Looking for a 3rd option for 8" stand mount passive speakers (~$1500 us retail with stands)

[hip_adductor]

but I do think the JBL L82 are another option to consider

Granted the OP doesn't want these but a quick question: Do you think the mk2 version might measure any differently from the mk1's? The stated improvements to the new ones are JW200PW2 instead of JW200PW, JT025Ti2 instead of JT025Ti, and revised xover to allow for biwiring (lol).

Incidentally, it looks like the L100 to L100mk2 possibly uses lesser parts, at least on the woofer. L100mk2 uses JW300SW-8 (as in 4312G) instead of JW300PW-8 (the JW300PW-8 possibly an even more substantial double magnet version?)

 

[napilopez]

Granted the OP doesn't want these but a quick question: Do you think the mk2 version might measure any differently from the mk1's? The stated improvements to the new ones are JW200PW2 instead of JW200PW, JT025Ti2 instead of JT025Ti, and revised xover to allow for biwiring (lol).

Incidentally, it looks like the L100 to L100mk2 possibly uses lesser parts, at least on the woofer. L100mk2 uses JW300SW-8 (as in 4312G) instead of JW300PW-8 (the JW300PW-8 possibly an even more substantial double magnet version?)

It's completely possible. While I think I don't think it's *likely* the sound will change that much, there's just no way of knowing for sure without measurements. I've certainly seem the same speaker measure differently with seemingly minor tweaks. Sometimes these happen throughout a production run without the manufacturer mentioning a change at all! (the Buchardt S400 and Focal Solo6 come to mind).

I wouldn't be surprised if the L100 MKII in particular saw some improvements, as the original has very nice wide directivity but a bit of a lumpy on axis/listening window response. The L82 already has a an excellent spin and IMO didn't require any tweaks that couldn't already be achieved with the HF knob. I guess they could smooth the crossover a just little more, but it's very well possible that dip is intentional or at least not a priority to fix; JBL has previously indicated that it allows for a narrow crossover dip in these retro-ish speakers on purpose.

Edit: Interestingly, jut noticed the L100 MK2 weighs 63 lb rather than the 58.5 lb of the original. I wonder if that's all in the new woofer.

 

[hip_adductor]

Edit: Interestingly, jut noticed the L100 MK2 weighs 63 lb rather than the 58.5 lb of the original. I wonder if that's all in the new woofer.

I noticed that too. Perhaps it's explained by the fact that in the various JBL manuals/data sheets, sometimes they say 'weight without grill, and sometimes just 'weight', which I suppose could include the grill?

To illustrate my point about the L100mk2 classic possibly using a less substantial woofer than the L100mk1 classic, here are two extracts from videos of the L100mk1 classic (using JW300PW-8) and 4212G (using JW300SW-8, as used in the L100mk2 classic, according to that model's manual). That said, it doesn't preclude the new version measuring better, as you suggested it might.

 

[ooheadsoo]

I noticed that too, which would seem to confuse my point about the new woofer (JW300SW-8) presumably being lighter than the old one JW300PW-8.

Perhaps it's partly explained by the fact that in the various JBL manuals/data sheets, sometimes they say 'weight without grill, and sometimes just 'weight', which I suppose could include the grill.

To illustrate my point about the L100mk2 classic possibly using a less substantial woofer than the L100mk1 classic, here are two extracts from influencer videos of the L100mk1 classic (using JW300PW-8) and 4212G (using JW300SW-8, as used in the L100mk2 classic, according to that model's manual).

I like his videos, he's a great speaker and presenter, but I wouldn't call him an influencer - he's a dealer.