-
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
Svend P
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Why are you on a forum that values science and measurements when you refuse them every time they are mentioned?
What do you want us to tell you? "Transparency" is, ostensibly, a subjective trait that's generally associated with low distortion, relatively flat response (again though, it's important what the frequency response IN ROOM is, not anechoic), consistent directivity, and less frequently now since it's a non-issue today outside of vinyl: low noise floor.
Last edited:
If/when someone uses room/spot measurement as reference for eq, different or differently placed speakers will sound different. This is mainly because they have different directivity both horizontally and vertically, so they send different direct sound frequency response to the mic/listener. And still the direct sound is major factor on what (tonality) we perceive. Reflected sounds from the room will add only some small flavor, (for reference read numerous studies mentioned in eg. Toole's book and videos)
If one really wants to try to find out what is the physical reason for different resolution and transparency, the two loudspeakers should be measured at spot (both left and right) and quasi-anechoically in 3D (4pi). Then study differencies of these measurements - frequency response, distortion, phase/GD, room decay etc. But like I said previously, metric for transparency and resolution of loudspeakers etc. do not exist.
I am quite sure that this thread and discussion without mentioned data will not give an answer. Just enjoy the "better" speakers until you get dissatisfied of them!
If one really wants to try to find out what is the physical reason for different resolution and transparency, the two loudspeakers should be measured at spot (both left and right) and quasi-anechoically in 3D (4pi). Then study differencies of these measurements - frequency response, distortion, phase/GD, room decay etc. But like I said previously, metric for transparency and resolution of loudspeakers etc. do not exist.
I am quite sure that this thread and discussion without mentioned data will not give an answer. Just enjoy the "better" speakers until you get dissatisfied of them!
Stereo imaging is a property of directivity and, again, YOUR ROOM.
Jim Taylor
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2024
- Messages
- 1,213
- Likes
- 3,923
I had said ...
It must be understood that subjective impressions cannot be quantitatively measured. They are based on biases and emotions, which are unique to each and every individual.
Differences in objective perception, OTOH, are measurable by instruments. That's why you are being asked for measurements. One of those measurements is the degree of matching between the two speakers. This can cause images to "float" in between the speakers.
And no, I had not insinuated that you were expected to buy a Klippel. I simply held it up as the standard of accurate measurements.
As for the information that you have given us regarding the impressions other people have given you ... lack of controls and the power of suggestion can produce these results. At this point, we cannot determine whether that is or is not the case. Again, we need measurements.
So far, the answers to your questions are up in the air. We need more information ... and that means a willingness from you to follow scientific guidelines.
Last edited:
Tell
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2024
- Messages
- 766
- Likes
- 1,107
How come you ignore all comments talking about the directivity, ie the frequency response off-axis that very much affects the stereo imagine and how you perceive the speakers in your room?
You posted the frequency response in JBL's anechoic chamber. Not your room.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 16,256
- Likes
- 36,806
Three words, Benjamin.
R
E
W
R
E
W
Tovarich007
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2021
- Messages
- 400
- Likes
- 585
I've listed a few psots ago some of the most important criterias (maybe there are some others and maybe we'll discover some others too in the future, but these criterias are of prime importance) that can measure what we can define as "transparency" in acoustics.
This term that can be defined as "the state of the lesser possible degradation between the signal source and what is the measured result at the listening place in a specific listening room". Perhaps "accuracy" is a more precise and less connoted term than "transparency",
Of course, in acoustics, accuracy is never absolute nor perfect, far from it.
But it's not a subjective impression, some systems are objectively more accurate than others, and it's not only the consequence of linearity and constant directivity, two very important factors of course, but there are others.
There is no a complete index of accuracy, It's the resultt of numerous measurements, supposed they are properly done, Those published by ASR and Erins AC give a good approach of what can be called measurements of the overall accuracy,
But measuremsnts techniques are always a work in progress and will be more and more refined (for example, no one was talking about Klippel 5/6ago years or so ago, now the best companies and reviewers are equipped with it and Klippel goes on working on improvements. And surely other tools of measuements, even better, will be launched in the future)
Once again, this technical quest is not chasing absolute perfection, that doesn't and will never exist in the real world, it's a work in progress, as scieince and technics have always done.
And in the end, everybody's listening and will be listening with his own audition and his own subjectivity.
Which seems to be transparent for someone maybe not for another person.
That's why I find all this debate sterile and why I think some reactions toward subjective statements are sometimes too harsh and contempting on this forum, as if knowledges in science and technics were all definitive ; what they're obviously not.
A lot of so called "objectiivists" reactions show in fact that their authors minimize or ignore the complexity of knowledges in acoustics.
But, a contrario, people who claim for transparency only on subjective impression or habits should be more careful too.
This term that can be defined as "the state of the lesser possible degradation between the signal source and what is the measured result at the listening place in a specific listening room". Perhaps "accuracy" is a more precise and less connoted term than "transparency",
Of course, in acoustics, accuracy is never absolute nor perfect, far from it.
But it's not a subjective impression, some systems are objectively more accurate than others, and it's not only the consequence of linearity and constant directivity, two very important factors of course, but there are others.
There is no a complete index of accuracy, It's the resultt of numerous measurements, supposed they are properly done, Those published by ASR and Erins AC give a good approach of what can be called measurements of the overall accuracy,
But measuremsnts techniques are always a work in progress and will be more and more refined (for example, no one was talking about Klippel 5/6ago years or so ago, now the best companies and reviewers are equipped with it and Klippel goes on working on improvements. And surely other tools of measuements, even better, will be launched in the future)
Once again, this technical quest is not chasing absolute perfection, that doesn't and will never exist in the real world, it's a work in progress, as scieince and technics have always done.
And in the end, everybody's listening and will be listening with his own audition and his own subjectivity.
Which seems to be transparent for someone maybe not for another person.
That's why I find all this debate sterile and why I think some reactions toward subjective statements are sometimes too harsh and contempting on this forum, as if knowledges in science and technics were all definitive ; what they're obviously not.
A lot of so called "objectiivists" reactions show in fact that their authors minimize or ignore the complexity of knowledges in acoustics.
But, a contrario, people who claim for transparency only on subjective impression or habits should be more careful too.
Doenerkunde
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2022
- Messages
- 248
- Likes
- 736
One thing this forum taught me is that most "sonic signature attributes" boil down to tonality.
My best guess is that a midrange bump below/around 1khz can cause the perception of "very intimate, like it is happening in the room right in front of me feeling".
JBL4410:
For example another speaker that is often said to have very "intimate imaging" is the Guru Q(M)10:
Another speaker known for this intimate imaging was the Sonics Argenta.
My best guess is that a midrange bump below/around 1khz can cause the perception of "very intimate, like it is happening in the room right in front of me feeling".
JBL4410:
For example another speaker that is often said to have very "intimate imaging" is the Guru Q(M)10:
Another speaker known for this intimate imaging was the Sonics Argenta.
What is your Array's setup that those 4410 are more holographic? Can you share some pics? No way those can generate bigger image than Array's, I think it is the matter of higher frequency energy / less bass that you think those have more holographic image...
Jiraya369
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2025
- Messages
- 449
- Likes
- 420
measurements of FR give you the tonality info, horizontal directivity gives you the soundstage width/imaging depth info, distortion/compression tests inform you how much of the signal is clean/true to source and how much oddities the speaker is producing.
Not rocket science or anything. The Salon 2, like other Revels, likely has a ballooning directivity that sounds wide but not as precise. If you want to hear something similar to your JBL's, based on what you're saying you can buy a pair of Ascilab speakers, Genelec The Ones, Neumann KH series stuff or Any KEF.
Look at this and see how i can draw a straight line on the genelec whereas the revel goes up and down. Everything is consistently placed on the genelec, soundstage is consistent and will feel "deep".
Some examples from JBL themselves, 4329P and JBL 708i
When JBL wants they can make razor flat, nearly textbook perfect speakers in terms of directivity. Just 2 examples here. Just seeing these graphs makes me salivate at the soundstage depth. I've tried wide sounding speakers and narrower stuff and I'd take these speakers with depth any day of the week. You close your eyes and hear a snare, and feel like the reverb goes out into a black hole.
I doubt you're hearing this exact thing tho, considering the lack of a waveguide i doubt the speakers you're listening to are so perfectly controlled but if they are, that could explain what you're hearing. If not then you've just been duped by your brain and you wanted to stir something up here
Good tonal balance, low distortion, no compression artifacts, and THIS^
I'm convinced, at this point, that every frequency component of the timbre of some voice or instrument behaving similarly in geometrical, ergo temporal, terms without being scattered all over the place, is key to so-called imaging, through creating a plausible, coherent virtual source.
I'm convinced, at this point, that every frequency component of the timbre of some voice or instrument behaving similarly in geometrical, ergo temporal, terms without being scattered all over the place, is key to so-called imaging, through creating a plausible, coherent virtual source.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 16,256
- Likes
- 36,806
Or even a couple-three dB... that is, truth be told
the essence of the glorious, and much beloved by me "Altec 'Technicolor sound'".The development of motion pictures with sound ('talkies') drove the art and science of sound reproduction. The design of theaters for the talkies ultimately included loudspeakers that "spoke" through the motion picture screen. This required elevated midrange output, which the Altec Voice of the Theater loudspeakers and their ilk had (have)_ in spades.
Put an Altec A5-500 in a normal room and the midrange presence is palpable.
This is likely more on topic to this thread than it seems. JBL decided to take on the dominance of Altec in the studio monitor market with the [edit]
TL/DR, the classic JBL "Studio Monitor" sound was a direct descendant of the Altec "Studio Monitor" sound, which in turn derived from the Altec "theater speaker" sound... midrange bump and all.
My guess is that the OP is -- consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously -- biased by the look of the JBL "monitors" he prefers arising from their visual similarity (and the name on the box!) to the JBLs of yore.
All they need are white woofers!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 16,256
- Likes
- 36,806
It dawns on me that we should probably be ever more aware of the relevance of Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu to "hifi subjectivism" -- and I am not being entirely facetious!
DVDdoug
Master Contributor
- Joined
- May 27, 2021
- Messages
- 5,507
- Likes
- 7,897
I always say, "All speakers sound different". Most of it should show-up in the Klippel (spinorama) measurements. I'm pretty sure no two different speakers will have the same Klipple measurements either, even if EQ'd. And I don't know exactly how to correlate the Klippel measurements with the sound in a room, and our perception.
And I'd say, "Enjoy your speakers!!! That's what this "hobby" is all about! Enjoying good sound!
But if you had two different pro studio monitors in a treated studio, and they were both EQ'd the same... You MIGHT not notice the difference if you came back the next week and someone had "secretly" changed the speakers.
I wouldn't use the term "transparency" for speakers. It's converting an electrical signal to an acoustic signal. It's not like an amplifier or something electrical that we can describe as "a straight wire with gain" that has no effect on the sound/signal other than amplifying or attenuating. I prefer the term "accurate" but that's not easily defined-completely either. Perhaps if the speaker in your room sounds exactly like what was heard in the studio, we can say it's transparent. But we can't know that ("The circle of confusion").
As far as "imaging", Floyd Toole says:
Headphones are obviously different and "more artificial" but everybody seems to talk about headphone soundstage so I found this Headphone soundstage survey interesting!
And I'd say, "Enjoy your speakers!!! That's what this "hobby" is all about! Enjoying good sound!
But if you had two different pro studio monitors in a treated studio, and they were both EQ'd the same... You MIGHT not notice the difference if you came back the next week and someone had "secretly" changed the speakers.
I wouldn't use the term "transparency" for speakers. It's converting an electrical signal to an acoustic signal. It's not like an amplifier or something electrical that we can describe as "a straight wire with gain" that has no effect on the sound/signal other than amplifying or attenuating. I prefer the term "accurate" but that's not easily defined-completely either. Perhaps if the speaker in your room sounds exactly like what was heard in the studio, we can say it's transparent. But we can't know that ("The circle of confusion").
As far as "imaging", Floyd Toole says:
Of course the speaker and room play a role, especially if you have dipole/bi-pole or omnidirectional speakers but I'm not sure if it can be measured. Of course your BRAIN plays a big role too since it's an illusion with the sound actually originating from a pair of left & right speakers.
Headphones are obviously different and "more artificial" but everybody seems to talk about headphone soundstage so I found this Headphone soundstage survey interesting!
OP
dcolak
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
- Messages
- 234
- Likes
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #59
Thank you! This is the kind of response I expected!
Yes! That is why I was so surprised, there is no wave guide in play here!
It is exaclty as you described it, it's uncanny how real it sounds! Constant flow of sounds, music, everything coherent and rock steady.
I thought my Array 1400's were good.
It is assuring to know there are other speakers out there that can offer something similar.
I dred the thought of these 4410's dying on me.
OP
dcolak
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
- Messages
- 234
- Likes
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #60
Or even a couple-three dB... that is, truth be told
The development of motion pictures with sound ('talkies') drove the art and science of sound reproduction. The design of theaters for the talkies ultimately included loudspeakers that "spoke" through the motion picture screen. This required elevated midrange output, which the Altec Voice of the Theater loudspeakers and their ilk had (have)_ in spades.
Put an Altec A5-500 in a normal room and the midrange presence is palpable.
This is likely more on topic to this thread than it seems. JBL decided to take on the dominance of Altec in the studio monitor market with the [edit]43104311 (L100). Tonally, the 4310 was judged to be a 'drop in' replacement for the dominant Altec Duplex. The story is a little more complicated in that Altec, foolishly, had tried to push their clients from the 604 Duplex to the less-sensitive (but not tonally all that dissimilar) 605, with the result that the marketplace was open to change... and the ultimate result was the demise of Altec.
TL/DR, the classic JBL "Studio Monitor" sound was a direct descendant of the Altec "Studio Monitor" sound, which in turn derived from the Altec "theater speaker" sound... midrange bump and all.
View attachment 501930
My guess is that the OP is -- consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously -- biased by the look of the JBL "monitors" he prefers arising from their visual similarity (and the name on the box!) to the JBLs of yore.
View attachment 501932
All they need are white woofers!
I did not know they sounded like this, I had no idea!
Similar threads
