JBL Studio 530 Speaker Review

[IIIRIC]

Defective binding post jumper bars.

I just got a pair of jumper cables in the mail today. I'm going to find out.

 

[IIIRIC]

Stock jumper plate vs replacement jumper cables. I really like these speakers!

 

[jevenator]

Stock jumper plate vs replacement jumper cables. I really like these speakers!

View attachment 210077View attachment 210078View attachment 210079

What are these jumper cables? Did you make them yourself?

Is there a benefit to run speaker wire and crimp them down with the posts or are banana plugs fine?

I'm using the a SMSL DA-9 amp and cheap amazon wire and stock configuration so I'm curious if better wire and jumper cable would make a difference.

 

[ryanosaur]

What are these jumper cables? Did you make them yourself?

Is there a benefit to run speaker wire and crimp them down with the posts or are banana plugs fine?

I'm using the a SMSL DA-9 amp and cheap amazon wire and stock configuration so I'm curious if better wire and jumper cable would make a difference.

After market jumpers are not necessary.

The only bad thing about running raw speaker cable to the binding posts is if you have a stay wire that touches/shorts. If you are careful about installation you have nothing to worry about. If you like Bananas, nothing wrong with that either. (FWIW, I've had issues from time to time with binding posts loosening after tightening them down on raw wire (and spades as others have reported)... YMMV.)

For Speaker cable, you just need to make certain you have the right gauge for your usage. I always prefer full copper rather than copper clad aluminum or steel. This is a great write up on wire... more than you need to know, most likely.
Speaker Wire
It does include a Wire Gauge chart.
As above, there is very little need to do anything else.

Cheers.

 

[ROOSKIE]

If you have a meter test the resistance of the metal bar. If it is low then no, the bars are no issue. Actually I have some here... let me test them.

Okay 2 bars directly off my 530's
1. 0.01 Ohms
2. 0.006 Ohms

This is very low. Lower than I expected.
No issues with these stock bars in any way. There will be no extra current flowing by switching them out nor any frequency response changes due to these at all ( well may 1/100th of a db here and there)

 

[dadregga]

I have both Stage A130s and Studio 530s - for the past 6 months or so I've been using both in a REW room-corrected 5.1 setup in a small (10x10) room, with the 530s as rear surrounds, and the A130s as front primaries. I sit roughly in the middle of the 4 speakers - about 1.8 meters away from each - all of them toed-in. I use my AVR's Audyssey calibrations to level-match and calculate distances of all 4 speakers, and I plug the levels, distances, and REW room filters into Roon's DSP.

Recently, I rotated the 530s to the front, and rotated the A130s to rear surrounds, and re-ran REW calibration/distance/level-matching.

I've noticed a few things after doing that rotation that are interesting to me, and I'm wondering which specific measurements (since both are relatively well-measured) are contributing to the differences I perceive - (these may be stupid/newbie questions, if they are, bear with me - trying to map measurements to preferences):


- The 530s are noticeably louder at the same volume setting I had the A130s fixed at. I leave the amp setting fixed and use Roon DSP volume to adjust, and I absolutely have to dial the 530s down farther than the A130s, given the same amp output level. This is a bit confusing to me, given that the 530s seem to be by all measurements *less sensitive* than the A130s - if both sets are level-matched in both scenarios, why do I keep finding I have to turn down volume levels for one set and not the other? I do note that level-matching the two sets requires me to drop the 530s by ~1db and the A130s by ~3db, so I'm wondering if this is a quirk of the DSP and I'm just being ignorant? Feel like I'm missing something here that would explain this.

- The A130s are noticeably more "diffuse" than the 530s, which makes them much much nicer for rear surrounds IMO (and obviously a little less detailed for fronts) - I think I will keep them as surrounds, as rear surrounds in music tend to be ambient anyway, so it meshes well. In contrast, the 530s are more beam-like - they sound like they're pushing the sound at you versus sort of diffusing it. I also note that for the distances I'm listening at, the A130s have a much more forgiving "phantom center channel" sweet spot than the 530s - I can get the same effect with the 530s but I can easily lose it by moving my head laterally just a bit. Presumably this is all down to different waveguide designs between the 530s and the A130s, but comparing the directivity plots for the two speakers indicates that they have about the same horizontal dispersion width/patterns (vertical is pretty different tho), so I'm not sure how this perception falls out of the data? It does seem like the 530 is a smidge more reliant on room reflections cancelling peaks, so I wonder if that might account for some of the differences.


Anyway - TL;DR I've moved the 530s to the front of my setup and the A130s to the rear, and I think the 530s in the front as primaries providing detail and the A130s in the rear providing diffuse ambients for when I listen to multichannel music works really well in my room and plays to the strengths of both speakers as I perceive them - I like both but I think I like the signature of the 530s a tad more, even though I don't enjoy the pickier sweet spot they seem to have.

 

[Jmudrick]

I have both Stage A130s and Studio 530s - for the past 6 months or so I've been using both in a REW room-corrected 5.1 setup in a small (10x10) room, with the 530s as rear surrounds, and the A130s as front primaries. I sit roughly in the middle of the 4 speakers - about 1.8 meters away from each - all of them toed-in. I use my AVR's Audyssey calibrations to level-match and calculate distances of all 4 speakers, and I plug the levels, distances, and REW room filters into Roon's DSP.

Recently, I rotated the 530s to the front, and rotated the A130s to rear surrounds, and re-ran REW calibration/distance/level-matching.

I've noticed a few things after doing that rotation that are interesting to me, and I'm wondering which specific measurements (since both are relatively well-measured) are contributing to the differences I perceive - (these may be stupid/newbie questions, if they are, bear with me - trying to map measurements to preferences):


- The 530s are noticeably louder at the same volume setting I had the A130s fixed at. I leave the amp setting fixed and use Roon DSP volume to adjust, and I absolutely have to dial the 530s down farther than the A130s, given the same amp output level. This is a bit confusing to me, given that the 530s seem to be by all measurements *less sensitive* than the A130s - if both sets are level-matched in both scenarios, why do I keep finding I have to turn down volume levels for one set and not the other? I do note that level-matching the two sets requires me to drop the 530s by ~1db and the A130s by ~3db, so I'm wondering if this is a quirk of the DSP and I'm just being ignorant? Feel like I'm missing something here that would explain this.

- The A130s are noticeably more "diffuse" than the 530s, which makes them much much nicer for rear surrounds IMO (and obviously a little less detailed for fronts) - I think I will keep them as surrounds, as rear surrounds in music tend to be ambient anyway, so it meshes well. In contrast, the 530s are more beam-like - they sound like they're pushing the sound at you versus sort of diffusing it. I also note that for the distances I'm listening at, the A130s have a much more forgiving "phantom center channel" sweet spot than the 530s - I can get the same effect with the 530s but I can easily lose it by moving my head laterally just a bit. Presumably this is all down to different waveguide designs between the 530s and the A130s, but comparing the directivity plots for the two speakers indicates that they have about the same horizontal dispersion width/patterns (vertical is pretty different tho), so I'm not sure how this perception falls out of the data? It does seem like the 530 is a smidge more reliant on room reflections cancelling peaks, so I wonder if that might account for some of the differences.


Anyway - TL;DR I've moved the 530s to the front of my setup and the A130s to the rear, and I think the 530s in the front as primaries providing detail and the A130s in the rear providing diffuse ambients for when I listen to multichannel music works really well in my room and plays to the strengths of both speakers as I perceive them - I like both but I think I like the signature of the 530s a tad more, even though I don't enjoy the pickier sweet spot they seem to have.

Interesting observations but I find the perception of horizontal beaming inexplicable. I used to listen to my 530 set lying on the couch completely to one side because I found the sound still exceptional at that ridiculously wide angle. Amir's measurements neither suggest a weakness, quite the opposite. I don't have the 130 to compare (I do have the 170).

 

[Teeter]

@dadregga Sounds like you are Happy with your set up. In my small HT room, I tried the 130's and were to neutral for the fronts. I had been a JBL fan and the 530's were ugly and a bit big for me. Everyone has their opinion and own ears. Enjoy the JBL's.

 

[dadregga]

Interesting observations but I find the perception of horizontal beaming inexplicable. I used to listen to my 530 set lying on the couch completely to one side because I found the sound still exceptional at that ridiculously wide angle. Amir's measurements neither suggest a weakness, quite the opposite. I don't have the 130 to compare (I do have the 170).

I'm wondering if it has to do with the distance I'm listening at, and if the vertical dispersion is maybe a factor (I'll try raising them a bit maybe, they're tall and I'm aligned more with the waveguide than the woofer).

 

[Teeter]

Speaker tweeters across the front should be at ear level. I can't remember in reading if the 530's have a wide dispersion. If so you might not want to angle them in for best listening. I imagine your rears/sides are angled down towards your ear listening position too.

My fronts are 2.1 meter distance along with 55" 4K tv. Side Surr, the tweeters are 2ft above ear level, a bit behind the ears, and angled down. My HT room is 10 x 8

 

[theyellowspecial]

Anyway - TL;DR I've moved the 530s to the front of my setup and the A130s to the rear, and I think the 530s in the front as primaries providing detail and the A130s in the rear providing diffuse ambients for when I listen to multichannel music works really well in my room and plays to the strengths of both speakers as I perceive them - I like both but I think I like the signature of the 530s a tad more, even though I don't enjoy the pickier sweet spot they seem to have.

I agree with your assessment, although I no longer have either. The 530s deliver the sense you're in the studio, opposed to the performance being brought into the room. Also, I found the details at all frequencies effortless. I could be wrong, but my assumption is this may have to do with the exceptional controlled directivity. Other than the hump in directivity near the resonance and the artifact caused by the waveguide at higher frequencies, the directivity may be the most controlled of any speaker measured here.

I'm tempted to pick them up again. They do have magic. Also, they're really great for home theater, at least in my 20x11 room.

 

[GXAlan]

The Studio 530's are really special and at the prices you can get them in the US, almost a no-brainer for a second system.

I have picked up some Studio 620's from Japan (shipped to the US). They'll arrive this week and I can give them a subjective comparison. They use the same compression driver and Jerry Moro designed woofer, but have the HDI-style horn and were not a Greg Timbers design. They're much more furniture friendly though. Made in Indonesia.

 

[tw 2022]

The 530s are noticeably louder at the same volume setting I had the A130s fixed at

probably less freq correction that room correction needs to do to even out the sound...

 

[dadregga]

One more followup (subjective but likely in the combo of the data + my room mode + my preference)

Got the Emotiva B1+s in to compare them to the 530, REW-corrected them, etc - and while they (like the Stage A130s) have an immediately wider and more diffuse sound and can much more effortlessly create the phantom center channel effect in my room than the 530s, and are shockingly good for the price - I've already boxed them up and am sending them back.

The 530s just work for me. They mesh better with my sub, mids and highs sound energetic without making me wince, they bring forward detail more clearly, etc. Soundstaging simply isn't as good/diffuse/wide as a lot of other speakers, and they are much pickier about listener sweet spot - but I like them better. I catch myself listening more with the 530s.

I might have to just accept that detail and a wide/diffuse soundstage are mutually exclusive, and I prefer the former. And accept that I just found a pair of speakers I like, and upgrading might not do much for me

If I ever find another speaker that works for me like this one does, I might be able to figure out what the data points they have in common are, but right now I'm just guessing.

 

[tw 2022]

One more followup (subjective but likely in the combo of the data + my room mode + my preference)

Got the Emotiva B1+s in to compare them to the 530, REW-corrected them, etc - and while they (like the Stage A130s) have an immediately wider and more diffuse sound and can much more effortlessly create the phantom center channel effect in my room than the 530s, and are shockingly good for the price - I've already boxed them up and am sending them back.

The 530s just work for me. They mesh better with my sub, mids and highs sound energetic without making me wince, they bring forward detail more clearly, etc. Soundstaging simply isn't as good/diffuse/wide as a lot of other speakers, and they are much pickier about listener sweet spot - but I like them better. I catch myself listening more with the 530s.

I might have to just accept that detail and a wide/diffuse soundstage are mutually exclusive, and I prefer the former. And accept that I just found a pair of speakers I like, and upgrading might not do much for me

If I ever find another speaker that works for me like this one does, I might be able to figure out what the data points they have in common are, but right now I'm just guessing.

i have the 530's and emo b1 originals (modded by Dennis Murphy, yes they are improved in a few ways).. i concur the 530's are very "forward" without being bright, i agree about the soundstage as well , the emo's i have are absolutely stellar, in another league in that regard... the 530's are a great value at under $300 (and probably at higher prices as well..), they come off a bit veiled to me especially since i replaced them in my bedroom set up presently with some vintage "infinity crescendo's" that are much closer to "hi fi" as it were, but the 530's do many things very well as do my emo's , they (b1's) are here to stay (even after i upgrade to philharmonic audio bmr's ..hopefully soon).. enjoy your speakers , you have chosen wisely...

 

[longma]

I have both Stage A130s and Studio 530s - for the past 6 months or so I've been using both in a REW room-corrected 5.1 setup in a small (10x10) room, with the 530s as rear surrounds, and the A130s as front primaries. I sit roughly in the middle of the 4 speakers - about 1.8 meters away from each - all of them toed-in. I use my AVR's Audyssey calibrations to level-match and calculate distances of all 4 speakers, and I plug the levels, distances, and REW room filters into Roon's DSP.

Recently, I rotated the 530s to the front, and rotated the A130s to rear surrounds, and re-ran REW calibration/distance/level-matching.

I've noticed a few things after doing that rotation that are interesting to me, and I'm wondering which specific measurements (since both are relatively well-measured) are contributing to the differences I perceive - (these may be stupid/newbie questions, if they are, bear with me - trying to map measurements to preferences):


- The 530s are noticeably louder at the same volume setting I had the A130s fixed at. I leave the amp setting fixed and use Roon DSP volume to adjust, and I absolutely have to dial the 530s down farther than the A130s, given the same amp output level. This is a bit confusing to me, given that the 530s seem to be by all measurements *less sensitive* than the A130s - if both sets are level-matched in both scenarios, why do I keep finding I have to turn down volume levels for one set and not the other? I do note that level-matching the two sets requires me to drop the 530s by ~1db and the A130s by ~3db, so I'm wondering if this is a quirk of the DSP and I'm just being ignorant? Feel like I'm missing something here that would explain this.

- The A130s are noticeably more "diffuse" than the 530s, which makes them much much nicer for rear surrounds IMO (and obviously a little less detailed for fronts) - I think I will keep them as surrounds, as rear surrounds in music tend to be ambient anyway, so it meshes well. In contrast, the 530s are more beam-like - they sound like they're pushing the sound at you versus sort of diffusing it. I also note that for the distances I'm listening at, the A130s have a much more forgiving "phantom center channel" sweet spot than the 530s - I can get the same effect with the 530s but I can easily lose it by moving my head laterally just a bit. Presumably this is all down to different waveguide designs between the 530s and the A130s, but comparing the directivity plots for the two speakers indicates that they have about the same horizontal dispersion width/patterns (vertical is pretty different tho), so I'm not sure how this perception falls out of the data? It does seem like the 530 is a smidge more reliant on room reflections cancelling peaks, so I wonder if that might account for some of the differences.


Anyway - TL;DR I've moved the 530s to the front of my setup and the A130s to the rear, and I think the 530s in the front as primaries providing detail and the A130s in the rear providing diffuse ambients for when I listen to multichannel music works really well in my room and plays to the strengths of both speakers as I perceive them - I like both but I think I like the signature of the 530s a tad more, even though I don't enjoy the pickier sweet spot they seem to have.

We have the same impressions like yours: we compare 530 with Infinity Primus 363 ( floor standing) and 163 ( bookshelf). The Infinity sound more spacious and open ( more soundstage); the 530 sound more congested ( everything seems to be in the middle), but give more depth of the singer. The Infinity sound more natural in midrange; they sound better in vocal and instruments. However, when we listen to heavy bass music ( like rap), the 530 sound better and more fun. I think it depends on the listeners' tastes: some like the jbl and some don't.

 

[enio nery]

using these right now with the SMSL DA9. they sound good. but they cant touch my Revel M16s.

tried the presets the SDB made it very engaging at the expense of being less detailed and in your face center image.

 

[Timstunes]

yeah, i'm perfectly happy with the 530's looks , i think they are a bit "batman cool" for lack of a better term.. in a small room with a 8" sub , used mostly for music / some movies /tv they work fine .. i mostly jones for clarity and "air" , it sounds like there won't be too much improvement there .. maybe if it was my main system the m16's might be the thing...

Very happy with mine as well. I think of them as my Darth Vaders. I have also been curious about the Revels . Hopefully can try some out in the future. Very satisfied currently. Also have the excellent A130s.

 

[IIIRIC]

My current active subwoofer (HS8S) crossover settings paired with the Studio 530’s (ports open) —roughly 85 Hz High Cut & 90 Hz Low Cut. I can hear a considerable improvement in clarity and perhaps dynamism over using a 80Hz High Cut. Songs like “Ilomilo” By Billie Eilish, and “Dear Momma” by 2pac (two of several tracks which I use for audibly evaluating changes that I make to my systems configuration) both sounded closer to the way I remember them sounding on my HS7 studio monitors, or on my Yamaha studio headphones. I found that setting the crossover with a ~5Hz gap sounded best in my room, particularly when I found the subwoofer volume level that seemed to be the sweet spot. When I look at the frequency response chart for the Studio 530 I think the improvement that I hear makes sense. I’m currently listening to a few jazz tracks that I am enjoying even more than I have before. Larry Carlton and John Coltrane sound amazing on these speakers.

 

[gegegege]

Had them on my desk about 20" from me for several months and they sounded great. They've since been replaced by Revel M16s, which also sound phenomenal on my des

using these right now with the SMSL DA9. they sound good. but they cant touch my Revel M16s.

tried the presets the SDB made it very engaging at the expense of being less detailed and in your face center image.

I am thinking about moving to M16s from 530, do you mind sharing more about the differences?