PDA

View Full Version : L65 JUBAL vs XPL 200.



venus
07-03-2008, 04:22 PM
:blah::blah::blah:!:applaud::applaud::applaud::app laud::applaud:
who's the best?:banghead:
best regards
marco

Titanium Dome
07-03-2008, 07:14 PM
I'll take the bait one time.

XPL200 is better in every way that matters to me.
Better high frequency
Better midrange
Better midbass
More articulate and musical bass
Better cabinet design
Better cabinet tuning
Better crossover

BUT, no glass tops and no cool-looking tweeters (which also doubled as train signals, traffic sensors, and navigation devices) ;)

Titanium Dome
07-03-2008, 07:16 PM
BTW, this thread should be moved to the correct location. It's clearly not a consumer amp thread.

Perhaps a moderator can do this? Thanks.

venus
07-04-2008, 02:13 AM
BTW, this thread should be moved to the correct location. It's clearly not a consumer amp thread.

Perhaps a moderator can do this? Thanks.

ok!excuse me!
best regards
marco

johnaec
07-04-2008, 09:33 AM
I've had both, and the XPL200 definitely has the L65 beat in several areas, especially the driver compliment.

John

Regis
07-04-2008, 09:41 AM
I've had both as well and I agree with John. The L-65 was my first set of speakers that I purchased 30 years ago. While I have a warm and fuzzy nostalgia for the L-65's, the XPL-200's outperform them in every way.

Mr. Widget
07-04-2008, 10:12 AM
BTW, this thread should be moved to the correct location. It's clearly not a consumer amp thread.

Perhaps a moderator can do this? Thanks.Just saw this thread and moved it and merged it with the second thread that Venus started in the correct place. :)

Hey Dome, in your list of the important differences you forgot to mention that the XPL 200 is also better because it doesn't have any of that pesky real wood veneer.;)


Widget

Titanium Dome
07-04-2008, 10:20 AM
Just saw this thread and moved it.

Hey Dome, in your list of the important differences you forgot to mention that the XPL 200 is also better because it doesn't have any of that pesky real wood veneer.;)


Widget

Thanks for moving the errant thread, and thanks for giving me the opening to remind you that many XPL200s DID have real veneer, as evidenced in my restoration thread here:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10065&highlight=XPL200+rehab

Plus it had that nifty NeopreneŽ baffle covering.

Still, it's not a great, honking, rectangular box like a Jubal, so I'll give you that. :biting:

Mr. Widget
07-04-2008, 10:41 AM
Still, it's not a great, honking, rectangular box like a Jubal, so I'll give you that. :biting::applaud:

I have to admit, I have never seen a pair of XPL anythings in person. I was going from memory and the fact that you liked them...:bouncy:

But seriously, based on the anecdotal evidence out there and what I know about the various drivers etc., I would have to agree with your assessment in your comparison between the Jubal and the XPL 200. I am sure you have posted this somewhere, but how do the XPL 200s compare with your Performance Series? I don't mean which is better, but rather, in what ways are they different.


Widget

slxrti
07-06-2008, 11:03 AM
:blah::blah::blah:!:applaud::applaud::applaud::app laud::applaud:
who's the best?:banghead:
best regards
marco
I never heard the xpl200, but I did own a pair of Jubal.

"All high's no low and it ain't no Bose's, so it must be a JUBAL!!!!!"

slxrti

Audiobeer
07-06-2008, 04:28 PM
Must have been your setup, the highs & the lows were over the top in my room. I remember them as being outstanding Rock & Roll speakers that all my friends wanted to hear turned up in the late 70s.

brad347
07-06-2008, 06:22 PM
I like my Jubals, mine are the "A" revision with the 122a woofers and they have bass in spades. In fact, the first thing I did when I hooked them up was double-check to make sure I didn't have the "loudness" switch on my amplifier... that's almost what it sounded like.

One thing I've found as I've been dialing my Jubals in is that, contrary to their function as furniture, they benefit (in my room anyway) from being up off the floor a few inches. I got some black stone slabs intended for paving and put them under mine, it raised them up off the floor about 2 inches.

Now they are much closer to what I want, they're decoupled from the hollow hardwood floor a bit, and are a bit closer to the ballpark of head-level in a sitting position. The 40 degree vertical dispersion characteristic of the 077 tweeter means that they really like to be at least somewhat close to level with your ears. If I sit on the floor they sound gorgeous ;)

But now that I've got them off the floor a couple of inches, they sound nice on the couch, too. :applaud:

brutal
07-09-2008, 09:41 AM
You XPL owners are just trying to drive down the price of Jubals and drive up the price of XPL's so you can trade up. LOL j/k :D

4313B
07-09-2008, 09:50 AM
The guys who design these loudspeakers probably prefer to imagine that they are moving forward and continuously gaining expertise rather than moving backwards designing stuff that actually sounds worse than what they designed when they first started out 30 plus years ago. :D

grumpy
07-09-2008, 10:11 AM
Especially in regard to this thread title's comparison, I'd agree.

There is also skill and expertise required to design to a price point.

Current day dollar value for last known Jubal date/price? :D

Answer: 1979 - $625/each, 2007 - $1966/each
( http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ )

How much were S4600's targeted for? ~$4300/pair plus shipping to Japan and back?

Tweak48
07-10-2008, 08:28 AM
The guys who design these loudspeakers probably prefer to imagine that they are moving forward and continuously gaining expertise rather than moving backwards designing stuff that actually sounds worse than what they designed when they first started out 30 plus years ago. :D

Well, I don't know about that. JBL did that with the Radiance series. Did not hold a candle to Bolivar and were just as expensive.

Truly a step back!

DavidF
07-10-2008, 08:43 AM
Well, I don't know about that. JBL did that with the Radiance series. Did not hold a candle to Bolivar and were just as expensive.

Truly a step back!

Nope, you are confusing JBL/HK marketing with JBL engineering. The point is about products in the JBL mainline, not offshoots and branded goods that carry the logo or some common distribution channel.

SEAWOLF97
07-10-2008, 11:13 AM
Well, I don't know about that. JBL did that with the Radiance series. Did not hold a candle to Bolivar and were just as expensive.

Truly a step back!

I've had both.

Radiance was wood vinyl clad, stamped drivers (tho an occaisional LE25 was used) and sounded pretty crappy.

Bolivar was cheap brown vinyl clad, better construction, and although stamped drivers, sounded comparible to L36

Tweak48
07-10-2008, 11:31 AM
Radiance was wood vinyl clad, stamped drivers (tho an occaisional LE25 was used) and sounded pretty crappy.

Bolivar was cheap brown vinyl clad, better construction, and although stamped drivers, sounded comparible to L36

I remember taking dealers over to the JBL booth during the Summer 1980 CES to show them the new Radiance line. Most of them were recently terminated Bolivar dealers (when Harman pulled the plug) and no longer had a quality "entry" speaker line, so they were a little sore to begin with.

I can tell you that things didn't get any better after they listened to them.

Titanium Dome
07-10-2008, 01:29 PM
Nope, you are confusing JBL/HK marketing with JBL engineering. The point is about products in the JBL mainline, not offshoots and branded goods that carry the logo or some common distribution channel.

That's an astute observation. It's easy to confuse "branding" with the "brand."

Doctor_Electron
07-11-2008, 09:53 AM
Don't know what rev. my Jubals were, but I know I purchased them new in mid-1976.
They had a strong penchant for making just about any good preamp and/or power amp sound their worst.
If I had a sound effects record with a recording, close-miked and taped a 15 ips on a really good tape machine, of the vigorous scraping of fingernails across a chalkboard, I'm certain the Jubals would reproduce every nuance of it with aplomb.
I might have somehow been smitten by their outstanding cosmetics, but truthfully I had a pair of 4311's back-ordered at a Pro dealer for months, but they could not get them due to high demand. The next step up from there, other than what seemed would be the Jubals, were 4315's which I simply could not afford at the time (DRAT!)
BTW, L-166's were also scarce as hens' teeth at the time.