Looking for recommendations: 12" woofer for L65

[porschedpm]

I purchased a pair of L65 Jubals several months ago. These were in mint condition except that the foam surrounds on the 126 woofers had disintegrated. I sold off the 126's and installed a pair of 2213H woofers in their place. I was pretty happy with the resulting sound of these modified Jubals until I discovered this forum. Now, after reading the many posts regarding the variety of 12" LF speakers available, and how each have their own distinct sonic personalities, I'm wondering if I made the a wise decision by going with the 2213H's. I'd like to ask for opinions of the 2213H and recommendations on what would be a better pair of woofers to install in the Jubals to improve their perfomance. Thanks for your help.

Ed S.

PS. Just as an aside to add to the collective database of knowledge out there, I tried swapping out the LE5-5 midranges with a pair of the LE5-2 Alnicos, under the assumption that the Alnicos would be a better midrange. I was wrong. The resulting midrange sounded muffled, almost as if someone had turned the volume down on just the midrange by a couple of notches (guessing 3 to 6db). I listened to it that way for several days but couldn't get used to it so I changed back LE5-5's. I don't know if there's a logical explanation for this but I'd be interested to hear if others have had this same experience.

[BigBamBoom]

I happen to think the "white woofers", from the 4311/4312/L100 is the best 12" woofer JBL made (at least from the vintage years) Problem is....the "bookshelf" cabinets they were installed into did'nt do them justice.
That is the whole problem with that series, ...a compromise in cabinet size. That speaker being driven full range in the 4311/L100, is another story altogether. Don't let infamous L100 sound qualitys sway you from what is an outstanding 12" driver.
All this of course IMHO.
L100 D123-
43xx 2213- ....if I remember correctly.

Regards, Russ

[Robh3606]

The problem with the 2213/123 is indeed the cabinet size. You can get 122A which can get you a good solid peak free low end in a little more than 2 cu ft. Can't do that with a 2213. Get yourself a copy of WINISD and run the woofers to see what you get.

http://www.linearteam.dk/default.aspx?pageid=winisd

Rob:)

[GordonW]

If you can't find 122As or 126As to go back in there, a pair of 128H or 128H-1 will work pretty well. Very similar upper end response to the 122/126... the 128 is a tiny bit more efficient, but it's not anything that can't be compensated for, by the mid/tweeter level controls.

As for the LE5-2 midrange "muffled" effect... sounds to me, that maybe those alnico LE5s, had weak magnets. Alnico drivers can suffer from demagnetization, if they've had any trauma (being dropped, rapid heating/cooling, being blown and reconed)... this will manifest itself, in a loss of efficiency and upper end response.

Regards,
Gordon.

[speakerdave]

porschedpm: " I'd be interested to hear if others have had this same experience."

I changed out my LE5-5's for LE5-2's because I wanted the low loss magnet structures next to my TV. I thought the famous Alnico sound quality would be a bonus, but I really didn't hear much difference, if any. I didn't A-B them at all, so I can't say definitively. I did not hear the dullness you say you're getting either.

For the woofer I would try some 2214's (that may be the same as the 128) since they were used in the 4425 and 1) in that speaker the woofer is also crossed out at 1000 Hz, and 2) the cabinet is almost exactly the same size (although different porting may be required).

I think the white lansaplas woofer (2213) might have its advantages (better in the upper region) but in the L65 cabinet you will be looking for the lows compared to the stock woofers.

This speaker uses a twelve-inch woofer to its upper limit, uses the LE5 to it's upper limit and uses the 077 past its lower limit. The speaker has a punchy, forward, driving sound, with that wonderful bite the 077 provides, and so it is good for a certain kind of listening. It is almost the epitome of the West Coast sound apellation of the 70's. A great party speaker. But for critical listening of classical, vocal, or acoustic jazz its shortcoming are too obvious.

Mine are sitting here idle, and I am listening to some LSR32's give the most exquisitely neutral and spacious rendition of Angst der Hellen und Friede der Seelen: A Collection of Sixteen Motets on Psalm 116 by Praetorius, Schutz, and others. This afternoon it was Art Blakey and last night it was Clarence Gatemouth Brown.

The L65--the Jubal--has been looked at in some detail on this forum with the idea of what can be done to improve it. I think it is fair to say that the verdict is that the speaker is closely engineered to its design goals and trying to improve it is like attempting to improve the floor plan of a small house--it's probably already optiimum within its limitations.

The best thing is to use it the way it is and move on when you need to. You might realize some improvements by reworking the crossovers to dampen down the mid and tweeter and to bypass the caps, but I cannot make specific recommendations on this.

Good luck.

David

[4313B]

I'd be inclined to use something that would have at least a snowball's chance in hell of keeping up with the 077/2405 so I would probably go for a 2202 or 2204. I'd be inclined to see if the 376/2441 diameter would fit in the enclosure and if so then I'd bolt an HL93/2311 in the LE5 hole. Use a 4355 filter. That way you end up with a tiny 2 cubic foot system that would kill a lesser man. Cross these over to the subs of your choice. Something like four 1500 SUB's ported should do the deed.

:p

[boputnam]

Originally posted by Giskard
...Something like four 1500 SUB's ported should do the deed. :shock:

[4313B]

What? Talk to me Bo...

[boputnam]

Originally posted by porschedpm
...recommendations on what would be a ... (proper) ... pair of woofers to install in the Jubals The 126... :yes:

I'd not continue the path you're on, just because it started with a mistake. :eek:

First, the 126A is a positive polarity transducer - you swapped-in the 2213H, which is a negative transducer. Unless you cross-wired it (i.e., BLK to Red LF post) you've encountered some quite unintended consequences, I'd think. Frankly, I don't know where you are at (sonically...), right now.

Where it me, I'd use the Search button and research the issue of transducer polarity (if for nothing else than to amaze your friends... :rotfl: ), and then eBay for some 126's, get 'em re-surround, hook 'em up right, and enjoy some masterful JBL engineering. That is, unless you've got an anechoic chamber at home, and sufficient test gear to "upgrade" what JBL left for you...

[boputnam]

Originally posted by Giskard
What? Talk to me Bo... Only that I want some... And all this before breakfast!

[4313B]

Just between you and me Bo - The L65 was never "masterful" and not from lack of trying. ;) It's probably best thought of as a fun little system that was meant to be enjoyed by those who liked it.

Anyway, I agree with you from the standpoint that JBL loudspeaker systems are designed and implemented as a whole. I'm not sure I understand why someone would bag and tag a pair of 126's in an otherwise "mint" pair of loudspeakers just because they had foam rot. Anyway, when JBL changed out the 126A in the original L65 with the 122A in the L65A they also made some network changes. When they moved to the 129H in the L65B the network was changed again. In other words, much of this stuff isn't real arbitrary or whimsical. I have little doubt JBL would have stuffed a 123 or 2212 or 2213 in the L65 if any of them would have worked "right".

Incidentally, JBL had the S21 system available which was the Loudspeaker Component Series version of the L65 using the 4-inch voice coiled 124/2203. Again, the network was designed specifically for the 124/2203, LE5/2105, and 077/2405 although JBL did conceed that some people might prefer the LE14 to the 124/2203 in that system so it was actually specified as an option.

[boputnam]

Interesting post, Giskard, and I agree.

I sense that the "foam rot swap" was done innocently, as they often are, and the swappee was thought comparable to the swapped... :spin:


...much of this stuff isn't real arbitrary or whimsical. I have little doubt JBL would have stuffed a 123 or 2212 or 2213 in the L65 if any of them would have worked "right". is exactly the point, isn't it. JBL designed so many transducers because they had/have quite specific applications - I suppose, "specific" here could be replaced with "limited"... Thus the advent of Theile-Small parameter modelling.

I wasn't aware of that S21 system (thanks for that! :yes: ) but did myself a DIY cabinet with a LE14A that was a pretty good (but not optimum) mating with the N65, LE5 and 077.

[4313B]

"is exactly the point, isn't it. JBL designed so many transducers because they had/have quite specific applications - I suppose, "specific" here could be replaced with "limited"... Thus the advent of Theile-Small parameter modelling."

You've probably still got a copy of my rant about that. I've ranted about it in one form or another since the very first version of this forum. :p

"I wasn't aware of that S21 system (thanks for that! ) but did myself a DIY cabinet with a LE14A that was a pretty good (but not optimum) mating with the N65, LE5 and 077."

There are pictures of your system with the 075 on this forum somewhere. Which version of the N65 are you running? I've posted the LX30 schematic several times although which version(s) of the forum I posted it on escapes me at this point. You might want to look at that schematic if only for the fun of it. See how it differs from the three different N65 variants.

[boputnam]

Originally posted by Giskard
[BThere are pictures of your system with the 075 on this forum somewhere. Which version of the N65 are you running? I've posted the LX30 schematic several times although which version(s) of the forum I posted it on escapes me at this point. You might want to look at that schematic if only for the fun of it. See how it differs from the three different N65 variants. [/B]

Yea, the original DIY design was for the 2405's/077's, but the lad opted for the 075's - he thought they looked "cooler" than the 2405's. Certainly can't argue with the visual impact of those 075's. Someday, when he get's older, nostalgic and starts lusting after L100's :rotfl: he'll wish he opted for the 2405's...

And, it's the N65 - first iteration. I've not compared it to the LX30 for some time, but will again, now...

[boputnam]

They've added that 20uF cap / 7.5 ohm R combo across the 124 - there's nothing like that in the N65 variants. 'splain...?? Is that a choke of some kind?

[4313B]

No, that's just a conjugate designed to flatten the impedance curve. It counters the impedance rise of the LF voice coil. I've posted those types of curves before on the forum but where they would be I haven't a clue.

Sometimes JBL would use a single parallel resistor and sometimes they'd use a full conjugate (zobel). Sometimes they'd use nothing. The LX30 was a wee bit more expensive than the N65 so the conjugate got "paid for".

A good example would be the 3113B versus the N96/N112/N150A. The conjugate was left out of the low pass of the N96/N112/N150A and the capacitor on the LE5 was changed accordingly. It's no small wonder why we tended to use the "more expensive" 3113B network in our personal L96's, L112's, and L150A's. ;)

[porschedpm]

Thank you for all the suggestions. It would appear that I first need to make an initial decision as to whether I want to keep my Jubals as original as possible, or do I want to try to change out the the LF and MF drivers and the crossover network to try to achieve a better overall sounding speaker. Just thinking out loud, if I'm going for originality, I should get a pair of 126A's to replace the 2213H's in there now and call it good. This would provide a balanced, complete system as designed and engineered by JBL. However, it seems from reading the myriad of posts on this site that the sound from a stock pair of Jubals is not as optimal as other 12" 3 way JBL speakers, ranking somewhere below the 43xx monitors but above the L100's. Therefore, if I take a matched component approach, and switch out the LF and MF drivers and the crossover networks, basically building a system around the 077's, theoretically I might end up with a much better sounding speaker. The risk though is that I may end up with a system that sounds worse than the stock Jubals. Giskard hinted at using a 124/2203 or LE14 as the LF driver. Giskard also suggestion:

"I would probably go for a 2202 or 2204. I'd be inclined to see if the 376/2441 diameter would fit in the enclosure and if so then I'd bolt an HL93/2311 in the LE5 hole. Use a 4355 filter. "

I'm leaning towards upgrading my Jubals to try and achieve a better sounding speaker. It sounds like there are several DIYers out there. Is my goal achievable or am I trying to exceed what's possible by mating a 12" driver to the 077 in a Jubal cabinet?

[porschedpm]

Hi, boputnam wrote:

"First, the 126A is a positive polarity transducer - you swapped-in the 2213H, which is a negative transducer. Unless you cross-wired it (i.e., BLK to Red LF post) you've encountered some quite unintended consequences, I'd think. "

I thought I had the polarity figured out on this but the more I look at it the more I get confused. When I hook up a small battery to the input leads on the back of the Jubal cabinet ( battery + to red input, battery - to black) the cone on the 2213H moves outward. Is this correct in relation to what the MF and HF drivers are doing? If the original 126A's were installed and I performed this same test, would their cones move inward. I appreciate your help.

Ed S.

[4313B]

"I want to try to change out the the LF and MF drivers and the crossover network to try to achieve a better overall sounding speaker."

It is fun to try out all kinds of combinations.

"Just thinking out loud, if I'm going for originality, I should get a pair of 126A's to replace the 2213H's in there now and call it good. This would provide a balanced, complete system as designed and engineered by JBL."

Well, JBL did a total of five versions of this system that I know of, L65, L65A, L65B, S21, S21-1. When the Jubal first came out we though it was the best thing since sliced bread. Fortunately we got over it. It is still considered a viable system by many and if they're happy that's all that counts.

"However, it seems from reading the myriad of posts on this site that the sound from a stock pair of Jubals is not as optimal as other 12" 3 way JBL speakers, ranking somewhere below the 43xx monitors but above the L100's."

Fortunately JBL didn't consider the L65 the ultimate 12-inch 3-way. They didn't bag all future 12-inch 3-way system development and we ended up with fun little bookshelf systems like the L112, 4411, 120Ti, and 4412 along with fun little floor standing systems like the L100t and L100t3.

"Therefore, if I take a matched component approach, and switch out the LF and MF drivers and the crossover networks, basically building a system around the 077's, theoretically I might end up with a much better sounding speaker."

It is possible with persistence and perseverance.

"The risk though is that I may end up with a system that sounds worse than the stock Jubals."

Probably with the first few attempts.

"Giskard hinted at using a 124/2203 or LE14 as the LF driver."

I'd consider that more a fill in of history as opposed to an endorsement. I've played around with the L65 components and S21 components ad nauseum. One guy even wanted his little pancake twelves replaced with 136A's so we built five cubic foot boxes for the 136A's, the LE5-2's, and the 077's and let it rip. It sounded quite a bit better than I thought it would. Other things tried were putting 3 dB fixed pads on the LE5's and 3 dB or 6 dB fixed pads on the 077's so we could get the L-Pads opened up a bit more.

The suggestions for 128H's and 2214H's aren't bad either but I'd be more inclined to go with the 128H as opposed to the 2214H. If I remember correctly the 2214H starts it's first roll off around 600 or 700 Hz whereas I think the 128H starts it around 800 or 900 Hz. Any crossover would have to be modified accordingly.

"Is my goal achievable or am I trying to exceed what's possible by mating a 12" driver to the 077 in a Jubal cabinet?"

I think your biggest challenge is getting the 077 to balance with the LE5. The LE5 is getting a bit narrow in off-axis dispersion before it can reach the point where the 077 likes to operate. You might be able to obtain reasonable on-axis response, as was done with the 4315, but power response is going to suffer. I think poor horizontal off axis response in a home listening environment sux. The LE5 rises ~ 9 dB from 1 kHz to 6 kHz so you will have to deal with that. The L250 is a great example of using the LE5 about as high as practical. The balancing of the various twelves to the LE5 has been accomplished in many systems.

[4313B]

"The L65--the Jubal--has been looked at in some detail on this forum with the idea of what can be done to improve it. I think it is fair to say that the verdict is that the speaker is closely engineered to its design goals and trying to improve it is like attempting to improve the floor plan of a small house--it's probably already optiimum within its limitations."

Nice summary!

"The best thing is to use it the way it is and move on when you need to."

Yeah, unless one is real gung-ho and willing to go to the mat with it that's probably the best solution.

Anyone feel like getting an Ashly and tri-amping a Jubal just for kicks?

[boputnam]

Originally posted by porschedpm
...When I hook up a small battery to the input leads on the back of the Jubal cabinet ( battery + to red input, battery - to black) the cone on the 2213H moves outward. Hey, Ed...

Sorry for the delay - I was basking in the new Ashly crossover last night... ;)

By connecting to the cabinet binding posts for that battery test what you're seeing in cone movement is affected by the network - and, as such the 2213H should move outward if you've connected the 2213H normally, to the N65 network. Alone, the 2213H will move in on positive voltage - i.e, it is negative, as are most JBL's.

And...
If the original 126A's were installed and I performed this same test, would their cones move inward...? :yes:, thus my point - you've inadvertantly changed the intended phasing behavior of the network. The L65 as issued, ran:

HF (077) = (-)
MF (LE5-6) = (+)
LF (126A) = (-)

You can certainly use the 2213H in that baffle, and with that network, although not optimized. But, if doing so, you need to cross-wire the 2213H at the 2213H connections.

Now, about that Ashly and tri-amping possibility... :hmm:

[4313B]

Originally posted by boputnam
Now, about that Ashly and tri-amping possibility... :hmm: Yeah, it could be worth a look. One would still have the high crossover frequency necessitated by the 077 but it could be fun monkeying around with the filter Q's. If JBL hadn't been so damn stingy with the production of the 076/2403 I'd be inclined to toss that in in place of the 077/2405. We know that works a bit better although JBL still put a lens in front of the LE5 in the L220. Incidentally, we tried putting an L91/2308 in front of the LE5 in the Jubal. It looked tuff (sic) anyway... :cool:

[porschedpm]

Thank you all for all your help. I've certainly got enough to keep me busy and off the streets for a while. As a newbie to this site, I've learned more about the vintage and pro JBLs from reading the posts on this forum over the last couple of weeks than I have over the last 30 years. I thought I knew a lot about the L100, L65, L300, 4311, etc. models having grown up during their heydey, but I've discovered how little I really know. And there's so much more to learn. This site and the forum are very addictive indeed. It's like trying to put down a good book. Thanks again and keep up the good work.

Ed S.