JBL Studio 590 Speaker Review

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

No, not just one. He seems to have a stash of the things standing around, so look at it as a fun holiday trip

I always wanted to be sponsored for traveling ! , the holiday job seems fair... lift speakers for a trip, im in!

Sounds fine, you only wanted me to lift these, send me the passages and i promise, i will lift all of these floorstanding up to 60 Kg, i always wanted to travel to '' EEUU '' , will be my first travel

Now serious talking, i dont know how a near guy do not help amir, is a very short-time task.

 

[Sokel]

Slings on all sides. Wrap sling on speaker face with foam. Place quarter inch tabs under slings to release if necessary for testing.

Or sling basket,you only have to balance it somehow before lifting.

 

[milosz]

Horrible distortion / stored energy resonance peak at 8,500 Hz and a pretty bad one at 2 kHz. Was this speaker designed by Engineering at JBL or just by the marketing guys?

I'm surprised that Amir doesn't condemn this speaker for these obvious serious flaws.

 

[fineMen]

further a lot of this is in the name of science... like as the masthead of this site is about

Sure enough! These speakers are special, don't you agree? The mid/trebble driver sports a waveguide of unusual proportions, which has its merits. The double equipped bass is another feat that wants to be evaluated--a real three-way is more promissing in my book, though.

The result is two fold. On one hand the distortion, as far as I'm concerned, is a no-go. It doesn't compare well to the 'real' JBL stuff, those two-way monitors with 15" bass/mid and reasonably large compression driver horn combo mid/trebble of the 80s/90s. The 590 mimics those, but falls short. I had JBL cinema speakers in my living room for some time, decades actually, and cannot accept less than perfect distortion figures.
Regarding tonality together with output capability it will outperform everything at its price point downhanded. So, if one isn't that picky as I am, here you are! Not the least, the distortion might indicate a defect, and other samples would do better?

 

[computer-audiophile]

Was this speaker designed by Engineering at JBL or just by the marketing guys?

Your question who the designer was has already been answered in this thread.
I think, it is irrelevant for the satisfied owners of these speakers whether you personally find these horrible.

 

[GXAlan]

Horrible distortion / stored energy resonance peak at 8,500 Hz and a pretty bad one at 2 kHz. Was this speaker designed by Engineering at JBL or just by the marketing guys?

I'm surprised that Amir doesn't condemn this speaker for these obvious serious flaws.

This was designed by Greg Timbers to hit a specific price point. My understanding is that the compression driver is what it is (parts bin from the professional line) while the woofer is newly designed for this (by Jerry Moro) and the crossover was Greg Timbers. He was not the industrial designer. At the time, HDI horns were not available.

Amir says he is always honest with his listening impressions. Like the XPL90 (also a Greg Timbers design) or the Wilson Tunetot, sometimes there can be a combination of flaws that somehow aren’t as objectionable. We would have to see the Studio 6 floorstanders, which uses the same drivers, to see how the difference of HDI horns and bigger budget for enclosure and crossover translates

 

[computer-audiophile]

At the time, HDI horns were not available.

In my own opinion, I would consider these new HDI designs to be waveguides rather than real effective horns. The larger horn of the Studio 590 is more like the classic exponential shape. In my experience, this leads to this particularly lively and dynamic sound. The short HDIs don't do that. I myself have experimented with many different horn contours and we have listened to and compared them among friends. E.g. parabolic, exponential, tractrix, JMLC...

Horn speaker designs were and are also a essential topic for decades with the group Mélaudia from Paris where I was a member for many years.

 

[beagleman]

Yet another data point that shows measured performance is not the be-all/end-all for speaker system enjoyment and useability.
Maybe try reading the thread and you can find out who the JBL designer was.

I have heard and owned a few AVRs that measured mediocre, but had NO idea from just listening.

Some argued back, "Yeah but it has a mediocre SINAD figure" as their proof it will not sound good or great.
Problem is, I listed to all of them before reading the measurements.

Proof that a mediocre number does not directly relate to mediocre or audibly bad sound.....

 

[Lopsided]

The directivity smoothens somewhat with grill on, especially at around 16kHz. Not audible but for design / measuring hygiene it’s best to leave it symmetrical. Although it still has a huge diffraction in the vertical plane at that frequency. Something to do with the throat geometry?

 

[GXAlan]

this leads to this particularly lively and dynamic sound.

I think this is the horn coloration that in high doses is bad but in low doses can be preferred by some. For me, I have the luxury of multiple systems and a classic horn is part of my inventory.

Proof that a mediocre number does not directly relate to mediocre or audibly bad sound.....

I think the best way to summarize it, which maybe @amirm will agree with.

If it measures well, whether electrically transparent or acoustically with a high preference score, it’s going to sound pretty good to the vast majority of people. If you were advising an old college friend who lives far away what to buy, from the sound quality standpoint (not ergonomics/aesthetics) going for something with high SINAD and a high preference score will never be a wrong recommendation.

SINAD combines noise and distortion, and noise is a lot more objectionable than distortion, but real content can mask problems. Preference score combines frequency response and dispersion but again, there are biases in individual rooms and listeners which of the two is most important once you reach a certain level.

What people at ASR are generally against is the concept of advertising premium transparency and charging a premium when it, in fact, isn’t transparent at all. 20 years ago, state of the art measurements are impossible to get for cheap. Today, you can get great measuring products that are made in the US, EU, Japan, and China. If SINAD was the only important number, we wouldn’t need all of the other graphs — though generally, a good SINAD implies good engineering of the other aspects too. It’s like a chef who is good at slicing vegetables is likely also good at slicing meats. It’s not a guarantee, but as an average/rough estimate, it applies.

When you start to drop in SINAD, there remains debate whether subtle differences which are measurable are audible. There are those who say there is no difference once you cross a critical threshold of audibility, but given the low cost of SOTA today and ability to find products made in multiple countries today, that you might as well get the best measuring one. We all drive 65 mph or so. Would you prefer the car that drives 120 mph or 150 mph if they are otherwise identical in every other way at real world speeds, fuel economy, luxury, and price. etc. Most people would still pick the product with better specs even if you don’t need the better specs when there is no price penalty.

I personally am in the camp that mediocre measurements sometimes sounds good due to a perfect combination of luck. I have had Revel F30, Rogers LS3/5A, JBL 708p, Magnepan MG3, and plenty of audiophile credible speakers that fall in the good preference score world or “sounds good subjectively and has a cult following” and yet, in my current room, the Bose 901 is one of my favorites.

I cannot explain it, but I can show in measurements that Dirac correction of unequalized speakers comes pretty close to the fixed factory equalization, so I lucked out.

For electronics, I mostly buy for ergonomics but I do believe there are audible and subtle differences which are measured with my preference leaning toward less transparency— but that is more of a fringe belief here at ASR.

The Studio 590 was not hated by Amir subjectively but it doesn’t measure that well. That would mean that it’s less predictable if you will like it also. Clearly there are a lot of people who do like the Studio 590 at its price point.

 

[Lopsided]

Btw @amirm, what’s the distance for nearfield measurements for woofers and tweeter of this particular JBL? Measurements I made in my car system couldn’t show crossover points as cleanly as yours, always had bleedings from other drivers.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I think this is the horn coloration that in high doses is bad but in low doses can be preferred by some. For me, I have the luxury of multiple systems and a classic horn is part of my inventory.

The horns acoustically better couple the drivers to the room, which is the main effect of the matter. If possible, they should not color the sound, but make ist more direct or lifelike.

This is also known from the literature*. I built my first horn in the sixties based on a suggestion by Klinger from his loudspeaker book. I usually also own several different systems in different rooms with different characteristics. The Studio 590 stands for the "big" sound. Mostly I listen with studio monitors otherwise.

EDIT*

In summary, the acoustic effect of an exponential horn in a horn loudspeaker, such as a mid-high frequency driver, involves maintaining consistent directivity, reducing distortion, improving phase coherence, and achieving efficient impedance matching for enhanced sound quality and projection.

 

[amirm]

Btw @amirm, what’s the distance for nearfield measurements for woofers and tweeter of this particular JBL? Measurements I made in my car system couldn’t show crossover points as cleanly as yours, always had bleedings from other drivers.

Since this speaker has bi-amp capability, I disconnected the woofers and measured it that way without interference. In general, I set the tweeter reference point for Klippel which usually 1 to 2 centimeters from the tweeter. If the tweeter is recessed as is the case here, i set it to that distance away from the front baffle. I then play with the sweep start frequency to exclude contributions from the other drivers. You can tell this by looking at when the response starts to go back up as frequencies decline. I use the same distance from the baffle for other drivers.

 

[Lopsided]

In general, I set the tweeter reference point for Klippel which usually 1 to 2 centimeters from the tweeter. If the tweeter is recessed as is the case here, i set it to that distance away from the front baffle.

If I understand it right, one can make nearfield measurements by setting the reference point in the Klippel software without moving the speaker? Or the mic moves toward the speaker physically?

 

[MickeyBoy]

This is a review, listening test and detailed measurements of the JBL Studio 590. I bought a pair last year on sale for US $800 but costs $999.95 each currently.
View attachment 306637
This is a hefty speaker that even comes with (vibration absorbing) outriggers. I should definitely file for hazard pay for lifting it 5 feet on the platform to measure it with Klippel NFS and then dragging it to our living room to listen to! I have taken off the grill which unfortunately has plastic tabs rather than being magnetic. I don't have a picture of the backside but there are two oversized ports there.

Here are the company specs:

General Specifications​

Type2-1/2-way dual-woofer, floorstanding
Finish Black

Audio Specifications​

Nominal Impedance 6 ohms
Crossover Frequencies1.5kHz
Sensitivity(2.83V@1m) 92dB
Frequency Response 35Hz-40kHz

Dimensions​

Width (in)12-11/16
Weight (lb) 69.5
Width (mm) 322
Depth (in) 16-1/4
Weight (kg)31.5
Depth (mm) 413
Height (mm) 1263
Height (in) 49-3/4

NOTE: our company, Madrona Digital, carries Harman products (parent of JBL) in custom system integration for residential and commercial applications. We don't have access to this consumer line but even if we did, it is not something we sell. But go ahead and read any level of bias you like in my subjective assessments.

JBL Studio 590 Tower Speaker Measurements
I measured the speaker as you see above without its grill. Acoustic center is the tweeter (although near-field id drops to just above the top woofer). Let's look at its anechoic frequency responses:
View attachment 306638
Depending how good your glasses are, you will walk away with a different view. Pull back, the response is more or less flat on axis is what we want. Zoom in though and the are a lot of fine variations which we tend to see in 2.5 way speakers as so many elements play together. Sensitivity depends on how you average the graph. I say it is closer to 90 dB than advertised 92 dB.

EDIT: it was pointed out that the there is a dummy panel you are supposed to put in place of the grill on the bottom of the tweeter waveguide. I had not done that so I remeasured the speaker again, this time with the full grill on:

View attachment 306844

As we see there is no difference. This is due to the tweeter not being covered in either case. And the dummy panel won't be doing much due to asymmetry only having a minor effect at very high frequencies.

Directivity is good resulting in rather predictable early reflections:
View attachment 306639

Combining the two, we see a pretty reasonable predicted in-room frequency response:
View attachment 306640

Here is our near-field driver and port measurements:
View attachment 306647

There is a lot going on here with a lot of resonances. In some sense designers did a good job of keeping this wilder party under control.


Looking at the horizontal axis, we again see good beam width and directivity control:
View attachment 306641
View attachment 306642

Vertically it is less optimal as many speakers are so stay at tweeter axis:
View attachment 306643

Dual drivers translates into very low bass distortion but alas, there are some issues up higher:
View attachment 306645

We can ignore the narrow resonance but I am worried about that distortion around 1 to 3 kHz. So I pulled up the distortion for individual drivers and it seems both tweeter and woofers are contributing to it:
View attachment 306646

Absolute distortion level is less informative but it shows similar good and bad news:
View attachment 306648

Impedance at 5 ohm while less than company spec, is still a full ohm higher and hence easier to drive than many speakers:
View attachment 306650

Waterfall shows a ton of resonances:
View attachment 306649
Finally here is the step response:
View attachment 306651

JBL Studio 590 Listening Tests
As soon as I started to play music, I had to step and take notice as if there was a voice saying, "hey bud, I am a big boy speaker!" I have talked in the past about how tower speakers project an image that is impressively large and not replicable with smaller bookshelf speakers. They do this by being tall but also with playing deep with authority. Such was the case with the 590 which handled my tracks with sub-bass (I call them speaker killers) with no discernable distortion. The level was a bit low but that was it.

Seeing the elevated treble in on-axis response I expected the speaker to be bit bright. Whether it was due to my ears being somewhat plugged due to allergies, existence of deep bass or both, I did not detect any sign of it being bright. It seemed balanced. It is more difficult for me to assess speakers in our living room but I thought the midrange and highs were unimpressive. Not bad. Or anything I could put my finger on. I just didn't enjoy all of my tracks as I do with very performant speakers. Again, keep all the caveats in mind as you read my subjective impressions.

I thought about applying EQ but I didn't know what and how much. Speaker wasn't bright so made no sense to shelve the highs down. And the variations in frequency response were so fine as to be silly to apply filters to it. If I were less lazy, I would create some narrow filters to counteract the resonances to see if it improves clarity.

Conclusions
There are two different speakers to analyze here: one that costs only $400 each as I bought it vs normal cost of $1,000. At $400, they are incredibly good. They are powerful, with even tonality and bass response that blows away any bookshelf speaker you would buy for $400. At $1000 each, I think there is some pause due to design issues here and there from many resonances to distortion. It would have been great to have perfect execution for $400 each but there is a reason the Revel line exists. Finer execution exists and naturally will cost you.

I like to remind you again of the joy of having a tower speaker. They take up no more space than a bookshelf and are far more stable than that on a stand. Meanwhile they are more sensitive and routinely player lower which is very important for music enjoyment.

I am going to put the JBL Studio 590 on my recommended list when on sale.

----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome. Click here if you have some audio gear you want me to test.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Am I reading the driver components graph correctly? It would appear that the lower woofer -the dashed line - is effecting the crossover with the tweeter? And Amir measured harmonic distortion with the bottom woofer only? Strange. The 2.5 design uses the upper woofer to crossover to the tweeter and the lower is low-passed so as not to interfere, no? Were the woofer positions inverted? Inquiring minds want to know.

It also appears that the ports cause so much nuisance that it would be better to plug them and use a couple of subs.

And lastly: Amir mentions "fine variations" in FR, which look like a sawtooth pattern. I wonder how software such as Dirac handles such fine variations. Big ones, I can see. But perhaps these fine blips and dips don't show up after you take 9 or 12 mic readings? (As opposed to the million measurements from Klippel.) I have a pair of Studio 580s and did think that some objectionable traits had been removed after Dirac treatment.

 

[amirm]

If I understand it right, one can make nearfield measurements by setting the reference point in the Klippel software without moving the speaker? Or the mic moves toward the speaker physically?

That's correct. Speaker is stationary and I use the Robotic microphone arm to measure different drivers. This becomes challenging when measuring speakers with horizontal driver configurations as I am not able to move the arm laterally. In those few instances, I shift the speaker manually on the stand. Otherwise, the process is repeatable which is nice and I don't need to take the mic out of its fixture which would upset Klippel alignment.

 

[amirm]

And Amir measured harmonic distortion with the bottom woofer only?

I have it for both. It has the same distortion but a bit subdued. I didn't have room to post it. Here it is:

Keep in mind that these all add so it is not the case of this one being there and the other not.

 

[amirm]

And lastly: Amir mentions "fine variations" in FR, which look like a sawtooth pattern. I wonder how software such as Dirac handles such fine variations. Big ones, I can see. But perhaps these fine blips and dips don't show up after you take 9 or 12 mic readings? (As opposed to the million measurements from Klippel.) I have a pair of Studio 580s and did think that some objectionable traits had been removed after Dirac treatment.

I would be shocked if any Room EQ is able to find these variations late alone attempt to fix them.

 

[Lopsided]

These 8-inch woofers seem to have a nasty resonance around 8-10kHz in Amir’s nearfield graph, but the crossover apparently suppresses them well. The Teonex diaphragm compression driver has a resonance around 19-20kHz (notched filtered in the crossover) which usually shows up as 2nd harmonic distortion near 10kHz, like in 530 and HDI series measured here. This sample’s 8.5kHz distortion peak is a little low and thus strange. I seem to recall Greg Timbers mentioned in Erin’s interview that the 580 is the sweet spot in the range. I guess it has something to do with 6.5-inch’s supposedly better break up behavior, smoother passband FR, or better directivity around crossover. But man, 590 in wooden livery is an awesome looking bruiser.

 

[C. Cook]

Nice. I had a pair of these that I bought for the $400/each back in 2017 or so and held onto them for about a year before finding a pair of Array 1400s used. I sold the Studio 590s for more than I'd paid and bought the Arrays, which I did like better, but not a whole lot more so. The Studio 5XX line are extremely fun to listen to speakers for jazz, rock, electronic and pop. The guy who bought them from me auditioned his own Drive By Truckers CD in my living room and seemed to think they were amazing for that too, but I wasn't impressed with the recording TBH, so even more impressive are the Studio 590s. These things are like having two Darth Vaders standing in your room and the aesthetics are polarizing, but If I had found a pair of the 590s in the "cherry" colored veneer, I might have just kept them. In case someone's looking, I did actually find a guy running a hi fi shop in the midwest who has a new pair in that color, but he's asking like $2K - I could probably find his site if I had to.

But yes, if you're looking for a powerful, loud, big speaker with dynamics - on a budget - and which obviate the need for a subwoofer in most scenarios, you should definitely try to land or at least audition some of these. The directivity is amazing and while not "bright" as Amir mentioned, they have some serious "presence" in the upper mids and treble. Female voices in particular sound like they're in the room with you. I'm glad JBL is still making these.

P.S. and my main reason for editing this comment: I wholeheartedly chose 4. (great golfing panther) without hesitating in the poll. For the price, these things blow away the equivalent Klipsch and even the next step up.