JBL Studio 698! I just had to do it fellas!!!

[Danzilla31]

Well there are some pointers this is a marketer's design rather than an engineers design.

My concerns.

They have published no meaningful specs other than rudimentary information. The FR has no 3 db points and could mean anything.

They made it a three way when it did not need to be, which I bet was marketers. The design would be much more sound as a 2.5 way.

Here is why.

The cross to the mid, is at 320 Hz, so there are going to be some hefty inductor and capacitor values. This is a less than ideal crossover point and still within the BSC region for a cabinet of those dimensions. They were forced into this by the crossover to the HF horn at 1.8 KHz. That horn is the "flagship" component of the design. So they had to cross to the mid at that low a frequency in order to avoid excess bandpass gain.

So the issues become is that while there are two speakers below the crossover, that one mid is being driven in a definite power band region. So there is a good chance it will be power limited in its pass band.

All this was not necessary, as if it had been made a 2.5 way the 8" driver could easily have crossed to the horn at 1.8 KHz, and much easier solving of the BSC issue. This would have made for a less expensive and better crossover, and I suspect a better speaker.

When I see those sort of decisions, I can hear the marketers screaming at the engineers: - "We have to have a three way!"

This is the 690

If we try the 698 out and I say we because I want as many on the forum to be involved and have fun with me as I do this and your issues are indeed audibly apparent I could probably swap the 698 out with these from Crutchfield and we could find out if the 690s are the true successor to the 590's and not the 698's

Regardless I'm glad your viewing and interested in this thread I think your knowledge will be great especially when I start posting measurements and will need some feedback at times on what exactly is going on with the speakers and the readings

I hope you drop in here from time to time as we all do this thread and have some fun with us!

 

[TLS Guy]

This is the 690

View attachment 60884

If we try the 698 out and I say we because I want as many on the forum to be involved and have fun with me as I do this and your issues are indeed audibly apparent I could probably swap the 698 out with these from Crutchfield and we could find out if the 690s are the true successor to the 590's and not the 698's

Regardless I'm glad your viewing and interested in this thread I think your knowledge will be great especially when I start posting measurements and will need some feedback at times on what exactly is going on with the speakers and the readings

I hope you drop in here from time to time as we all do this thread and have some fun with us!

You don't know it is a bad speaker. I remember well, when as a student, Lord Brock of Wimbledon, that renowned cardio thoracic surgeon, said to a resident who got away with something, lets say not Kosher: -"That shows that if you get run over by a number 13 bus in Oxford Street, you don't necessarily get killed!'

 

[Danzilla31]

You don't know it is a bad speaker. I remember well, when as a student, Lord Brock of Wimbledon, that renowned cardio thoracic surgeon, said to a resident who got away with something, lets say not Kosher: -"That shows that if you get run over by a number 13 bus in Oxford Street, you don't necessarily get killed!'

(You don't know it is a bad speaker.)

Your absolutely right we dont know JBL may have gotten lucky and pulled a rabbit out of they're hat. Crutchfield already shipped them they arrive late Thursday I'm off work all weekend so we are going to find out one way or the other!!!!!!!

Even if they don't pan out I'm still excited!

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

I'll bet they sound fantastic.

Right now the Studio 698s are at the top of my want list. So I will be watching this thread.

 

[lovinthehd]

I'm thinking someone here had a chance to listen to them, but maybe they were HDIs instead...I'm thinking it was @Eppie

 

[Danzilla31]

I'm thinking someone here had a chance to listen to them, but maybe they were HDIs instead...I'm thinking it was @Eppie

I think it was the HDI series if I remember correctly

 

[Timforhifi]

Love my harman speakers. Jbl L890 is a great speaker and I tried the studio 590 to compare to it. The 890 was overall a better speaker and much better looking. Jbl has been great for many years and I believe the studio 698 is more comparable to the 890 in many ways. Very interested in your thoughts on these new Jbl.

 

[lovinthehd]

What is the cost between the 590 and 890? I got my 590s for $450 each delivered, but had a retail of $1k each....seems the L890 was listed at $500 ea. (more curiosity than actual spec as to what's been quoted).

 

[TLS Guy]

This is the 690

View attachment 60884

If we try the 698 out and I say we because I want as many on the forum to be involved and have fun with me as I do this and your issues are indeed audibly apparent I could probably swap the 698 out with these from Crutchfield and we could find out if the 690s are the true successor to the 590's and not the 698's

Regardless I'm glad your viewing and interested in this thread I think your knowledge will be great especially when I start posting measurements and will need some feedback at times on what exactly is going on with the speakers and the readings

I hope you drop in here from time to time as we all do this thread and have some fun with us!

To me that seems a far more sensible design. The 690 is exactly what I suggested. That is a 2.5 way. The 0.5 crossover is at 600 Hz which I would estimate to be right at the transition frequency. The cross to the horn tweeter is 1.7 KHz, and if those drivers are any good, it should be prior to cone break up. My strong hunch is that the 690 is likely the better speaker, as it has a far more logical design premise. I feel that the 698 was for the marketing department. All I see from the 698 is downsides over the 690.

The 690 are $100.00 cheaper each. So they are furnishing a mid range driver and low frequency high and low pass filters for $100. I could not build at decent crossover at that frequency for $100.00 I don't think. So this gives me greater suspicion the 698 is a sop to the marketing department. I see absolutely no good reason to complicate the sensible logical design of the 690.

 

[Timforhifi]

I paid $900 each for L890 when they were out for a few years, so probably 2007 range. They were $1199 each retail at that time. I have a few business acquaintances from china that love the 890. They were always shocked how cheap they were here. In china back then they were around $6000 a pair. Jbl has a huge markup there though. The 890 were on sale frequently though at the end on their run. Around $350-400 each.

 

[Danzilla31]

To me that seems a far more sensible design. The 690 is exactly what I suggested. That is a 2.5 way. The 0.5 crossover is at 600 Hz which I would estimate to be right at the transition frequency. The cross to the horn tweeter is 1.7 KHz, and if those drivers are any good, it should be prior to cone break up. My strong hunch is that the 690 is likely the better speaker, as it has a far more logical design premise. I feel that the 698 was for the marketing department. All I see from the 698 is downsides over the 690.

The 690 are $100.00 cheaper each. So they are furnishing a mid range driver and low frequency high and low pass filters for $100. I could not build at decent crossover at that frequency for $100.00 I don't think. So this gives me greater suspicion the 698 is a sop to the marketing department. I see absolutely no good reason to complicate the sensible logical design of the 690.

If anyone can figure out a way to make them work it will be JBL. It will be fun to see maybe @shadyJ can chime in on the design decisions here. I'm curious I can see there are potential disadvantages to that 3 way design. Maybe some one with knowledge can chime in and give some insight on what advantages a 3 way design can give a horn loaded speaker like this?

 

[Danzilla31]

To me that seems a far more sensible design. The 690 is exactly what I suggested. That is a 2.5 way. The 0.5 crossover is at 600 Hz which I would estimate to be right at the transition frequency. The cross to the horn tweeter is 1.7 KHz, and if those drivers are any good, it should be prior to cone break up. My strong hunch is that the 690 is likely the better speaker, as it has a far more logical design premise. I feel that the 698 was for the marketing department. All I see from the 698 is downsides over the 690.

The 690 are $100.00 cheaper each. So they are furnishing a mid range driver and low frequency high and low pass filters for $100. I could not build at decent crossover at that frequency for $100.00 I don't think. So this gives me greater suspicion the 698 is a sop to the marketing department. I see absolutely no good reason to complicate the sensible logical design of the 690.

One thing we can't forget is JBL can build to scale on a level other companies can't. So they might be able to build a crossover at that price range that could work

 

[Danzilla31]

Love my harman speakers. Jbl L890 is a great speaker and I tried the studio 590 to compare to it. The 890 was overall a better speaker and much better looking. Jbl has been great for many years and I believe the studio 698 is more comparable to the 890 in many ways. Very interested in your thoughts on these new Jbl.

Wow nice pics! And a nice collection of speakers. I remember those JBL my friend had speakers from that line.

I'm looking forward to giving you my impressions of these speakers

 

[TLS Guy]

If anyone can figure out a way to make them work it will be JBL. It will be fun to see maybe @shadyJ can chime in on the design decisions here. I'm curious I can see there are potential disadvantages to that 3 way design. Maybe some one with knowledge can chime in and give some insight on what advantages a 3 way design can give a horn loaded speaker like this?

The advantage is sales. The marketers know that in the publics mind three must be better than two.

The ONLY reason you add drivers is to keep drivers in their linear range, and operating out of cone break up range. Ideally there would be no crossover. Apart from that crossovers just add problems, especially time shifts and making the load more complex. Passive crossover are actually pretty crude devices, and the less the better. Active crossovers offer huge improvements but even then you don't want to use them gratuitously.

As far as these speakers are concerned it seems to me adding a mid is a gratuitous complication, and as I point out likely to add more problems than it solves. Since the 690 shows that those 8" drivers can be driven to cross to the horn, it suggest to me that adding a mid is unnecessary and meddlesome.

But you know three is better than two, to a marketer only smart enough to study that at college, or just wing it.

 

[Timforhifi]

The studio 698 has 2 8” bass drivers crossed at 320hz and a dedicated 6” mid playing 320-1.8khz. 690 has 2 8” drivers playing everything below 600hz and one 8” pulling double duty playing mids as well from 600-1.7khz.

I’d like to hear both but I’d prefer the 698. The 6” mid will have more focus and control. The 690 might be the more bass heavy speaker too depending on content.

The Jbl 890 is a 4 way speaker. 2 8” play everything up to 700hz. 4” mid plays 700-5khz. Titanium tweeter 5khz-20khz. 20k and above gets a 3/4” dome in an aluminum horn.

It’s more important to listen to the speakers than to look at specs though.

 

[shadyJ]

There may be some reasonable rationales for going 3-way in those speakers. Maybe the 8" just doesn't work as well near the crossover frequency, and the 6" is better behaved. Maybe the 6" works better for the type of controlled directivity they were looking for. We don't really know. A 2-way or 2.5-way might be more optimal, but I don't think a 3-way would necessarily be bad for this kind of speaker. 2.5-way is the route that JBL took with the higher-end HDI-3800, but those used different drivers. I would need more information before saying that a 3-way is just pure marketing here.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Personally I would like a large HF driver and dual 10” or dual 12” woofers.

But how they measure in the end is the salient thing (along with how they sound), right?

Dynamic (plays high SPL with less distortion) and accuracy (linear FR and other measurements) will put all this to rest.

 

[MrBoat]

JBL also engineers or manufactures their own drivers to a higher level of compatibility to start with, so it's not quite the same as having to source ultimately compatible 2nd or 3rd party drivers in bulk, within a set manufacturing budget and then torture them to play nice together after the fact, as many designs do. Is why so many of their budget designs end up performing beyond what they cost, seemingly defying cost/performance market trends, which is certainly the case with the 590 and others of that series.

What I like about JBL is that the much of the tradeoffs tend to be with not forcing us to buy otherwise superfluous (albeit very expensive) cabinet dressings and hardware. Many speakers have the performance/aesthetic standards somewhat backwards.

 

[Eppie]

I'm thinking someone here had a chance to listen to them, but maybe they were HDIs instead...I'm thinking it was @Eppie

Yes, that's correct, it was the HDI 3600 but the 698 borrows technology from the HDI series. The 3600 is more than twice the price of the 698 ($2090 vs $850 per single speaker on Crutchfield but currently on sale for $1463) so the 698 could be a good lower cost option.

EDIT: Didn't see at first that the 698 is a 3-way vs the 2.5 way of the HDI and 690. Guess we'll need to see some measurements to see how they compare.

 

[afterlife2]

I hope you like them. I just hooked up my 530s after a year in the box after a move and still love them.