L-300 VS 4333

[markd51]

Hello All,
Not sure if this topic has been previously discussed, and if it has, please forgive me.

My question is, has anybody either through A/B Testing, or from personal experience auditioned both of these, and can they comment?

I would assume that these were actually two different animals basically, and I do know of the cosmetic differences.

I had extensively auditioned a true one day old brand new pair of L-300's 34 years ago, and in truth didn't like them, as much as I thought I would, and to me, the Bass was somewhat muddy-floppy compared to my own L65 Jubal. Looking back, this speaker may have been "too new", and my evaluation may have been skewed due to not even being yet fully broken in.

The L-300 used the 136A Woofer, with what I remember the Foam Surround. I'm assuming the 4333 used a totally different Woofer, and would like asking, this particular Woofer didn't have foam surround, did it? I would also assume the 4333 had a heavier Magnet structure, but I've leave others to comment.

I get the impression JBL used Foam Surrounds on many of it's "home" Drivers to enhance low end excursion, but my questions are "at what cost"?, and as bass as Bass response went, what differences were there with the L-300 versus 4333?

I'm guessing that the 4333 had tighter, cleaner Bass Response, but perhaps at the cost of the last few hz of low end excursion?

Are my assumptions correct. or no? Are there any other notable differences in sound in regards to these two speakers (Midrange-High frequency Sonics?)
Thank you all, Mark

[speakerdave]

They used the same components. The baffle layouts were different. See the LH library.

[Chas]

One used consumer the other used pro series. Difference was only cosmetics and model numbers. The only difference MAY be the box volume and tuning? Others here may know the answer to that.

[markd51]

They used the same components. The baffle layouts were different. See the LH library.

As far as I can remember, and recall, they didn't use the same components, bit perhaps somewhat "similar". As I remember 34 years back, the pro 4333 used a woofer with a much heavier magnet weight-structure versus the L-300.

This was one of the shortcomings the salesman, and I noted, and conclusions we came to 34 years ago about the L-300 versus many of the professional series 15" Woofers, a lighter, "wimpy by comparison" magnet.

The one other noteable difference I noted about the 077 versus the 2405, was a higher wattage rating. As far as I can remember, other than cosmetic differences, with the acrylic lens versus the Alu one, there was essntailly no drastic performance-frequency-dispersion differences between the two. Any comments?

I'm certainly not saying that any of the foam surround Woofers were inferior, other than the fact that they needed replacement every 6-10 years. The first time my four Jubals went bad after 8 years into ownership, I was on the phone with JBL, complaining about their warrantee, and the claim of free replacement-repair due to "defective materials". Tney ignored me like I had leprosy when I called them about their rotted surrounds.

I was always of the belief, that another suitable material, such as polypropylene-butyl rubber could've perhaps been used?

Generally, the rubberized Canvas surrounds lasted forever, without the need of replacement. Mark

[speakerdave]

Yeah, the foam thing is unfortunate, but you know that is part of the price of admission for the good sound. The foam absorbs the energy better so you don't have it travelng back down the cone so much. I had to refoam the woofers on my 4333a's and found it was well worth the trouble.

I've listened extensively to both the 136/2231 and the 122a and your comment that the bass is better in the L65 does not compute for me. Both, by the way, will do better if you get them off the floor. That little 12" woofer in the L65a (122a) went wooly real fast when driven at all hard. The 2231/136 15" woofer (with the foam surround) can put out a lot of real good bass sound, enough for my neighborhood, that's for sure.

Plain English--the drivers in the 4333a and the L300 are the same--just different cosmetics and numbers to differentiate between pro and consumer divisions of the company.

No I don't have any comments about the differences between the 077 and the 2405 except that when I'm listening to the 2405 I miss the twinkle of the acrylic phase plug in the 077, especially at night. Other than that, they are the same excellent UHF driver. I did notice a difference between the L65 and the 4333a, and that was that in the L65 the upper midrange/tweeter margin was much too harsh for my ears, but I don't attribute that to the drivers themselves, per se, but rather to the fact that the LE5-5 is used at too high a frequency and the 077 is used at too low a frequency in that speaker, and the crossovers probably needed to be rebuilt and updated.

David

[markd51]

Thank you David for your comments.
What I noted with the L-65 (126A) versus the L-300 (136A back then was a bit better quickness, speed, and tightness of bass in the L-65 versus the L-300.

When I first heard these particular L-300's, AB'd with the L-65, driven by the McIntosh MC-2205 Amp, I mentioned to the Salesman "what did you guys do, already damage these speakers with excessive high amounts of wattage"?, as that's what they sounded like to me, and he said, "we just taken these speakers out of their boxes yesterday, they are bramnd new, one day old speakers!"!

Hmm? As I said, they may also were not fully broken in, but I've never typically noted any JBL Speaker sounding horrid fresh out of the box before?

Can anybody comment what the magnet weight was on the 136A, and the Bass Driver on the 4333? Were they the same, or no? I assume both used 4" voice coils.

I've read that the LE-5-5 was a very decent midrange, and have heard some say that this Mid was the best of the LE-5 models, but of course the hearsay I've heard could be incorrect? I don't doubt that perhaps X-over, or enclosure tweaking could've improved the L-65 in some way.

I hope you folks don't mind my rambling. I love discussions like this, as its always nice to learn new, and unknown things from others about all these truly wonderful speakers. Thank you again, Mark

[Audiobeer]

I've owned both the L-300 & the 4333. The only difference to me was the slight tilt in the L-300 towards my ears. To me that was an advantage. As for as comparing the L-300 bass to the L-65......well there wasn't any comparison. 15" woofer moves a hell of a lot more air than the L-65 woofer. I liked them both!

[markd51]

I've owned both the L-300 & the 4333. The only difference to me was the slight tilt in the L-300 towards my ears. To me that was an advantage. As for as comparing the L-300 bass to the L-65......well there wasn't any comparison. 15" woofer moves a hell of a lot more air than the L-65 woofer. I liked them both!

Thank you audiobeer for your comments, and input about this topic. I have absolutely no doubts about your findings, and assessment that the 15" woofer should by all means provide a more authoratative "you are there"! bass response.

Of course I'm going by fond memories of what took place 33-34 years ago, in the Oak St MusiCraft in Chicago, (Where I bought my Mac, and JBL, and TEAC Gear) it is very possible that the L-300's that I auditioned were either faulty, or maybe more likely incorrectly wired?

Guess, I'll never know the correct answer, but back then I had auditioned also, quite a few pair of L-200's both in store, and at a good freind's house, and was quite satisfied-impressed with the sound these speakers provided. I would assume JBL didn't take a step backward when they introduced the L-300, and that it should've been all the L-200 was, and more.

As for the L-65, I believe back then, they claimed this to be a floorstanding Speaker, but due to its sort of "smallish" size relative to the larger L-200, L-300 4331, 4333, etc Speakers, getting good Mid, and High Freq driver placement in regards to listening position was not optimal I felt. In quad array back in the 70's, I always used to have these on four custom fabricated Steel Welded Spiked Stands, getting them up about 18" off the Floor, and now lately, I just use my four L-65's in a stacked configuration here in New Mexico.

Certainly not the best way to listen to them, but they still kick serious butt after all these years.

Although I'd still love to "graduate" to larger Vintage JBL's one day (perhaps the L-300, 4333, or 4343) before I get too old (and Deaf), they'll have to make a large enough Casket to bury me with these four L-65's, as I'll never part with them.

After 34 years, none even have a mark on their veneers. Although it was a bit of a PITA, I was smart enough to keep all of the original Boxes, and packing materials all these years. Mark

Thanks again, Mark

[soundboy]

Thank you David for your comments.
[QUOTE] What I noted with the L-65 (126A) versus the L-300 (136A back then was a bit better quickness, speed, and tightness of bass in the L-65 versus the L-300.
Bigger is louder, but not always tighter, or faster sounding, IME.


When I first heard these particular L-300's, AB'd with the L-65, driven by the McIntosh MC-2205 Amp, I mentioned to the Salesman "what did you guys do, already damage these speakers with excessive high amounts of wattage"?, as that's what they sounded like to me, and he said, "we just taken these speakers out of their boxes yesterday, they are brand new, one day old speakers!"!

Hmm? As I said, they may also were not fully broken in, but I've never typically noted any JBL Speaker sounding horrid fresh out of the box before?
That was my experience back in the day, too.


Can anybody comment what the magnet weight was on the 136A, and the Bass Driver on the 4333? Were they the same, or no? I assume both used 4" voice coils.


I hope you folks don't mind my rambling. I love discussions like this, as its always nice to learn new, and unknown things from others about all these truly wonderful speakers.

I think speakerdave gave an excellent answer already. The drivers are identical...including the woofers, so they would have the exact same woofer magnet and voice coils. The only differences were the decals and paint color.

[richluvsound]

Hi Folks ,

My 4333a's have an acrylic phase plug in the 2405 painted black. I had thought about trying to remove the paint. I can't figure out how to do it without damaging the acrylic.

Everything else is as it should be as per the information here on the forum. The 4333a and the L300 have identical components.

Rich

[Fred Sanford]

Can anybody comment what the magnet weight was on the 136A, and the Bass Driver on the 4333? Were they the same, or no? I assume both used 4" voice coils.
Thank you again, Mark

Some info for you here:

http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/pro-comp/2231.htm (http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/pro-comp/2231.htm)

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10667 (http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10667)

The first link is the specs of the "A" 2231, the second shows performance info on the H versions.

je

[mech986]

Hi Mark,

I posted an answer to this same question you raised in a previous thread but perhaps you didn't see it so I'll repost the information here, sorry for the duplication. 4333 in red due to being used as search keyword.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markd51 http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=176527#post176527)
One question that arises in my mind though, that many seem to believe, and insinuate, is that the L-300 was just a "prettied up" version of the 4333 Monitor, and this isn't the case, is it?

The 4333 didn't use a 136A Woofer, did it? I also doubt the 077 was present, and am thinking it was probably the 2405H instead? Also, perhaps a quite different design X-over. What about the Horn, and Driver? Mark

Hi Markd51,

Please review the JBL consumer brochure regarding the L-300 here:
http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/.../1975-l300.htm (http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1975-l300.htm)

Also see:
http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Te...ummit%20ts.pdf (http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Technical%20Sheet/L300%20Summit%20ts.pdf)

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Te...ummit%20ts.pdf (http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Technical%20Sheet/L300A%20Summit%20ts.pdf)

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Stu...ries/4333B.pdf (http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Studio%20Monitor%20Series/4333B.pdf)


A significant number of JBL's driver designs have consumer-professional equivalents (a good design is a good design) and only utilize different cosmetics, badging, or numbers to distinguish them.

For the L-300/4333 series here are the functional acoustical and mechanical eqivalents:

Woofer:
L300 = 136A alnico
4333 = 2331A alnico
Later L300 = 136H (ferrite version)
4333A and B = 2331H (and occasionally 2235H?)

Midrange compression driver:
L300 = LE85 w/H92 horn & L91 slant lenses
4333, A & B, 2420 w/2312 horn and 2308 slant lenses

Tweeter:
L300 = 077 alnico slot diffraction tweeter w/acrylic wedge
4333, A = 2405 alnico slot diffraction tweeter w/black aluminium wedge
4333B (maybe some A) = 2405H ferrite slot diffraction tweeter

Crossover wise, the L300 = 4332, both passive crossovers. The 4333 had provision for biamping but otherwise equivalent crossovers.

The L300 and the 4333 are identical designs in slightly different enclosures.

Hope that helps.

New Today:

For clarity, the crossovers have the same identical circuitry except for the 4333 provision for biamping. The 077 and 2405 are identical acoustic equivalents and only differ in the use of the acrylic versus aluminium center wedge. In fact, on the L300 tech sheet, the 2405H (the later ferrite version) is the recommended acoustically IDENTICAL replacement.

Richluv, IF your 2405's are actually acrylic painted black, you probably could get the paint off with alcohol which will not attack the acrylic. It would be interesting to see if the wedge is actually acrylic but most all 2405's are aluminium.

Regarding magnet weight, JBL 2231A/136A alnico drivers used an alnico slug and magnetic circuit that weighed 12 to 13 pounds depending on when quoted while the 2231H/136H versions used a ferrite magnet and magnetic circuit that weighed 18 5/8 pounds. (Always impressive to quote weight as JBL did then). However, check the magnetic flux density - identical in each at 1.2 tesla. That means the magnetic force at the gap was the same. Note though that JBL engineering was doing their homework in evolving this alnico to ferrite driver - they had to use ferrite because alnico had become very scarce and expensive (do a search on this topic). JBL engineers redesigned the driver with flux stabilizing rings and added improved venting to allow a higher 200W power capacity. Both the consumer and professional woofers benefitted from this change at the same time.

I do have L300's and 4333B's and within the conditional and age ranges, A-B'ed they pretty much sound the same. Both speakers do need to be off the floor to give their best in the LF range as floor and side wall boundry gain will add to the bass response. As with all speakers, and JBL's particularly, experimentation with height and floor placement will yield significant tuning of the sound to the acoustics of the room they are in.

I suspect you and I are of similar age, having heard the same L65's and L300's around the same time of life. Please consider updating your sound recollections with a listen to a properly restored pair of L300's or 4333 series speakers. Let us know what you think.

Then we can start talking about how lots of folks here feel the step up from there will be the 434x, 435x series, the 443x series, and then the L250/Ti's, XPL's, etc. JBL sets a high standard of the time, and continues to improve upon them. What other company can we point to that does that so well?

Regards,

Bart


Regards,

Bart

[markd51]

I wish to thank all of you again, for your helpful, informative, and knowledgeable advice, and thought.

To quote Soundboy, and what he said, I'll agree one side, that yes, the L-65 won't hold a candle to a pair of the large L300, or large 4300 Series, but I have four L-65's, and in regards to moving "air" my fours 12"s just might do a better job than two 15"s.

So, in actuality, I'm running four 12"s, four 5" Mids, and four 077's simultaneaouly.
They just "cruise merrily" along, perhaps at no more than 20 watts a speaker, with my two Mac Amps, and blow you out of the room with a realistic "you are there" wall of sound.

I note many good Bass Amplifier Cabinets from SWR, and Eden use an array of four 10" Drivers, ( I have one) and these typically outperform single one 15" Cabinets by a long shot. Speed, and tightness is the key many Bass Players look for now, and in low end excursion, these 10" drivers do a job quite well.

Please don't get me wrong if you think I'm insinuating JBL 15" Woofers aren't the absolute "Bomb", because they are. I've seen enough big name bands over the years (Zep, Yes, Tull, ELP, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Santana, etc) and knew what was in their arsenal! JBL of course! Mark

[Zilch]

:bitetongue:

[hjames]

:bitetongue:
Ya c'mon luv, don't be shy - speaks your peace and bide your time, hey?

Stacked L65s just GOT to sound better than Stacked L100s, right?

Wonder what the config is ...
... tweeter to tweeter?
... side by side?
diagonal corners aka quasi-surround?

[Fred Sanford]

"Stacking" has been covered here in the past, one quick Zilch quote here:


Terrible.

A bad idea to have multiple sources playing the same program material in the same listening space. It's axiomatic: they interfere with each other with phase cancellations and reinforcements according to frequency (wavelength, actually) and the differential distances between the multiple sources and the listener, i.e., "Comb Filtering," or "Lobing." Think "Flanging."

Not a problem, really, tho, unless one cares about actually hearing the music as the professionals who made, recorded, mixed, and reproduced it intended....


There's also a thread on another forum...let's see...here it is:

http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=103186

Have fun...

je

[hjames]

"Stacking" has been covered here in the past, one quick Zilch quote here ...



Have fun...

je

Oh, you're no fun!!
Poor Zilch was trying so hard to be nice!

[Fred Sanford]

Oh, you're no fun!!
Poor Zilch was trying so hard to be nice!

Well, see, this way, Zilch still gets to be nice (not directly stomping on Mark's fun), and I get to be nice (actually pointing Mark at some useful info), and we can all hopefully encourage someone that seems to be JBL-loyal and quite gracious about the information we're pointing him towards.

Stack 'em if you want to, but it doesn't hurt to learn why you might NOT want to stack 'em. I do all kinds of things I'm not supposed to- if it amuses me.

Nice Slingerlands, too.

je (I am too fun, really I am :bouncy:. No more toys for Heather.)

[hjames]

je (I am too fun, really I am :bouncy:. No more toys for Heather.)

Yeah, and Emma preached Sunday at HUU - so I came down and we did the 1st ever
Harrisonburg Pride Day that afternoon but didn't have any time to call or drop by ...

I swear - i will find the time!

I know - are you at all interested in those L200 cabinets I have??
It looks like the only way I'll recover any of the money is to part them out,
(got a buyer for the 2215s downundah) but I'd hate to toss the boxes once the drivers go away ...
They aren't perfect but they do look nice.

[Fred Sanford]

Hmmm...what's still attached, just empty boxes or are there still components you're looking to sell, too? I forget if these were modded or fairly stock.

Give a call sometime, and yes, do stop by one day. We now actually have furniture, and are starting to look like a real-life house.

Didn't hear about the parade, we're quite out of touch...just reading the "Daily News Record", a local paper, and I guess they didn't mention it.

Keep in touch...

je

[Storm]

Didn't hear about the parade, we're quite out of touch...just reading the "Daily News Record", a local paper, and I guess they didn't mention it.

je

Why doesn't that surprise me?

:blink:

-Storm.

[hjames]

Why doesn't that surprise me?

:blink:

-Storm.

yep, its pretty country but the Shenandoah Valley area has 3 major hate groups including the Klan (Emma researched it before deciding to start an MCC church plant there). Its not surprising some gay folks in the area don't speak up much ... even the black folks are kinda low key in some of the smaller towns down that way.

[Fred Sanford]

yep, its pretty country but the Shenandoah Valley area has 3 major hate groups including the Klan (Emma researched it before deciding to start an MCC church plant there). Its not surprising some gay folks in the area don't speak up much ... even the black folks are kinda low key in some of the smaller towns down that way.

I've only been here a few months, it's hard for me to judge any overall sentiment. The University population is very much a community within the community (almost the same population #s, actually), so there's actually kind of three sets of behavior I see- the locals, the transplants, and the college kids.

The local paper is, as my transplant friend describes it, "the best thing about the Valley, and the worst thing, too." Don't hear about much crime here, but...uh...you just don't hear about much at all.

je

[markd51]

Thank you for the A-Karma Link, I have read through it, and will concur, and not argue that what I've achieved using 4 L-65's, powered by two McIntosh Amps certainly cannot be called a "reference" system in any sense.

It's more a "this is what I have on hand, and might as well use it" proposition, rather than thinking, or "fooling" myself into believing that I have accomplished building some sort of special reference system.

I can understand, that some speaker manufacturers, such as Dunlavy for example utilize multiple drivers in a D'Appolito configuration, and are sonically coherent, and very well done. I fully understand JBL had no intention of designing their speakers with stacking in mind, and this will certainly skew sonics. (I can imaginarily see the JBL engineers cringing!)

There's no doubt that one of the largest influences, and hurdles-obstacles on our home systems is room acoustics, and here, this is what can make, or break a system, no matter how much money is spent on components.

Of course I'm sure many here have literal fortunes invested in their Audio Equipment to approach sonic nirvana.

I guess the most important thing we all will agree on, is no matter what the monetary investment, to not ever lose sight of what we buy this equipment for, and that is to set our souls free to the music that we so much love! Once we lose sight of that accomplishment, then I guess what's the point?

I wish to thank you again all for sharing your comments, and knowledge in this thread. Mark

[markd51]

Thank you Fred Sanford for your compliment on my Slingerland Drum Set.

A bit of history about it, this Set was genuinely owned, and played by the late, great Barrett Deems. Barrett was Louis Armstrong's Drummer in the 50's, and was sort of an unusual oddity for a white Jazz Drummer, playing in an all black Dixieland Band back then.

Barrett died in 1998, was 83, or 84 (I forget which) and his wife Jane, who played in his own Big Band, and was 38 years younger than him sold all of his Drums to a couple of collectors-freinds of the family. This was how I acquired this particular set, and had the opportunity to purchase another, almost identical set, which Barrett had made to play with Benny Goodman in Eastern Europe.

My Drum Teacher Phil Stanger knew Barrett very well, knew him for probably 40 years, and spoke with Barrett right up till the last day of his life. Barrett was a Slingerland Endorser, hence used to get anything he wanted.

This set has been maintained by myself to remain totally original just as Barrett had gotten it from Slingerland. He had the Bass Drum Insignias done, not I, with BD, and GK, which was his best freind, Gene Krupa, and only made hardware additions to this set such as the Throne, Hi-Hat Stand, Bass Drum Pedal.

Barrett and his own big band were doing many tribute Krupa tunes at the time (Circa 1981), and this was when this set was made for Barrett. After a short use, the Set apparently sat in it's hardshell cases in Barrett's basement for the next 20 years. I purchased the Set in 2001. Mark

[Fred Sanford]

Thank you Fred Sanford for your compliment on my Slingerland Drum Set.

A bit of history about it, this Set was genuinely owned, and played by the late, great Barrett Deems. Barrett was Louis Armstrong's Drummer in the 50's, and was sort of an unusual oddity for a white Jazz Drummer, playing in an all black Dixieland Band back then.
<SNIPS>

I purchased the Set in 2001. Mark

Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful- great story, and great to hear you're preserving the set as is. Nice work- is it set up prominently in your living room? Can we get a higher-res shot of it?

je (4333As formerly owned by Clive Davis :) and a cheezy Tama set formerly owned by the band "No Babylon Chemical Warfare" :( in my house...)

[markd51]

Hello Fred,
I'd love to be able to post attachments for you, and others to see, as I could certainly post some cool audio stuff, as well as my drums, etc, but I'm on Web-TV, and while I can get 1/2 way through the process, when it comes to uploading my jpegs, I hit a brick wall. This is V-Bulletins for you. Crap IMO.

In fact, two weeks ago, I couldn't even post-respond in this group, until another savvy webbie showed me how to, it became incompatible, due to javascript.
The same had happened with another fav group, AudioKarma, and I luckily got back in there to participate.

You can probably email me directly, and I would be more than happy to send you more pics of my Drumset, and Audio System.

Here's the rundown of my audio System:
2 vintage bought new Mac MC 2105 SS Amps.
Bought new Mac MX-130 Pre Amp-Tuner.
VPI Mk-IV Turntable, AQ PT-8 Arm, Benz Glider Hi Output Cart.
Sutherland PhD Phono Pre-Amp.
VPI SDS Speed Controller-Line Conditioner.
CAL Delta-Alpha CD Transport-DAC with All Blackgate Caps-Bybee Filters, high speed rectifiers.
CAL Delta-Sigma II Transport DAC bought new-all Stock.
Bought new, and mint TEAC 3340S R-R Deck.
Ebay find Mint TEAC A2340R R-R Deck.
Sunfire True Subwoofer MK-IV bought new.
Four bought new, and mint JBL L-65 Jubal Speakers, all upgraded with New Custom X-Overs, with Goertz Alpha Air Core Inductors-Solen Caps, new 100 watt L-Pads, Edison Price Billet 5-Way Binding Posts.
Mark

Wiring is Straightwire Maestro, Straightwire Digilink, Kimber Illuminati and AQ.
Mark

[Ian Mackenzie]

Mark,

Beautiful story and your post say it all.

I see you have a Sutherland PhD Phono Pre-Amp.

No more need be said.

Ian

[Ian Mackenzie]

Mark,

The Library is often the best place for the how and why of the various models.

The brochure hints at what they were striving for at the time. Here is a link to the Jubal

http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1975-l65/page8.jpg

Imho the L300 was a good system in its day but was probably better suited to pro applications than domestic because if its size.

In pro situations they were sofit mounted or high up on stands (4333). The manner of the woofer/horn transition (as we know in hindsight) was prone to honking due to the disparity in axial dispersion of the woofer and horn at the crossover and the horn length.

The Jubal by virtue of its size was a lot more flexible. However I would be hard pushed to say the way the 5 inch mid and slot worked in the upper registers was too my liking.

They both tended to spit at you back then and many felt more confortable with the softdomes of that era. The breakup modes (up high) of the drivers mxed in with the dirt from those old amps was not pretty.

I would be less inclined to make those remarks with SOA front end and power chain.

In reference to your comments about auditions long ago I find it quite refreshing to give these vintage systems a wirl.

There is a certain magic about the snappy decisive sound of these old JBLs.

Ian

[JohanR]

I have just done an upgrade from L65A's to 4331B (4333 without the 2405 tweeter). Some notes:

The bass from the 4333 is clearly better in every respect, timing, transient response, dynamics and, most notable, lack of strain (the horn mid/treble probably has a lot to do with this).

The infamous coloration in the transition from the cone midrange to the 077 in the L65's are very clear, but with modern sources it's not to anoying. L65's are fun to listen to!

One day I will rob my L65's of their 077's and put them in the 4331's to make them into 4333's. I have checked inside the big network box, it seems one can do the filter modification without having to unscrew them from the cabinet. Or I might build completely new ones, Giskard style.

Then there won't be much upgrading left in the speaker department...

JohanR

[4313B]

Can anybody comment what the magnet weight was on the 136A, and the Bass Driver on the 4333? Were they the same, or no? I assume both used 4" voice coils.I don't recall what the actual alnico weight was - Qts was 0.19 if I remember correctly. The 136A and 2231A were cosmetically different yet functionally equivalent as were the 136H and 2231H - 136H / 2231H (http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10667)

The scaled down 12-inch version, the Consumer 124A and Pro 2203A were also functionally equivalent as were the 124H and 2203H. Again, I don't remember the weight of the alnico material (identical to the 136/2231) but Qts was around 0.14 if I remember correctly. Overpowered transducer but transient character was stunning.

[Robh3606]

It's in the components brochure they come in at 12Lbs for the 124/136 and 13lbs for the 2231A. Those are the total magnet and pot weights not the magnet itself. The 2203 is not in the Library but I would guess at 13lbs as well.

Rob:)