A Few(!) Questions About JBL L100

[Koosha9876]

Hi everyone!:),
I'm a new member at this site and I hope I'll learn useful things from the members' knowledge and experiences;)...Now let me jump to my question, shall I ? :
From what I've learned, there are 4 versions of JBL L100 :

1)L100 Century with grey JBL logo(and vertically aligned units)
2)L100A Century with grey JBL logo
3)L100A Century(Late Model) with orange JBL logo and network control settings from -5 to +5
4)L100A Century((Very!)Late Model) with orange JBL logo and network control settings from 0 to 10

Am I right on what I've written?:confused:If so, what are the latest drivers JBL used on the 4th version in the last production run?:confused:from what I've heard :

Low Freq Driver : 123A-3
Mid Range Driver : LE5-2
High Freq Driver : LE26

I'm pretty sure they gradually updated the tweeters from LE25 to LE26.., but didn't they change 123A-3 or LE5-2(ex. LE5-2 to LE5-10 or...)?:confused:

sorry for my long questions!, any help of yours is truly appreciated:help::applaud::hurray:

Regards,
Koosha9876

[script56]

L100 always used le25. Also I think the later ones were not labeled "century"??

[RMC]

Hi Koosha,

Welcome aboard ! Maybe you forgot two versions ? L 100 T and L 100 T3 with 2214H woofer. Regards,

Richard

[Mr. Widget]

Hi Koosha,

Welcome aboard ! Maybe you forgot two versions ? L 100 T and L 100 T3 with 2214H woofer. Regards,

RichardMaybe forgot, but in my mind and probably many others those are not "L100s". I would suggest the JBL LSR32 and current LSR 6332 monitors are more closely related to the L100s if you want to expand beyond the original 4310, 4311, and corresponding L100 versions.

I'm reasonably certain all later L100s used the LE25 and LE5-2. Not sure about the woofers.


Widget

[Koosha9876]

L100 always used le25. Also I think the later ones were not labeled "century"??

Hi Script56 from TN(King ELVIS' state!:cool:),
Yes, the later ones weren't labeled "century" anywhere except on their owners' manuals:confused: but I still consider them "Centuries"!:D
Are you sure they never changed LE25s?:confused:cause I've seen some later L100As with LE25-2s,LE25-4 and LE26?!:confused:

[Koosha9876]

Hi Koosha,

Welcome aboard ! Maybe you forgot two versions ? L 100 T and L 100 T3 with 2214H woofer. Regards,

Richard

Thanks!, Richard and nice to meet you:)
I think the suggested versions aren't considered L100 Centuries but the woofer you mentioned is an upgrade from 2213H woofers used as an alternative for 123A-1 and 123A-3 woofers...
Am I right on the other 4 versions???

[Koosha9876]

Maybe forgot, but in my mind and probably many others those are not "L100s". I would suggest the JBL LSR32 and current LSR 6332 monitors are more closely related to the L100s if you want to expand beyond the original 4310, 4311, and corresponding L100 versions.

I'm reasonably certain all later L100s used the LE25 and LE5-2. Not sure about the woofers.


Widget

I completely agree, Mr.widget :yes: but did I mention all "L100s" in my first post? weren't any other versions produced?:confused:
I also thinks they didn't change LE5-2s,but weren't LE25s later changed into LE25-2s,-4s,and even LE26s?:confused: and maybe someone can help us with the woofers?!:hmm:

Thanks again;)

[Ian Mackenzie]

Maybe forgot, but in my mind and probably many others those are not "L100s". I would suggest the JBL LSR32 and current LSR 6332 monitors are more closely related to the L100s if you want to expand beyond the original 4310, 4311, and corresponding L100 versions.

I'm reasonably certain all later L100s used the LE25 and LE5-2. Not sure about the woofers.


Widget

Hi Widget

Here is a review of the L100T
http://www.hifi-classic.net/review/jbl-l100t-167.html

There is a link to the L100
http://www.vintage-speaker-review.com/2012/02/jbl-l-100.html?m=1

Some might associate the L100T due to model number designation with the L100 but is a totally different loudspeaker

Reference to the JBL product profile in the Library and elsewhere confirms this.

We have been through all this a while back when Bo bought up his college years with the L100

Don wrote an excellent account of the whole reason behind the L100

It was JBL move to push into Altecs 604 long held dominance in the studio business

It was voiced to mimic a 604 midrange peak

As a loudspeaker the L100T is nothing like that

Far from being critical but Richard your post was in accurate.

[Koosha9876]

Hi Widget

Here is a review of the L100T
http://www.hifi-classic.net/review/jbl-l100t-167.html

There is a link to the L100
http://www.vintage-speaker-review.com/2012/02/jbl-l-100.html?m=1

Some might associate the L100T due to model number designation with the L100 but is a totally different loudspeaker

Reference to the JBL product profile in the Library and elsewhere confirms this.

We have been through all this a while back when Bo bought up his college years with the L100

Don wrote an excellent account of the whole reason behind the L100

It was JBL move to push into Altecs 604 long held dominance in the studio business

It was voiced to mimic a 604 midrange peak

As a loudspeaker the L100T is nothing like that

Far from being critical but Richard your post was in accurate.

Hi Ian, Thanks for these useful info:)
so, putting aside L100Ts...Did JBL produce 4 versions of L100s?:confused:Can you help us with the latest drivers used in the 4th version in its last production run?:help:
Were the crossovers anyhow modified from 3rd to 4th version?:dont-know:

[Ian Mackenzie]

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm

Unfortunately l don't have the time for a detailed account of the differences but if you read the above link it will give an insight

Most if not all your questions can be answered by looking in the Library product profiles and the reference area of the public forum

[SEAWOLF97]

L100 always used le25. Also I think the later ones were not labeled "century"??

Didnt first L100's actually use LE20-1's ?

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Technical%20Sheet/L100%20CENTURY%20ts.pdf

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?39444-JBL-L100-versions-crossovers-and-speakers&highlight=le20

[Ian Mackenzie]

Can you advise the intention behind your questions?for example are you trying to buy a used L100?

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Systems%20Reference%20Charts/Studio%20Monitor%20Series.pdf

[jpw retired]

Yes the original L-100 with vertically aligned drivers did in fact use the LE-20 tweeter.
I had a pair. It's cone was slightly larger in diameter than the LE-25 tweeter.

The LE-26 never made it in to an L-100 that I saw, and I sold hundreds of them back in the day.

The L-100T was similar in model number only, as mentioned by others.

[Koosha9876]

Can you advise the intention behind your questions?for example are you trying to buy a used L100?

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Systems%20Reference%20Charts/Studio%20Monitor%20Series.pdf

Yes, I am:)
The vintage stereo store I'm intending to buy from has got 2 versions of L100A(Later Model-orange logo)...1st one has -5 to +5 and the 2nd one has 0 to 10 scale...I just wanted to know with one is the latest?(I couldn't find any technical info anywhere about the second pair:crying:)and Is it normal that the 2nd one has LE26 tweeters,LE5-10 midranges and 2213H woofers?(Cause I want to buy an "UNCHANGED" pair...)
I'd be happy if anyone shares some clear info:confused:
THANKS

[Koosha9876]

Yes the original L-100 with vertically aligned drivers did in fact use the LE-20 tweeter.
I had a pair. It's cone was slightly larger in diameter than the LE-25 tweeter.

The LE-26 never made it in to an L-100 that I saw, and I sold hundreds of them back in the day.

The L-100T was similar in model number only, as mentioned by others.

Thanks for the info, my friend:)
but weren't any of the later LE25s, like LE25-2,-4,-6 used in later L100A(Late Model)s ?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Ask to check which one has the 2213H

That is the later version but l would request to see what drivers are in there as it may not be a first owner pair

[grumpy]

schematics/tech info dated as late as 1994, show the LE25 remained in the L100A. Your first post captures the rest.

[Odd]

This is not a setup I have made. It is published on this page somewhere.

78321

[Mr. Widget]

Odd, I think your chart is correct except for the tweeters. Only the earliest L100s with the vertical driver arrangement used the LE20.

To follow up on the LE26 question, I'm sure that if there are L100s out here with LE26s in them, this was done years after leaving the factory. The L26 is the tweeter used in the Decade series.


Widget

[Koosha9876]

Ask to check which one has the 2213H

That is the later version but l would request to see what drivers are in there as it may not be a first owner pair

But I think 123A-3 came later because according to the technical manuals, 2213H was a substitute "ferrite" woofer for L100s since they had 123A-1 woofers???:confused:

[Koosha9876]

schematics/tech info dated as late as 1994, show the LE25 remained in the L100A. Your first post captures the rest.

Thank you so much, grumpy!:applaud:
this helped me a lot!..however,Would you please tell me where I can find those tech info online? that would solve all my problems;)
Thanks again!

[Koosha9876]

78321

Thank you,odd:D:applaud:

[Koosha9876]

Odd, I think your chart is correct except for the tweeters. Only the earliest L100s with the vertical driver arrangement used the LE20.

To follow up on the LE26 question, I'm sure that if there are L100s out here with LE26s in them, this was done years after leaving the factory. The L26 is the tweeter used in the Decade series.


Widget

Thank you so much..!:applaud:I somehow feel relieved now!:hurray:
they didn't change LE5-2,either...Did they?

[grumpy]

78324

[Audiobeer]

I really wish our resident expert Bo could chime in. He collects these........mic drop

[Ian Mackenzie]

Yep,

The O'l Tin ear is around somewhere.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?5739-JBL-123A-1-vs-123A-3

[Koosha9876]

78324

Thanks grumpy, I had studied this technical manual several times but I wasn't sure that it applies to both versions of L100A(Late Model)...Now after gathering these useful info from all my dear new friends in audioheritage(including you;)), I'm sure that high and mid freq drivers remained the same in both versions, but I can't say that about the woofers yet...Did they eventually change 123A-3 to 2213H?(I think Ian thinks so...)If not,then the both versions of L100A(Late Model) are 100% similar except for their crossover network control scales!(What is the point in that,JBL?!:D)

[grumpy]

The confusion/issue may be vs non-identical pro versions (e.g., 4310, 4311, 4311A/B...) which continued to be developed during and after the switch to ferrite magnets.
I don't have various L100 versions in-hand to back this up, and (perhaps predictably) my interest is waning. If I wanted a museum piece, I'd be striving for accuracy... but for listening? I think
I'd (personally) be more interested in the 2213H (newer, fits, recommended for replacement, same cone kit as 123A-3, and no need for re-charge). I'm sure there are those
who would disagree and only Alnico and exact specs will do... we're talking about a 40 year old driver though, so good luck with that, and your potential purchase :).

[Koosha9876]

The confusion/issue may be vs non-identical pro versions (e.g., 4310, 4311, 4311A/B...) which continued to be developed during and after the switch to ferrite magnets.
I don't have various L100 versions in-hand to back this up, and (perhaps predictably) my interest is waning. If I wanted a museum piece, I'd be striving for accuracy... but for listening? I think
I'd (personally) be more interested in the 2213H (newer, fits, recommended for replacement, same cone kit as 123A-3, and no need for re-charge). I'm sure there are those
who would disagree and only Alnico and exact specs will do... we're talking about a 40 year old driver though, so good luck with that, and your potential purchase :).

Thanks,grumpy:)
I agree with your sayings about 2213H, but to tell you the truth,I'm also one of those who wants exact specs:D
These info,however,will definitely help me for a better purchase...:applaud:

[Koosha9876]

Hello Y'all !,

First of all, I wanted to thank all my dear friends(Including: grumpy,Mr.Widget,script56,JPW Retired,odd,Ian Mackenzie and...)who helped me with my questions...May God bless you all! :applaud:For my first question(which was the correct order of L100 versions),I've found a great post by a great user called "VSN" in a thread on this great site(!) that I think it can help many others with the same question...Here it is(All credits go to "VSN" :applaud:) :

((There were four versions of the L100:

1) The very first model was the L100 Century made from 1971 to 1974. This model is very unique in many ways from the vast majority of L100’s found for sale today. Some call this model ‘rare’, yet in actuality it had the longest production run of all the models and many thousands were made. The main reason you do not see this version as much is they were far outnumbered by the enormous volume produced as the later models gained popularity. The most notable difference of this early model is the drivers are in a straight vertical row. Other differences exist in the crossover network, phasing of the transducers, and the cabinet bass port. Lower value capacitors and the use of an inductor in the LX12-10 network produced crossover points of 2.5K Hz & 7.5K Hz. All the drivers were in phase with each other, unlike the later models where the woofer and midrange are 180 out of phase. The bass port was only a small hole in the cabinet without an internal tube, and the tweeter was the LE20 round, not the LE25 square.

2) The second model released was the L100A Century which was made from 1974 to 1976. The most notable difference was the midrange driver became offset from the bass and tweeter axis. The circuitry changed to higher value capacitors and eliminated the inductor shifting the crossover points to 1.5K Hz and 6K Hz and became the N100 network which remained the same in all future models. The woofer phasing was changed to be 180 out from the midrange to cancel out the duplicated tones where the 123A-1 and LE5-2 overlapped. The bass port diameter was enlarged along with adding the internal tube to enhance the low frequency response, and the LE25 square tweeter replaced the LE20 round tweeter.

3) The third model was the orange label L100A Late which was made from 1976 to 1977. This model was virtually identical to the black label L100A Century excluding the foilcal label dropped the word Century and a polarity change occurred to the woofer. Up until this point all previous models had used the 123A-1 positive firing woofer which was now replaced with the 123A-3 negative firing woofer. As the new -3 woofer fired in the opposite direction as the previous model, it was required to be wired backwards inside the cabinet to maintain the correct polarity as the network circuitry remained unchanged. This means the positive input wire now went to the negative woofer terminal to maintain the out of phase relationship with the midrange. JBL did not want to confuse the service centers by suddenly changing the internal wiring of the well established L100.

4) There is really a fourth L100A “Late-Late” model yet JBL does not identify this as a separate model even though the internal wiring changed to the studio monitor color code, the face of the cabinet got a slight groove around the face perimeter plus the presence and brilliance controls went from a +/- 3 scale to a 0 to 10 scale. Somewhere in those last few years, the rear input connectors changed from the metal spring loaded style to the plastic twist-lock style which were used on many other late 70’s models such as the L112 & L150, plus they were relocated higher up toward the middle of the cabinet rather than offset near the woofer end.))

Pretty well-explained, huh? ;) And for my last question(It's really the last one :D and will hopefully clear all my confusions about L100:banana: ):

Was the LX12-10 crossover really better than the N100? and thus making the "original" L100 sound more musical(or better(?))than the later ones?(I've read these in some posts on AH,but highly doubt it...)
Thanks again! :hurray: :applaud:

[Titanium Dome]

I bought my first L100s in 1971 with money I earned from managing the student radio station at college. I still have them, the original boxes, sales slip, paperwork, and manual. Many LPs from the time only sound right to me when played through these speakers. They came with a "lifetime" warranty, and JBL replaced one woofer for free when it failed several years later.

My children, who are in their 40s now, grew up listening to these same speakers. I had these in my office for many years before moving to a new location.

About a decade ago, I came across a similar pair in pristine condition which I bought off eBay for a ridiculously small amount of money. I'd heard other L100s that came from the later model runs with the offset drivers, but I always preferred the ones with inline drivers, so I grabbed this second pair as fast as I could.

All of this is very subjective and simply my opinion. My expectation bias tells me that the original L100s are the best of the L100 variations. I've had many newer and more expensive JBLs over the years, and I've enjoyed most of them immensely. As time passed and I've moved up the JBL chain, I've sold a lot of very good speakers, but I'd never sell my straight line L100s.

They just sound right! :)






((There were four versions of the L100:

1) The very first model was the L100 Century made from 1971 to 1974. This model is very unique in many ways from the vast majority of L100’s found for sale today. Some call this model ‘rare’, yet in actuality it had the longest production run of all the models and many thousands were made. The main reason you do not see this version as much is they were far outnumbered by the enormous volume produced as the later models gained popularity. The most notable difference of this early model is the drivers are in a straight vertical row. Other differences exist in the crossover network, phasing of the transducers, and the cabinet bass port. Lower value capacitors and the use of an inductor in the LX12-10 network produced crossover points of 2.5K Hz & 7.5K Hz. All the drivers were in phase with each other, unlike the later models where the woofer and midrange are 180 out of phase. The bass port was only a small hole in the cabinet without an internal tube, and the tweeter was the LE20 round, not the LE25 square.
And for my last question(It's really the last one :D and will hopefully clear all my confusions about L100:banana: ):

Was the LX12-10 crossover really better than the N100? and thus making the "original" L100 sound more musical(or better(?))than the later ones?(I've read these in some posts on AH,but highly doubt it...)
Thanks again! :hurray: :applaud:

[Koosha9876]

I bought my first L100s in 1971 with money I earned from managing the student radio station at college. I still have them, the original boxes, sales slip, paperwork, and manual. Many LPs from the time only sound right to me when played through these speakers. They came with a "lifetime" warranty, and JBL replaced one woofer for free when it failed several years later.

My children, who are in their 40s now, grew up listening to these same speakers. I had these in my office for many years before moving to a new location.

About a decade ago, I came across a similar pair in pristine condition which I bought off eBay for a ridiculously small amount of money. I'd heard other L100s that came from the later model runs with the offset drivers, but I always preferred the ones with inline drivers, so I grabbed this second pair as fast as I could.

All of this is very subjective and simply my opinion. My expectation bias tells me that the original L100s are the best of the L100 variations. I've had many newer and more expensive JBLs over the years, and I've enjoyed most of them immensely. As time passed and I've moved up the JBL chain, I've sold a lot of very good speakers, but I'd never sell my straight line L100s.

They just sound right! :)

Thank you very much for sharing your experience with the original L100:)Continue having fun with them,sir;)
Hopefully,someone who has heard both the original and later L100s can help us with their sonic differences...:confused::help::dont-know:

[jpw retired]

Thanks,grumpy:)
I agree with your sayings about 2213H, but to tell you the truth,I'm also one of those who wants exact specs:D
These info,however,will definitely help me for a better purchase...:applaud:

Great recap Koosha9876. John

[Koosha9876]

Great recap Koosha9876. John
Thank you,sir :)
however,there's still one more unanswered question:(:The sonic differences between the original(with LX12-10)and the latest L100s(with N100)???:dont-know:

[SEAWOLF97]

Hello Y'all !,

Was the LX12-10 crossover really better than the N100? and thus making the "original" L100 sound more musical(or better(?))than the later ones?(I've read these in some posts on AH,but highly doubt it...)
Thanks again! :hurray: :applaud:

more musical ???

I can't recall the words "L100" and "musical" in the same sentence. If you do homework on the model, you'll find that their reputation (at least on LHF) is that they are "FAKE, BUT FUN".

yes, I own a pair, tho in care of my son right now, yes..they are fun , but musical :dont-know: , but definitely FUN. I guess it's what type of music you will pump thru them.

There are many different models of 3 way, 12 inch bookshelves made by JBL. I've gone thru 5 or 6 different models (L65,L100,4412,L166,120Ti and more that I've forgotten) , of them all, the only ones I've kept are the 120Ti's, which I consider the most musical. They come in mirrored pairs. IMHO, the 120 is second only to the $5,000 Century Gold model. It's also a fine teak veneer and quite handsome.

I DO regret selling the L166 Horizons tho.

[jpw retired]

Moving a little off topic with discussions of fun vs musical, but I would agree that the L-100 (any version) tended to be more fun than musical with some frequency response bumps in the bass, midrange and treble as well as higher sensitivity/output adding to the excitement. When I think of the term "musical" as applied to describing a speaker, I think of a speaker that is warm in balance, often compressed with soften attack and that never offends. Musical to me, does not mean accurate or neutral. In the 1970's very few loudspeakers were accurate or neutral by today's standards, all clearly colored in my opinion when compared with modern well executed speaker designs. Since low coloration was really not available back in the day, people were free to pick the sound they liked best, resulting in some polarization in the consumer audio world. Hence the well known East versus West Coast sound as personified by AR, KLH and Advent (East) and JBL, Altec (West) respectively. That's what I love about the better modern JBL designs, they have the excitement and fun but low coloration and naturalness as well.

[Mr. Widget]

That's what I love about the better modern JBL designs, they have the excitement and fun but low coloration and naturalness as well.Ditto!

But I still have my L100s and get a kick out of playing them... not as often as I use my modern JBLs, but they are fun.


Widget

[SEAWOLF97]

I think of a speaker that is warm in balance, often compressed with soften attack and that never offends. Musical to me, does not mean accurate or neutral. ... .

agree with most of your post. I HAD 4410's which were accurate & neutral , BUT they weren't much fun to listen to.

I knew they were made for studio mixing and I thought that they could be tamed in a home environment , but they stayed true to their nature.

The L166 Horizons had many of the same characteristics of the L100, but were a bit more refined , they were gobs of fun too. ;) . doesn't LHF have a thread about 3 way 12 inch bookshelves ?

In my HT , I also had some AR towers that had a passive 8 inchers and powered 8 inch subs. They are stupendous for movies , but I use that system more for music and they didn't do that very well. Replaced by a/d/s towers which are great on music and passable on movies.

[Ed Kreamer]

Colleagues: I have always had a difficult time with the term musical applied to audio equipment. To me it's either accurate or not. My listening habits are classical music and I have a degree in music which undoubtedly colors my thoughts on the subject. I find a speaker like the older L series difficult to listen to, especially at concert volume, and speakers like B&W, just don't sound right. I do use 4408's and 4410's (with LE10's rather than 127's ) for the front and I like them better than anything that I can afford, because every everything is in it's place. (and they appeal somewhat to my long suffering wife's sense of scandinavian sensibilities).

So I guess that Musical is a rather nebulous term, and we're all different especially me.

So drink wine, and rock on.

Ed

[Ian Mackenzie]

When l think musical and accurate it's a compromise between tonal accuracy and speed in terms of decaying resonances

Tonal accuracy to me means smooth linear response.

Accurate means fast and very good self damping of the diaphragm.

Many good loudspeakers that aim at tonal accuracy are very forgiving and don't sound lifelike because of the relatively heavy cones.

A quote from a well known loudspeaker designer Dr Rod Crawford formally of Linn:
'My previous preference had been for the BBC sound which emphasised good tonal balance whereas the Linn sound emphasises being very fast/foot-tapping ability, so we needed a light, stiff sort of driver. The down-side of this, however, is that light, stiff cones tend to 'break-up' chaotically at the top end if you're not very careful. Anything rigid, once it starts to resonate, gives you a very strong resonance so we had to use fairly high-order (fourth-order) crossover

We are not talking about Linn but an inherent trade off.

Aside from voicing the 4310 to sound like an Altec 604 the L100's efficiency cones at a price. Break up and resonance decay.

The L100 attempts to do both the above but not well enough.

I like the lively nature of the L100 but the comparative light cones suffer break up and lack of self damping.

The original tweeter in particular was not accurate.

[DavidF]

Colleagues: I have always had a difficult time with the term musical applied to audio equipment. To me it's either accurate or not. My listening habits are classical music and I have a degree in music which undoubtedly colors my thoughts on the subject. I find a speaker like the older L series difficult to listen to, especially at concert volume, and speakers like B&W, just don't sound right. I do use 4408's and 4410's (with LE10's rather than 127's ) for the front and I like them better than anything that I can afford, because every everything is in it's place. (and they appeal somewhat to my long suffering wife's sense of scandinavian sensibilities).

So I guess that Musical is a rather nebulous term, and we're all different especially me.

So drink wine, and rock on.

Ed

Yes, "musical" is thrown around a lot. Seems often when some audio component doesn't hit all of the audiophile checkpoints we can always say it's "musical". Really it is only that the system of components has the ability to align with enough of our sensory cues to convey a musical representation. Given the right source, of course. Since, as you suggest, we all have different sets of musical experiences it's therefore difficult to make the term universal in use. For me, it is simply means that the sound is good enough to get equipment out of the way and allow me to focus on the music.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Yes, "musical" is thrown around a lot. Seems often when some audio component doesn't hit all of the audiophile checkpoints we can always say it's "musical". Really it is only that the system of components has the ability to align with enough of our sensory cues to convey a musical representation. Given the right source, of course. Since, as you suggest, we all have different sets of musical experiences it's therefore difficult to make the term universal in use. For me, it is simply means that the sound is good enough to get equipment out of the way and allow me to focus on the music.

I agree musicality is a widely banded around.

In terms of the industry magazine reviewers see fit to jade the audiophile while the term is used by the audio mafia in marketing literature.
Unfortunately people buy off reviews and magazines. Some even audition off Youtube clips.

For the listener musicality tends be associated with emotional engagement.
Head nodding, toe tapping excitement and what not seem to be common indicators.

For the manufacturer I doubt there is universal agreement on what constitutes musicality.
Do they care? In fact I think it gets quite murky.

For example the other day I met an audio amplifier designer Huge Dean of Aspen Amplifiers (1).
Quote "He said getting the spectral distribution of distortion right was paramount to the musicality of an amplifier".
But I thought "no distortion" was the aim? Or does that sound boring and un interesting?

Apply the same approach to loudspeakers and you might end up with something that has some "nice sounding" attributes on particular kinds of music to suck you in but in fact it can't play all genes with any degree of realism. I wrote an article once for the Melbourne Audio Club magazine extolling the virtues of large JBL monitors that said as much. There was political fall out in the Club after the article was lifted by then editor Greg Borowman and published in Australian HiFi.

I have the same problem with small single ended triode amplifiers. Nice on folk and acoustic but falls in a screaming heap otherwise.
Somethings are best unsaid but the true believers get it.

Then of course the is the live performance. it could be a busker, a jazz quartet, the opera or a solo act.
What gets me is a lot of the crap about this topic goes out the window once you actually hear something live, up close and personal.
For example, once hearing the acoustic guitar or the sax you soon realise its louder than you can possibly imagine the level of your stereo in your own home.
But its so pure and clear and it doesn't hurt your ears. The instruments have a presence that is captivating.

Quite a while ago I think it was in 2007 myself and some other forum members visited Steve Schell's home Long Beach which is an audio museum in its own right and heard his large conical horns and the smaller Iconic. It was a very interesting day and I don't think I have heard anything quite like to since. Steve spent a good while explaining the history of horn loudspeakers to me earlier in the afternoon. It all made sense.

Putting the WAF aside bookshelf loudspeakers (1- 2 cu ft3) don't cut it.
I recall walking out of there thinking bigger is better.





(1) Huge Dean is a highly successful designer and marketer of high quality diy amplifier kits (no affiliation)

[Titanium Dome]

Yes, yes, all of this is just fine, but if you were hooked into rock in the "Made loud to be played loud!" era of The Who, Led Zeppelin, The James Gang, Deep Purple, Grand Funk Railroad, etc., then this is the speaker that Michael Marcus said in Rolling Stone would "...knock you on your ass!"

Um, if you can still hear, that is. :rockon2:

[jpw retired]

Thanks for the info, my friend:)
but weren't any of the later LE25s, like LE25-2,-4,-6 used in later L100A(Late Model)s ?

It's likely that different versions of the LE-25 were used as the model progressed. I clearly remember LE-25-4's, but I never saw a LE-26.
I was told by my then JBL sales rep that different versions of drivers were used with small changes to the cone, pot, voice coil or cone material etc, so the driver could be tailored to whatever speaker it was going in. The L-100's LE-5-2 midrange, for example, had a cast pot over the magnet making for a heavier cooler looking driver. Other JBL models also used the LE-5 midrange but without the pot. The pot discouraged stray magnetic field to the point where a screw driver would not stick to it but would on the non cast pot LE-5's.

[Ed Zeppeli]

Apply the same approach to loudspeakers and you might end up with something that has some "nice sounding" attributes on particular kinds of music to suck you in but in fact it can't play all genes with any degree of realism. I wrote an article once for the Melbourne Audio Club magazine extolling the virtues of large JBL monitors that said as much. There was political fall out in the Club after the article was lifted by then editor Greg Borowman and published in Australian HiFi.



Any chance this article is available online someplace?