- Joined
- Jan 3, 2018
- Messages
- 115
- Likes
- 86
Amir, it’s all your fault, with that enticing review of the A130. So I have two Stages and subjected them to what testing I could to see if there were any differences worth fretting about. Bottom line, basically there were not. The A130 is IMO a terrific product, still available from Crutchfield for $200 shipped.
Both speakers’ specs can be found @ https://www.jbl.com/speakers/ The A130 is a simple two-way design; the A180 a 2.5 way. The A130 has a waveguide of 17 in^2 and is crossed over @ 3.2 kHz. The A-180’s waveguide is 31^2; the crossover to the top woofer is @ 2.0 kHz. Which woofer will start beaming earlier? Will the lower woofer of the A180 and the more complex 2.5 way crossover network create some problems the A130 is free of? I have no idea a priori; so let’s do an informal comparison.
First, any differences I heard were very subtle. Unsurprisingly, both speakers are equally good. Second, I participated in Dr AIX’s test about audible differences between Redbook recordings and high-res ones he himself had done . My score was about 45% correct. Keep that in mind about any differences I heard (or might have.)
Photos of the disposition of the Stages and REW measurements below. The graphs represent an average of 5 mic positions in my rather suboptimal 2,186 ft^3 listening room. The speakers were placed side by side as in the photo and positioned at least 3.5 ft from any wall. Tweeters a bit below ear height. These graphs don’t tell me much; a squiggle here, a squiggle there, and that’s how you do the frequency-response hokie-pokie. On the recording of Mozart’s Clarinet Quintet on the BD described below, there is a C# on the cello, about 72 Hz. It was weaker on the A-130 than the A-180. This was apparent on comparison, but in normal performance practice it would have been within the discretion of the cellist. The A-130 is an impressive speaker, still available for $200 shipped from Crutchfield and perhaps others.
Listening suggests that the A180 does better with men’s voices, notably bass-baritone Robert Holl, along with a bigger, deeper soundstage. Generally the A180 gives a bigger soundstage, and the A130 ever so slightly better dynamics. Could it be that the narrower, slightly more focused soundstage gives the impression of better dynamics? Would squeezing in the soundstage make the individual voices more prominent? The A130 also seems ever so slightly to bring out the different registers of an instrument, while the A-180 just a bit smoother.
There is one problem with these impressions: REW measures the efficiency of the A130 as 70.3 – 70.6 and the A180 as 73.0 – 73.7. I could not match up the efficiency exactly. If the A130 were 3 notches higher than the A180 it sounded a bit better. If 2 notches, not so much. This is a good indication of how similar the speakers are and the importance of level matching – and finding the precisely right volume for each individual recording, as Gordon Holt used to say.
I listen with Dirac, along with a pair of Rythmik L12 subwoofers. For these speakers I set the crossover point at 90Hz in the NAD T758v3 AVR, a fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley filter. Dirac screen below. It only operates up to 500 Hz. This should take the deep bass out of the comparison. The last track of Christian McBride’s album Getting’ to it is a very good test since his various bowings, pluckings, and uses of the bow stick and fingerboard, like consonants in speech, are all very different sounds and might reveal weaknesses of a speaker. I could not tell any consistent difference speaker to speaker. (I have heard him live, FWIW.) Another great test disk is Mark Waldrep’s Blu-Ray of Mozart clarinet and horn quintets and an early string quartet with the “Old City” (now Dover) Quartet. Get your copy while you still can. It is unadulterated 96/24. AIX records 86065. The visual element is very helpful as it primes you to expect to hear the sound of the instrument you are seeing the same way you did in live concerts. The clarinet and the horn are very different and fill a room in different ways, the horn deeper and darker. Again no or little difference in speakers. But I noticed something rather interesting. Listen to the first bit of the Clarinet Quintet and then go to the Horn Quintet. It is striking how much darker the sound atmosphere has become. Could the players have darkened their tone to blend in better with the horn? Of course. Notice that the micing and the seating of the players are different too. Could Mark Waldrep have contributed to this? Yes, of course. I mention this in part to justify listening tests, as I wonder what conceivable measurement could have picked this up.
So for me the A180s are now the main speakers and the A130s surrounds, with Dirac and a 90Hz xover . I could perhaps have reversed this, but with the A180s up front I don’t need speaker stands or have to find a spot for floor-standing surrrounds.
Both speakers’ specs can be found @ https://www.jbl.com/speakers/ The A130 is a simple two-way design; the A180 a 2.5 way. The A130 has a waveguide of 17 in^2 and is crossed over @ 3.2 kHz. The A-180’s waveguide is 31^2; the crossover to the top woofer is @ 2.0 kHz. Which woofer will start beaming earlier? Will the lower woofer of the A180 and the more complex 2.5 way crossover network create some problems the A130 is free of? I have no idea a priori; so let’s do an informal comparison.
First, any differences I heard were very subtle. Unsurprisingly, both speakers are equally good. Second, I participated in Dr AIX’s test about audible differences between Redbook recordings and high-res ones he himself had done . My score was about 45% correct. Keep that in mind about any differences I heard (or might have.)
Photos of the disposition of the Stages and REW measurements below. The graphs represent an average of 5 mic positions in my rather suboptimal 2,186 ft^3 listening room. The speakers were placed side by side as in the photo and positioned at least 3.5 ft from any wall. Tweeters a bit below ear height. These graphs don’t tell me much; a squiggle here, a squiggle there, and that’s how you do the frequency-response hokie-pokie. On the recording of Mozart’s Clarinet Quintet on the BD described below, there is a C# on the cello, about 72 Hz. It was weaker on the A-130 than the A-180. This was apparent on comparison, but in normal performance practice it would have been within the discretion of the cellist. The A-130 is an impressive speaker, still available for $200 shipped from Crutchfield and perhaps others.
Listening suggests that the A180 does better with men’s voices, notably bass-baritone Robert Holl, along with a bigger, deeper soundstage. Generally the A180 gives a bigger soundstage, and the A130 ever so slightly better dynamics. Could it be that the narrower, slightly more focused soundstage gives the impression of better dynamics? Would squeezing in the soundstage make the individual voices more prominent? The A130 also seems ever so slightly to bring out the different registers of an instrument, while the A-180 just a bit smoother.
There is one problem with these impressions: REW measures the efficiency of the A130 as 70.3 – 70.6 and the A180 as 73.0 – 73.7. I could not match up the efficiency exactly. If the A130 were 3 notches higher than the A180 it sounded a bit better. If 2 notches, not so much. This is a good indication of how similar the speakers are and the importance of level matching – and finding the precisely right volume for each individual recording, as Gordon Holt used to say.
I listen with Dirac, along with a pair of Rythmik L12 subwoofers. For these speakers I set the crossover point at 90Hz in the NAD T758v3 AVR, a fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley filter. Dirac screen below. It only operates up to 500 Hz. This should take the deep bass out of the comparison. The last track of Christian McBride’s album Getting’ to it is a very good test since his various bowings, pluckings, and uses of the bow stick and fingerboard, like consonants in speech, are all very different sounds and might reveal weaknesses of a speaker. I could not tell any consistent difference speaker to speaker. (I have heard him live, FWIW.) Another great test disk is Mark Waldrep’s Blu-Ray of Mozart clarinet and horn quintets and an early string quartet with the “Old City” (now Dover) Quartet. Get your copy while you still can. It is unadulterated 96/24. AIX records 86065. The visual element is very helpful as it primes you to expect to hear the sound of the instrument you are seeing the same way you did in live concerts. The clarinet and the horn are very different and fill a room in different ways, the horn deeper and darker. Again no or little difference in speakers. But I noticed something rather interesting. Listen to the first bit of the Clarinet Quintet and then go to the Horn Quintet. It is striking how much darker the sound atmosphere has become. Could the players have darkened their tone to blend in better with the horn? Of course. Notice that the micing and the seating of the players are different too. Could Mark Waldrep have contributed to this? Yes, of course. I mention this in part to justify listening tests, as I wonder what conceivable measurement could have picked this up.
So for me the A180s are now the main speakers and the A130s surrounds, with Dirac and a 90Hz xover . I could perhaps have reversed this, but with the A180s up front I don’t need speaker stands or have to find a spot for floor-standing surrrounds.
