JBL Studio 530 Speaker Review

[TheWalkman]

Picked up a pair of these at the JBL sale for $289. Couldn’t say no. (Like I need another set of speakers. I think I‘m about to admit I may have a problem.)

They are decent little speakers. i think I like them.

They seem a bit bright, even verging in hissy, but have a surprising amount of low end for a 5.25” driver. Decent sound levels as well. (I’m watching an old Styx concert featuring the Cleveland Contemporary Youth Orchestra video from 2006. Check it out on Amazon Prime or IMDB. Fantastic show with the Styx crew having as much or more fun than the kids. I digress....)

The 530s don’t quite match my L65s or 590’s but they would make a decent, entry level speaker for someone.

Verdict: money well spent.

 

[richard12511]

Picked up a pair of these at the JBL sale for $289. Couldn’t say no. (Like I need another set of speakers. I think I‘m about to admit I may have a problem.)

They are decent little speakers. i think I like them.

They seem a bit bright, even verging in hissy, but have a surprising amount of low end for a 5.25” driver. Decent sound levels as well. (I’m watching an old Styx concert featuring the Cleveland Contemporary Youth Orchestra video from 2006. Check it out on Amazon Prime or IMDB. Fantastic show with the Styx crew having as much or more fun than the kids. I digress....)

The 530s don’t quite match my L65s or 590’s but they would make a decent, entry level speaker for someone.

Verdict: money well spent.

Curious how they compare to the 590s. Several times now I've almost bought one of the tower versions on one of those silly 60% sales. I have the 530, but never heard the towers. Is it the same sound but deeper and louder?

 

[TheWalkman]

Curious how they compare to the 590s. Several times now I've almost bought one of the tower versions on one of those silly 60% sales. I have the 530, but never heard the towers. Is it the same sound but deeper and louder?

Though a certain Steve “G” could probably generate a 15 minute video to describe the sound difference, all I can say is the 530s simply don’t sound as, “big” (full, smooth, presence?)

As mentioned, my ears detect the slightest tinniness with the 530s but I like them.

 

[Jmudrick]

Though a certain Steve “G” could probably generate a 15 minute video to describe the sound difference, all I can say is the 530s simply don’t sound as, “big” (full, smooth, presence?)

As mentioned, my ears detect the slightest tinniness with the 530s but I like them.

Seems to me if you have a room big enough for the huge 590s the 530s can't be expected to compare given their low end output. In my medium room with two subs they comport themselves really well, much better than "decent little speakers" IMHO.

 

[TheWalkman]

Seems to me if you have a room big enough for the huge 590s the 530s can't be expected to compare given their low end output. In my medium room with two subs they comport themselves really well, much better than "decent little speakers" IMHO.

The 530s and 590s are in different rooms but I hear you.

Too, the 530s may need a week of pink noise to, “properly break in.”

 

[Jmudrick]

The 530s and 590s are in different rooms but I hear you.

Too, the 530s may need a week of pink noise to, “properly break in.”

Per the Kippel measure they shouldn't sound bright, though perhaps a bit lightweight given the bass response. I run mine with a high pass and gobs of power from Crown amps so that may help matters. They don't sound as big as the R263s I have in the other room, more mezzanine vs row 10 but I love them.

 

[Maiky76]

Hi,

Here are some thoughts on the EQ.
It is tough but I hope to get some feedback from @theyellowspecial

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:
Score no EQ: 5.4
With Sub: 7.35

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Pretty flat
• Peak @1365Hz is the really the only obvious issue
• The 350Hz trough is probably best left alone as the waterfall seems to show a resonance (internal?)

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height!
Horizontally, very good 0-20deg maybe better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location,

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.

Score EQ LW: 5.7
with sub: 7.65

Score EQ Score: 6.48
with sub: 8.29

JBL Studio 530 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
December162020-122716

Preamp: -2.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 43 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 136 Hz Gain -0.7 dB Q 2.85
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1410 Hz Gain -1.65 dB Q 5
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 8575 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 6.62

JBL Studio 530 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
December162020-122603

Preamp: -2.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 42.4 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.16
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 146 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2.85
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1368 Hz Gain -1.65 dB Q 7.5
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2273 Hz Gain -2 dB Q 3.77
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3489 Hz Gain -1.16 dB Q 3.5
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5369 Hz Gain -1.34 dB Q 2.17
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8577 Hz Gain -2.17 dB Q 6.41

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal,
The LW EQ looks flat
The Score EQ with a bit of a slope

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Some improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[spacevector]

Horizontally, very good 0-20deg maybe better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location,

Can you please explain why you recommend this? Is this recommendation for this particular type of measured performance or generally applicable to all loudspeakers?

 

[theyellowspecial]

Hi,

Here are some thoughts on the EQ.
It is tough but I hope to get some feedback from @theyellowspecial

Listened over the weekend in a few sessions. As expected, there's not a huge difference in subjective impression with EQ applied. There is some "fleshing out" to the sound with the small peaks knocked down. The sound is a touch less "thin". I'll probably keep the EQ applied but I'd be happy with or without. Thanks agains, Maiky!

 

[Jmudrick]

Wherein our friend Zeos muses in the Zeos way about why he prefers the Studio 570 over the "better" speaker from Triangle.

I have to say I'm struggling with a similar phenomenon in swapping between my 530 (with 2 subs, EQ) vs the A170 and the M106. Measured limitations notwithstanding there's an subjective appeal to the 530, especially off axis which is how I often listen, that I'm not yet finding with the other two.

 

[mhardy6647]

Measured limitations notwithstanding there's an subjective appeal to the 530...

 

[Jmudrick]

View attachment 108328

I should have noted that the deficincies are largely resolved with subs and basic Harman curve EQ.

 

[mhardy6647]

I should have noted that the deficincies are largely resolved with subs and basic Harman curve EQ.

yes, quite.


(I was just yankin' your chain (our chain!)-- to be clear)

 

[theyellowspecial]

I love this speaker.

 

[ROOSKIE]

A

Wherein our friend Zeos muses in the Zeos way about why he prefers the Studio 570 over the "better" speaker from Triangle.

I have to say I'm struggling with a similar phenomenon in swapping between my 530 (with 2 subs, EQ) vs the A170 and the M106. Measured limitations notwithstanding there's an subjective appeal to the 530, especially off axis which is how I often listen, that I'm not yet finding with the other two.

We have commiserated about the 530's before.
I can say again that I picked them over my Revel m105's and sold the m105's with no regrets.
My A130's have a great sound as I mentioned already a few times over in other threads but I am about finished testing and experimenting with them and I don't plan to keep them. They are fantastic speakers, will be spot on for many and yet not quite my personal jam long term.

Curious how they compare to the 590s. Several times now I've almost bought one of the tower versions on one of those silly 60% sales. I have the 530, but never heard the towers. Is it the same sound but deeper and louder?

I had the 580's and the 530's. Yes at least for the 580's they sound nearly identical with a very big sound. I did not keep the 580's because logistically using the 530's with dual/"stereo" bass woofers is a better fit for me.

Since I use "stereo" supplemental bass, I can cross the 530's around 125-150, this really helped clean them up at higher volumes both in subjective performance and measured HD testing.

As mentioned, my ears detect the slightest tinniness with the 530s but I like them.

Interesting that you get a tiny quality. I wonder what it could be? Waveguide affects? 3rd order and higher distortion is world class low, 2nd is present but since it is only an octave up would really would just slightly change the tone, likely making it ever so much warmer/richer. I think the tweeter is mylar, could be a "mylar" effect.
Personally I have never picked up any tininess from the speaker itself at all, nor any real nasal quality of something along that line. Could it be in the recordings? I have actually found them to be have one of the most easy to listen to loudly & nicely dynamic highs of any commercial monitor sized speakers I have owned. I really like the highs here.
That tweeter/waveguide combo is incredible for me and if listening loudly, is barely working up a sweat before the woofer gives up. (that is why I high pass to separate bass drivers at around 125/150, making a 3-way. Then that 5.25" is able to go on quite a clean ride for higher outputs)

As an aside. Obviously JBL uses that 530 tweeter in the bigger, louder playing 570,580,590 and they also use it with a different waveguide in the newer EON PA line. Those handle 125db+ SPL levels. I really wonder if the signature of the sound in those PA speakers is similar to the studio line. Could be completely different - I mean they are PA speakers- but I might have to try a pair of the 10" models. On a certain level they are just big powered monitors, could be weirdly HIFI.

 

[Jmudrick]

A

We have commiserated about the 530's before.
I can say again that I picked them over my Revel m105's and sold the m105's with no regrets.
My A130's have a great sound as I mentioned already a few times over in other threads but I am about finished testing and experimenting with them and I don't plan to keep them. They are fantastic speakers, will be spot on for many and yet not quite my personal jam long term.

I had the 580's and the 530's. Yes at least for the 580's they sound nearly identical with a very big sound. I did not keep the 580's because logistically using the 530's with dual/"stereo" bass woofers is a better fit for me.

Since I use "stereo" supplemental bass, I can cross the 530's around 125-150, this really helped clean them up at higher volumes both in subjective performance and measured HD testing.



Interesting that you get a tiny quality. I wonder what it could be? Waveguide affects? 3rd order and higher distortion is world class low, 2nd is present but since it is only an octave up would really would just slightly change the tone, likely making it ever so much warmer/richer. I think the tweeter is mylar, could be a "mylar" effect.
Personally I have never picked up any tininess from the speaker itself at all, nor any real nasal quality of something along that line. Could it be in the recordings? I have actually found them to be have one of the most easy to listen to loudly & nicely dynamic highs of any commercial monitor sized speakers I have owned. I really like the highs here.
That tweeter/waveguide combo is incredible for me and if listening loudly, is barely working up a sweat before the woofer gives up. (that is why I high pass to separate bass drivers at around 125/150, making a 3-way. Then that 5.25" is able to go on quite a clean ride for higher outputs)

As an aside. Obviously JBL uses that 530 tweeter in the bigger, louder playing 570,580,590 and they also use it with a different waveguide in the newer EON PA line. Those handle 125db+ SPL levels. I really wonder if the signature of the sound in those PA speakers is similar to the studio line. Could be completely different - I mean they are PA speakers- but I might have to try a pair of the 10" models. On a certain level they are just big powered monitors, could be weirdly HIFI.

I'm currently swapping the A170, 530 and M106 with dual 310s subs, and while one would think the M106 would have obvious advantage I'll tell you what it's not that simple. After some experimentation I have the A170 toe in crossing in front of the listening position and am quite happy with them. I'm not sure I can justify keeping the m106...re the 530 sub high pass I guess I could swap the den Crown amp/R12 set up for the Buckeye/310s in order to raise the HPF frequency for the 530..too many damn options .

 

[richard12511]

As an aside. Obviously JBL uses that 530 tweeter in the bigger, louder playing 570,580,590 and they also use it with a different waveguide in the newer EON PA line. Those handle 125db+ SPL levels. I really wonder if the signature of the sound in those PA speakers is similar to the studio line. Could be completely different - I mean they are PA speakers- but I might have to try a pair of the 10" models. On a certain level they are just big powered monitors, could be weirdly HIFI.

I own the 530 and EON 615. To me, they don't sound all that similar. The 530 sounds fairly similar to the M105, while the EON is more directional, at least to my ears. Haven't spent a ton of time of time with the EONs, though. They've mostly been in storage.

 

[charlesluo]

I really, really, really like these speakers. I did not expect to. I purchased for another person and decided to try them. Ended up with a pair for myself. They sound so good to my ear. The treble is just sublime my ear and the kicker was when I realized I like these more than my Revel M105's. (which have what I consider to be a fantastic tweeter) I also prefer these to several other similar and much, much more expensive speakers I have owned or still currently own.
I have used them quite a bit in a 14x13 room and a 23x15 room and they sound fantastic in both rooms, easily enough bass for me with most music (but not all) and really good for a 5" woofer. I wouldn't mind if they made a pair with a 6.5" though. (actually I have a set of the 580's waiting to be opened so hopefully soon)
In any case this review confirms objectively why I like them subjectively so much. They are just so good and really the highs have a magic that I know some here are not going to want to hear about. They may not be exciting in the typical sense but they have that special something for me.
I am definitely going to buy and test drive a set of the ELAC DBR-62's and see what is what from my side of things.
Thanks!!

I should note that I also still hear well up to and past 16,18k and am sensitive to rising responses here, so maybe this drop is nice for me.

Have you compared it with ELAC DBR-62 yet? Just interested in. I have similar sensitivity at high frequency region.

 

[theyellowspecial]

Have you compared it with ELAC DBR-62 yet? Just interested in. I have similar sensitivity at high frequency region.

Have the 530, had the DBR-62. The most noticeable difference is the narrow vs. wide directivity. The 530 is noticeably more tight in its presentation. Better for smaller, untreated rooms if you want to maintain sonic purity (like headphones). I lose a lot of detail with the DBR-62 because my 20x11.5 room can't handle the reflective energy.

DBR-62 goes lower in the bass but has an upper-mid recess. JBL 530 is more energetic; a better rock, pop speaker.

 

[charlesluo]

Have the 530, had the DBR-62. The most noticeable difference is the narrow vs. wide directivity. The 530 is noticeably more tight in its presentation. Better for smaller, untreated rooms if you want to maintain sonic purity (like headphones). I lose a lot of detail with the DBR-62 because my 20x11.5 room can't handle the reflective energy.

DBR-62 goes lower in the bass but has an upper-mid recess. JBL 530 is more energetic; a better rock, pop speaker.

Great. That's really helpful. Thank you.