Akira
05-23-2008, 10:30 AM
An interesting topic came up in another post.
To quote a very renowned recording engineer Bruce Swedien, (Quincy Jones, Michael Jackson, Ella Fitzgerald)
"Don't EVER confuse a JBL 4310 with a JBL 4311. Very different! The 4311 is pure Dog-doo... In the photo on page 158 that is one of my JBL 4310's. I had at least three pairs of JBL 4310's at the time. I eventually wore them all out!!! Of course I had two on top of the console, at the time..."
In response BMWCCA said it best:
So, since the only visible change was ditching the raised baffle and changing the tweeter and, according to the history on this site, the baffle made no difference, why did the JBL engineers make a change for the worse (as many imply) when there was really no cost-savings involved? At the time, apparently, the changes were considered an improvement so who's right and who's wrong? How and why are the latter considered dog-doo by an acclaimed producer and the former considered "gold" even though few here have much respect for either. Is there really such a dichotomous difference in two such similar boxes? Or is it all in what one got used to, or just bad memory?
So is sound just in the mind. JBL are definitely a love em or hate em product. Is it any coincidence that the majority of the forum members are about the same age, meaning...getting up there.
To quote a very renowned recording engineer Bruce Swedien, (Quincy Jones, Michael Jackson, Ella Fitzgerald)
"Don't EVER confuse a JBL 4310 with a JBL 4311. Very different! The 4311 is pure Dog-doo... In the photo on page 158 that is one of my JBL 4310's. I had at least three pairs of JBL 4310's at the time. I eventually wore them all out!!! Of course I had two on top of the console, at the time..."
In response BMWCCA said it best:
So, since the only visible change was ditching the raised baffle and changing the tweeter and, according to the history on this site, the baffle made no difference, why did the JBL engineers make a change for the worse (as many imply) when there was really no cost-savings involved? At the time, apparently, the changes were considered an improvement so who's right and who's wrong? How and why are the latter considered dog-doo by an acclaimed producer and the former considered "gold" even though few here have much respect for either. Is there really such a dichotomous difference in two such similar boxes? Or is it all in what one got used to, or just bad memory?
So is sound just in the mind. JBL are definitely a love em or hate em product. Is it any coincidence that the majority of the forum members are about the same age, meaning...getting up there.