• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

My JBL 305p quasi-anechoic polar measurements

OP
617

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,433
Likes
5,376
Location
Somerville, MA
Well, I never had a chance to compare my quasi anechoic measurements with true anechoic measurements but it is certainly the best you can do at home. What was the distance between the mike and the speakers in both measurements?

Btw, why are blue and red line so different below app 340Hz?

Those measurements are gated and do not have a nearfield bass response blended in. As you get closer to the gating frequency the precision of the measurements drops off, and below the gating frequency the data is meaningless. Those measurements were just taken to compare the results of the different EQ curves.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,067
Location
Zg, Cro
Those measurements are gated and do not have a nearfield bass response blended in. As you get closer to the gating frequency the precision of the measurements drops off, and below the gating frequency the data is meaningless. Those measurements were just taken to compare the results of the different EQ curves.

So blue and red line are different EQ curves for the same speaker and both are gated, without nearfield bass response? What was the mike distance with those measurements and what was with nearfield bass measurement?

Can you pls show final result with bass response blended in?
 
OP
617

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,433
Likes
5,376
Location
Somerville, MA
So blue and red line are different EQ curves for the same speaker and both are gated, without nearfield bass response? What was the mike distance with those measurements and what was with nearfield bass measurement?

Can you pls show final result with bass response blended in?

The speakers measured very differently. I created an EQ curve for each individual speaker. The measurement you drew on shows the result of each speaker with its respective EQ applied. Bass response was consistent between speakers and can be seen in the first set of measurements. I'm done measuring these piece of shit speakers, and if it weren't for the fact that I only use them with my computer where I can EQ easily I would have returned them.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,067
Location
Zg, Cro
The speakers measured very differently. I created an EQ curve for each individual speaker. The measurement you drew on shows the result of each speaker with its respective EQ applied. Bass response was consistent between speakers and can be seen in the first set of measurements. I'm done measuring these piece of shit speakers, and if it weren't for the fact that I only use them with my computer where I can EQ easily I would have returned them.

LOL Come on, they are not that bad, especially when considering how much they cost. :)

I'm sure they sound just fine after your corrections.
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,688
Likes
4,069
I'm done measuring these piece of shit speakers,

I was considering getting a pair now but that sentence of yours leaves me worried.

Your measurement method seems great to me by the way. I do the same but checking there is no weird peak in the impulse response. I can't usually go longer than 3.5 ms for windowing.
 
OP
617

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,433
Likes
5,376
Location
Somerville, MA
LOL Come on, they are not that bad, especially when considering how much they cost. :)

I'm sure they sound just fine after your corrections.

The acoustic design - the waveguide - is superb. With EQ they are technically excellent for the price. However, quality control leaves a lot to be desired, especially if you actually want something sort of accurate. The response of these speakers is poorer than any serious DIY effort.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,067
Location
Zg, Cro
I was considering getting a pair now but that sentence of yours leaves me worried.

Your measurement method seems great to me by the way. I do the same but checking there is no weird peak in the impulse response. I can't usually go longer than 3.5 ms for windowing.

That means you got obstacles too near to the speaker for far-field response measurements.

You can find measurement instructions here.
 
OP
617

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,433
Likes
5,376
Location
Somerville, MA
I was considering getting a pair now but that sentence of yours leaves me worried.

Your measurement method seems great to me by the way. I do the same but checking there is no weird peak in the impulse response. I can't usually go longer than 3.5 ms for windowing.


I would get the Kali monitors. Not much more expensive, same engineers, published measurements.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,067
Location
Zg, Cro
The acoustic design - the waveguide - is superb. With EQ they are technically excellent for the price. However, quality control leaves a lot to be desired, especially if you actually want something sort of accurate. The response of these speakers is poorer than any serious DIY effort.

Are you referring to the differences in response between 2 speakers?
 
OP
617

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,433
Likes
5,376
Location
Somerville, MA
Are you referring to the differences in response between 2 speakers?

The differences between them are huge, but the commonalities in the response aren't great either - hugely elevated treble even with the tone controls set for reduced treble.
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,688
Likes
4,069
That means you got obstacles too near to the speaker for far-field response measurements.

Yes it is true. I can't do better in my room in the little flat I live in. Still, I can rely on mesurements down to around 700Hz and stich a near-field measurement below (with baffle step compensation).
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,067
Location
Zg, Cro
The differences between them are huge, but the commonalities in the response aren't great either - hugely elevated treble even with the tone controls set for reduced treble.

I see.

Btw, here is how it looks with my Castle Harlechs S2 (left channel is beige, right is green). This is after room EQ, not speaker EQ, which means I applied only a very mild correction in the 340Hz-20kHz region as most of my correction was below 340Hz to compensate for room effects.

Capture.JPG
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,688
Likes
4,069
I would get the Kali monitors. Not much more expensive, same engineers, published measurements.

The Kali P6 are 179€ each at Thomann. 305p for 109€. Big difference.
 

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,723
Likes
2,908
Location
Finland
We must remember that 305P is the cheapest speaker that JBL sells. Obviously they must leave some room for the more expensive ones!
 

Music1969

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
4,669
Likes
2,845
Good evening dorks. I picked up a pair of these speakers because I wanted a small accurate desktop monitor for editing dialog. They are good sounding speakers, but I did want something fairly accurate, so I took quasi anechoic measurements of the speakers this evening.

The measurements are good to about 200hz, where I gated. I also took measurements in the nearfield, merging them with the farfield gated polars, getting a reasonably accurate picture of the speaker's response from 0-120 degrees, in 10 degree increments. If you don't know what gated measurements are, basically it is a clever way of ignoring parts of the impulse response which occur after some set duration, enabling one to remove room effects from the response. This distinguishes these measurements from others seen on the internet - these are quite accurate above 200hz, and reasonably representative below, as if they were taken in an anechoic chamber.

Measurement notes:
ARTA using MLS sequences for the upper frequency range and sine sweeps for the nearfield woofer measurement
Speaker was set to '0db' for the LF trim and '-2db' for the HF trim.
Nearfield woofer measurements spliced in around 200hz, and I think I may have set it a bit too high.
Mic is a manufacturer calibrated emm-6 about 2' from the tweeter at tweeter level
I didn't do vertical responses because I am lazy
Ignore the absolute level- absolute SPL is meaningless here

Importing the measurements into VituixCAD, a great freeware speaker design package, I get the following:
View attachment 24199

Well, considering the treble is already attenuated by 2db, this is not very flat. Note the vertical scale of the measurements; nevertheless I am seeing a pronounced non resonances in the 2-4k region. This is bad; on the other hand, the polar response is excellent. The green line on the top graph is an average of the responses from 0 out to 15 or 30 degrees - basically a reasonable hifi listening window. You can hardly see this line because it matches the direct response (0 deg) out to 10K! This would be exceptional for a conventional hifi speaker; very few baffle mounted tweeters have dispersion this wide that high up.

Also in the 'good news' category is the directivity sonogram seen below. This is not normalized, and shows clear directivity control down to 500hz or maybe even a bit below. This is the stuff that can't be corrected with DSP - this is the fundamental acoustic design of the speaker, and it is outstanding, especially for a small speaker. You might get a polar response this smooth with a conventional 2 way, using a high crossover frequency and a LR2 slope, but you won't get it as tight.

We can also see that in the area of confidence (say, 300hz up) that there are no spatial discontinuities - there's no holes or peaks in the response as you move up and down at a given frequency. This is nice, because it means that if the direct response was EQ'd flat, you wouldn't make anything worse off axis.

So what can we do? Well, with dsp we can do some correction of the speaker. Generally DSP correction is discussed in the context of low frequency, to help combat room effects below the Schroeder frequency. I am more interested in making the speaker more linear in the 200-20K region. Using Room EQ wizard, we can do this pretty easily.

Notes on correction:
I set REW to only correct above 300hz - it's pretty rare that there are sharp resonances in speakers below this range.
I used the 'generic' preset, which gives you 20 bands of PEQ. If you're using an equalizer with fewer bands, I'd focus on the low Q corrections, but then again I'm not exactly an expert.

Here is the response before and after:

View attachment 24201


As you can see, it's making a ton of corrections, but the minimalist in me would suggest the most important is the boost from 300 to 1K, and the taming of the peak around 3K.

Anyway, here's my review - good sounding speakers but not what I would expect for a reference monitor. When I use them for that purpose I'll be using REAPER, and I'll throw compensating EQ into the master bus. I've heard that works. I'm not sure if this EQ makes the speaker sound better; I haven't listened yet, but bringing the mids and taming that peak would be what I would do if I was designing this speaker. Will take further measurements as sanity check.

Hi, are you able to do impulse response measurements? And/or phase vs frequency plot?

I assume with it's DSP crossover, that the drivers are nicely time-aligned / phase coherent?
 
Top Bottom