ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: JBL VT4888 vs Clair i3  (Read 4883 times)

Jim McKeveny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1099
Re: JBL VT4888 vs Clair i3
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2019, 09:36:28 am »

High Backstage light pollution?  You can turn those screens off.  Or allow them to turn off after a minute of not using them.

If you want to find ways to discredit the iTechHD line, the idea of spending $500 a unit for an obsolete Cobranet chipset would be at the top of the list.

The Crown moniker brings a good deal of baggage. The brand extension that allows us to see the JBL logo on downmarket products hasn't impacted the operational value of JBL's top tier pro offerings. Near-edge engineering and innovation remains at the core. Sharp hires from L' Acoustics demonstrate this.

Myself and others with decades of pro-segment observation do not see the same in Crown. This is curious because Crown does not operate in the consumer sphere. We see Crown products as glossy and feature-driven, rather than as trusted, supported, "keeper" industrial products they need to be.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 09:47:10 am by Jim McKeveny »
Logged

Matthew Knischewsky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: JBL VT4888 vs Clair i3
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2019, 10:07:11 am »

The Crown moniker brings a good deal of baggage. The brand extension that allows us to see the JBL logo on downmarket products hasn't impacted the operational value of JBL's top tier pro offerings. Near-edge engineering and innovation remains at the core. Sharp hires from L' Acoustics demonstrate this.

Myself and others with decades of pro-segment observation do not see the same in Crown. This is curious because Crown does not operate in the consumer sphere. We see Crown products as glossy and feature-driven, rather than as trusted, supported, "keeper" industrial products they need to be.

This here is what we would call a good old fashioned difference of opinion. Your previous mention of the requirement of Crown amps for V5 processing was a welcome change IMO when that happened. And in a lot of other people's opinion as well.
Logged

Jim McKeveny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1099
Re: JBL VT4888 vs Clair i3
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2019, 07:40:37 am »

Despite their enhanced self-regard, the BE is not a big influencer regarding these decisions.

The requirement for Crown branded amps was a major pushback on the V5 protocol and VTX.  L' Acoustics and D&B seem to better balance amp cost & service life vs. features. In a networked system a color display on every amp is an unnecessary cost and distraction and point of failure. At a system demo, racks of high heat, high fan noise, high backstage light pollution, idling I-Tech HDs are a non-starter. Sound gear needs to work perfectly and be unseen.

Update:

Recently spent some hours at a thorough factory demo of JBL A8 rig hung next to a maintained & developed 4887/Lake/Lab rig. 6 deep each. My takeaway was that, aside from the (welcome) packaging and hardware evolution, sonic gain was incremental. To my ears and Smaart mics.

I had previously thrown shade at Crown, but the 3500's in V-Rack were a complete non-issue.
Logged

John Heinz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
    • Concert Quality Sound
Re: JBL VT4888 vs Clair i3
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2019, 10:05:34 am »

Hello gentleman
Were looking at getting a little array setup and locally we can get some 4888 but we thought Clair i3 may be also up our alley..
The cost difference is also a factor for us Canadians vs US DOLLAR. .unfortunately.
Any help or real world experience would be greatfull.
We will be looking at 6-8 boxes per side over time when were done building our system.
Thanks
John

As it relates to processing. I've heard the BSS London units will support V5 because of the installations that used the Crown CTS3000's for amps.

I agree while the VT4888 is not current, an engineer once said "nobody is mad at that box".  When powered with IT-HD and running V5, most will accept because it's a known value. I think there is a financial consideration when you think about the investment and what the market will bear for rentals.  How fast do you want to make the money back for reinvestment in current product? There is nothing wrong with a VT4888 "B" rig. Also keep in mind IT-HD's are 10 years old.

John Heinz
Concert Quality

John Heinz
Concert Quality
Logged

Raul Suarez

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
    • Third Ear Sound
Re: JBL VT4888 vs Clair i3
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2019, 05:59:28 pm »

Jim- did you walk the house front to back and listen to the phasing of the 4887 vs the A8? 

While we do not own 4887, we do have every other Vertec Box and the phase consistency of the A8 we feel is quite amazing.
Logged
Raul Suarez
General Manager
Third Ear Sound

Jim McKeveny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1099
Re: JBL VT4888 vs Clair i3
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2019, 10:37:46 am »

Jim- did you walk the house front to back and listen to the phasing of the 4887 vs the A8? 

While we do not own 4887, we do have every other Vertec Box and the phase consistency of the A8 we feel is quite amazing.

Raul-

If by "phasing" you mean comb-filtering over distance, the difference was there but subtle.  The short answer as to "Why?" being the tighter physical coupling/critical distances between transducer components. (Longer answer surely involves smart use of sharp & asymmetric FIR filtering). If that is what 15 years of sonic development sounds like, my hat is off to the original VT team.

(...And both rigs measured well, too. We did not measure the latency stack, but my guess is the older rig was "faster".)
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 11:08:19 am by Jim McKeveny »
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: JBL VT4888 vs Clair i3
« Reply #35 on: April 20, 2019, 10:37:46 am »


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.026 seconds with 22 queries.