Official JTR speaker thread - Page 1021 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 6987Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #30601 of 35378 Old 08-11-2015, 08:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jbrown15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 8,556
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2518 Post(s)
Liked: 1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naylorman32 View Post
Well to fund the 215's i'd obviously have to sell the 212's. I'd normally use a 212 as my center channel i guess. I currently have a 228, but i have a feeling that will just look absurd with 215's to the left and right LOL. So my thinking, and feel free to chime in, would be to sell off the 228 as well, and get the newer 212HTR...

That's exactly what I'd do personally.
jbrown15 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #30602 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 05:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
countryWV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Huntington West Virginia
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlpowell84 View Post
Also for me I have not heard the Noesis line, aka high end BMS CD. So ignorance can be bliss in my situation.
Didn't you drive down to Rob's (RMK) and do demo on the 212HT-LP?

Chris
countryWV is offline  
post #30603 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 05:56 AM
Senior Member
 
drpete12's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Hi Guys

I have a question for you. I am running triple 12's across the front and just got my new acousticly transparent screen. I have the center behind the screen and left and right just on the outsides of the screen. The screen is 2.35 130 inches wide. Do you think I would be better putting all three behind screen, this would mean less physical seperation distance between the speakers or leave the left and right to the outside?

You understand the eternal quest for the holy grail, I might be beating a dead horse and not notice a difference either way but just curious if this would be better or not.

THanks,

Peter
drpete12 is offline  
post #30604 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 06:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Fineberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,966
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3297 Post(s)
Liked: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpete12 View Post
Hi Guys

I have a question for you. I am running triple 12's across the front and just got my new acousticly transparent screen. I have the center behind the screen and left and right just on the outsides of the screen. The screen is 2.35 130 inches wide. Do you think I would be better putting all three behind screen, this would mean less physical seperation distance between the speakers or leave the left and right to the outside?

You understand the eternal quest for the holy grail, I might be beating a dead horse and not notice a difference either way but just curious if this would be better or not.

THanks,

Peter
IMHO yes they should all be behind the screen. That way the sound will ways be anchored to what you see on screen. The one foot difference shouldn't make a big difference in sound
Brian Fineberg is offline  
post #30605 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 06:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
countryWV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Huntington West Virginia
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpete12 View Post
Hi Guys

I have a question for you. I am running triple 12's across the front and just got my new acousticly transparent screen. I have the center behind the screen and left and right just on the outsides of the screen. The screen is 2.35 130 inches wide. Do you think I would be better putting all three behind screen, this would mean less physical seperation distance between the speakers or leave the left and right to the outside?

You understand the eternal quest for the holy grail, I might be beating a dead horse and not notice a difference either way but just curious if this would be better or not.

THanks,

Peter
Since both ways have some give and take, I'd experiment with both scenarios and see which one you prefer.

Chris
countryWV is offline  
post #30606 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 06:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
audiovideoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Murray KY
Posts: 2,816
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpete12 View Post
Hi Guys

I have a question for you. I am running triple 12's across the front and just got my new acousticly transparent screen. I have the center behind the screen and left and right just on the outsides of the screen. The screen is 2.35 130 inches wide. Do you think I would be better putting all three behind screen, this would mean less physical seperation distance between the speakers or leave the left and right to the outside?

You understand the eternal quest for the holy grail, I might be beating a dead horse and not notice a difference either way but just curious if this would be better or not.

THanks,

Peter
Variables variables variables lol. Room width, seating distance, how many rows of seating..... etc...

If it's easy for you to move them around then put them where they sound best to you. Could always draw it out and see where they belong. Someone can link a thread if you can't find it.

Imaging will sound good with the speakers on the outside of the screen if that is indeed where their optimal position is located.

Just food for thought. Dennis E and other pros design theaters with speakers placed outside the screen width all the time if that is where the room demands them to be. They will still seem like they are behind the screen if that is the case.

Last edited by audiovideoholic; 08-12-2015 at 06:35 AM.
audiovideoholic is online now  
post #30607 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jlpowell84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 6,292
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1488 Post(s)
Liked: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryWV View Post
Didn't you drive down to Rob's (RMK) and do demo on the 212HT-LP?
No I never did. Originally that was an intended plan couple years ago but it never panned out.
countryWV likes this.

FTW21 Ported Build
Volt 10 build
I miss Giants baseball!
jlpowell84 is offline  
post #30608 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 07:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DotJun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,602
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
The dual 15" should be noticeable. I'm not a fan of MTM design lobing, symmetry is cool visually but not so much aurally. 4722 surprisingly has a decent directivity index for such a big industrial speaker. I also like the active aspect better than the passive aspect. You are right about the bass, you don't need tons of it if you employ subs. 130db is conservative on that speaker btw, they power test it constant for 24 hours continuous at that volume and it passes the test easily. Indoors that's going to be silly. You'll need a helmet to watch a movie.

Just how noticeable is this lobing? When I listened to the 212s I didn't notice anything off.
DotJun is offline  
post #30609 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 07:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,545
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post
Just how noticeable is this lobing? When I listened to the 212s I didn't notice anything off.
This is an area where the models with coax horns have a big advantage. Lower crossover = better off-axis response.
rcohen is offline  
post #30610 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 07:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Permanian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 965
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post
Just how noticeable is this lobing? When I listened to the 212s I didn't notice anything off.


The Noesis 212 doesn't have any problems with lobing. The lobing that he is thinking of it due to speakers being improperly designed in regards to driver sizes and crossover points. The larger the woofer than the lower the crossover point needs to be because differences in acoustically centers due to the physical size of the drivers.

Last edited by Jeff Permanian; 08-12-2015 at 07:50 AM.
Jeff Permanian is offline  
post #30611 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 07:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,545
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpete12 View Post
Hi Guys

I have a question for you. I am running triple 12's across the front and just got my new acousticly transparent screen. I have the center behind the screen and left and right just on the outsides of the screen. The screen is 2.35 130 inches wide. Do you think I would be better putting all three behind screen, this would mean less physical seperation distance between the speakers or leave the left and right to the outside?

You understand the eternal quest for the holy grail, I might be beating a dead horse and not notice a difference either way but just curious if this would be better or not.

THanks,

Peter
Depends on the room layout and speaker dispersion. Best bet is to try both.
rcohen is offline  
post #30612 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 07:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Permanian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 965
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
This is an area where the models with coax horns have a big advantage. Lower crossover = better off-axis response.

Not just coaxials though. We were able to get a 500hz crossover with our new 1.4" exit compression driver in the new Noesis 212HT and 228HT which works great with the woofer being right next to the horn. The Noesis 215's needs the coaxial driver to get down the an appropriate crossover (350hz) to blend in properly with the 15" woofers right next to the horn. This arrangement also time aligns all the drivers and make our speakers act as true point source loudspeaker (single source).
rcohen, RMK!, beastaudio and 2 others like this.

Last edited by Jeff Permanian; 08-12-2015 at 08:07 AM.
Jeff Permanian is offline  
post #30613 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 07:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,545
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Permanian View Post
Not just coaxials though. We were able to get a 500hz crossover with our new 1.4" exit compression driver in the new Noesis 212HT and 228HT which works great with the woofer being right next to the horn. The Noesis 215's needs the coaxial driver to get down the an appropriate crossover (350hz) to blend in properly with the 15" woofers right next to the horn.
Are these shades of gray, where a lower crossover is preferable (for a given woofer distance), or is it more of a black and white issue?
rcohen is offline  
post #30614 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 08:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Permanian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 965
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
Are these shades of gray, where a lower crossover is preferable (for a given woofer distance), or is it more of a black and white issue?

It's plain physics. At a quarter wave length a driver will start to have directivity. More than a quarter wave length difference between audio source will start causing cancellation. At a half wave length difference between audio source is when maximum cancellation happens (same as drivers being out of phase from another).
Mfusick, stitch1, nash23 and 1 others like this.

Last edited by Jeff Permanian; 08-12-2015 at 08:48 AM.
Jeff Permanian is offline  
post #30615 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 08:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Permanian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 965
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
Just spent the last couple of weeks with a pair of JBL 4722n's in my room in place of my 215's. I really, really like the JBL's. Today I had some friends over and we listened to both the JBL's and JTR's. I won't speak for them but for me it was obvious that I'll be keeping the 215's. When we put the 215's back and fired up some music I knew right away that these (haha, so far...) are the speakers for me. I can't really describe what I like better about the JTR's... smoother? More refined? (whatever the heck that means) I don't know... but they just do it for me. If I had never heard the JTR's I would be completely happy with the JBL's, they are awesome.

I'm not saying one speaker is "better" than another - at this level of speaker it's all up to each individuals ears IMO.

I spent a ton of time with EQ on the JBL's. I liked them better with either a boost above 10khz or a notch taken out centered around 6khz or a combination of the two. Don't get me wrong though, they sound very, very good with no EQ.


Here are measurements taken from my main listening seat.


Below is the left speaker only, full range no subs, no EQ. My response used to look better before I moved back my rows because I went with an AT screen. I didn't get that null at 500hz (floor bounce?) and the bass was smoother. Oh well, subjectively it sounds about the same to me.

Black line is the 215, purple is the 4722n:






Right speaker, again full range, no subs, no EQ taken from the exact same spot at the main LP. Black line is 215, purple is 4722:





Looking at the measurments it makes sense that I liked the 4722's with boost up high and pulling down centered at 6khz since that is the sound I am used to with the 215's.

Listening to the 215's right now and I'm back to not wanting to stop. With the JBL's I loved what I was hearing but it didn't addict me like what I'm hearing now.

For movies... hmmm they sound different but I'm not sure I have a preference. If I only watched movies I think I'd buy 3 4722's for 1150 a piece and call it a day.

Towards the end today we put on some bass heavy music with the 215's and no subs. It's so fun to me for some reason to get that crazy amount of bass with no subs. I did boost the crap out of the EQ down low of course.
The Noesis 215 looks like it has a much flatter response, more lowend, better high end extension and more consistent response.
Jeff Permanian is offline  
post #30616 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 08:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,545
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Permanian View Post
It's plain physics. At a quarter wave length a driver will start to have directivity. More than a quarter wave length difference between audio source will start causing cancellation. At a half wave length difference between audio source maximum cancellation happens (same as drivers being out of phase from another).
Gotcha. Just curious, is it actually desirable to have a small amount of lobing, in order to have an off-axis response that is roughly similar to the horn?
rcohen is offline  
post #30617 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 09:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Permanian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 965
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
Gotcha. Just curious, is it actually desirable to have a small amount of lobing, in order to have an off-axis response that is roughly similar to the horn?

With multiple driver covering the same frequency range than some cancellation is exceptable (hamburger shaded instead of a sphere) but keep in mind the difference between a quarter and a half wave length isn't very much. If you put a high frequence devise on top of multiple drivers and try to cross them over at a frequency where the drivers have some cancellation than you'll get lobing and lobing isn't desirable.
Jeff Permanian is offline  
post #30618 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 10:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 31,738
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Liked: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakquency View Post
I see you posted later in the day that you have decided to go with the 4722's, what pulled you back this morning then back to the 4722's again later on? I find it very interesting that users are actually going from JTR to JBL even after they already own the JTR. The money is literally the only reason I would go JBL based specs alone. As an example if JTR manufactured thousands of 215RT's a year as JBL does with the 4722's , what do you think they would cost? If JTR used the same JBL drivers and cabinet material in his 215RT design instead of the high end ones, what would a 215RT cost? Apples to oranges I guess.

The retail price on the parts from JBL is expensive. You basically can't DIY it and save money, unless you use alternative brand parts. JBL and Harman also have a boat load of patents on driver technology, so at that point it might be apples to oranges.

I see your point, but what if Jeff had 10million worth of testing facilities just like Harman has- would his XO and design be any better? I'd guess yes. They have a huge anechoic chamber where they strap big PA speakers up on a crane and take 92 off axis measurements anechoic from all directions. They also have a patented measurement system/software.

The advantage Harman has over a small guy like JTR is 50:1, being everything JTR might be good at Harman is better at 50 other things. They have 3D printer machines on premise and can manufacture their own drivers and parts with exact specs they want on the spot. JTR has to go to the market and either order, or use existing tech. Some variation can be done OEM, but the basic driver is already established. That's why JTR has to go somewhat top shelf on the parts (costs $) because the economies of scale and the cost of manufacture are not in JTR favor. You can't fault JBL for just being awesome at what they do to the point they are huge company with deep pockets and vast resources. That's a competitive advantage. There is a reason why they own all the patents, publish the most science studies, white papers, take the best measurements, etc... JBL applied for 23 patents on driver tech last year. How many did JTR? They had 9 patents on the tweeter in the M2 alone. It's a push/pull annular diaphram with smooth response to 40khz. Don't see that everyday. They literally designed it from the ground up just for that one model. It's purpose built.

The money being the reason you would.... it a strong argument. You can get good value, and a lot of performance for the money because all those economies of scale bring the cost down for consumers. It being cheaper does not necessary means it's not as good. I learned long ago the magic in audio is in the design phase, not the cost or price.

Another bonus is JBL publishes a lot of detailed specs on their products so professionals can work with them easier. I've never seen detailed measurements on JTR, but would be interested in seeing them. The subjective opinion on JTR is pretty good, but most of the reputation and information and opinion seems to be subjective. I'd love to see objective measurement compare something like the 215 to the 4722. That could be interesting and enlightening.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #30619 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 10:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 31,738
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Liked: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Permanian View Post
The Noesis 215 looks like it has a much flatter response, more lowend, better high end extension and more consistent response.
It's dishonest to make a comment like this to promote a product when the measurement is done at the LP, indoors. It's essentially meaningless.

You need anechoic measurements to determine if one speaker if flatter or more accurate than another, and then you need off axis measurements to help understand how it's going to interact with different rooms and what kind of total sound power you might get at the seats.

Doing a sweep from a couch is not valid to make the statement you make IMO. It's possibly dishonest with regards to reality.



^^^^
Compare JTR measurement (anechoic or 2pi) to that above would be a proper comparison. Taking sweeps from the LP indoors in a consumer room is pointless if you want to be accurate.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #30620 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 11:20 AM
Senior Member
 
laeriq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
It's dishonest to make a comment like this to promote a product when the measurement is done at the LP, indoors. It's essentially meaningless.

You need anechoic measurements to determine if one speaker if flatter or more accurate than another, and then you need off axis measurements to help understand how it's going to interact with different rooms and what kind of total sound power you might get at the seats.

Doing a sweep from a couch is not valid to make the statement you make IMO. It's possibly dishonest with regards to reality.



^^^^
Compare JTR measurement (anechoic or 2pi) to that above would be a proper comparison. Taking sweeps from the LP indoors in a consumer room is pointless if you want to be accurate.
Looks to me like Jeff was commenting on the post that Carp put up that showed graphs of the speakers in his room. If people didn't understand that, maybe they need to read more closely. Was there something wrong with Jeff's analysis? It's good to know that the thread police are out there keeping us safe from such "dishonest" information.
hogues, jbrown15, stitch1 and 4 others like this.
laeriq is online now  
post #30621 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jbrown15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 8,556
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2518 Post(s)
Liked: 1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
It's dishonest to make a comment like this to promote a product when the measurement is done at the LP, indoors. It's essentially meaningless.

You need anechoic measurements to determine if one speaker if flatter or more accurate than another, and then you need off axis measurements to help understand how it's going to interact with different rooms and what kind of total sound power you might get at the seats.

Doing a sweep from a couch is not valid to make the statement you make IMO. It's possibly dishonest with regards to reality.



^^^^
Compare JTR measurement (anechoic or 2pi) to that above would be a proper comparison. Taking sweeps from the LP indoors in a consumer room is pointless if you want to be accurate.

Mfusick, someone told me that you work for the Erskine Group. Is that true?
jbrown15 is offline  
post #30622 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 03:57 PM
Member
 
Freakquency's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
The retail price on the parts from JBL is expensive. You basically can't DIY it and save money, unless you use alternative brand parts. JBL and Harman also have a boat load of patents on driver technology, so at that point it might be apples to oranges.

I see your point, but what if Jeff had 10million worth of testing facilities just like Harman has- would his XO and design be any better? I'd guess yes. They have a huge anechoic chamber where they strap big PA speakers up on a crane and take 92 off axis measurements anechoic from all directions. They also have a patented measurement system/software.

The advantage Harman has over a small guy like JTR is 50:1, being everything JTR might be good at Harman is better at 50 other things. They have 3D printer machines on premise and can manufacture their own drivers and parts with exact specs they want on the spot. JTR has to go to the market and either order, or use existing tech. Some variation can be done OEM, but the basic driver is already established. That's why JTR has to go somewhat top shelf on the parts (costs $) because the economies of scale and the cost of manufacture are not in JTR favor. You can't fault JBL for just being awesome at what they do to the point they are huge company with deep pockets and vast resources. That's a competitive advantage. There is a reason why they own all the patents, publish the most science studies, white papers, take the best measurements, etc... JBL applied for 23 patents on driver tech last year. How many did JTR? They had 9 patents on the tweeter in the M2 alone. It's a push/pull annular diaphram with smooth response to 40khz. Don't see that everyday. They literally designed it from the ground up just for that one model. It's purpose built.

The money being the reason you would.... it a strong argument. You can get good value, and a lot of performance for the money because all those economies of scale bring the cost down for consumers. It being cheaper does not necessary means it's not as good. I learned long ago the magic in audio is in the design phase, not the cost or price.

Another bonus is JBL publishes a lot of detailed specs on their products so professionals can work with them easier. I've never seen detailed measurements on JTR, but would be interested in seeing them. The subjective opinion on JTR is pretty good, but most of the reputation and information and opinion seems to be subjective. I'd love to see objective measurement compare something like the 215 to the 4722. That could be interesting and enlightening.
The part I like about all of these conversations of speaker vs speaker and such is when there are get together events with blind listening and the results are so close no matter what brands are there.
Freakquency is offline  
post #30623 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Seaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 6,476
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
It's dishonest to make a comment like this to promote a product when the measurement is done at the LP, indoors. It's essentially meaningless.

You need anechoic measurements to determine if one speaker if flatter or more accurate than another, and then you need off axis measurements to help understand how it's going to interact with different rooms and what kind of total sound power you might get at the seats.

Doing a sweep from a couch is not valid to make the statement you make IMO. It's possibly dishonest with regards to reality.
Calling Jeff's observation/comment dishonest is out of line. Jeff specifically quoted carp's post and his measurement observed at the listening position. The sound that makes it to the listener is a big part of what matters. No, it doesn't tell you everything, but the big peak/dip in the 100-800Hz range will be audible and are related to how the speaker is interacting with the room. No, you don't want to blindly EQ based on this one set of curves, but it is still an interesting data point. You happened to infer a completely different context and more specific meaning vs what was actually stated.

Quote:


^^^^
Compare JTR measurement (anechoic or 2pi) to that above would be a proper comparison. Taking sweeps from the LP indoors in a consumer room is pointless if you want to be accurate.
I would suggest that your post was the dishonest one in suggesting that the passive 4722N carp listened to and measured is the same as the curves you posted. The spec sheet does not specify which version we are looking at, but based on the ~630Hz vertical pinching and horizontal blooming, along with the smoothness, it's a safe bet those curves are for the active version. The passive version has a crossover that raises from 630Hz to 800Hz per the first page of the same spec sheet. While I know some here are quick to blow off noise-floor of amplifier-speaker combo's, has anyone put their ear to the JBL horn with the active amplifier connected in a very quiet home theater? While many are OK with an iNukeDSP amp on a 96-101dB speaker, most of my customers would boot it from the theater due to hiss, particularly when any DSP boost is applied.

Similarly, that vertical narrowing in the JBL is lumping the off axis beamwidth into a single number and doesn't at all show the shape of or where the lobe points. In a big cinema it's a more manageable issue, but in a small room it is part of the sound. Most all of the JTR designs I've observed and my own don't pinch that much in the vertical plane of the woofers, which is hard to avoid when crossing the stacked pair of 15s to a large dimension, wide & narrow horn. It works pretty well horizontally though. In fact, the further you get from the speaker, like in a commercial cinema, the less of an issue it is. The biggest advantage of these JBL models is in the large dimension horn and an cost effective package. There's nothing going on in the execution of the horn an pair of 15" woofers that require an expensive, isolated, anechoic chamber to design. The chamber does make it much easier to create measurements which look pretty for public consumption, but the pertinent data doesn't require it.
hogues, RMK!, jbrown15 and 10 others like this.

Mark Seaton
Seaton Sound, Inc.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood..." Daniel H. Burnham
Mark Seaton is online now  
post #30624 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 05:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Seaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 6,476
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakquency View Post
The part I like about all of these conversations of speaker vs speaker and such is when there are get together events with blind listening and the results are so close no matter what brands are there.
Too many seem to infer that this means the speakers sound very similar rather than making the realization that the best performance in terms of soundstaging, imaging and overall balance take some time to get right, and some rooms impart a much bigger fingerprint on the sound than others. The tougher the room, the more likely the narrower/larger horns will do well. This correlates very well with Gorilla's meets/comparisons where the Yorkville U215s scored fairly well, as did the other ~60 deg horns. Of course both carp and Archea were left scratching their heads when the next day Craig John demonstrated how much better a polished and treated room/system can sound. Nothing we hear the day before came close to the smoothness and clarity we heard at Craig John's, and while the Triad's are very nice sounding speaker, the room and careful setup were the real differentiators.

Having heard more than a few of the speakers at these GTG's in permanent systems where there has been time and effort put into setup, I've always left feeling like we only got a sample of the speaker's sound and capabilities. Sure, we can see how loud each goes and how it sounds when guys start grabbing for earplugs, but 10-60 mins is not going to be enough to get great sound. As an example, I spent more than 1/2 a day getting temp acoustic panels, exact placement, toe-in and the Dirac target set for our 2014 RMAF room. The last 4-8" of lateral, front-back, and seating adjustments made all a BIG difference in the scale of the soundstage and subjective presentation and depth. The final key was comparing and selecting a more appropriate set of measurement locations to feed Dirac. It was far from perfect, but the difference between 5pm Thursday night to Friday morning at show opening was pretty huge, while objectively and physically the changes were very subtle.

Looking back at many different comparisons, the 2 ch comparison in Wisconsin was one of the more worthwhile comparisons as the room had high ceilings and plenty of width with openings to other rooms. The rear wall directly behind the couch was one hindrance, but everyone heard rather different sonic presentations from every speaker played, including the few that had some technical or setup limitations (like the JTR T12s which couldn't get the subs loud enough to blend with).

Point being it's important to see what can be done in a finished system with time to set up. One good sounding room doesn't guarantee another, but it proves possibility, and multiple examples set a trend and likelihood. After all, Jeff & I each created our own solutions based on the issues and limitations we saw enthusiasts encountering in awesome home theaters, not just looking at an anechoic chamber.

</soapbox>
carp, Gooddoc, RMK! and 8 others like this.

Mark Seaton
Seaton Sound, Inc.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood..." Daniel H. Burnham
Mark Seaton is online now  
post #30625 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 05:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jeff Permanian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 965
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post
Calling Jeff's observation/comment dishonest is out of line. Jeff specifically quoted carp's post and his measurement observed at the listening position.
Well, to be fair, JBL didn't list the measurements as the active version and few people would be able to pick out the crossover point based on the beamwidth (that vertical isn't very pretty, lol).
Mark Seaton and nash23 like this.

Last edited by Jeff Permanian; 08-12-2015 at 05:59 PM.
Jeff Permanian is offline  
post #30626 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 06:42 PM
Member
 
Freakquency's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post
Too many seem to infer that this means the speakers sound very similar rather than making the realization that the best performance in terms of soundstaging, imaging and overall balance take some time to get right, and some rooms impart a much bigger fingerprint on the sound than others. The tougher the room, the more likely the narrower/larger horns will do well. This correlates very well with Gorilla's meets/comparisons where the Yorkville U215s scored fairly well, as did the other ~60 deg horns. Of course both carp and Archea were left scratching their heads when the next day Craig John demonstrated how much better a polished and treated room/system can sound. Nothing we hear the day before came close to the smoothness and clarity we heard at Craig John's, and while the Triad's are very nice sounding speaker, the room and careful setup were the real differentiators.

Having heard more than a few of the speakers at these GTG's in permanent systems where there has been time and effort put into setup, I've always left feeling like we only got a sample of the speaker's sound and capabilities. Sure, we can see how loud each goes and how it sounds when guys start grabbing for earplugs, but 10-60 mins is not going to be enough to get great sound. As an example, I spent more than 1/2 a day getting temp acoustic panels, exact placement, toe-in and the Dirac target set for our 2014 RMAF room. The last 4-8" of lateral, front-back, and seating adjustments made all a BIG difference in the scale of the soundstage and subjective presentation and depth. The final key was comparing and selecting a more appropriate set of measurement locations to feed Dirac. It was far from perfect, but the difference between 5pm Thursday night to Friday morning at show opening was pretty huge, while objectively and physically the changes were very subtle.

Looking back at many different comparisons, the 2 ch comparison in Wisconsin was one of the more worthwhile comparisons as the room had high ceilings and plenty of width with openings to other rooms. The rear wall directly behind the couch was one hindrance, but everyone heard rather different sonic presentations from every speaker played, including the few that had some technical or setup limitations (like the JTR T12s which couldn't get the subs loud enough to blend with).

Point being it's important to see what can be done in a finished system with time to set up. One good sounding room doesn't guarantee another, but it proves possibility, and multiple examples set a trend and likelihood. After all, Jeff & I each created our own solutions based on the issues and limitations we saw enthusiasts encountering in awesome home theaters, not just looking at an anechoic chamber.

Man! You are dead on, RESPECT! I would buy your book.
Mark Seaton and RMK! like this.

It takes lots of abnormal people to make things easy for normal people.
Freakquency is offline  
post #30627 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 06:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,944
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2009 Post(s)
Liked: 1482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post
Of course both carp and Archea were left scratching their heads when the next day Craig John demonstrated how much better a polished and treated room/system can sound. Nothing we hear the day before came close to the smoothness and clarity we heard at Craig John's, and while the Triad's are very nice sounding speaker, the room and careful setup were the real differentiators.

This ^

Yep, it's probably not a coincidence that the best sound I have ever heard in this hobby were the two best treated rooms I have been in. Craig's was the first, back in January of 2014 - what Mark is referring to above. Craig's room sounds awesome. First room I had ever been in that reference did not sound loud - at all!! It sounded just right. The second room that had this same effect on me is David Beck's Savoy Theater. Back to back movies at reference - no problem at all. Sounded perfect.

I haven't listened to 2 channel music at David's, but I did at Craig's. It was impressive - but I have to say what was equally impressive was Mark. He sat in the sweet spot and moved his head around for a bit and promptly told Craig that if he moved his seat forward 6 inches he would get rid of the very slight chestiness in the vocals/sound, because in that spot there was a slight boost in the ______ frequency. I can't remember what specific frequency, but somewhere in the upper mid bass if I remember right.

Sure enough, all of us took turns in the sweet spot and I'll be damned if Mark wasn't right. This furthers Mark's point that you can't completely judge a speaker from a quick demo at a GTG. That same speaker might sound completely different to you if it is setup in someone's room where they have tweaked the speakers position, seating position, EQ below Schroeder, toe in, etc.
Mark Seaton, RMK!, stitch1 and 3 others like this.

Last edited by carp; 08-12-2015 at 08:03 PM.
carp is online now  
post #30628 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 07:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
asoofi1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NoVA
Posts: 1,690
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 899 Post(s)
Liked: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post
I did the same as jlpowell recently. I read all the great reviews of the 4722's and my curiosity took over. I had to hear these for myself, and not just hear them but hear them in my room. So, a friend talked me into buying a pair. I bought one and he bought one. I had them in my room for 3 weeks. I have to admit I had an ulterior motive. If I ended up liking them as much or more than my 215's I could sell the 215's and fund the move to Atmos.

I really liked listening to them for those 3 weeks. I thought maybe.... just maybe... they could work for me. However, as time went on I felt myself drawn less and less to the basement to listen to music. When I did listen I didn't sit there for nearly as long as I did with the 215's. I tried all kinds of placement, and eventually EQ.

When it was time to send them back to my friend and hook up the 215's again it was instant love again. Since that time (a couple months) I'm back to always being drawn to the basement and back to not being able to stop listening to music even when I set out to watch a movie. I do watch movies with my wife of course, and love the sound just as much.

So... my point is I completely understand jlpowell trying out the 4722's. Honestly if I would have heard them before the JTR Noesis line or the Danley SH 50's in my room I would have been perfectly happy.

Obviously all this is my opinion, I'm not saying everyone will prefer one speaker over another.
I would have the 4722 sitting in my room if it wasn't the 'musicality' of the 212HTs.
carp and Archaea like this.
asoofi1 is offline  
post #30629 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 08:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,477
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2107 Post(s)
Liked: 1427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post
The biggest advantage of these JBL models is in the large dimension horn and an cost effective package. There's nothing going on in the execution of the horn an pair of 15" woofers that require an expensive, isolated, anechoic chamber to design. The chamber does make it much easier to create measurements which look pretty for public consumption, but the pertinent data doesn't require it.
That I think is largely true Mark, but to really move the ball forward in speaker design I think those anechoic chambers do matter. It's not the whole story at all, because that has to be translated to subjective preference. And not sure if you'll agree with this or not, but IMO JBL, through great researchers like Toole and Olive, has moved that ball by doing extensive and very well designed correlations of the anechoic data to subjective preference. Without the comprehensive anechoic data such correlations would likely not be possible.

Having said that, I think you and Jeff are incredibly talented speaker designers that are able to produce designs that are world class. The fact that you guys are producing these designs that are very competitive against the best that JBL can offer given their vast resources is remarkable IMO. You both certainly have my respect. I do wish you guys would publish measurements since I think they would be favorable given my personal experience listening to your designs. I think accurate, room independent, measurements do matter when choosing a speaker and are valuable guides to what one can expect in a room, even if they're not the whole picture. They have a higher negative predictive value, than high positive predictive value in my experience, but helpful nonetheless.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #30630 of 35378 Old 08-12-2015, 10:18 PM
Member
 
nash23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Permanian View Post
With multiple driver covering the same frequency range than some cancellation is exceptable (hamburger shaded instead of a sphere) but keep in mind the difference between a quarter and a half wave length isn't very much. If you put a high frequence devise on top of multiple drivers and try to cross them over at a frequency where the drivers have some cancellation than you'll get lobing and lobing isn't desirable.
Ok Jeff,

I understood almost nothing you mentioned in all your previous 3 posts. Only lobbing I know is in tennis.

But I understood "hamburger"!!!

So I guess I am learning.
Nabs17 likes this.

Panasonic PT-AE7000 | Marantz 8802A | Emotiva XPA-2/5 | JTR Noesis 210RM (C) | JTR 210RT (LR) | JTR Single 8HT-LP (Surrounds) | JTR Single 8HT (Surround Backs) | Deftech Procinema 1000 (ATMOS) | Seaton Submersive HPi+/Slave Subwoofers
nash23 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
215RT , 228ht , captivator , Jtr , Jtr Noesis 212ht 212ht Lp , noesis

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off