Your loudspeakers are too small!

[Sokel]

Yes.

You can't say "I like fast acceleration and going over 100mph on a racetrack" and then say that those are the reasons you bought a Model T. That's not expressing a subjective preference, it's demonstrating illogical thinking and willful stupidity.

For audio, that means someone can't say "I like the JBL L100/similar bass-lite Klipsch designs because they have deeper, more extended bass than the Devialet Phantom."

That is no longer expressing a subjective preference, but rather demonstrating that one is insane or lying to themselves and others.

Yes,that's what the "/secretknowlegde/other boring stuff" refers too,the suggestion that these people know/sense more that we mortals can't.
And it goes both ways.

 

[Sal1950]

Is there right and wrong in liking?
(except when people pretend to like or not to show class/elitism/secretknowlegde/other boring stuff)

Naw, really a bit of sarcasm. It's just that a statement like "the worst speaker I’d ever heard"
is a very strong position for a product coming from a company that normally attempts to build products
with some hard engineering background.
YMMV

 

[Mr. Widget]

Funny, in another thread I list the L300’s the worst speaker I’d ever heard. They permanently put me off JBL.

I can see that... maybe not worst, I would save that for something even worse. I have several on my short list.

My my my, they weren't that bad.
Thousands loved them.
So who's right?

Then there is that. I never heard a pair of L300s that really won me over, but I have heard their sonic equivalent— the pro studio monitor version, the 4333A sound surprisingly good. After years of not particularly caring for the L300 aesthetics or sound I heard the pro version set up properly by someone who knew what he was doing and I was blown away.

Even Nelson Pass thought the L300 was worth a visit. He spent some time with them and came up with a revised network for them. There are definitely many issues with them, but for a mid to late 70s speaker? They deserve their place.

 

[NiagaraPete]

Naw, really a bit of sarcasm. It's just that a statement like "the worst speaker I’d ever heard"
is a very strong position for a product coming from a company that normally attempts to build products
with some hard engineering background.
YMMV

I sold JBL through the 70 mid eighties. The JBL "L series" were all awful. Basic boom boxes with 1 note bass. Some people loved them though including a good buddy. The monitors from that era on the other hand were awesome.

 

[Waxx]

The L100 works well with the awfull looking front on it. The foam of the front makes the port resistive (so a bit aperiodic ported) and then it's not a one note boombox and relative flat, but with light bass. But most took it off and then he speaker does not work like designed, and it becomes a one note boombox. I don't know about the others (never heared them), but that surely works with the L100. If you don't want to see that ugly front, put a 2cm deep acoustic foam piece in the port, and it works like with the front on it. That's what we did when i was asked how to solve this by a friend who owns a pair...

 

[mhardy6647]

The L100 works well with the awfull looking front on it. The foam of the front makes the port resistive (so a bit aperiodic ported) and then it's not a one note boombox and relative flat, but with light bass. But most took it off and then he speaker does not work like designed, and it becomes a one note boombox. I don't know about the others (never heared them), but that surely works with the L100. If you don't want to see that ugly front, put a 2cm deep acoustic foam piece in the port, and it works like with the front on it. That's what we did when i was asked how to solve this by a friend who owns a pair...

Which, if it be the case, seems intriguing -- the studio monitor variants of the good ol' JBL "Century" were (AFAIK) sold and used sans grilles.

The original L100 almost but doesn't quite fit the optimal placement instructions that I like to share whenever anyone asks about Klipsch Heresys.
Face down on the floor is good -- in someone else's abode is even better.

 

[fpitas]

Well they’re loud but it’s the 1 note bass that separates them from a good speaker.

Could probably be saved with some judicious stuffing and a new crossover. But at that point the vintage element is disappearing fast.

 

[Mr. Widget]

The L100 works well with the awfull looking front on it. The foam of the front makes the port resistive (so a bit aperiodic ported) and then it's not a one note boombox and relative flat, but with light bass. But most took it off and then he speaker does not work like designed, and it becomes a one note boombox. I don't know about the others (never heared them), but that surely works with the L100. If you don't want to see that ugly front, put a 2cm deep acoustic foam piece in the port, and it works like with the front on it. That's what we did when i was asked how to solve this by a friend who owns a pair...

I like your idea, but I don't buy it.

I don't disagree that port stuffing would tame the intentional but sometimes annoying bass bump, but the grille is not sealed in that port and the resistance offered by the grille will have little effect other than to mess up the already lacking HF performance.

 

[fpitas]

Ironically, from what I recall reading, the bass problem with the L300 is that the box is too small.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Ironically, from what I recall reading, the bass problem with the L300 is that the box is too small.

Don't believe everything you read. The box is ~5cu ft which is about ideal. The cabinets are tuned to something like 34Hz which gives them a slight bass bump. Lowering the tuning to about 29Hz gives you a more linear response.

 

[mhardy6647]

The L300 is way better than the L100 in that respect (Cabinet volume, that is). EDIT: I think.
Heck, I kinda wouldn't mind havin' a pair of L300s.
Kinda.

 

[Inner Space]

The L300 is way better than the L100 in that respect (Cabinet volume, that is). EDIT: I think.
Heck, I kinda wouldn't mind havin' a pair of L300s.
Kinda.

I loved the L300 back in the day. In fact recently I found a piece of sheet music from 1975, where in the margin I had scribbled a dream-system wish-list, with the L300s as my dream choice. Today I use 4367s, I guess as a kind of spiritual successor.

 

[fpitas]

I loved the L300 back in the day. In fact recently I found a piece of sheet music from 1975, where in the margin I had scribbled a dream-system wish-list, with the L300s as my dream choice. Today I use 4367s, I guess as a kind of spiritual successor.

I think you ended up with a distinctly better speaker. No matter how cool the L300 looked.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I think you ended up with a distinctly better speaker. No matter how cool the L300 looked.

Definitely landed on a vastly better speaker!

Maybe I'm an outlier. I always preferred the cleanly chiseled edges of the L200 over the big rounded over edges of the L300s. To me the L200 is dated but classic, the L300 has an early 80s vibe that has always put me off and still does.

 

[fpitas]

Definitely landed on a vastly better speaker!

Maybe I'm an outlier. I always preferred the cleanly chiseled edges of the L200 over the big rounded over edges of the L300s. To me the L200 is dated but classic, the L300 has an early 80s vibe that has always put me off and still does.

View attachment 263117View attachment 263118

Each to his own, I guess. The chiseled edges got the diffraction rep, whether it actually makes a big difference in real life, or not.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Each to his own, I guess. The chiseled edges got the diffraction rep, whether it actually makes a big difference in real life, or not.

Diffraction is the least of either of these speakers' problems!

 

[MattHooper]

(I might have mentioned this before but..)

Both my Joseph Audio Perspective and Thiel 2.7 speakers are rated down to 35Hz.

However the Joseph is a significantly smaller, slimmer speaker, using two 5.5" SEAS drivers in a 2.5 arrangement. The Thiels are a 3 way design - coax with a 4.5" midrange and an 8" aluminum woofer (and passive radiator).

The perception of bass and scale from each is interesting. The Joseph speakers are made to pack as much "big sound" in to a small form factor. (Hence thin cabinet, long excursion drivers). They do sound remarkably big and rich for their size, with pretty deep bass and a nice sense of "punch" to the upper/lower bass. However they sound slightly miniaturized in sonic scale vs the Thiels. The Thiels seem just big enough to make the scale of orchestral instruments more convincing. Plus there is a sense of power and solidity to the bass in the Thiels that aren't quite there in the Joseph speakers. The sense of a really solid kick drum or bass guitar moving air. This is especially so when I listen to either speaker from outside the listening room (my computer room is a bit down the hall).
From outside the room the Joseph speakers sound a bit more weak, and seem to run out of steam faster as I crank the sound up. The Thiels still sound like bigger, more solid acoustic bass instruments are in that room, and don't seem to run out of impact as I crank up the volume.

So I find the Joseph speakers do a pretty convincing impression of bass depth when I'm in the sweet spot listening. I actually love the bass quality of the Joseph speakers - within it's limits it has a nice sort of texture and articulation - I can really hear the very distinct playing of a bass guitar so easily. And I think the design lets the port play a bit of a bigger role in the sound so kick drums have a bit of added "poof/oomph" that makes them quite fun and I "feel" the room pressure with each kick drum strike. But the Thiels do bass guitar and kick drums in a more focused way - so I don't sense that "puff of air/bass" with each hit so much as the bass stays put in super dense focused spot in the soundstage, but sounds more "solid" and with a bit more deeper bass rumble underneath.

My intuition is that I'm generally hearing some of the advantages of sheer cabinet/driver size with the Thiels - there's just a scale and acoustic presence over the Joseph speakers. This especially shows up when asked to play louder. (Why then have the Joseph speakers too? Because I find they are more suave and convincing in terms of rendering timbral detail, which I really love).

 

[Newman]

What's the purpose of the suspended speaker, a tweeter?

The unintended purpose is to maximise time misalignment and dispersion mismatch.

 

[Sal1950]

The original L100 almost but doesn't quite fit the optimal placement instructions that I like to share whenever anyone asks about Klipsch Heresys.
Face down on the floor is good -- in someone else's abode is even better.

BAH HUMBUG

 

[Newman]

That reminds me of Dr Sean Olive's comment that they assessed the sound of the Martin Logans in every position until they found the one that was preferred...outside the room, powered down.