The JBL HDI 1600 is a bit of a mystery. The Revel performs *very* similar, for half the price.
From an engineering perspective, I think the woofer in the HDI 1600 may be it's achilles heel.
For instance, when I looked at the spec sheet, I was expecting the JBL to be significantly more efficient than the Revel.
But it's not.
I think the compression driver in the JBL may be overkill here. What's the point of a tweeter with an efficiency of 109dB when the woofer efficiency is 85dB?
Even worse, you might expect that JBL could use the massive efficiency of the tweeter to allow for a low xover. But they can't ; ring radiators have very limited output at low frequency.
Unless I'm missing something, it's really difficult to justify spending twice as much on the JBL. The JBL handles 50% more power, but the Revel is 1dB more efficient, so it's basically a wash. Their maximum output is virtually identical. The JBL plays half an octave lower so I guess that's nice?
It would be a much more interesting speaker if it had a more efficient woofer section, which is exactly what JBL did with the rest of the lineup.
From an engineering perspective, I think the woofer in the HDI 1600 may be it's achilles heel.
For instance, when I looked at the spec sheet, I was expecting the JBL to be significantly more efficient than the Revel.
But it's not.
I think the compression driver in the JBL may be overkill here. What's the point of a tweeter with an efficiency of 109dB when the woofer efficiency is 85dB?
Even worse, you might expect that JBL could use the massive efficiency of the tweeter to allow for a low xover. But they can't ; ring radiators have very limited output at low frequency.
Unless I'm missing something, it's really difficult to justify spending twice as much on the JBL. The JBL handles 50% more power, but the Revel is 1dB more efficient, so it's basically a wash. Their maximum output is virtually identical. The JBL plays half an octave lower so I guess that's nice?
It would be a much more interesting speaker if it had a more efficient woofer section, which is exactly what JBL did with the rest of the lineup.
Last edited:
...looks like a kind of an adjustable omni ...ridiculously redundant complexity ...sound-wise of course, because marketing-wise it's understandable
OTOH good to hear that big guys still want to make money in the hi-fi business ...which means that there's is still future for music at home, for our hobby, one feels less alienated
I think the Beolab 90 is the best speaker I've ever heard.
The wild thing about the Beolab 90, is the ability to control the beamwidth.
For instance, the first time I heard the 90 was at it's premier in Vegas, and Geoff Martin was running the demo. I had one lingering concern from that demo, which was that the hyoooooge room may have made the speaker sound better. IE, with a huge room, there's less interaction from the speaker.
A few months ago I went and listened to the 90s again, at B&O in La Jolla.
This time around, I ran the demo. Used my own tunes and had an opportunity to fiddle with the beamwidth.
It's amazing, because it basically solves one of my fundamental complaints with HiFi:
Garbage in / Garbage Out.
This was something that vexxed me when I built my first Unity horns, fifteen years ago. Basically a lot of my favorite recordings are complete garbage, and Unity horns make them sound like garbage.
A lot of conventional speakers don't do this. For instance, my Behringers make garbage recordings sound pleasant.
This basically comes down to beamwidth:
With a narrow beamwidth speaker, a good recording sounds like you're wearing headphones.
With a narrow beamwidth speaker, a garbage recording sounds like garbage.
Beolab 90 solves this problem: if the recording is crap, just using the wide beamwidth setting.
The Lexicon SL-1 is cut from the same cloth.
The wild thing about the Beolab 90, is the ability to control the beamwidth.
For instance, the first time I heard the 90 was at it's premier in Vegas, and Geoff Martin was running the demo. I had one lingering concern from that demo, which was that the hyoooooge room may have made the speaker sound better. IE, with a huge room, there's less interaction from the speaker.
A few months ago I went and listened to the 90s again, at B&O in La Jolla.
This time around, I ran the demo. Used my own tunes and had an opportunity to fiddle with the beamwidth.
It's amazing, because it basically solves one of my fundamental complaints with HiFi:
Garbage in / Garbage Out.
This was something that vexxed me when I built my first Unity horns, fifteen years ago. Basically a lot of my favorite recordings are complete garbage, and Unity horns make them sound like garbage.
A lot of conventional speakers don't do this. For instance, my Behringers make garbage recordings sound pleasant.
This basically comes down to beamwidth:
With a narrow beamwidth speaker, a good recording sounds like you're wearing headphones.
With a narrow beamwidth speaker, a garbage recording sounds like garbage.
Beolab 90 solves this problem: if the recording is crap, just using the wide beamwidth setting.
The Lexicon SL-1 is cut from the same cloth.
I was shocked and wondered why the vocals comes from such a HUGE head imaging wise from the Linkwitz Pluto and other speakers with good constant directivity.
Like headphones.
I am guessing it is due to the way the recording is done to make vocals sound right sized with poorer monitors, resulting in it exaggerated when you have better speaker?
Im also guessing good recordings on very good systems dont sound live as recording engineers expect their work to be played in mostly less than ideal situations so dead-ish recordings sounds balanced in most scenarios (bad speakers, live environment)
OTOH overblown images is nowhere near any ideal
in my experience the most headphone-like auditory scene I got from a stereolith-like setup - but not that the images were overblown - they had proper, realistic size - it's that the sounds panned extremely left or right were coming as from almost 90 degrees left or right
The effect was pretty astounding taking into accounts the fact that there was only one stereo speaker in front of me.
BUT it sounded realistic only on "wet" recordings with strong mic-source distance cues, on "dry" recordings the auditory scene collapsed ...then it still sounded like headphones but ...not on my head, just lying in front with speakers drivers turned outward : ))
Last edited:
The DIY philharmonic BMR has already passed it by a considerable margin. And for much much less (can't remember costs, but under $2k)
Philharmonic Audio BMR Philharmonitor Bookshelf Speaker Review | Audioholics
The force behind the pressure on evaluating speakers in the way is the new Audio science Review forum. Amir has a Kipple and is not afraid to use it!
(Not sure on the rules for links to other forums) Google will get you there though.
I have been following all the reviews, and Amir is clearly favouring low harmonic distortion speakers as his subjective oreference though. But the nice thing is the objective measurements are a breath of fresh air!
I have had many questions about designs that I'm now comfortable I know the answer too as a result of seeinf all the measurement data on ASR.
Coax is the way to go now IMO.
The Denovo CX15 would ace the spinorama test. Hence my asking about it in the thread below this one.
Last edited:
...Philharmonitor design principles look to be pretty far from a coax approach
The highest ranking speaker using the Harman criteria is the coax genelec.
ASR has not tested the BMR yet, so it's not ranked. but gene (audioholics) has, and their measurements are reliable.
The genelec is SPL limited, but otherwise they measure comparibly on a spinorama.
...the most striking difference between Genelec and this BMR Phmonitor would be in the diffraction pattern, do they take it into account in those rankings?
(ps. not to mention time domain measurements, tonebursts, impulse, step response)
Last edited:
Go on the forum and see. It's the most comprehensive and consistent data out there. Game changer IMO.
Off axis spinorama is priority no 2 after on axis in weighting.
Coax vertical off axis is vastly better, but we must remember that toole supports that vertical DI is low priority.
The philharmonic uses a ribbon, so vertical would be doubly degraded Vs a coax.
This is why I'm looking for the Denovo CX15 distortion measurements. FR on and off axis is almost without peer, the question just remains if it's got distortion of -60+ below fundamental. If it does, I will take 10, thanks!
Shared album - lance bartlett - Google Photos
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
I seem to flip flop on this one on an almost daily basis.
For instance, the Genelec's measurements are tip-top, on ASR there's nothing better.
Then again, when I switch from my Unity horns with 4x2" midranges to my Yamaha's (conventional two-way with a 12" woofer) I immediately noticed an improvement in dynamics.
My 'hunch' is that the massive headroom that the 12" woofer has, makes things sound more "dynamic."
And this isn't just at loud SPLs, even at moderate volume, the difference is noticeable.
ASR did a gushing review of the Revel M106 and I'm kinda tempted to make something like that. It sells for $2000 a pair, but it uses SB Acoustics drivers and one could likely make something comparable for around $300 per channel if they DIY.
perhaps a similar effect can be achieved by toeing the loudspeakers out toward reflective walls or tilting them back (coaxials have advantages in that case particularly)
Last edited:
I too have the same subjective experience, but came to the conclusion it was distortion levels at higher SPLs that accounts for difference.
Its prob just the bass levels though.
What do you make of this clip....?
YouTube
This is exactly the 'kind' of sound difference I hear using large 4 inch diaphragm horns + TD10Ms vs a Focal 826W
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.