Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Question about some old speakers...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question about some old speakers...

post #1 of 21
3/25/09 at 9:30pm
Thread Starter 
I recently came across a pair of old JBL J2050 that have been lying around in the parents attic now for about the last 10 years. I hooked them up to a seemingly just as old JVC R-x300 receiver and have found that they sound okay in the treble and higher frequencies, okay in the upper midrange. But vocals sound terribly recessed, and bass is pretty non existent. Anyone have any experience with either of those components able to comment on them? Is the problem likely with the speakers like I suspect? One thing though I don't know how much of an impact it would have is that I used 18 gauge wire as opposed to the 16 suggested in the manual (it was all I had lying around). However the speakers themselves are literally less than 3 feet apart with the receiver in between them.


Thanks
Reply
post #2 of 21
3/26/09 at 1:40am
They're an ok pair of speakers manufactured in the mid 90's. A little forward in the treble, but not harsh or bright. A dry sound signature with some muddiness in the upper bass. No deep bass to speak of, but were said to mate well with a sub-woofer.

You have them too close together. They're meant to be about 6 feet apart. 16 gauge cable will help, and 14 gauge is even better, for both the midrange and bass, but you're still not going to get a huge change in the sound signature.

Your weak link is the receiver. I actually picked up one of these from a Goodwill store for $5. a few years ago and kept it for two days before throwing it out. The JVC was a budget receiver from the late 80's. FWIR 15 watts per channel with no headroom. It's a little bright in the treble without detail, dull in the midrange and anemic in the bass.
Reply
post #3 of 21
3/26/09 at 1:51am
I have a pair of low end JBL 3 way floorstanders. They are fairly light on bass compared with the 2 pairs of english KEF speakers i also have. My understanding is that American speakers will have significantly less bass compared with English speakers. The JBL's sound best to me. The KEF's bass sounds overdone to me.

Maybe you could try blocking the port- not that it will increase the bass.

Jbl J2050 - AudioReview Forums
Reply
post #4 of 21
3/26/09 at 9:12pm
Thread Starter 
Parts Express:*Dayton DTA-1 Class T Digital Amplifier 15 WPC

Would the dayton T-amp be an improvement over my current receiver. It's not really practical right now to put my speakers further than 3 feet apart, as they sit on my desk, and its a small desk. And what would blocking the bass port really do for me? I've mentioned this in the past, but I've got a good few bestbuy gift cards lying around, about 50 dollars or so, would those insignia bookshelf speakers serve me better than these jbls? Are they near-field speakers?
Reply
post #5 of 21
3/29/09 at 7:26pm
Thread Starter 
bump...Anyone able to help me out?
Reply
post #6 of 21
3/30/09 at 5:42pm
Blocking the port will clear up some of the muddiness. This will come at the expense of less lower bass output and will make the speakers less efficient (require more amp power).

The Insignias are not near field monitors. The sound presentation overall is better balanced than the JBL's with more bass and better imaging. The downside is that to take advantage of this the Insignias should be on stands and spaced about 6 - 8 feet apart. Otherwise the JBL's would be on par with the Insignias.

The T-amp is much better than the JVC. If you like to play your music loud though, you may be in danger of "clipping" since it really will only output about 10 watts per channel into the JBL's or Insignias.

If you are forced to keep your speakers where they are, then my advice would be to forget about the JBL's or Insignias and get a pair of M-Audio AV40's or Audioengine A2's. These come with a built-in amp and are designed for near field operation. If you find that you still want more bass, you could add a subwoofer later.
Reply
post #7 of 21
4/2/09 at 12:03am
Thread Starter 
Yeah, these speakers are going to be used exclusively for nearfield listening. That said, the A2s are a bit expensive to me at $199, but I have always heard good things about them. How do the Av40s compare, or the Swan M10s (those are in a similar price range)

150ish max.
Reply
post #8 of 21
4/2/09 at 5:38am
They're all good speakers and I don't think you can go wrong with any of them. The Audioengines have the most powerful sound of the three.
You can probably find the Swans for about $110. and the M-Audios for about $135.
Between the Swans and the AV40's, I prefer the AV40's. However, I don't game or listen to movies through desktop speakers. Strictly for music I found them to be smoother, clearer and more accurate than the Swans. Obviously deep bass is missing (4" woofers), but you will get some down to about 70 hz.

If you will be using them for movies and gaming as well, you might prefer the Swans since they come with a subwoofer. However the difference in bass is not that great. The Swans would probably be a little better if you listen to lots of Hip Hop or Trance, but for everything else the M-Audios are better.

The Audioengines are better yet, but not hugely so. I like all three better than any of the Logitechs or the Klipsch ProMedia.
Reply
post #9 of 21
4/2/09 at 7:21am
nightowl, I'd love to know how "15W" suddenly means "no headroom", unless you're using all 15W as RMS, you have headroom, regardless of how much the amplifier is "hated"

I would suggest to the op to look at changing the speakers, before spending money on amplification in an attempt to "make the speakers something they aren't" (you could do better with an EQ, and save your money)
Reply
post #10 of 21
4/2/09 at 11:47am
I believe that particular receiver's power rating was a misleading 15 watts peak power, not continuous or true rms. At the time this amp was produced this was a common method of rating amps.
From my personal experience, this receiver had difficulty driving fairly efficient speakers of 89db spl at normal levels.
A lot of amps are rated for continuous operation, but have the capability of delivering more than double the rated output for short periods of time as required (e. g. transients in some classical pieces). My definition of headroom. Nad amps are an example. The JVC was incapable of doing this without clipping.
Even though you quoted the word hated (which I never used), I don't hate inanimate objects. I just don't believe in keeping things around that can't do the job I want them to.
The OP asked for an opinion on the T-amp and I gave it to him. I never suggested that he buy it and use it.
I believe I suggested to the OP that he change the speakers to ones better suited to his situation.
Reply
post #11 of 21
4/2/09 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightOwl View Post
I believe that particular receiver's power rating was a misleading 15 watts peak power, not continuous or true rms
oh in that case lets take the thing out in the desert and have our way with it


I positively HATE bogus specs

I was just thinking it was getting a bad rap for being JVC, and remembered my old JVC reciever, which is rated to 15wpc, and will easily knock your socks off with decently efficient speakers (90-95 dB/W/M, such as the ones it was purchased with )

sorry if that came off as "NO U"

cheers
Reply
post #12 of 21
4/2/09 at 12:06pm
No problem.
Reply
post #13 of 21
4/2/09 at 2:12pm
Thread Starter 
I can buy the swans for $90, so the question I need to ask is, are the M-audios worth an additional 60~ dollars? And the A2s an additional 110 dollars? I had always heard the "subwoofer" with the swans was more of a midwoofer type thing, where it really didn't go very low(I'm not looking for logitech home shaking bass, just something that sounds nice), is that true?
Reply
post #14 of 21
4/2/09 at 4:08pm
You are correct. The Swans' sub does not have a lot of impact.
If you are primarily going to listen to music then I personally think the M-Audios are worth the extra.
The A2's have a bit of a mid bass hump that gives the illusion of more bass and they're a little livelier sounding than the AV40's. The AV40's are more neutral and smoother, more of a monitor type of speaker and with a clearer midrange. The A2's are more exciting and more forward.
I prefer the A2's and AV40's over the Swans and could live with either one. If it's possible, try to listen to both with some of your favorite music and decide for yourself.
Reply
post #15 of 21
4/2/09 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkb2948 View Post
One thing though I don't know how much of an impact it would have is that I used 18 gauge wire as opposed to the 16 suggested in the manual (it was all I had lying around). However the speakers themselves are literally less than 3 feet apart with the receiver in between them.


Thanks
What is the max gauge they can accept? I remember when I updated from whatever I was using on my big floor-standers to 16-gauge radio shack cable and there was a big improvement in bass and clearer highs. And I wasn't even running anything over 2-3 meters worth of cable.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Question about some old speakers...