JBL L100 Reissue - $4000

[FrantzM]

The maddening aspect of all this « hard », « harsh » sounding descriptions is that audiophiles have taken to describe sonic impressions based on material characteristics that have nothing to do with sounds. Tubes are warm sounding, copper cables are warmer than silver cables, solid state are dry (solid = dry, I guess), digital sound like steps etc ... Silk tweeter are soft and always better than metal domes. It’s no wonder that in their world view Beryllium would sound hard, stiff, rigid even « toxic »

 

[Xulonn]

But then what else would subjective reviewers have to write about?

Perhaps they could write about the effect of Hurricane Dorian on interconnects?

(You ready for the big event on Sunday, Sal?)

 

[ahofer]

The maddening aspect of all this « hard », « harsh » sounding descriptions is that audiophiles have taken to describe sonic impressions based on material characteristics that have nothing to do with sounds. Tubes are warm sounding, copper cables are warmer than silver cables, solid state are dry (solid= dry I guess), digital sound like steps etc ... Silk tweeter are soft and always better than metal domes. It’s no wonder that in their world view Beryllium would sound hard, stiff, rigid even « toxic »

Good lord, what would Teo Audio’s thermometer-innards cable sound like?

 

[Sal1950]

(You ready for the big event on Sunday, Sal?)

Yea, we got the sandbagged lawn chairs and propane grills all set for another good hurricane party.

 

[anmpr1]

I completely agree. The harshness people complain about is in the frequency region where the mid unit is breaking up and can't be anything to do with tweeter material at all.

For a while I replaced my LE-25 paper tweeters with the 035Ti titanium, which was the service bulletin (4/94) recommendation, as the LE-20/25 was no longer made. The 035Ti was relatively flat out to 20KHz, whereas the original paper tweeter showed a peak at 10KHz, dropping off in the HF, down about 10dB at 18KHz, with nothing appreciable after that.

Regarding the NS 1000 Yamaha, the link goes to some interesting observations/measurements from Troels Gravesen:

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Yamaha-NS1000.htm

 

[Xulonn]

Regarding the NS 1000 Yamaha, the link goes to some interesting observations/measurements from Troels Gravesen:

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Yamaha-NS1000.htm

Thanks for the link.

Those guys not only know loudspeaker technology, but also how to design a truly excellent technical webpage.

 

[Frank Dernie]

For a while I replaced my LE-25 paper tweeters with the 035Ti titanium, which was the service bulletin (4/94) recommendation, as the LE-20/25 was no longer made. The 035Ti was relatively flat out to 20KHz, whereas the original paper tweeter showed a peak at 10KHz, dropping off in the HF, down about 10dB at 18KHz, with nothing appreciable after that.

Regarding the NS 1000 Yamaha, the link goes to some interesting observations/measurements from Troels Gravesen:

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Yamaha-NS1000.htm

I toyed with the idea of doing this update kit, but I have had mine for decades now and I still love them so I haven’t. They have the bare wire clips for speaker connection which ages them a bit.
They were my main system for many years driven by a Hafler 110 (?) preamp and DH220 amp I built from kits with a Technics SP10 TT with SME arm and Ortofon cartridge.
I “upgraded” in 1989 when I got a better salary but never sold them, though the Sonus Fabre Extremas and Apogee Divas that came next went when I got my current main speakers around 1997.

 

[anmpr1]

Thanks for the link.

Those guys not only know loudspeaker technology, but also how to design a truly excellent technical webpage.

The site is borderline tweako (tubes, special caps, etc.) coupled with hard measurements. His speaker evaluations appear thorough, and I'm sure the mods are well thought out. But I am not really sold on taking something like an L100 and modding it out. I'm sure the end result is a more 'modern' sounding (and in that respect 'better') speaker, but why not just get a newer item from the get-go?

Aesthetically, and with a bit of nostalgic reverence, I think there is something to be said for keeping a 'classic' a classic. That's why I kept my L100 an L100. If I was fortunate enough to own an NS-1000 the last thing I'd do is mod the crossover. But that's just me.

 

[napilopez]

I finally got around to writing my review of the L100 Classic. Thought I'd share my measurements here as I can talk in a bit more detail to my results, and I've only seen one other measurement with off axis data.

As usual, I take measurements towards the end of my review process. My subjective impressions are much the same as when I first tried them in the summer: I think they are some of my favorite speakers I've heard at home. Excellent soundstage, dynamics, vocals, detail, etc.

I do think they are pricey at $4,000. At $3,000 they probably would have had many more buyers and caught the attention of more young audiophiles. Alternatively, I'd love to see a speaker like this with an active design to really take advantage of that woofer. It's weird to have something far smaller like Bowers Formation Duo dig muchdeeper into the bass at normal listening levels.

Still these are probably my favorite passive speakers I've reviewed so far, and I'd likely purchase them for myself if I had the $4,000 lying around.

Okay, graphs time. Not sure they fully back up my subjective impressions, but it's fun to compare.

JBL told me the L100 Classic are meant to measure flattest anechoically with knobs at the default 0-degree setting. JBL's engineers are obviously smarter than me and are working with much more data, but after much fiddling, I found I preferred the speaker with the 'highs' knob set to max and the 'mids' knob halfway from default to max. To my eye that setting looks flatter, but that could be up for interpretation.

First, here's the response with the grille off and knobs set to their default (white) and max (blue) values. In orange is the speaker with the grille on and knobs at default. The grill causes a deeper dip at 3.5khz and a 1-2 dB overall treble reduction beyond 2kkz - easily compensated by the knobs. By the way, note the Y-axis is in 5 dB intervals, not 10.

Now here is the response with knobs set to max mids and minimum highs and vice versa:

Can't really imagine why anyone would use the lower extremes, but hey, it's still nice to have some basic tone controls on a passive speaker. I guess you can turn down the mids knob if you want a V shape for the bass to really stand out. Perhaps you'd want that if you're throwing a party?

Now here's the horizontal response from 0-75 degrees off-axis, centered on the tweeter, which itself is off-center on the speaker's baffle, leading to somewhat different results for the left and right side of the speaker:

The listening window is the average of 0 degrees, +/- 15 and 30 degrees horizontal, and +/- 10 degrees vertical. Kind of a mishmash of Harman and NRC's.

And lastly here are the vertical results from 0 to 30 degrees above and below the tweeter:

Some thoughts:

Was glad to see my measurements lined up with the few others I've seen. At first glance, the response looks pretty okay, and within a +/- 3dB window, and changing pretty smoothly off-axis, but certainly not the flattest passive speaker I've measured (that honor goes to the KEF R3). But there are some interesting things to point out.

The two most notable features are the peaks at 5k and 2k. Though on axis, 5k the peak looks pretty bad, JBL's recommendation is to not toe in the speakers unless they are very far apart. We can see from the horizontal response that by the time we reach 30 degrees off axis, the peak has largely flattened out.

The 2K peak is a bit more interesting because it's consistent throughout the off-axis measurements, yet I generally didn't notice it in listening beyond perhaps a slightly forward quality to vocals. However, we know that in a typical stereo setup there will be a dip right around this frequency when seated in the 'sweet spot'. See Toole's book, figure 7.2, let me know if it's not okay to reproduce the image here:



Considering these speakers are aimed at the stereo-loving audiophile who is finicky about positioning, it seems to me that having a boost in this region makes sense. Perhaps I'm rationalizing my subjective impressions, but I wouldn't be surprised if this peak were at least partially on purpose. Whether it's too much is another matter, but again, I thought vocals were a standout with this speaker, and I noted dialogue intelligibility was excellent in my home theater setup. I don't use a center speaker, so I normally use my receiver's dialogue boost function with other speakers, but didn't find it necessary here.

I'll let you make of the measurements what you will. Either way, I really enjoyed my time with the speakers and was quite sad to have to send them back! Although that's partly because packing them back up was a pain. JBL has no right to call this 60-pound beast a 'bookshelf' speaker

P.S. I did take nearfield measurements to splice on the low-end, but I'm still working to make sure I'm doing the woofer and summations right before sharing.

 

[watchnerd]

I finally got around to writing my review of the L100 Classic and taking measurements. Thought I'd share those here as I can talk in a bit more detail to my results, and I've only seen one other measurement with off axis data.

As usual, I take measurements until the end of my review process. My subjective impressions are much the same as when I first tried them: I think they are some of my favorite speakers I've heard at home. Excellent soundstage, dynamics, and vocals, detail.

I do think they are pricey at $4,000. At $3,000 they probably would have had many more buyers and caught the attention of more young audiophiles. Alternatively, I'd love to see a speaker like this with an active design to really take advantage of that woofer. It's weird to have something far smaller like Bowers Formation Duo dig muchdeeper into the bass at normal listening levels.

Still these are probably my favorite passive speakers I've reviewed so far, and I'd likely purchase them myself if I had the $4,000 lying around.

Okay, graphs time. Not sure they fully back up my subjective impressions, but it's fun to compare.

JBL told me they are meant to measure flattest anechoically with knobs at the default 0-degree setting. While JBL's engineers are obviously smarter than me and are working with much more data, after much fiddling, I found I preferred the speaker with the 'highs' knob set to max and the 'mids' knob halfway from default to max. To my eye that setting looks flatter, but who knows.

First, here's the response with the grille off and knobs set to their default (white) and max (blue) values. In orange is the speaker with the grille on and knobs at default. The grill causes a deeper dip at 3.5khz and a 1-2 dB overall treble reduction beyond 2kkz - easily compensated by the knobs. By the way, note the Y-axis is in 5 dB intervals, not 10.


View attachment 36694

Now here is the response with knobs set to max mids and minimum highs and vice versa:

View attachment 36695

Can't really imagine why anyone would use the lower extremes, but hey it's still nice to have some basic tone controls on a passive speaker. I guess you can turn down the mids knob if you want a V shape for the bass to really stand out. Maybe you're throwing a party, idk.

Now here's the horizontal response from 0-75 degrees off-axis, centered on the tweeter, which itself is off-center on the speaker's baffle, leading to somewhat different results for the left and right side of the speaker:

View attachment 36696

The listening window is the average of 0 degrees, +/- 15 and 30 degrees horizontal, and +/- 10 degrees vertical. Kind of a mishmash of Harman and NRC's.

And lastly here are the vertical results from 0 to 30 degrees above and below the tweeter:

View attachment 36697

Some thoughts:

Was glad to see my measurements lined up with the few others I've seen. At first glance, the response looks pretty okay, and within a +/- 3dB window, but certainly not the flattest passive speaker I've measured (that honor goes to the KEF R3). But there are some interesting things to point out.

The two most notable features are the peaks at 5k and 2k. Though on axis, 5k the peak looks pretty bad, JBL's recommendation is to not toe in the speakers unless they are very far apart. We can see from the horizontal response that by the time we reach 30 degrees off axis, the peak has largely flattened out.

The 2K peak is a bit more interesting because it's consistent throughout the off-axis measurements, yet I generally didn't notice it in listening beyond perhaps a slightly forward quality to vocals. However, we know that in a typical stereo setup there will be a dip right around this frequency when seated in the 'sweet spot'. See Toole's book, figure 7.2, let me know if it's not okay to reproduce the image here:

View attachment 36698

Considering these speakers are aimed at the stereo-loving audiophile who is finicky about positioning, it seems to me that having a boost in this region makes sense. Perhaps I'm rationalizing my subjective impressions, but I wouldn't be surprised if this peak were at least partially on purpose. Whether it's too much is another matter, but again, I thought vocals were a standout with this speaker, and I noted dialogue intelligibility was excellent in my home theater setup. I don't use a center speaker, so I normally use my receiver's dialogue boost function with other speakers, but didn't find it necessary here.

I'll let you make of the measurements what you will, but those are my thoughts. Either way, I really enjoyed my time with the speakers and was quite sad to have to send them back! Although that's partly because packing them back up was a pain. JBL has no right to call this 60-pound beast a 'bookshelf' speaker

P.S. I did take nearfield measurements to splice on the low-end, but I'm still working to make sure I'm doing the woofer and summations right before sharing.

Thanks for doing all this!

What stands out to me is the dip in the "presence" region (~3kHz), from almost every angle......

This can be a tricky region, as the ear is so sensitive there. Too much, and it is fatiguing, not enough, can it can sound a little dull.

How do horns sound?

 

[napilopez]

Thanks for doing all this!

What stands out to be is the dip in the "presence" region (~3kHz), from almost every angle......

This can be a tricky region, as the ear is so sensitive there. Too much, and it is fatiguing, not enough, can it can sound a little dull.

How do horns sound?

My pleasure!

I was surprised by that dip actually, as I found the presence balance excellent, and I do listen to a lot of jazz, big band, and standards, so I tend to look out for how brass sounds. Even after measuring, I couldn't find anything in particular to fault just from listening - despite mostly leaving the grilles on, which exacerbates the dip.

That said, my setup had the speakers at roughly 20-25 degree angle off-axis, and I generally had the treble knob set to the max. Combined, that probably made the dip a fair bit less prominent.

If you look at the listening window of the L100, it's pretty interesting how it's pretty close to the inverse of figure 7.2e above.

 

[watchnerd]

My pleasure!

I was surprised by that dip actually, as I found the presence balance excellent, and I do listen to a lot of jazz, big band, and standards, so I tend to look out for how brass sounds. Even after measuring, I couldn't find anything in particular to fault just from listening - despite mostly leaving the grilles on, which exacerbates the dip.

That said, my setup had the speakers at roughly 20-25 degree angle off-axis, and I generally had the treble knob set to the max. Combined, that probably made the dip a fair bit less prominent.

If you look at the listening window of the L100, it's pretty interesting how it's pretty close to the inverse of figure 7.2e above.

Good to know.

Do you have them directly on the floor, or sitting on stands?

 

[napilopez]

Good to know.

Do you have them directly on the floor, or sitting on stands?

Used the official JS-120 stands, which raised them up and angled them a bit. Was just about right for my seating position 8-9ish feet away

 

[napilopez]

As I recently did with the Focal Chora, I've been going back through some of my old measurements and trying to see if I can "cheat" some spinorama curves with incomplete measurements. By comparing with my full-spin measurements, I found I can get nearly identical results for at least the early reflections and ERDI curves by 'faking' the rear response, as front firing boxes all have pretty similar rear responses and in any case the rear is usually so low in level that it makes a minimal contribution - at least above 200 Hz, where my measurements are roughly limited to.

I don't think I have enough data for a reliable sound power curve, but this is what I get for ER and ERDI:

Since I tested this speaker, I've still been wondering from time to time why I enjoyed them so much. While I don't think the measurements are bad, they aren't as obviously pristine as many of the other speakers I've tested. My preferences have almost always correlated with flat on axis and smooth off axis, but despite major deviations in the on-axis, the L100 Classic still stands out to me as the speaker I probably enjoyed the most in the past year. Audio recollection is unreliable, but I do have written listening notes from my original time with them full of superlatives.

Of course, I'm subject to biases and there are plenty of other reasons I could've liked these so much. But I've often thought the reason was directivity since I enjoyed the soundstage on these so much, and I think the curves above indeed suggest that's the case; it is some of the smoothest and widest in the highs I've measured.

This result is also interesting considering the drivers are asymmetrical and non-mirrored; you can see the 'left' and 'right' responses are quite different in my earlier post in this thread. But subjectively, it seemed to matter almost nothing; I actually remember these as having the most pleasant soundstage of any speaker I've tested.

Who knows. There's also my shirley et al theory above. I wish I could remeasure these more thoroughly.

 

[Juhazi]

Well, perhaps the reason for liking them is not shown in your measurements. Bass! 12" woofer and obviously lower tuning than modern shoeboxes.

 

[napilopez]

Well, perhaps the reason for liking them is not shown in your measurements. Bass! 12" woofer and obviously lower tuning than modern shoeboxes.

Well, I've tested speakers that reach far lower than the L100s, and I cross all my speakers with subs for about half my listening anyway. The L100s aren't really bass monsters, at 40Hz -6dB, though it does seem like good bass. And even among passives, I did not feel this way about the Focal Kanta No3, for instance, which is much bigger and reaches a fair bit lower. It was the soundstage that really stood out with these to me.

*shrugs*

 

[Juhazi]

Well, that leaves the wider than "new normal" baffle effct. Look at directivity 200Hz-1kHz!

That effect is however not strong, but could make imaging better in midrange. A wide baffle has baffle step lower, so at wide angles it looses spl

In this Edge simulation mic is 45deg offset vs. on-axis (spl drop is exaggerated because mic distance gets longer off-axis)

more.

 

[Sal1950]

Tuff crowd here.

 

[anmpr1]

Well, perhaps the reason for liking them is not shown in your measurements. Bass! 12" woofer and obviously lower tuning than modern shoeboxes.

The longer I audiophile (can that be a verb?) the more I'm convinced that there is no 'accurate' loudspeaker, and there probably never will be. That is, if accuracy consists in creating a realistic (or even partially realistic) facsimile of a 'live' musical event. I follow the measurements of these small shoeboxes (good word--much better than 'bookshelf') and read that this one is more accurate than that one (except they all have no deep bass--or even 'artificially bumped up' deep bass); then I listen and they all sound like small shoeboxes--what Peter Aczel called monkey-coffins (evidently a trade slang).

Floyd Toole in one of his books wrote how couldn't understand why people liked the original L100. It didn't measure very well. It had a simple 'you can kind of call this a crossover' crossover with the woofer acting like a mid-range. Cabinet resonances. But I'll tell you for sure those sounded more like the live music that the people who bought them were listening to than typical 'highly touted' acoustic suspension speakers the Boston audio mafia was pushing. It was as simple as that. And none of them sounded like the Quad, or KLH Nine, or DQ-10, or take your pick.

Take all the usual suspects from 'high end speaker land' and line them up. Unless they are from the same manufacturer using very similar designs they will all sound markedly different from each other in so many different respects. Move them from one room to another, and even the same speaker will likely sound different in the different environment.

Some say, "I want to hear what the recording engineer heard during mixdown. That's my criteria for good speaker design." If that's what you want then you better find out what speakers were on the console at the session, and buy them. It will be the only way.

That's why I say you have to audition the loudspeaker in your room, with your music and electronics, and do that for a couple of weeks. Your aural acuity and sensitivity to what they offer will change depending on the time of day, your mood, lighting, and what you've eaten for lunch. Then, after living with them for a while, put it all together and decide if the tradeoffs you hear are tradeoffs that you can live with. Because all speakers have tradeoffs. If you can do that, you've done about all you can. Then try and be happy--try and listen to what the music is telling you, and not the loudspeaker.

 

[napilopez]

Well, that leaves the wider than "new normal" baffle effct. Look at directivity 200Hz-1kHz!

That effect is however not strong, but could make imaging better in midrange. A wide baffle has baffle step lower, so at wide angles it looses spl

In this Edge simulation mic is 45deg offset vs. on-axis (spl drop is exaggerated because mic distance gets longer off-axis)

more.View attachment 56570

Yes, I was thinking about this - thank you for the added context. As someone a big on the younger side, that is the one aspect that is different for me - I've not heard any big-ol' wide baffle speakers before. The L100 are a bit wider in the highs than normal and a bit narrower in the lows. While the off axis isn't as smooth as some other speakers, it has closer timbral balance to the on axis than some others, rather than getting substantially darker like speakers with big waveguides.

I'm curious to see how I feel about the upcoming L82, which has the same(or very similar) tweeter and waveguide in a smaller box.