JBL Studio 530 Speaker Review

[Deleted member 2944]

The woofer side is conventional AF, but they're gone to great lengths on tweeter side -- perhaps in an attempt to compensate for driver/waveguide deficiencies.

Characteristics, not deficiencies. These are not the typical box with two/three conventional drivers and fairly straightforward crossovers.
Some finesse and application is required.

Dave.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I have been using 10 volt for the past 6+ speaker tests and have standardized on them now. I also have the 2.83 volt ones but I don't think it adds anything to the conversation...

Measuring distortion at a constant SPL requires licensed Klippel module. The manual way is tedious so I am not opting for that right now. Over time, I will move to that.

Thanks @amirm, I'm glad to hear this will be standardised in the future.

What is confusing about this?

Little is confusing about this graph, if looked at in isolation (other than that it is not clear what the SPL of the fundamental is, which is crucial information IMHO).

What is confusing is that, while every other graph you produce is measured under standard conditions, making it possible to compare and cross-reference between measurements of different speakers, this one is not.

And when I say it's confusing, I don't just mean that I find it confusing. I mean that, in the comments on most of the reviews, I've seen comments that clearly imply many members here are unaware that the measurement conditions in each case are materially different.

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but whenever I see these distortion graphs interpreted comparatively by other members (as the other graphs you produce can be), I feel a sense of injustice to whichever speaker designer's work is being unfairly disadvantaged.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I did see this in the 590 review as to measured high frequency response:

The ‘jagged’ appearance of the
trace above 16kHz is measurement error
that’s to be expected when measuring a
horn-loaded compression driver due to
path-length differences from different parts
of the horn to the measuring microphone.
Therefore you should ignore the ‘jaggedness’
and instead concentrate on the overall trend
of the response. You can see the Studio 590’s
response rolls off to 20kHz, then picks up
again to be only around 5dB down at 25–
30kHz, then rolls off to 40kHz.

Yes, that "jaggedness" would be explicable by path-length differences to the mic, but it was the overall trend (which is rolling off) that I was speculatively attrributing to the the volume of air in the compression driver chamber.

Of course, this is not the only possible explanation, and now I see that the overall roll-off is not as steep as it looks in Amir's measurement, I would say I'm less confident than I was in my earlier hypothesis

 

[gr-e]

The woofer side is conventional AF, but they're gone to great lengths on tweeter side -- perhaps in an attempt to compensate for driver/waveguide deficiencies.

Yes, two notch filters boost the top octave and the shunt notch is around the crossover area

I did see this in the 590 review as to measured high frequency response:

The ‘jagged’ appearance of the
trace above 16kHz is measurement error
that’s to be expected when measuring a
horn-loaded compression driver due to
path-length differences from different parts
of the horn to the measuring microphone.
Therefore you should ignore the ‘jaggedness’
and instead concentrate on the overall trend
of the response. You can see the Studio 590’s
response rolls off to 20kHz, then picks up
again to be only around 5dB down at 25–
30kHz, then rolls off to 40kHz.

They also reviewed the 530, but the review is gone from their website for some reason (found it in my downloads folder)

 

[amirm]

I did see this in the 590 review as to measured high frequency response:

The ‘jagged’ appearance of the
trace above 16kHz is measurement error
that’s to be expected when measuring a
horn-loaded compression driver due to
path-length differences from different parts
of the horn to the measuring microphone.
Therefore you should ignore the ‘jaggedness’
and instead concentrate on the overall trend
of the response. You can see the Studio 590’s
response rolls off to 20kHz, then picks up
again to be only around 5dB down at 25–
30kHz, then rolls off to 40kHz.

I don't know why they call that "measurement error." The soundfield is the soundfield. It is a composite of what is there at microphone location.

Now, they could say with two ears and room reflections it won't be audible. But it is not a measurement error.

 

[Chrispy]

I don't know why they call that "measurement error." The soundfield is the soundfield. It is a composite of what is there at microphone location.

Now, they could say with two ears and room reflections it won't be audible. But it is not a measurement error.

Measurement anomaly perhaps?

 

[amirm]

Measurement anomaly perhaps?

Again, a single ear in an anechoic chamber would hear what the mic shows so it is not an issue with measurements. Indeed both their measurements and mine, using completely different setup, show the same thing.

The phrase I use is that "it is more of an issue with the eye than ear."

 

[ROOSKIE]

No expert here - just was trying to highlight some context; you won't find many speakers $2,000 plus that measure this well. That the ELAC may be a bit better by some metrics is impressive, but it's also a newer speaker

Anyway, too bad they're so ugly.

Yah my thoughts and experience on this match yours.
Also as you noted these came out 7 years ago. Quite an achievement.
I actually think they look awesome. Took a few days to grow on me but now I really enjoy the Batman car/ Darth vader/ Metropolis style. Pure art.

 

[spacevector]

Thank you Amir for another excellent review.

Can you please elaborate on what you listen for when you say that "But then I put my ear to the port and could easily hear the woofer bottoming out."?

Is anybody in the membership equipped to measure the frequency response comparing the woofer-covering grill with the woofer-exposing waveguide leaf?

 

[amirm]

Can you please elaborate on what you listen for when you say that "But then I put my ear to the port and could easily hear the woofer bottoming out."?

I listen to bass notes. They should just be low frequencies peaking and going down. When the woofer bottoms out, the bass note starts low and then at the peak you hear a "tub" sound. It is a very distinct sound of higher pitch that cannot be mistaken for anything else.

Closest sound I can think of it is when flapping a sheet in the air and it folds back onto itself and makes a slapping sound.

 

[laudio]

Have been waiting for this review, thanks. That in room response looks pretty darn good to me, maybe that's why I like them "in the room". For the price hard to beat. The limitations are what I expected - yeah you can bottom that woofer out pretty easy, but in a small listening room not really an issue. Personally - properly positioned on stands in a smaller setup the 530s sound pretty nice. Then again - I listen to 2 speakers at time, haven't tried just one

 

[amirm]

Is anybody in the membership equipped to measure the frequency response comparing the woofer-covering grill with the woofer-exposing waveguide leaf?

The variations normally shown for the grill are due to comb filtering (sound bouncing back and forth between the grill and the baffle/driver). With the woofer, the wavelengths are quite large and this effect won't be there.

Here is a similar test I ran, trying to determine the effect of projection screens on my Revel C52 speakers:

Notice how the effect disappears below 1.5 kHz with or without Revel Grill (in black relative to green without).

 

[spacevector]

Looks like the 86dB spec is a tiny bit of a lie. The 45Hz (-6dB) spec seems accurate though. And lies again on the 40kHz it seems.

 

[spacevector]

I listen to bass notes. They should just be low frequencies peaking and going down. When the woofer bottoms out, the bass note starts low and then at the peak you hear a "tub" sound. It is a very distinct sound of higher pitch that cannot be mistaken for anything else.

Closest sound I can think of it is when flapping a sheet in the air and it folds back onto itself and makes a slapping sound.

Wow thanks. Gonna try to recreate this at home.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Hmmm... DBR versus JBL + 2x Dayton subs...

Most of the speakers tested so far need subs for the last octave including the ELAC DBR-62. Subs for everyone!

Or get some Tannoy 215 DMT IIs:

 

[Doodski]

Most of the speakers tested so far need subs for the last octave including the ELAC DBR-62. Subs for everyone!

Or get some Tannoy 215 DMT IIs:

Looks like you wind those babies up pretty high from the fluff coming out of the left speaker port.

 

[wje]

Anyway, too bad they're so ugly.

Here, at home, we refer to them as the "Darth Vader" speakers. My girlfriend doesn't want me to sell them even though I now have the Elac Debut Reference in place. She would prefer to set them up in the guest room.

 

[wje]

Actually, when set up, they don't look that bad.

 

[Chrispy]

Again, a single ear in an anechoic chamber would hear what the mic shows so it is not an issue with measurements. Indeed both their measurements and mine, using completely different setup, show the same thing.

The phrase I use is that "it is more of an issue with the eye than ear."

Meant more about the spec'd difference vs measured due the way horns work as I understand it.....be interesting to ask JBL about it perhaps.

 

[spacevector]

Actually, when set up, they don't look that bad.


View attachment 56440

Much as I like watching throbbing mid-woofers, I definitely prefer the look of these with the woofer grills on.