-
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 studio 4410, speaker resolution
- Thread starter dcolak
- Start date
DSJR
Master Contributor
I'm remembering the early 70s version. Yours are far later and it seems, benefit from mid driver tweaks as well as a better crossover
The early 70s model 'sqawked' on voice and no adjustment of level could fix it. Our mid 70s-popular speakers had a fantastic midrange accuracy, but usually fell apart in the bass, where all JBLs excelled back then in comparison. As I said above, the L65 Jubal sounded far better in the mids - I had a customer with a pair and even ten to fifteen years later, they sounded delightful 
Most likely S412P will measure even better, likely much better vertical directivity
Better subjective transparency could come from uneven vertical dispersion if we suppose your speaker measures like the original 4410. Another factor could be distorting tweeter.
But like said many times, there is no metric or simple explanation for transparency etc. hifistic terminology
Better subjective transparency could come from uneven vertical dispersion if we suppose your speaker measures like the original 4410. Another factor could be distorting tweeter.
But like said many times, there is no metric or simple explanation for transparency etc. hifistic terminology
Svend P
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Tell
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2024
- Messages
- 766
- Likes
- 1,107
All your speakers might measure flat on axis anechoically, but seeing that they most probably measures differently off axis they will sound differently in a room, which is why people are saying that you should measure them in your room.
OP
dcolak
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
- Messages
- 234
- Likes
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #26
Trust me when I say this, 412p sound veiled, compared to 4410s. They do not sound bad, at all, they sound really good. I'm listening to them as I write this, they are great fine sounding speakers.
The 412p design is special, 12 inch woofer is driven by the internal amp and its active crossover. I don't know why they did it like that but, this allows me to use amps with much lower power, they only see the mid bass-mid-teeeter part. Very strange solution for a mass produced speaker. I like it.
OP
dcolak
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
- Messages
- 234
- Likes
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #27
If I eq two speakers to measure the same, the transparency will be the same?
That is not my experience. I've used room correction with the same destination curve and even though two different speakers were eq-ed to have the same frequency response, the transparency did not chage.
More transparent speakers kept being more transparent.
I am talking about being able to focus on one instrument or sound and keep hearing it even when all other instruments kick in. The texture of the instrument sound not changing when getting mixed with vocals... transparency.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 16,256
- Likes
- 36,806
What does resolution even mean in the context of a loudspeaker, objectively speaking?
In my line of work, resolution relates, in a broad* and generic sense, to the ability to discriminate between two extremely similar... things. For example, in mass spectrometry, how much mass difference between two molecular species (ions) is required for the two species to be reliably and reproducibly detected as separate components in a mixture.
Is loudspeaker resolution a measure of the ability to hear two signals of very similar (fundamental?) frequencies when mixed together? Given our sensitivity to dissonance, I doubt that's a very high bar. The so-called second harmonic (distortion) product of a fundamental sounds "good", e.g., since it is exactly an octave above the fundamental. E.g., the second harmonic of a 1 kHz tone is... 2 kHz. Not much of a challenge for (frequency) resolution.
If so, it has nothing to do with... ahem... "soundstage" (one of the silliest terms and concepts in all of hifi, from my perspective).
In room-performance always, always is the most important parameter. In the current era, this is straightforward to assess with reasonable objectivity with relatively expensive tools.
If two DUT sound different -- there's something different about them!**
Here's a case where Daniel R. von Recklinghausen's famous quote/quip, so often applied in the context of "black magic" audiophilicity, probably applies much better:
en.wikipedia.org
_____________
* see what I did there? That's irony.
** yes, I am a proud member of the Tautology Club!
xkcd.com
In my line of work, resolution relates, in a broad* and generic sense, to the ability to discriminate between two extremely similar... things. For example, in mass spectrometry, how much mass difference between two molecular species (ions) is required for the two species to be reliably and reproducibly detected as separate components in a mixture.
Is loudspeaker resolution a measure of the ability to hear two signals of very similar (fundamental?) frequencies when mixed together? Given our sensitivity to dissonance, I doubt that's a very high bar. The so-called second harmonic (distortion) product of a fundamental sounds "good", e.g., since it is exactly an octave above the fundamental. E.g., the second harmonic of a 1 kHz tone is... 2 kHz. Not much of a challenge for (frequency) resolution.
If so, it has nothing to do with... ahem... "soundstage" (one of the silliest terms and concepts in all of hifi, from my perspective).
In room-performance always, always is the most important parameter. In the current era, this is straightforward to assess with reasonable objectivity with relatively expensive tools.
If two DUT
sound different -- there's something different about them!**Here's a case where Daniel R. von Recklinghausen's famous quote/quip, so often applied in the context of "black magic" audiophilicity
, probably applies much better:Daniel R. von Recklinghausen - Wikipedia
* see what I did there? That's irony.
** yes, I am a proud member of the Tautology Club!
Honor Societies
Last edited:
OP
dcolak
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
- Messages
- 234
- Likes
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #29
To quote Erin: "How well is defined and stable the stereo image."
I don't know if better transparency correlates or causes better stereo imaging.
With those 4410's everything is rock solid and very well defined, instruments and vocals do not end up as a single mush. Compared to all other speakers I have or have had.
I still don't know what measurement gives us that information.
Eq-ing two speakers to have same frequency response does not make them sound the same, at all. Some are still more transparent and image better than others.
I don't know if better transparency correlates or causes better stereo imaging.
With those 4410's everything is rock solid and very well defined, instruments and vocals do not end up as a single mush. Compared to all other speakers I have or have had.
I still don't know what measurement gives us that information.
Eq-ing two speakers to have same frequency response does not make them sound the same, at all. Some are still more transparent and image better than others.
Tovarich007
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2021
- Messages
- 400
- Likes
- 585
Distorsion can be easily heard; and Dcolka doesn't hear more distorsion, but less (more transparency means less distorsion, not more)
I find some of the commentaries trying to answer Dcolak perception are a bit weird and contempting.
He's speaking of qualities, he has EQed his different speakers using DEW (so he says, hope it's true) and some of you answer by finding flaws although you know nothing about the sound in Dcolak's room.
Can't you imagine a much more probable hypothesis ; maybe quite simply this model is simply better or at least more pleasing to his perception than the older speaker he owns, now it has been revamped (I prefer this expression than "as good as new", because a revamped speaker isn't a brand new speaker, it's a slightly different one).
Of course, introducing a new good speaker among older ones always gives the subjective impression that all the other ones are a bit blurred or coloured in contrast, even if they're not bad themselves. With the time, Dcolak's emphasis and enthusiasm will slowly decrease, it's always like this when we're talking about subjective perception.
But this not a reason to contempt Dcolak and to insinaute he's glad only because he can't hear flaws of this speaker. And he's right at least in one important point : of course, frequency linearity in room is a very important criteria, but too often, many people in this forum seem to consider that having a flat frquency tells everything about a speaker sound. This is not scientific nor objectivism, it's just mere simplification, and moreover it's not true.
To sum up my point : good linearity in and out axis is absolutely necessary of course, but it's far not enough to characterise wholly a speaker.
But, on the other hand, Dcolak is not right when he says transparency can't be measured: of course it can be actually be measured, but not only by a simple FR curve, it's much more complicated than that, it's a mix of FR I/O axis, harmonic and intermodulation distorsion, phase accuracy, compression limits in dynamic use, each ot this criterias measured at different sound levels with different sound contents . So, transparency is not only a subjective impresion, as pleasant as it is.
So please, let Dcolak with his subjective enthusiasm, even if it's probably a bit exaggerated.
Last edited:
Flat anechoic on-axis response and controlled directivity is a good start.
Your idea of transparency seems to be "I like the sound in my room".
Since you didn't answer any of my questions, I'll assume that you haven't done any measurements.
A common trick is a slight dip at 3 kHz followed by rising treble up to 10 kHz. It's the reason why some people like modern B&W speakers. You suddenly hear "new details" in the music and it's very "airy" and "high resolution", if you don't have better/more accurate speakers as a reference.
But even with EQ, you can't make two speakers sound the same in room, unless directivity is identical (it never is).
Tovarich007
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2021
- Messages
- 400
- Likes
- 585
Not only it never is, but linearity and controlled directivity are not enough to characterize a whole speaker sound. And you have to measure these two points at different sound levels, which isn't always done properly.
So, a very good start yes I agree, but not all.
Distorsions, compression at high level, power handling, phase accuracy, all this has to be taken into account, and all these criterias are interacting.
Not to mention that drivers are subject to heating, depending on time and intensity of use, and that their performances can be more or less altered by temperature variations.
So, the conclusion is : there is no two absolutely identical speaker model on earth, even if their differences can be very tiny, and sometimes undisceranble, especially when EQed.
So, a very good start yes I agree, but not all.
Distorsions, compression at high level, power handling, phase accuracy, all this has to be taken into account, and all these criterias are interacting.
Not to mention that drivers are subject to heating, depending on time and intensity of use, and that their performances can be more or less altered by temperature variations.
So, the conclusion is : there is no two absolutely identical speaker model on earth, even if their differences can be very tiny, and sometimes undisceranble, especially when EQed.
Jim Taylor
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2024
- Messages
- 1,213
- Likes
- 3,923
You hear differences. You ascribe these differences to the speakers. It is just as plausible that these differences can be ascribed to your perception. Cognitive bias can cause subjective impressions that disappear in a rigorously controlled double-blind test. That's why double-blind tests are recommended here, even though they are a PITA to setup correctly, what with all the level matching and controls.
If a DBT shows reliable differences, then the next step is measurements, as several members here have recommended. A truly exhaustive set of measurements would be performed by the Kllippel near-field scanner, whereas you have no choice but to perform yours in-room. Still, that can be informative.
You have asked questions. Please take heed to the answers you have been given. We are trying to help, not hinder.
In sum, please watch this video carefully:
If a DBT shows reliable differences, then the next step is measurements, as several members here have recommended. A truly exhaustive set of measurements would be performed by the Kllippel near-field scanner, whereas you have no choice but to perform yours in-room. Still, that can be informative.
You have asked questions. Please take heed to the answers you have been given. We are trying to help, not hinder.
In sum, please watch this video carefully:
Last edited:
Why are you consistently the most annoying person here?
How about we start with your hypothesis instead of you just telling people who are smarter than you they're wrong. What is "transparency" in your book?
OP
dcolak
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
- Messages
- 234
- Likes
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #37
Cognitive bias of everyone that heard the speakers, even though they knew nothing about them?
Give me a second to buy Kippel measurement system. Let's not talk about speakers, let Kippel work! Come on guys, the question was simple:
What measurements represent transparency and stereo imaging?
The best answer we got was: "it is complex." Which is perfectly fine.
Let's see what kind of index, compounded by measurement results, can give us that very useful information. And let's keep it on absolute level, so we can actually compare different speakers.
Deserved. Stop being so lazy. Make the measurements. Form a hypothesis and test it. Stop saying "whoa this sounds good" and then refusing to accept anyone's very reasonable explanations for your feeling. We can't hear the speakers for you, so you must measure them.
You measure frequency response IN THE ROOM THE SPEAKER IS IN AT THE LISTENING POSITION (for the 3rd or 4th time in this thread).
Similar threads
