JBL L100 Reincarnation

[Fitzcaraldo215]

JBL has reintroduced the L100 speaker with retro styling:

https://news.harman.com/releases/jb...dated-iconic-jbl-l100-loudspeaker-at-ces-2018

I do not have fond memories of that seriously flawed speaker, immensely popular though it was. One can only hope that they will do better this time.

 

[Wombat]

JBL has reintroduced the L100 speaker with retro styling:

https://news.harman.com/releases/jb...dated-iconic-jbl-l100-loudspeaker-at-ces-2018

I do not have fond memories of that seriously flawed speaker, immensely popular though it was. One can only hope that they will do better this time.

I purchased mine new with a Rotel 50W+50W amp. They sounded harsh. I promptly changed the Rotel for a Luxman 1050R 50W+50W receiver and was happy with them.
Keep in mind that they were studo monitors dressed in domestic clothing. They had 'punch' that was lacking in many boxes at the time. e.g. Kef Concertos.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

I do not have fond memories of that seriously flawed speaker, immensely popular though it was. One can only hope that they will do better this time.

I'm not hopefully that they can do $4000 worth of "better"..

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[RayDunzl]

I wonder in which of JBL's Sales Channels they will be buried.

Looks like they go into the Synthesis group.

http://www.jblsynthesis.com/syn-new...ed-iconic-jbl100-loudspeaker-at-ces-2018.html

That sux.

My local dealers:

http://www.avlpro.com/

http://www.easyliving.net/

I don't want a "solution" for my business or mansion or yacht... I'd just like to hear a pair of speakers.

Fuckit.

 

[Wombat]

SWMBO will still hate the grilles. Personal experience. No objection before marriage - and then ..... . Hey, the grilles were blue, not even orange.

 

[gvl]

The primitive crossovers in the original L100s was the reason for the harsh sound, there were a couple of crossover mods that were said to greatly improve the sound. My L100s are currently off duty waiting for me to find the time for the crossover mod.

 

[Dimitri]

Fuckit.

but wait....

"ABOUT HARMAN
HARMAN (harman.com) designs and engineers connected products and solutions for automakers, consumers, and enterprises worldwide, including connected car systems, audio and visual products, enterprise automation solutions; and services supporting the Internet of Things.� With leading brands including AKG®, Harman Kardon®, Infinity®, JBL®, Lexicon®, Mark Levinson® and Revel®, HARMAN is admired by audiophiles, musicians and the entertainment venues where they perform around the world. More than 50 million automobiles on the road today are equipped with HARMAN audio and connected car systems. Our software services power billions of mobile devices and systems that are connected, integrated and secure across all platforms, from work and home to car and mobile. HARMAN has a workforce of approximately 30,000 people across the Americas, Europe, and Asia. In March 2017, HARMAN became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
"

Not "real" JBL, not even "real" Harman. Ok, now go ahead!

 

[restorer-john]

...They had 'punch' that was lacking in many boxes at the time. e.g. Kef Concertos...

They certainly had punch alright. A punch to each eardrum by those hideous tweeters and a kick in the guts from the bass drivers. I guess for vinyl and rock in the 1970s, they were awesome. I first heard them as a young adult in the 80s on CD and it wasn't pretty.

I had a number of pairs but once I put them alongside my Sony SSG-333es speakers, they were totally outclassed and I got rid of them.

Have to agree on KEF concertos. I never got what the fuss was about- the B-139 'racetrack' driver was anemic IMO, the bextrene mid and the T27 was 'snappy and tizzy' IMO. That said, I always grabbed them from Opshops to sell off the parts- mainly because the cabinets had soaked up moisture like a weet-bix in many cases.

It seems Yamaha, JBL etc are just making 're-imaginings' of their glory-years products to appeal to the retiring, cashed-up boomers to burn their cash on.

 

[Wombat]

They certainly had punch alright. A punch to each eardrum by those hideous tweeters and a kick in the guts from the bass drivers. I guess for vinyl and rock in the 1970s, they were awesome. I first heard them as a young adult in the 80s on CD and it wasn't pretty.

I had a number of pairs but once I put them alongside my Sony SSG-333es speakers, they were totally outclassed and I got rid of them.

Have to agree on KEF concertos. I never got what the fuss was about- the B-139 'racetrack' driver was anemic IMO, the bextrene mid and the T27 was 'snappy and tizzy' IMO. That said, I always grabbed them from Opshops to sell off the parts- mainly because the cabinets had soaked up moisture like a weet-bix in many cases.

It seems Yamaha, JBL etc are just making 're-imaginings' of their glory-years products to appeal to the retiring, cashed-up boomers to burn their cash on.

The JBLs were good party speakers.

 

[restorer-john]

The JBLs were good party speakers.

What do they say about the 70s? If you remember it....

 

[Vintage57]

Heard them at Axpona, bright, boomy, everything that was true with the original design.

Pot will be legal in Canada in July, they may sell well here then.

 

[typericey]

Would anyone have insight on the more affordable ($2,500) monitor versions: the 4312SE and 4312G? Google can't seem to find any aside from press releases.

 

[napilopez]

I got these in for review a few days ago. I'm liking them a whole lot.

I have never heard the old L100s, but to me the Classics don't sound anything like what I've read about the originals. I wonder if some of the comments I've seen online tieing to the originals are influenced by expectations. No boominess or tizziness here. A really neutral presentation in my space, great dynamics, great imaging. Maybe a little forward in the upper mid, to give them a more engaging quality, but I haven't messed around with the knobs yet.

I don't know whether they're worth $4,000, but I guess that kind of depends on whether you're willing to pay four grand for passive speakers in the first place. The only thing I can really compare them to for the price are the B&W Formation Duo, which are a totally different beast, but so far I like these better. I'm also liking them more than the KEF R3 I just reviewed. They seem like a well designed, modern speaker with retro aesthetics. (But they sent me the orange grilles when I was gunning for the blue, how will I survive

Of course, this might all change with some time, but I can't remember my opinions of a speaker changing dramatically after the first day or two. I'll be running some measurements sometime soon, curious to see how they perform.

 

[Wombat]

I got these in for review a few days ago. I'm liking them a whole lot.

I have never heard the old L100s, but to me the Classics don't sound anything like what I've read about the originals. I wonder if some of the comments I've seen online tieing to the originals are influenced by expectations. No boominess or tizziness here. A really neutral presentation in my space, great dynamics, great imaging. Maybe a little forward in the upper mid, to give them a more engaging quality, but I haven't messed around with the knobs yet.

I don't know whether they're worth $4,000, but I guess that kind of depends on whether you're willing to pay four grand for passive speakers in the first place. The only thing I can really compare them to for the price are the B&W Formation Duo, which are a totally different beast, but so far I like these better. I'm also liking them more than the KEF R3 I just reviewed. They seem like a well designed, modern speaker with retro aesthetics. (But they sent me the orange grilles when I was gunning for the blue, how will I survive

Of course, this might all change with some time, but I can't remember my opinions of a speaker changing dramatically after the first day or two. I'll be running some measurements sometime soon, curious to see how they perform.

I went for the blue on the originals.

 

[watchnerd]

I have never heard the old L100s, but to me the Classics don't sound anything like what I've read about the originals.

Okay, audio memory is known to be incredibly faulty and unreliable for things people have actually heard way back when, but to think one has an assessment about what the Classics sound like versus the originals based only on what you've read from others seems to be a pretty bad logical leap for an audio reviewer.

I think it's better journalism to just say you don't know how they compare to the originals and leave it at that.

 

[gvl]

I have the originals, and they are forward in the upper mid so perhaps they wanted to preserve some of that character. I didn't find them boomy but they were in a big room when I listened to them.

 

[napilopez]

Okay, audio memory is known to be incredibly faulty and unreliable for things people have actually heard way back when, but to think one has an assessment about what the Classics sound like versus the originals based only on what you've read from others seems to be a pretty bad logical leap for an audio reviewer.

I think it's better journalism to just say you don't know how they compare to the originals and leave it at that.

I do see your point, but I feel I should emphasize that I did not say the Classics sound like the originals. I specifically said they don't sound like what I've read about the originals. Those and its early variants have been around for decades, so there's a solid collection of data points out about their sound. I've seen a fair share of measurements and read probably hundreds of impressions by now - all of which point to a 'quirky' speaker.

In just this short thread, the old ones have been described as "seriously flawed," "harsh," and a "kick in the guts," impressions I've seen echoed elsewhere. So I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say I'm not hearing such qualities in the L100 Classic. I think they sound like neutral speakers with a slightly forward upper midrange. I simply meant to imply the Classics shouldn't be immediately dismissed because people might expect them to sound like the old ones - or in my case, what they've read about the old ones.

(Also, my language on a forum will be more colorful than in an actual review).

 

[watchnerd]

I I specifically said they don't sound like what I've read about the originals.

Re-interpreting third party source material and the findings of others through a personal, subjective lens is a dangerous trap for a journalist (or a historian) and undermines objective credibility.

A more objective reportage would be something like:

Writers in the 1780 edition of The Farmer's Almanac reported that apples were "a crop best suited for making cider and vinegar, being too bitter to eat from the tree."

[i.e. we don't know if those apples were really bitter, since we weren't there and palates may have changed, or maybe the authors engaged in hyperbole to make a point, etc.]

We don't even definitively know if what we call "bitter" was the same taste in 1780.

Getting back to audio:

If perhaps one thinks I'm being pedantic, consider that middle A (now defined as 440 Hz), hasn't always been the same frequency and what we now consider to be 'in tune' would have been considered 'out of tune' once upon a time....in 1720, middle A was 380 Hz.