75 years of JBL: 75 years of Loud + Clear!

[Pulkass]

Was wondering what the opinion here is on the JBL L100 classic 75th anniversary does. They go for like 5000 euro a pair.

Horrible!!!

 

[Pulkass]

Was wondering what the opinion here is on the JBL L100 classic 75th anniversary does. They go for like 5000 euro a pair.

Horrible

What’s great about the Array 1400 is that it has better bass than the K2 and Everest because it was voiced for US homes.

How is the soft touch plastic holding up? That Array line would be incredible if it was brought back but had modern HDI horn and better soft touch plastic which doesn’t gum up. I had the Array 880 center which has the same compression drivers as your 1400.

I have the JBL S/2600 Baby Everest as my speaker for dynamics, but my Bose 901’s are incredibly musical and I am lucky enough to have the perfect room and seating positionS. I also have the 708P’s.

Greg Timbers was kicked out badly of JBL, years ago. He Just received the sacking letter, no thanks, no bye bye. After all he did for the Company! Shame.

 

[fredoamigo]

Greg Timbers was kicked out badly of JBL, years ago. He Just received the sacking letter, no thanks, no bye bye. After all he did for the Company! Shame

I had read that too, but as far as I know, he was close to retirement ... but of course, that doesn't excuse Harman from having acted brutally with this legendary designer ...

 

[GXAlan]

Horrible

Greg Timbers was kicked out badly of JBL, years ago. He Just received the sacking letter, no thanks, no bye bye. After all he did for the Company! Shame.

I think the one thing that Greg did well was make speakers that could be sold for $40-50,000. He was never against measurements or spinorama. He just put extra money into the vague-ish concept of “dynamics”, at the expense of what Revel group was doing in prioritizing the spin.

Today, we see monstrosities out there in the market which sell for well above what the Everest charges. I think it’s hard for Revel to make a speaker that stands out at $50-60k, when someone could find a used Salon2. The Revel customer is different from the “monstrosity” speaker customer.

As I think more about it, Greg’s successes were in an era of growth for the US audio market and then the Japanese bubble economy. Maybe the hifi market had collapsed to the point where the energy put into summit fi no longer justified his salary.

I think the best evidence of Greg’s genius is the Studio 590.

Here you have a speaker that measures weird, but sounds pretty good even to Amir’s ears. Amir appropriately says: “not worth it at $1000 each. Great bargain at $400 each.”

Here’s the thing. The Studio 5 keeps getting made and just when everyone thinks it’s finally out of stock for good, a new batch of them shows up for sale.

Harman isn’t losing money. They are making money even at $400.

Are there flaws in the speaker? Sure. We can measure them. Is it as good as Amir’s experience with more premium speakers? No. It uses JBL’s cheapest compression driver.

But does it sound pretty good? Yes. And at least for JBL’s bill of materials, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of the best speakers for that metric of all time.

I think it takes a person like Greg to say “hey, let me go with a cheaper compression driver and accept some peaky resonances and FR irregularity” if that means I can use more of my budget on the woofers and take the system efficiency up into the 90+ dB/W.

The other evidence I put out there is Amir’s own reviews of the XPL90, Array 880, and Studio 590. Every single review from Amir showcases the measurement irregularities but then ends with a genuine subjective impression of “these actually sound good!” and credit to Amir for always listening to them subjectively and sharing his opinion, even when it doesn’t make immediate sense from the numbers. He did that with the Wilson speakers too.

XPL 90 - 6.5” 2-way bookshelf 87 dB efficient with 400W rated power handling

Array 880 - 8” MTM center, 90 dB efficient with 200W power handling.

Studio 590 - 8” 2.5 way, 92 dB efficiency with 250W power handling.

Of course, Greg also made the JBL 4319 which didn’t do so well subjectively. That was 92 dB, 200W efficiency.

So at least for 75% of the speakers he made, Amir liked them too.

Someone should send in a restored pair of JBL L100’s or even better, the JBL L112.

 

[anmpr1]

Horrible

Greg Timbers was kicked out badly of JBL, years ago. He Just received the sacking letter, no thanks, no bye bye. After all he did for the Company! Shame.

Is that so different than working for any large company? At least he didn't read about it from a press release, as has sometimes been the case. There's no really good way to fire an employee. I've watched people escorted to their desks by security, with a box to gather their things. I wouldn't want to go through that. It's one reason why I never had any personal stuff in my office. Not that I was ever sacked, but if I was, I wanted to simply leave the building anonymously, like Elvis.

As far as the L100 New Edition? Overpriced for what you get. I understand they are stamped out in Malaysia somewhere. Should be half-price. If not less. If they were still made in LA, I could see the price as being more or less reflective of cost of doing business in the US.

Personally, before I'd buy something like that, if I wanted the historical JBL sound, and wanted to spend close to comparable dollars, I'd look for an L65 Jubal in mint condition, or that I could refinish. An under the radar pick, it has that vintage JBL sonic feng shui, yet is a bit more 'balanced' than the original L100/4311.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I think the best evidence of Greg’s genius is the Studio 590.


The other evidence I put out there is Amir’s own reviews of the XPL90, Array 880, and Studio 590. Every single review from Amir showcases the measurement irregularities but then ends with a genuine subjective impression of “these actually sound good!” and credit to Amir for always listening to them subjectively and sharing his opinion, even when it doesn’t make immediate sense from the numbers.

I've talked with him at length over the years and Greg actually enjoyed the challenge of designing the smaller less costly speakers more than a no holds barred statement speaker. Yes he has highly modified Everests in his home system and not Studio 590s because they are better, but from an intellectual challenge standpoint the more budget restricted designs were some of his favorite projects.

Regarding his dismissal, I have heard the back story and beyond being an insult to a man who spent decades with a company designing many of their best remembered speakers, it was a stupid loss for JBL, Harman, Samsung. But then in my opinion this is a company with no shortage of stupid decisions.

Someone should send in a restored pair of JBL L100’s...

No, no they really shouldn't. The speaker sounds like it measures. I think they are "fun" in the down memory lane sense and listening to '70s rock in a small room they are entertaining, but even back then there were so many speakers that were simply far superior.

 

[anmpr1]

...but even back then there were so many speakers that were simply far superior.

Can you give us a list of many? Or a few. From 1972.

 

[garyrc]

It was a stupid loss for JBL, Harman, Samsung.

Absolutely!

 

[garyrc]

Can you give us a list of many? Or a few. From 1972.

I can, but all much more expensive. My favorite of c. 1972 were JBL S8R, Bozak Concert Grand, Klipschorn -- all for different reasons.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Can you give us a list of many? Or a few. From 1972.

Even today speakers are largely a personal choice, but back then I would submit that loudspeakers had even more character, aka: were not transparent. Therefore the speakers that any one individual might have picked over a pair of L100s would have been dependent on what the listener was looking for.

The JBL 4310, which was the first version of the monitor that was to become the L100 was designed with a very forward midrange to mimic the sound of the Altec 604E monitors that were the de facto industry standard in the US. The goal was not the most accurate speaker, or the speaker with the most extended range, and certainly the polar response was not really considered. This gave the L100 an unusual and characteristic sound.

In no particular order here is a list of speakers that were available in 1972 that were arguably better in one or more ways than L100s. Some cost more than L100s and others cost less.

AR3a
ESS AMT1
Tannoy Monitor Gold
BBC designed LS3/5a
KLH9
Quad ESL 57

 

[Pulkass]

The problem Is bracing, JBL made big boxes with absolutely no bracing or inner cabinet treating. Deadening and de coupling. MOST of loudspeaker builders still do. So cheap not even putting a silicon gasket. JBL was so cheap too look at their x overs, full of by pass electrolitics, l threw my l 100 t away. I built my ultimate behemots finally in 2002, compared ti the l 100t s It was like the JBL were behind a mattress. Everest and K2 are not. But Who can afford them? JBL had a beautiful image in the 70s we all

Even today speakers are largely a personal choice, but back then I would submit that loudspeakers had even more character, aka: were not transparent. Therefore the speakers that any one individual might have picked over a pair of L100s would have been dependent on what the listener was looking for.

The JBL 4310, which was the first version of the monitor that was to become the L100 was designed with a very forward midrange to mimic the sound of the Altec 604E monitors that were the de facto industry standard in the US. The goal was not the most accurate speaker, or the speaker with the most extended range, and certainly the polar response was not really considered. This gave the L100 an unusual and characteristic sound.

In no particular order here is a list of speakers that were available in 1972 that were arguably better in one or more ways than L100s. Some cost more than L100s and others cost less.

AR3a
ESS AMT1
Tannoy Monitor Gold
BBC designed LS3/5a
KLH9
Quad ESL 57

Absolutely agree.
,

 

[Pulkass]

I think the one thing that Greg did well was make speakers that could be sold for $40-50,000. He was never against measurements or spinorama. He just put extra money into the vague-ish concept of “dynamics”, at the expense of what Revel group was doing in prioritizing the spin.

Today, we see monstrosities out there in the market which sell for well above what the Everest charges. I think it’s hard for Revel to make a speaker that stands out at $50-60k, when someone could find a used Salon2. The Revel customer is different from the “monstrosity” speaker customer.

As I think more about it, Greg’s successes were in an era of growth for the US audio market and then the Japanese bubble economy. Maybe the hifi market had collapsed to the point where the energy put into summit fi no longer justified his salary.

I think the best evidence of Greg’s genius is the Studio 590.

Here you have a speaker that measures weird, but sounds pretty good even to Amir’s ears. Amir appropriately says: “not worth it at $1000 each. Great bargain at $400 each.”

Here’s the thing. The Studio 5 keeps getting made and just when everyone thinks it’s finally out of stock for good, a new batch of them shows up for sale.

Harman isn’t losing money. They are making money even at $400.

Are there flaws in the speaker? Sure. We can measure them. Is it as good as Amir’s experience with more premium speakers? No. It uses JBL’s cheapest compression driver.

But does it sound pretty good? Yes. And at least for JBL’s bill of materials, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of the best speakers for that metric of all time.

I think it takes a person like Greg to say “hey, let me go with a cheaper compression driver and accept some peaky resonances and FR irregularity” if that means I can use more of my budget on the woofers and take the system efficiency up into the 90+ dB/W.

The other evidence I put out there is Amir’s own reviews of the XPL90, Array 880, and Studio 590. Every single review from Amir showcases the measurement irregularities but then ends with a genuine subjective impression of “these actually sound good!” and credit to Amir for always listening to them subjectively and sharing his opinion, even when it doesn’t make immediate sense from the numbers. He did that with the Wilson speakers too.

XPL 90 - 6.5” 2-way bookshelf 87 dB efficient with 400W rated power handling

Array 880 - 8” MTM center, 90 dB efficient with 200W power handling.

Studio 590 - 8” 2.5 way, 92 dB efficiency with 250W power handling.

Of course, Greg also made the JBL 4319 which didn’t do so well subjectively. That was 92 dB, 200W efficiency.

So at least for 75% of the speakers he made, Amir liked them too.

Someone should send in a restored pair of JBL L100’s or even better, the JBL L112.

I love (d) JBL early 70 s and on, later having bought l 100 T s I discovered they were boom boxes, no bracing, up the volume and everything was blurred, tweeter suffered a lot from the huge vibrations, later on I bought the L 890 another misery. No bracing, no de coupling, a shameful x over full of by pass electrolitics.

 

[anmpr1]

I can, but all much more expensive. My favorite of c. 1972 were JBL S8R, Bozak Concert Grand, Klipschorn -- all for different reasons.

Nice list. One thing we have to keep in mind when discussing legacy products is avoiding anachronism. I sometimes come across it, when folks mention popular loudspeakers from fifty or sixty years ago--comparing what was available back then with their current expectation of what now constitutes a 'good' loudspeaker, in their opinion.

From my memory (FWIW) of slumming the hi-fi shops back then, and at popular price points, you had basically two designs, each wrapped in a box (acoustic suspension AR/KLH types, and the 'West Coast' JBL ported variety). Sounding night and day different. Some preferred one or the other, but usually not both. Alternately, you had 'out of the box' designs, such as variations on the Bose reflecting idea. Totally different sonically from the other two. Of course you had (usually) more expensive types, such as 'theater' type horn loaded loudspeakers, along with a few 'exotics', like the Quad and KLH Nine.

For their part, NY company Rectilinear attempted to cover most of the bases in their large design--neutral/transparant like Quad, ability to play loud with less amplifier power (like the JBL), and a more natural bass, but not 'closed in or muffled' like the AR. One of their ads showed a grizzly rocker coming out of a JBL, twice as large as when he went in the box. Next, a symphony conductor going into the box life-size, but coming out of the AR as a diminuative munchkin. Very funny. Interestingly, that cartoon drawn ad showed the Quad and Walsh omni, saying those had advantages, but then asking the important question (paraphrasing), "Are you willing to take a chance with an exotic? And will you be the first on your block to buy an electric car...?)!

Other outlier designs--all with their own plusses and minuses. A few years later the 'open baffle' Dahlquist was different from all of them, for better or worse. Omnis made a splash, probably the most popular or well-known being Ohm. I remember one design (Design Acoustics) shaped something like a dodecahedron. with a driver on each of the many sides.

 

[Neddy]

Even today speakers are largely a personal choice, but back then I would submit that loudspeakers had even more character, aka: were not transparent. Therefore the speakers that any one individual might have picked over a pair of L100s would have been dependent on what the listener was looking for.

The JBL 4310, which was the first version of the monitor that was to become the L100 was designed with a very forward midrange to mimic the sound of the Altec 604E monitors that were the de facto industry standard in the US. The goal was not the most accurate speaker, or the speaker with the most extended range, and certainly the polar response was not really considered. This gave the L100 an unusual and characteristic sound.

In no particular order here is a list of speakers that were available in 1972 that were arguably better in one or more ways than L100s. Some cost more than L100s and others cost less.

AR3a
ESS AMT1
Tannoy Monitor Gold
BBC designed LS3/5a
KLH9
Quad ESL 57

From my personal experience, at the time, I'd add the L200s to that list.
(I liked the Quads (bass shy), the KLHs were a bit 'dull' (Advent like, as the AR3a's), never heard the ESS's or Tannoys)

I spent months and months comparing JBLs and other brands, and from other stores, with the help from a pretty advanced hifi shop (all about measurements - sound familiar?) who had an EE AES Prof as a 'consultant'.

I had started (college) with a brand new set of Advents, and pretty quickly replaced them with JBL Decades, but soon found them wanting.

Then the JBL L200 entered my consciousness, and was largely amazed at them - aside from boomy bass.
Also, the dealership - also a pro sound house - told me about the (then new) 077 supertweeter and xover that would be an easy upgrade, and the JBL factory rep specifically recommended it. (They put me on speakerphone with the JBL engineer in California to discuss.

I never cared (really, at all) for the L100, so was looking for more 'presence' and better power handling and dynamics, so the L200s, with their elegant mid- century modern, very well crafted (as I found out later when I tried to clone one!) walnut cabinetry were only a 'slight' increase in cost

I'd just finished paying off my first brand new car (Datsun 510, $2800) so simply had the bank extend that loan to cover the speakers ($670 I think...each, maybe? I have the receipt somewhere still).
As soon as that was paid off, I bought the 3-way upgrade kit and had them install it, which was a significant improvement in MF/HF range and tonality.

About then, the L300 was announced, and tho it annoyed me a bit, I didn't care as much for the cabinet design, and argued that the 3 way L200 was not much different (bass was significantly better - but still far from perfect - in the L300, but it was also a lot more expensive, and I wasn't about to trade them in at a huge loss for such a minor improvements.)

The fact is, there just weren't a lot of really good choices for great bookshelf speakers, back then (well, many , of course for typical college LOUD rock n roll fans): Klipsch and a few others made larger, and roughly comparable, models to JBL offerings, and a few others (that motion sensor controlled philips speaker really blew me away - but was very expensive - otherwise would have been a fine choice).
So, 'the great 70s' bookshelf speakers, were just not that great, at all, in any way - in my opinion.

I spent 30 years trying to 'fix' the boomy bass drivers in those L200s, but I have to say they are durable - I bought some replacements at one point, and both sets sill work!
But the true magic of the L200s capability didn't really come together until the 4367's 2216ND-1 became available.
(The L200s L15Bs were the original 2216s in the Pro line.)
I took a risk, and boy did that turn out well - call them 4367/L300 hybrids or whatever, but the 'just drop in' combo works like crazy good.

I disconected the (horrible) original LX-16 two way crossover, and simply bi-amped them with the (L300) JBL xover managing the MF/HF, and the woofer taken care of by a Venu 360 implementing mostly the 2216ND M2 settings as described elsewhere.
Months of REW tests got me to the conclusion, that, kind of 'as expected' (hoped) the L200 cabinet dimensions were within a few CCs of the 4367, as were the (dual) ports, and pretty quickly was getting 20hz-20khz +/- 3db flat response out of them.
That was, what, nearly 10 years ago now, and I haven't even been tempted to make any further changes (well, a better electronic xover is a 'may never know' temptation, esp since the main DAC is the Okto8.)

L200s for some reason had a terrible 'reputation' even at the time -not sure why so many haters came out of the closets - but they sure sold like crazy in the US, with some going into clubs, etc, but the things still show up for sale in somewhat decent condition - not something you see from other manufactures of 50 yr old speakers much.

As for cabinetry, I suppose additional bracing might improve things a bit, but really not so much it matters to me (I did consider adding more as well as may other 'tricks' offered up).

Fact is, the quality of JBLs cabinetry shop was second to none - wonder how far JBL was from the Charles/Ray Eames shops at the time??
When I (stupidly) thought I'd 'clone' one of those cabinets to use as 19" rack, it took me MONTHS to figure out exactly how they managed all those nearly invisible trim and other angles on it - and much scrap lumber!! It worked in the end, but wasn't really 'worth' the effort comapred to a well made commercial rack (well, it is a nice disguise).

The darned things have wowed me (esp since the ND1 upgrades) for decades, and still take my breath away.

Yes, I have newer speakers, IN8s, LS305s, etc...but as 'fine' as those are (the 305s and similar are remarkable for the price, but NOT theatre good), the older JBLS just have dynamics still hard to match.

Weirdly the 'best' "new" speaker I've added 'recently' is a pair of the plastic cabinet L25 Primas - they sound amazing, esp for TV use now. (I volume match compared all three, and the Primas were my favorite - mostly for wider and more even dispersion, ideal for TV use).
Strange, bc I never cared much for the L26 Decades, and these are supposed to be the same drivers - maybe something to the 'special acoustic' plastics they were made from.

Gah. Enough gab.

Loud n Clear, Indeed!!

 

[Mr. Widget]

Then the JBL L200 entered my consciousness, and was largely amazed at them - aside from boomy bass.

I spent 30 years trying to 'fix' the boomy bass drivers in those L200s, but I have to say they are durable - I bought some replacements at one point, and both sets sill work!
But the true magic of the L200s capability didn't really come together until the 4367's 2216ND-1 became available.

Big grin here... I fell in love with the L200s the first time I saw a pair and have quietly longed for a pristine pair for years.

As you pointed out the original L200 had a pretty boomy woofer and weak highs above about 12kHz. Adding the 077 with an appropriate network and the 2216Nd-1 will go a long way towards correcting the original sins.

The L200B had a more sophisticated crossover which suppressed the mids to in-effect coax a bit more HF from the LE85 compression drivers and it had the far superior 136A woofers, but neither of these improvements remotely approach what you have done. FWIW: I am with you on the aesthetics. I was never a fan of the L300.

There are two things you could still do to "improve" your L200s. Add a bit of additional cabinet bracing. The L200 is made of 3/4" particle board with minimal bracing, and the fairly large panels will definitely add some coloration. The second improvement is to add the longer H92 or pro version the 2212 horn... but both improvements require a fair amount of cabinet work and will only give you a modest improvement.

 

[fpitas]

I spent 30 years trying to 'fix' the boomy bass drivers in those L200s

A little secret is that you can indeed stuff bass reflex to tame it somewhat:

Volume filling a reflex box

Volume filling a reflex box - tests and measurements showing how correct filling can improve performance

sound-au.com

 

[Sal1950]

From my memory (FWIW) of slumming the hi-fi shops back then, and at popular price points, you had basically two designs, each wrapped in a box (acoustic suspension AR/KLH types, and the 'West Coast' JBL ported variety). Sounding night and day different.

For sure, we had "rock" speakers and "classical" lovers speakers. LOL
A huge generalization, but not far from the truth.
Back around 1974 at Pacific Stereo I found a set of AS speakers I liked from a company called Micro-Acoustics, a firm that had
some traction back then. Interesting design for wide dispersion using either 3 or 5 tweeters depending on price. They rocked good enough to get me in trouble with the neighbors while me and the first wife moved between a couple of different rented apartments. By 1979 we had bought a house, we got a divorce and she took the speakers and the rest of the gear. But I kept
the house and replaced them with a pair of new Klipsch La Scala's. Never looked back for the next 32 years.

 

[anmpr1]

In no particular order here is a list of speakers that were available in 1972 that were arguably better in one or more ways than L100s.
ESS AMT1
Quad ESL 57

Both the LS3/5a and Quad were highly regarded, but had very limited US distribution in those early days.

AFAIK the first US introduction of the Quad brand was via a boutique audio store owner in Philly who acted as an independent importer (Quad II electronics and the loudspeaker). This was in 1961 or so. From '64 through 1967 Quad ran ads in Audio, but didn't list any dealers, asking that you write to England for information. Around 1970 a NY operation called Harmony House imported Quad gear for a few years. Next, Acoustical Manufacturing started directly importing through a dealer network. \

On vacation in 1977 I picked up a 33/405 amp in a London shop and had it dropped shipped to my US address, avoiding VAT. But even in the late '70s Quad was pretty rare unless you lived in a larger metro area.

I'm thinking the AMT speaker come out a little later than '72. But around then for sure. First I heard one was 1974. So they must have been out earlier than that.

Here's a bit of trivia: before marketing the AMT-1 loudspeaker, Electrostatic Sound Systems (out of Sacramento) sold Quads as a stacked pair (two panels on each side) with an add on HF electrostatic tweeter and LF commode for the bass--six or seven years before the Levinson HQD. Below is a from the September 1971 Audio back classifieds.

 

[Neddy]

Big grin here... I fell in love with the L200s the first time I saw a pair and have quietly longed for a pristine pair for years.

As you pointed out the original L200 had a pretty boomy woofer and weak highs above about 12kHz. Adding the 077 with an appropriate network and the 2216Nd-1 will go a long way towards correcting the original sins.

The L200B had a more sophisticated crossover which suppressed the mids to in-effect coax a bit more HF from the LE85 compression drivers and it had the far superior 136A woofers, but neither of these improvements remotely approach what you have done. FWIW: I am with you on the aesthetics. I was never a fan of the L300.

There are two things you could still do to "improve" your L200s. Add a bit of additional cabinet bracing. The L200 is made of 3/4" particle board with minimal bracing, and the fairly large panels will definitely add some coloration. The second improvement is to add the longer H92 or pro version the 2212 horn... but both improvements require a fair amount of cabinet work and will only give you a modest improvement.

Yes, these have ended up becoming like my pet turtles - long lived & sturdy, tho slow to change!
I've been watching Sebackmans DIY 4367s with great interest, as well as 2450 and associated waveguides, though I'm afraid I may be too long in the tooth now for any more modifications. I'm not afraid to cut into them, but hauling them in and out of the shop takes more grunt that I've got left!!
At this point I'm not highly motivated to tweek further.

I noticed when I was building the 19" rack variant that (even tho slightly less wide) they seemed a bit less rigid than I'd expected (but, had no back, so not too surprising!), and added lots of angle plates and an additional shelf to totally prevent racking - and booming, tho that was not a concern for a rack!

When I decided to take the chance on the ND1s, I expected to get really deep into speaker box design/tuning weeds with endless measurements, port tuning and (amateur) opinions, tweeks, and so forth, and thought of adding struts...but when I got such remarkable REW measurements, I kind of lost interest - they just sounded so darn good and measured so well w/o any fuss!! Still pretty amazed by that.
Almost like someone at JBL remembered the 'lost and lousy' original 2216s and just had to 'make it right'!!!
(Oh, and the 'boominess' was apparently not a characteristic of the cabinet; the L200Bs were not as bad, and the ND1s completely eliminated it, so it must have been the woofers themselves.)

Better active or passive LF crossovers than the Venu360, sure, but even that has features that argue against 'losing' it (dynamic clipping protection, for example).

Some (now old, several newer amps now) photos again:

 

[Mr. Widget]

I'm thinking the AMT speaker come out a little later than '72. But around then for sure. First I heard one was 1974. So they must have been out earlier than that.

You may be right. I just asked a friend of mine who designed speakers at ESS starting in 1976. (He designed their first passive radiator alignments among other things.) He thinks the AMT1 came out in 1973.