4343 vs 4430 experience

[John Nebel]

Since last weekend, I've set up an a/b comparison between pairs of 4343s and 4340s.

The amplifiers are virtually the same - 200 watt Mac on the 4343s vs 250 for the 4430.

Both systems are biamplified with JBL 5235 crossovers with the appropriate cards.

The 4343s were modified to the extent I swapped in 2122s and 2235s while the original drivers were being reconed. I should test with the original drivers.

The 4430s are physically on the outside of the 4343s, ie. they have two speaker widths' greater separation. I should switch these around and test again.

The 4430s sound better to the several people who have participated in this informal test. The stereo image was more stable and the speakers sounded less like loudspeakers. The frequency response and dynamic range were roughly the same although the the 4430 sound more full. A pink noise measurement showed a flatter curve for the 4430s.

The source material for the test for one musician-listener was Monteverdi choral music and Schubert's 9th symphony, both at concert level.

This was not the result I had expected as I thought the 4-way system would outperform the 2-way system.

Running the 4343s biamplified and the 4430s on their internal crossovers may tip the scale the other way but that test wasn't as lengthy.

Has anyone else run a similar comparison?

John Nebel

[Mr. Widget]

I have never done that A/B, but your outcome doesn't actually surprise me. You definitely should try them again with switched positions.

A wider range of source material and perhaps a wider range of listeners might give you a slightly different outcome. One thing I've noticed over the years, is that a simple smile from a participant in a comparison like this can affect the outcome. That said, I think your results are probably pretty accurate.

My experience with stock 43XXs has been one of disappointing imaging and a peaky midrange. With my slight to significant mods I have been able to satisfy my pursuit with my 4355s.

[boputnam]

Hey, John...

Real glad you posted this. Thought-provoking...

I recall a one Giskard commenting that (I think...) G.T. felt two-way systems were flatter and easier to time-align / EQ than were more complex systems. And, there certainly are complexities inherant in a four-way, boy-howdy. I don't know if he was referring to the 4430 per se, but interesting comment, nonetheless. Did you do any fiddling with the L-pad settings, which on the 4430 are quite influential on the performance characteristics of the bi-radial?

If you're inclined to re-position the cabinets, I'd suggest:

4430 / 4343 (aquarium) 4430 / 4343

and/or, versa-visa. That way, neither pair is at either the extreme or minimum spacing.

[Mr. Widget]

You've got an aquarium between your speakers! That can't be too good for imaging. The more tightly controlled 4430s certainly will perform better than the 4343s in a room with less than ideal reflective surfaces.

I agree with Bo about that alternative speaker placement to help even the playing field.

[boputnam]

Originally posted by Mr. Widget
You've got an aquarium between your speakers! That can't be too good for imaging.

Ha! I was just foollin' around. I don't recall there being anything between where the 4343's were when I was there. I only used it in that post as a place-keeper...

[Mr. Widget]

Still room acoustics could play a role in the outcome of such a comparison. In my case with my finally being happy with my current set up, it may be the room that is improving the imaging as much as any of my mods. It is one of the most acoustically dead rooms that I have heard 43XXs in.

[boputnam]

[mikebake]

Robert G, no longer seen in this neck of the woods, seemed fairly adamant about the overall superiority of the 4430 two way vs. the bigger 3-4 ways. He said he had listened to about all of them fairly extensively.
Anyway, the simplicity of dealing with various issues by utilizing a two-way does have some merit.

[John Nebel]

Hi Bo,

After cabinet shuffling to 4440-4443-4440-4443, the 4430s still sound better. I could live with either pair, which is fortunate in this case.

All the L-pads are on 0.

The 4430 sound is more of a space than the 4343's directed beam. One can loose track of the source more easily with the 4430.

John

[leif]

Anyone that has tested the 4430 vs 4435?
Is the 4435 just as good (or better) as you all say the 4430 is?
There is a pair for sale over here for about 2000 us dollars. That is a lot of money, and it is far far far to pick them up. Is it worth it?

I have a large living room, and plenty space for them.


Leif

[MikeM]

I A/B ed the 4430 against the L300. 4430 had much more bass output. smoother less irritating horn sound But I think the L300 was overall better balanced. This was years ago and with old crown Dc300s so anything is possible. Really not a bad sounding little speaker was the L150 with the cloth dome tweeters. Ineffecient as hell but dam good bass comparred with the big brothers even outperfomed them Sometimes. Tweeters start to go at 650 a side......

[Tom Loizeaux]

The ability of the HF horn on the 4430 to cover 100 x 100 degrees is great if you walk around your listening room or have quests that sit in a variety of seats, but for delivering stereo to a listening sweet spot, I doubt the 4430 horns offer any advantage when compared to the 4343s full spectrum.

Tom

[slxrti]

I own a pair of 4430's I used then for my front channels. I listen mainly to pop, in two channel stereo.

It's amazing how they can lay transparent a poor recording. High sensitivity speakers have the ability to bring forth the dynamics lost in the recording process. Friends marvel at there ability to render music with uncanny realism.
Be cautious of bright sounding amps or a room that lacks curtains or has hard reflective surfaces. The wide sound
Field causes 1st and 2nd order reflections to become a large constituent of what is heard.

The 4430’s are not sweet or soft-spoken like many High price stereophile loudspeaker. They play with gusto, heart and most of all emotion!!!

Do they have any weakness. For HT they need a sub. The 2235 combined with a passive tuned to below 25
Hz can do some damage, and with eq. can get down right scary (next project). The performance approaches
a closed box with, but with the efficient of a port design.
At earsplitting loudness the 1" can become screechy. Yet in 95% of the instances the loud speaker is not loud enough!!! It becomes apparent if I on the TV or notice that phone had rung with a message remaining.

Can they be enhanced? Sure. I would consider a three way. Using a 2118 or 2123 as a mid base. Cross over at
200 and 1kh- 2khz. I would not use the a configuration similar to the L300, because it's very directional and the substantial horn distortion..

The 4430 had a sale cycle of almost 20 years which is amazing considering that most speaker are updated every few years. I don’t believe any other speaker in the JBL line can lay claim to that. It a shame that this monitor does not get the justice it deserves. I guess that the reason they are still reasonable priced.

I compared the 136a, LE15 and 2235. The 2235 is better in every way possible. The le85 couple with a HL92 or
91 through the music me (spot light effect) and just plain lacked refinement of modern horn designs ( Specially when crossed over at 800 hz). The slotted tweeter crossed over at 7khz can down right hurt, so I prefer the baby cheeks.

Since I'm on suject of horns, the short horn for the 375 is about the same as the HL92, the wooden horn makes it sound silly. How do I know ???? because I owned most if not all of the above.

Not to sound righteous, the above is my opinion and other can disagree with my findings.

take care slxrti

[Ian Mackenzie]

Slxrti,

I like your comments and those earlier,

In a previous post (I don't recall) I did a comparision of a system using the JBL 2245, 2122, 2425/2344, and then compared to a 4 way using the JBL 2245, 2122, 2307/2308 +2305.

As horn carving master Mr Widget aptly remarks, the room acoustic plays a key role in final result as I found in my assessment.

However, I consider the distribution patterns of the 2344 and 2307/2308 can either be used to advantage or disadvantage as the case maybe. The 2344's prefer to be toed in and placement is better apart than too close with absolute symmetry.

The 2307/2308 is a totally different beast and likes only a smidgen of toe in, the 15 degree angle as per the earlier manuals is about right, the boxes are better closer than far apart.

I think its called the Hass effect...not sure to be exact.

Regardless, the 2344 appears a more holograhic expanse while the image of the 2307/2308 + 2405 array appears more from behind the drivers.

In terms of tonality, open a bottle of CaB Sav abd start tasting.

I owned the 2344 for about 2 years and loved them to death, but after hearing a diy 4343 I fell on my own sword.

In a nut shell, with an amp that isn't grinding metal in the top end the 2307/08 + slot is ruthlessly accurate and cleaner with better transient definition. On the otherhand the 2344 is more livable in terms of playable recordings.

Ian

[slxrti]

I still have a pair of alnico slots, on certain types of music they can sound wonderful with the 2307 horn. But after about 15 minutes of listening to varies types of music I have to turn it off. I felt the same about the L300's. It did not matter where they were place. I new where they were. With the 4430's if I darken the room and relaxed the musician would appear. I never achieve that effect with the slots /2307 combo.

The slot's are brighter than the baby cheeks but at the cost of
resolution. A snare drum sounded blurred, yet the baby cheeks did not have the same effect. Even a novice listener noticed this.


The above are my observation and other opinion are appreciated

slxrti