 2.1 (JBL Stage 130 and the Klipsch subwoofer)?

I got this one for free and it is rated at 100w/channel so it has plenty of power, just not sure if the older processer (2003) and technology is severely limiting the sound potential of these speakers.
Click to expand...
likely inaudible unless the sony receiver is flat out broken
 
Just to test it, could I hook my Topping E30 DAC up to the analog audio input on the AV Receiver and just get it to pass through acting as an amp?
 
Jman841 said:
Question: If I were to upgrade to a newer, higher end AV Receiver, is there going to be a significant advantage when running it in 2.1 (JBL Stage 130 and the Klipsch subwoofer)?

I got this one for free and it is rated at 100w/channel so it has plenty of power, just not sure if the older processer (2003) and technology is severely limiting the sound potential of these speakers.
Click to expand...
Better off picking up a MiniDSP/Dirac/Mic kit.
 
ok, I'll give it a try to see if I notice any difference between the E30 day and the internal decoding. It will just be temporary as the E30 is my desktop DAC, but i'll be curious. I'll also be able to apply EQ when running the E30 to these speakers so it will be interesting to see how the EQ on these changes the sound.
 
ObjectAudio said:
EQ cannot fix all issues that insufficient crossover design bring to the table like time align correction , avoiding cone breakup , and so.
EQ should be the last mod to the speakers after sufficient crossover design.
Click to expand...


Hi

I tried applying eq to the a130, but it seems to sound bad to my ears. Obviously the overall dynamics seem to be a little flatter, but it feels like something is covered in sound. It seems to be struggling to make the sound come out.

Maybe this is a problem with software eq? I am wondering if the actual crossover mod will produce better results than eq.

If both methods produce similar results, it makes no sense to try the crossover mod...
 
ROOSKIE said:
By the way regarding PEQ, the files and recommendations folks have posted here are pretty pointless. One has to measure in room. None of the examples here match in the way that I would want when compared to what I actually used in my room. In fact I think using them would be just slightly above a zero sum game.
Click to expand...

Speaker correction and room correction are completely different things. all the filters in this thread are to correct the speaker, not to accommodate for the room.

doing speaker correction (with an extreemly accurate data set, like a spinorama from a Klippel NFS) means that the speaker will interact with the room in a predictable way. and that room correction will be more effective and tonally correct.
 
abdo123 said:
Speaker correction and room correction are completely different things. all the filters in this thread are to correct the speaker, not to accommodate for the room.

doing speaker correction (with an extreemly accurate data set, like a spinorama from a Klippel NFS) means that the speaker will interact with the room in a predictable way. and that room correction will be more effective and tonally correct.
Click to expand...
Howdy, I do understand that (the difference between RC and Speaker correction.)
In my post I was only reffering to the values posted for this speaker, not other speakers. I should make that clear.
The problem is that some folks are plugging these values in blind and thinking they are done.
You have to factor in the room once you have one.
2 values are frequencies below 200hrz and 2 above 10k. These really are affected by the room, so much so that I would only want to manually adjust after an in room measurement.
The main thing to eq is that mid-range area. I know that the Klipple data is awesomely accurate. Still, in my room the middle range hump presented differenty from the PIR so how to correct it may be up for debate. (I deff corrected for it but with different values)
In any case these are very nice speakers for the $.
 
thewas said:
I also have often the feeling that too many and too narrow filters can often make a loudspeaker sound lifeless and also make the imaging flatter. Keep in my that positive peak filters mean adding a ringing in time domain.
https://support.genelec.com/hc/en-u...-does-GLM-not-fix-dips-on-frequency-response-
Click to expand...

I'm a little late to this but, yeah, while you think of EQ as just taking out those specific frequencies any EQ that isn't specifically noted as a "linear phase EQ" will mess with phasing which will introduce its own issues. And yes, unless it is a crappy desktop speaker that you're making crazy adjustments to to make it somewhat pass as flat, if it's hi-fi you want to use wider Qs and less of them. Just fix broad problem areas and call it a day.
 
I purchased the Stage A180 towers and A125c center. Very good sounding speakers. I’ve owed several brands in the past NHT, Elac, Klipsch, SVS... these things take the cake. What’s surprising is how good the center sounds. In the past I would have issues with the dialogue getting lost in the mix, but not with the JBL’s. I am shocked they sell at such a low cost and outperform much more expensive speakers!
 
Denon545 said:
I purchased the Stage A180 towers and A125c center. Very good sounding speakers. I’ve owed several brands in the past NHT, Elac, Klipsch, SVS... these things take the cake. What’s surprising is how good the center sounds. In the past I would have issues with the dialogue getting lost in the mix, but not with the JBL’s. I am shocked they sell at such a low cost and outperform much more expensive speakers!
Click to expand...

By chance have you tried any experimenting with a phantom center channel to see how effective it might be compared to using the A125C center? Reviews of the Stage towers suggest the HDI waveguides help produce an effective phantom center with well-centered dialog.
 
More Dynamics Please said:
By chance have you tried any experimenting with a phantom center channel to see how effective it might be compared to using the A125C center? Reviews of the Stage towers suggest the HDI waveguides help produce an effective phantom center with well-centered dialog.
Click to expand...

I've run phantom center some and it is really good. My room is a little asymmetrical and I sit closer to the right side, so I am away from the sweet spot in the middle. Which is why I like the A125C. If you are more towards the center, and in the sweetspot, the phantom effect would be good.
 
I have the A135C center and was surprised at how good it is, especially with everyone discounting center speakers with a similar design. I tried a phantom center with just the A130s and thought the A135C made a significant/difference.

But then again I am new to all this and don't exactly know what I might be missing with a more traditional center but dialogue is very clear and definitely better with the center channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

king0188
JBL Stage A130 or Arena 130?
Replies
13
Views
3K
CardiganB
C
MI_FI
jbl stage a130 upgrade tips
Replies
2
Views
836
MI_FI
MI_FI
amirm
  • Poll
AsciLab F6Bs Speaker Review
16 17 18
Replies
359
Views
69K
RickS
RickS
amirm
  • Poll
HEDD TYPE 05 A-CORE Monitor Review
2 3
Replies
56
Views
14K
andibrema
A
amirm
  • Poll
GRIMM Audio LS1c & SB1 DSP Speaker Review
38 39 40
Replies
787
Views
79K
Esprit
Esprit
Back
Top Bottom