JBL 2214H Build....L100T or 4425 ?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hello Ian

Wait a minute!

"JBL tech note posted by Rob. As can be clearly read the audience of that tech note are pro mixing engineers in broadcast environments. Are you monitoring at home with Sonar Works in a bedroom covered in acoustic treatments? I rest my case."

You rest your case and reference reviews from Home & Studio Recording, August 1986.

Who's their target audience??

They compare the 4225 vs the Urie 809

Just like my Techsheet

"Monitors with Compression Drivers:
The UREI 809A and JBL 4425 represent a scaling down of the superlative performance offered by the large format monitors, and they are intended largely for smaller control rooms and so-called "semi-pro" applications where the larger models cannot be accommodated. Their design characteristics are listed below:
* Flat axial response extending to 18 kHz, with optimum low-frequency performance in a wall-mounted position.
* Smooth power response.
* Smooth phase (time domain) response.
* Accurate stereo imaging.
* System ruggedness at high frequencies, due to use of a compression driver.
Figure 12: UREI 809 On-axis response (1 W, 1 meter)
2= mounting; impedance.
Figure 13: Beamwidth (Horizontal and Vertical)
vs. Frequency, UREI 809
Figure 14: JBL 4425 On-axis response
(1 W at 1 meter) and Impedance.
Figure 15: JBL 4425"

And yet the Techsheet is not appropriate???

You are a piece of work!!! LOL

Rob

Wait a minute 2.

Yes it’s a technical comparison now the 809 has entered the discussion.

I’m assuming the application around here is home music reproduction.

But if you have time please read each review of both the 4425 and the 809. Each review is by the same reviewer with both the full subjective (from an engineering & mixing perspective) and technical reviews of both the 4425 and the 809

The reviewer concluded the 809 is the superior monitor.

Now tell me and the rest of the planet why you believe in your own words figure 12, 13, 14 and 15 are so important to you??? Get up in your soap box and holler, worship and cut a fart is you feel like it.

I think you keep hinging on that because you personally believe those graphs paint a picture of it being better in some way.

I agree in a technical A/B if that’s the only criteria it might polarise a subjective assessment. But Robert, there are a myriad of reasons why measurements alone don’t add up to one listening preference over another. In this case is a pro mixing situation. Despite all JBL technical marketing blurb the Urei 809 with the same compression driver and a technically inferior horn (according to JBL) is preferred. The review measurements don’t depict one subjectively better than the other even if you think they do.

That of course is why the reviewer did a subjective assessment of both. Dooooooo.

The situation would be different again in a 9 x 12 room sitting mid field, not at a mixing console.

What l am saying is when you drill down into it and then lay a perspective on it the outcomes don’t appear logical. It’s in a sense irrational . Just because is looks that way doesn’t necessarily make it so. The truth is in the listening. It always was and it always will be.


https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/m...jbl-4425/12852

https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/m...urei-809/12827

I’ve attached your precious graphs too.

To bedrock

Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
He is far better off experimenting with a prototype build before determining which way to go.
JBL has already done that.

With a wider perspective after reading all my posts fully and an open mind you will garner my point. Don’t criticise what you don’t understand.

The short response is every JBL system and any well engineered loudspeaker that is somehow different from another is voiced differently. If it’s a specific application it will be voiced for that end use. To understand what voicing is this look at my attachment of an interview l posted previously with Andrew Jones and Steve Gutenberg who lays it out in common language everyone can appreciate. It’s basically Pandora’s box.

Andrew Jones is one of the most respected senior loudspeaker designers on the planet. In the interview he explains complex concepts in a way that is easy to grasp. This helps audiophiles or loudspeaker builders appreciate why listening differences exist that are not at all easily quantified with conventional published measurements. He covers a lot of space around rooms too. So it’s a wise read that will save many a lot of over thinking.

[Ian Mackenzie]

4425 review

See attachment for the measurements
Ken Dibble concludes this short series with a review of the JBL 4425 and compares the results with the Urei 809 reviewed last month.


Click image for larger view

Last month we discussed the country cousin relationship between these two West Coast studio monitor loudspeaker systems, set out the tests and the criteria to be applied, and reviewed Urei's new baby monitor, the 809. This month, it's the turn of JBL's baby: the 4425.


JBL4425


General Specification
Drive unit compliment
Single 2214 30cm lo/mid cone driver with 2342 bi-radial constant directivity HF horn and 2416 titanium diaphragm compression drive unit.

Crossover
Internal passive 2-way, 12dB/oct, 1.2kHz.

User Controls
Mid-level, HF level.

Cabinet loading
Direct radiating 54Ltr tuned reflex.

Impedance
8Ω nominal, 6Ω minimum.

Fundamental Resonance
34Hz

Termination
Screw terminals/4mm sockets

Power Rating
200W with band limited pink noise to IEC-268:1 or 1 kW 10mS peak unclipped.

Sensitivity
91dB for 1 W at 1m.

Dispersion Angle
100° x 100° nominal.

Dimensions
635mm high x 406mm wide x 310mm deep (375mm deep to include horn flare).

Weight
26kg

Finish
Oiled walnut cabinet with slate grey horn panel and dark blue fabric grille.

Price
£937.25 each suggested retail, including VAT.


Design Concepts and Presentation


Like the Urei 809, the 4425 also represents an attempt to provide a small but highly specified studio monitor based on the success story of a larger system. In the case of the 4435, it is derived from the JBL 4430 and 4435, but employs scaled down components. The system is intended for use in smaller control rooms and in other demanding audio production applications. Smooth accurate frequency response, flat power response and high power handling, combined with constant directional characteristics are the design objectives and as with the Urei, the 4425 also comes as left and right handed versions to maximise accurate imaging.

In total contrast to the Urei however, the 4425 is finished to a very high standard, with oiled walnut veneer to the cabinet sides, smart slate grey top panel carrying the horn and crossover control panel and blue stretch fabric covered detachable grille. Even the front rim of the drive unit chassis is black painted and finished to provide that little sparkle when the grille is removed. It is an altogether superbly presented and finished loudspeaker, quite in keeping with the long held traditions of this manufacturer.


Constructional Aspects


The enclosure is of 18mm high density chipboard and has no further bracing except for a horizontal webb across the top which supports the compression driver unit, thus relieving stress at the horn neck. Also, there's appreciably less internal absorption than with the Urei, with just a thin scrim of low density fibreglass quilt over part of the back and the four sides. Whereas the Urei has a single, short square reflex port, the JBL sports two smaller circular ports, each with a cardboard tube duct at least half the internal depth of the cabinet. So there is an immediate and obvious difference in the way the two enclosures are tuned.

The 2214 lo/mid driver and the horn flare are the front loaded and secured by machine screws engaging with tee nuts recessed into the chipboard.

The 2214 driver itself is visually identical to that fitted to the Urei 809, having the same chassis, the same cone, and a similar foam plastic front suspension. The magnet too is the same symmetrical field ceramic unit, including the hole through the pole piece for location of the co-axial horn unit in the case of the Urei, but in this instance, the screw thread to facilitate mounting the compression driver on the back of the magnet plate has not been cut. Also, whereas the Urei unit has the third spider suspension point at the base of the horn flare, the 2214 is a conventional single spider arrangement.

There does however seem to be a difference in suspension compliance, the 2214 being noticeably higher compliance than the unit fitted to the Urei, and would therefore be expected to exhibit a lower free air resonance. Such a difference would account for the different reflex tuning system employed.

The HF horn is of the now familiar JBL 'baby's bum' bi-radial, constant directivity design and is moulded from acoustically inert high impact structural foam. The 2416H compression drive unit is a recent development from JBL and is an attempt to provide good high frequency performance from a moderately priced unit with a standard european 1.375" x 27tpi screw thread coupling. It features JBL's latest titanium dome and diamond suspension technology and, unusually in a driver whose design parameters are governed by cost constraints, the diaphragm and phasing plug are in a compression chamber at the rear of the magnet assembly. That fitted to the 4425 is a bare bones version of the commercial product with no cosmetics, but does seem quite a nice unit. Exactly the same unit is fitted to the Urei 809.

The crossover appears to be a fairly complex affair and is mounted on a PCB attached to the back panel of the cabinet so that the screw terminals protrude through an appropriately placed cut-out. Apart from the user controls and a large laminated iron cored inductor (presumably the series inductor in the lo/mid leg of the network which is separately mounted to avoid undue strain on the board), all components are on the one circuit board and appeared to be of an adequate quality and rating, with those Mexican capacitors much in evidence.


Test Results


Figure 5 shows the impedance/frequency curve. It can be seen that the lowest value reached is 12Ω, compared with a value of 6Ω given in the maker's specification. I really can offer no justification for this anomaly, as the 4425 was measured immediately after the Urei 809, on the same equipment and the same set-up, and was checked for accuracy afterwards. But 12Ω was the figure produced each time. In other respects, the general characteristic is very similar to that recorded for the 809, including a similar system resonance at 60Hz, and apart from that, it's value is in close agreement with the curve given in the manufacturer's literature.


Click image for larger view
Figure 5. JBL 4425 impedance/frequency curve.


Again, two amplitude/frequency curves were taken at 1W at 1 m in order to avoid confusion in illustrating the effect of the mid and HF level controls. Figure 6a shows the mid-range variation available with the HF control at its maximum (flat) setting whilst Figure 6b shows the high frequency variation available with the mid-range control set at its flat position. According to the control panel calibration, the range of control provided should be between +2dB and -8dB in the case of the mid-range level control and between flat and -7dB in the case of the high frequency control, and it would seem as if this is in fact what is happening.



Figure 6a. JBL 4425 amplitude/fequency response showing mid-level control range at 1W.




Figure 6b. JBL4425 amplitude/frequency response showing HF level control range at 1W.


Using the upper curve of Figure 6b as the nominally flat response curve, the sensitivity works out at 91 dB, which is in exact agreement with the maker's specification, and the useful frequency response at 45Hz-17kHz, which again is close to the maker's figures.

Figure 7 shows the amplitude/frequency response at 6dB below rated power (in this case 50w RMS sine wave) and indentifies the second and third harmonic distortion components. It can be seen that there is a small flurry of activity below about 200Hz amounting to some 1.5%-2% in all, and then the usual rising distortion normally associated with compression-type drive units, rising to around 10% above 10kHz. Nothing untoward here.



Figure 7. JBL 4425 amplitude/frequency response showing 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion at 6dB below rated power.


Figure 8 shows the horizontal polar response characteristics at 800Hz, 2kHz, 5kHz and 10kHz and it can be seen that the 4425 certainly lives up to its constant directivity design objective, with no more than a few dB deviation from the stated 100° Figure throughout the range. The asymmetry is due to the HF horn being offset to one side of the baffle panel. This really is quite an achievement in such a small loudspeaker system and demonstrates excellent control.



Figure 8. JBL4425 horizontal polar response.


Unlike the Urei co-axial design, where drive unit displacement has to be compensated for electronically, in the case of the 4425 the two drive units are physically aligned one above the other, thus resulting in a system which is naturally time-aligned and therefore does not require special correction. According to the maker's literature however, a 0.4mS time delay is introduced due to the phase response characteristic of the crossover network, but according to research carried out by Blauert and Laws, this is well below the level of perceptibility. In practice, the measured data at 1 metre was 3.4mS for the LF driver and 3.3mS for the HF driver, showing a time alignment error of 0.1 mS.

Tabulated Test Data

Nominal Impedance 8Ω.
Minimum Impedance 12Ω at 100/200Hz and 10kHz
Fundamental Resonance 60Hz
Sensitivity 91dB @ 1w @ 1m average 50Hz-16kHz
Useful Response 45Hz-16kHz
Distortion 2% maximum below 2kHz, rising to 10% at 10kHz at 6dB below rated power
Time Alignment 0.1 mS error
Horizontal Polar Resp 100° @ 800Hz
60° @ 2kHz included angle
100° @ 5kHz @ -6dB points
90° @ 10kHz


Auditioning


Standing alone, the 4425 is an impressive loudspeaker, with particularly clear, well dispersed highs and impressive low frequency performance, if a little on the woolly side by comparison with my regular home hi-fi loudspeakers. But without being able to identify the reasons why, it seemed to me unexciting for some reason.

The first thing to strike home is the laid back, smoother subjective response of the 4425 when compared to the strident aggression of the Urei. The high frequencies in particular are more open than with the Urei and the bass is more forward, but it somehow lacks the attack and that uncanny impression of presence and loudness which characterise the Urei sound. Also sadly missing is that imaging accuracy.

With the JBL, the strings sound sweeter, the bass more rounded and full, and it sounds just as good on a Shostakovich symphony as it does on Dire Straits, making it obviously a better all-round choice, but gone is that screaming Knopfler guitar break in the live recording of 'Sultans' or the raucus rasp of Mel Collins' sax in 'Two Young Lovers'. To me, after the Urei 809, it is rather tame by comparison, but to others, the sweeter sound of the JBL was the more acceptable of the two.

As far as a studio monitoring application is concerned, it does not seem to have that absolute accuracy and imaging quality of the Urei either. But we must put all this into perspective. Had I not been reviewing the Urei at the same time, I would have rated the 4425 very highly, and it's indeed an excellent loudspeaker in all respects. It's just that the Urei 809 has something extra that really brings rock and roll music to life and sends that little shivering sensation down the spine at times. (You know what I'm driving at.) But that's not all; it has this phenomenal accuracy and definition as well which must render it just about the best small studio control room or near field monitor going.


Conclusions


Because of its very smart presentation and because its performance characteristics do not seem to favour any particular type of programme material, it will have a wide variety of applications outside the studio control room and would be equally acceptable in the smartest of playback lounges, editing suites, presentation studios, offices or homes.

Like the Urei, it's audibly better when driven by a large power amplifier and for studio use, it will benefit from active room EQ in addition to its inbuilt response contour controls, excellent though these are for more general applications.

The maker's literature is first class and includes a far more detailed specification than we have published within this review, with virtually all electrical and acoustical data amplified by no less than 24 graphs! The performance characteristics are fully described and the technical foundation and limitations of the data given is stated. And, interestingly, apart from that impedance anomaly, the data given is extremely close to our own laboratory resultsand observed details.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Urei 809 review
For the response curve see the attachment

In this two part feature, Ken Dibble reviews two closely related but very different monitor loudspeakers: the new Urei baby, the 809 and the well established JBL 4425.


Click image for larger view
Urei 809 and JBL 4425.


It was widely expected that with the takeover of Urei by Harman Audio during 1985 and its integration with JBL, there would be some rationalisation of Urei's loudspeaker interests, as, let's face it, JBL and Urei between them probably account for the largest slice of the Stateside monitor loudspeaker business and had been keen competitors for many years.

However, it turns out that this is not the case, and having visited both JBL and Urei in California last Autumn, and seen first hand the way things are done in the studios around LA, I can quite see why both are to continue as separate lines, each retaining its own separate identity, although there does seem to be a graduated integration of componentry taking place.

But notwithstanding the fact that both review systems employ a JBL 30cm low/mid driver in a tuned reflex enclosure, both have constant directivity type HF horns and employ exactly the same JBL compression driver, the two products are most definitely not the same, having quite individual voicing signatures, technical features and design concepts.

Both brands are of course giants in the world of monitoring in both film and sound recording studios, whether for original takes, mixdown, editing, pre-viewing or mastering. Each engineer has his own very definite preference for one type of monitor over another, and although the particular samples being reviewed are the babies of both ranges, the differences in timbre, emphasis, imaging and the like are clearly identifiable. Not being a recording engineer, and therefore finding myself a little distanced from this love affair relationship with one particular loudspeaker type, I have tried to take a more objective look at what the differences actually are between the two models to be reviewed, and have based my conclusions on a combination of laboratory testing and subjective evaluation.

However, noting the present day tendency towards esoteric reviewing in certain of the technical press, often at a technical level way beyond the understanding of even competent engineers, and dealing in vague notions of performance criteria that cannot be related to what is actually heard without the aid of a computer, I have tried to keep to an even keel and restricted the laboratory testing to the basic parameters of immediate concern.


Laboratory Testing


Both review samples were tested in the anechoic chamber at GEC-Hirst Research, driven by an HH Electronics MOSFET V800 power amplifier and using precision calibrated Bruel & Kjear instrumentation. The testing programme was supervised by the author in person and was overseen by the head of the Acoustics Section at Hirst, John Edward.

The tests carried out included an impedance/frequency plot, a sine wave/frequency plot at 1W with the measuring microphone one metre distant from the loudspeaker baffle panel, a second sine wave amplitude/frequency plot at 6dB below rated system power showing the second and third harmonic distortion components present, and a family of horizontal polar response plots. This data is considered to provide a fair technical appraisal of a loudspeaker's basic performance characteristics. All these curves will be published in the test results section along with a tabulated summary of the performance parameters measured.

One further test was carried out in my own laboratory using an Ivie IE-30A/17A set-up in order to test out the time alignment data provided as this performance aspect features quite highly in the maker's published literature for both products, and in any event, the Urei 809 is specifically marketed as a time aligned system, and should therefore be tested as such.


Subjective Assessment


The loudspeakers were evaluated separately in pairs and singly by AB comparison over a several week period using my own auditioning set-up, comprising a Mission DAD7000/R compact disc player, Hafler DH110 control amplifier and Hafler DH220 power amplifier.

For all tests, the EQ section of the DH110 was switched to bypass and no graphic equaliser was used. The source material included Dire Straits 'Alchemy Live' and the obligatory' Brothers in Arms' albums, Tina Turner's 'Private Dancer', Joan Armatrading's 'Secret Secrets', Joe Cocker's 'Civilised Man' and the Shostakovich 5th symphony by Leonard Bernstein with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra from the CBS/Sony Masterworks series, all on CD. The HFN test disc was also used.


Urei 809


General Specification
Drive unit compliment
Single 30cm lo/mid cone with co-axially mounted constant directivity HF horn and compression drive unit.

Crossover
Internal passive 2-way incorporating group delay time alignment elements.

User Controls
HF Drive, HF Trim.

Cabinet loading
Direct radiating 65Ltr tuned reflex.

Impedance
8Ω nominal.

Termination
Screw terminals/4mm sockets.

Power Rating
28.5 volts for 1 hour with band limited pink noise 50Hz-20kHz (100W).

Sensitivity
93dB for 1W at 1 metre.

Rec Amplifier
150W RMS/8Ω minimum.

Dimensions
585mm high x 420mm Wide x 345mm deep.

Weight
27kg.

Finish
Utility black fleck paint.

Price
£805.00 each suggested retail, including VAT.


Design Concepts & Presentation


The 809 is the baby of the legendary Urei 800 series monitor and is intended for use in smaller control rooms where the somewhat large dimensions of the 811, 813 or 815 would be inappropriate, and for general purpose near-field monitoring. As with its larger forebears, the design concept targets for a flat power response at low distortion levels and centres on the co-axial single point source and time alignment principles to provide accurate time domain response, accurate stereo imaging and uniform soundfield. The units have to be ordered as right and left handed versions to further these design objectives by correct placement of the drive unit assembly in relation to the bulk of the enclosures.

Presentation is definitely utility-orientated, with the drive unit assembly and crossover module screwed directly to the cabinet front with no fret panel or protective grille. Also on the front panel, under a foam plastic insert, is the reflex port, the input terminals being recessed into the back panel.


Constructional Aspects


The enclosure is a simple box of 18mm high density chipboard, with ample internal softwood bracing, lined and damped with high density fibreglass batts. It's a one-piece assembly with no removable panels and has a particularly rigid and solid feel to it. Still further absorption is provided by a liberal stuffing with low density fibreglass quilt.

The tuning port is fairly large and square with a short plywood duct which is slotted down its length, and it may be noted that an identical apperture is provided to form a housing for the crossover module below, the slot being utilised to locate the circuit board. Thus, to form a left or right hand version of the 809, all that is necessary is to mount the drive unit assembly the other way up and reverse the tuning port and crossover module positions, thereby enabling either version to be assembled from the same cabinet shell. Clever, these Yanks!

The drive unit itself is a substantial affair, comprising a heavily ribbed and damped 30cm piston carried by a high compliance foam front suspension system and featuring a double spider rear suspension arrangement to ensure absolute piston linearity. The voice coil details are not published but this would appear to be of copper ribbon on a 75mm former. A large ceramic magnet assembly is used, with a hole bored through the centre of the pole piece terminating in a threaded boss in the back coverplate to provide a coupling for the HF compression drive unit. Although unmarked, it's unmistakably a JBL transducer in all respects. The compression driver is the new JBL 2416H but bereft of any casing or frills, and this too is a fairly substantial piece of ironmongery, resulting in an impressive coaxial drive unit assembly of considerable mass and engineering.

At the centre of the lo/mid piston is the familiar Urei 'blue horn' complete with its PVC foam 'icing' and its soft PVC side panels to provide that soft-edged, ring-free HF sound for which Urei monitors are justly famous.

Over the years this horn has become almost legendary amongst the West Coast recording fraternity and even if with modern technology it were to be proved that it didn't serve any useful purpose at all, it would have to be there, even if only as a mascot!

The crossover unit is built on a printed circuit board attached to the control panel and is internally supported to prevent the board fracturing under the weight of the large air cored inductors and substantial capacitors and wire wound resistors carried by it. Both response shaping controls are in the form of substantial ceramic cased wire wound potentiometers. It was also noted that the conductive track of the PCB and the wiring used are of larger cross sectional area to handle large current transients with minimum voltage drop. It is also interesting that with the Mexican border not too far away from the Urei factory in San Fernando Road, Sun Valley, CA, and a notable Mexican presence all around, that many of the crossover components used are actually made in Mexico!

Although shipped for installation with the long dimension in the horizontal plane, if control room conditions dictate, it's an easy matter to rotate both the drive unit assembly and crossover control panel through 90° and mount the cabinet vertically instead. This will not effect performance in any way.


Test Results


The impedance/frequency curve is shown in Figure 1. The minimum impedance value occurs just after the fundamental resonance, which is as it should, and does not fall below 5.5Ω. Most power amplifiers should not therefore be in any way stressed in driving the 809, but connecting two in parallel, thus halving the load to 2.75Ω, may present thermal difficulties to certain amplifier designs. The fundamental resonance is unusually suppressed suggesting a relatively low magnetic flux density in the air gap, and the two pronounced peaks at 1.2kHz and 3.5kHz can only be due to compression drive unit diaphragm resonances and to crossover characteristics.



Figure 1. Urei 809 Impedance/Frequency curve


The amplitude/frequency curve is shown in Figures 2a and 2b. It became necessary to provide two separate plots in order to show clearly the effect of the HF Drive and HF Trim controls. Figure 2a shows the frequency response range available by adjusting the HF Trim control over its full operating range with the HF Drive control at its maximum setting, whilst Figure 2b shows the effect of varying the HF Drive control over its full operating range with the HF Trim control at its maximum setting. It will be clear that the two controls act quite independently and that between them, a wide range of response characteristics are available to suit individual control room acoustics and individual preferences.


Click image for larger view
Figure 2a. Urei 809 Amplitude/Frequency response showing HF Drive control range @1W.



Click image for larger view
Figure 2b. Urei 809 Amplitude/Frequency response showing HF Trim control range @1W.


Derived from these curves, the basic sensitivity of the complete loudspeaker system works out at 95dB for 1W at 1 metre and the useful frequency response at 50Hz-15kHz if we ignore the HF spuriae at around the 20kHz mark. Note that 95dB is 2dB better than the maker's specified sensitivity figure.

Figure 3 shows the second and third harmonic components at 6dB below full power sine wave and it can be seen that apart from the usual rising second harmonic characteristic from the compression drive unit, the distortion components are of a very low order, being negligeable over the working range of the low/mid cone driver, rising to 10% at 10kHz.


Click image for larger view
Figure 3. Urei 809 Amplitude/Frequency response showing 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion at 6dB below rated power.


Figure 4 shows the horizontal polar response curves at 800Hz, 2kHz, 5kHz and 10kHz and it can be seen that a tight forward sound field of approximately 60° is obtained with good uniformity, especially over the frequency range covered by the horn and compression driver section. This type of polar characteristic will ensure a high direct-to-reverberant ratio and good source location and stereo imaging within the direct field of the loudspeaker.


Click image for larger view
Figure 4. Urei 809 horizontal polar response.


The time alignment test with the measuring microphone 1 metre in front of the baffle panel gave 3.5mS for both drive units, thus showing zero time error and confirming the maker's time alignment design objectives. The resolution of the measuring system used is 0.1 mS.

Tabulated Test Data

Nominal Impedance 8Ω.
Minimum Impedance 5.5Ω at 100/200Hz and 1.9kHz.
Fundamental Resonance 62Hz.
Sensitivity 95dB@ 1W average 80Hz-16kHz.
Useful Response 50Hz-16kHz.
Distortion Negligible below 2kHz, rising to 10% at 10kHz at 6dB below rated power.
Time Alignment Zero error.
Horizontal Polar Response 100° @ 800Hz included angle @ -6dB points.
60° @ 2kHz included angle @ — 6dB points.
60° @ 5kHz included angle @ 6dB points.
50° @ 10kHz included angle @ -6dB points.


Auditioning


I don't think I have ever been so excited by any one product in all the years I have been reviewing loudspeaker systems. This may have something to do with the fact that I have always liked the West Coast sound and that much of the test material I use is East Coast recorded or mastered. But the sheer guttural clarity and presence of the vocals, the screaming electric guitar contrasted with the smooth, crisp articulation of the acoustic guitar, and the driving attack of percussion instruments, on all the test material previously listed, is something I have not before found combined in a single loudspeaker. And the sound stage imaging is absolutely superb.

The 809 is clean, totally transparent and honest. Try playing a less than perfect recording, perhaps a revamped AAD compact, a bog-standard non NR Fe tape, or anything less than the very best Supercut black vinyl through it and you'll see just what I mean. It's totally unforgiving and won't let you get away with anything!

All of which I find surprising, bearing in mind the LF roll-off characteristic below about 80Hz and the sudden death HF limit at 16kHz as shown in Figure 2.

Also it's loud. The Hafler DH220 is capable of 175W per channel into 8Ω, and a programme level of 106dB(A) SPL in the listening room is totally clean and distortion free. It is also a subjectively loud loudspeaker: far more so than the 95dB sensitivity figure and the 100W power rating would suggest.

Just one reservation. It did not do justice to the Shostakovich 5th: woolly basses, woodwind and cellos and generally lacking in presence, although strings percussion and wind sounded fine. My 12 year old LNB Paralab 20s at home provide a far more natural orchestral balance and timbre than do the 809s, but then, LNBs can get nowhere near the transparency, the imaging, or the punch, drive and attack of these 809s on modern music. It's a matter of horses for courses.


Conclusions


There is certainly no trade-off in any area that will adversely effect performance. It's a superbly engineered loudspeaker designed for practical application rather than to sit in a corner and look pretty. But nevertheless it does have a certain functional attractiveness about it and definitely 'looks the business' as a no compromise tool for the job.

Its performance is affected by positioning and installation considerations and it does need an adequate power amplifier. Although the response controls provided are effective and provide a useful adjustment range, the performance of the 809 can be further enhanced by the use of external electronic equalisation, but only within the headroom constraints of the associated power amplifier and the displacement limitations of the lo/mid piston assembly.

A useful and informative owners manual is included with the delivery.

Next month I will be looking at the JBL 4425.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Given the debate with Rob any myself on tech information versus listening l think it would be interesting to engage forum members on what aspects of each loudspeaker system design, drivers and construction they believe differentiated the subjective comparisons in these reviews.

We will assume the reviewer was unbiased.
No l don’t have a prize for the best response. Sorry.

I have had a preliminary look at the reviews myself. There are a couple of things that stand out in the reviewers comments. The reviewers independent measurements Some of the measurements hold some of the clues. Some of these things are weaknesses or advantages.

No one is necessarily right or wrong here so it’s not a debate as such but a collective of insights.

Tip: These facets are not so much visible on measurements but what most of you would notice as soon as you connect a different loudspeaker system without knowing what it is.

Hint :JBL like to talk up their measurements but what do we sometimes experience when comparing seemingly similar models using for example a visually identical driver but is it really identical? Don’t be drawn on the manufacturer specs. Have a look at the independent test data. There are some underlying issues that effect key points made by the reviewer.

Edit: l have a cold due to the aircon after living the life in tropic weather. Can’t have the vinyl collection sticking together…Lol. Think Florida or the Big Easy in the wet season. We have had water spouts, rain bombs, violent storms, lost lives, mass flooding and power outages repeatedly across the country. I will pop back later in the week.

Andrew Jones interviews


https://youtu.be/4t-wdP4gISI?si=EZLV41O6B7wMOXWb

https://youtu.be/jw82UKQt_uk?si=56MzEoJ0_fNDqBJ4

https://youtu.be/9SeT105kirY?si=uZX3oHHWIXn3G7f0

https://youtu.be/b-OI6FwRAiE?si=40vghK4gm0zvPYPo

These videos mainly cover consumer loudspeaker design where the system is not equalised in the consumers room. In the recording process monitors are carefully EQ’d and the listen level is calculated. The principles are similar for a near field monitor. But it’s used to extract deep into a recording mix more so than a consumer loudspeaker so the engineer can make the recording with minimal error and to the producers direction.

There are several high performance dual concentric near field monitors.

One of the key aspects of any loudspeaker Andrew discusses is

Sensitivity (Efficiency is measured differently and related to the loudspeaker impedance)
Bandwidth
Enclosure size

In a basic sense you can pick any two of these parameters but you get told the 3rd one.
Another interesting insight are loudspeakers imperfections and determining which ones are a priority to deal with.

The listening distance is discussed and the impact of room reverberation of listening quality. When are loudspeakers used as nearfield monitors? The trend today is nearfield to help avoid the impact of different recording control rooms used to assemble a recording. Nearfield monitors are optimised for a specific listening distance range.

The challenge of an acceptable translation of a recording is discussed. Often near field, mid field and larger far field monitors are used to assess the translation of a recording.
Andrew explains a lot of considerations come into play including errors in the recording and how subjectivity is used with measurements. This makes up an important aspect of the design with numerous trade offs.

Price points have an impact of the quality of drivers particularly where exotic materials are used.

It’s important to understand that monitoring today can be EQ’d flat but differences in monitors are subjectively audible by engineers. They sometimes take their own nearfield monitors to a recording event because they are familiar with their characteristics.

Out in the world of HiFi diddly dee the situation is a lot less defined. Subjectively is a weapon for attracting buyers.

As Andrew points out if you don’t have a reference of what something sounds like to can be very trick to determine what is the recording supposed to sound like. Andrew suggests buying a loudspeaker that translates well what you like to listen to. He said in comparison headphones are more accurate and detailed because there is no room interactions. Therefore it’s up to the listener to select a loudspeaker that has the mix of direct and room reverberation they prefer in their room. The distance you listen to a loudspeaker system makes this important.

Andrew said earlier in his career he was totally focused on measurements. But he said he now takes a much deeper look at subjectivity. Not just measurements. The commercial success of his loudspeaker systems speaks for itself.