Anyone tried the Troels Gravesen L112 upgraded crossovers ?

[andresohc]

I just read Troels Gravesen articles on modifying the L112 crossovers (http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/JBL-L112.htm), to clean up the midrange lobbing and muddling of the mids by the woofers and tweeters. I couldnt find any discussion of this on Lansing Heritage and wondered if anyone has taken the jump and how did it go? Worth the effort?

[Earl K]

Well, I haven't built anything of his but I do have huge respect for Troels Gravesen and all of his efforts . (http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Diy_Loudspeaker_Projects.htm)

His latest ( tip-of-the hat ) tribute to the 4345 (http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/The-Loudspeaker.htm)is really quite inspired ( & very much an acknowledgement to JBL's prowess in it's 4-way designs ).

So, with all that glowing praise I would certainly try one ( or two ) of his mods on JBL's legacy products ( if I owned any ).

:)

[andresohc]

Well, I haven't built anything of his but I do have huge respect for Troels Gravesen and all of his efforts . (http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Diy_Loudspeaker_Projects.htm)

His latest ( tip-of-the hat ) tribute to the 4345 (http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/The-Loudspeaker.htm)is really quite inspired ( & very much an acknowledgement to JBL's prowess in it's 4-way designs ).

So, with all that glowing praise I would certainly try one ( or two ) of his mods on JBL's legacy products ( if I owned any ).

:)
Yeah, his 43XX project looks delectable. In the L112 mods he basically redesigns the filters to decrease the overlap of the elements and decrease the lobes in the mids. Serious mods that no doubt cost quite a bit for new caps. He reports it sharpens up the midrange, makes it more discreet so that the imaging isnt so muddled. He also suggests building new front baffles with the elements aligned vertically. He has no love for the 044 tweeter which I have grown fond of. I grew up with JBLs on this site and was hoping to defer to the expertise here. Or maybe other suggestions a little less radical as an alternative. Maybe replacing the inductors with larger air core coils, newer midline caps etc.

[BMWCCA]

I've owned my L112s for about 37 years and have never heard anyone complain about the "defects" Troels mentions.

I also happen to like the 044. Apparently JBL did, too, since they updated it for the 250ti.

:dont-know:

[1audiohack]

I noticed on Troels choices page he says over and over that functionally he cant know what you like and he wont hear the same as you will hear.

You couldn’t possibly know if you would like them more or less with his crossover networks unless you directly compared them.

That said, I am glad you like them as is, honest.

Barry.

[Robh3606]

I also happen to like the 044. Apparently JBL did, too, since they updated it for the 250ti.


Well what condition are his in?? After how many years who knows?? They don't look right based on his measurements. Do these have a foam pad as well or did they consider the phenolic self dampening and not need one??

Rob:)

[Earl K]

I noticed on Troels choices page he says over and over that functionally he cant know what you like and he wont hear the same as you will hear.

You couldn’t possibly know if you would like them more or less with his crossover networks unless you directly compared them.

That said, I am glad you like them as is, honest.

Barry.

True all that!

Troels mentions that he he likes the voicing of the L112 but wanted to improve it's imaging abilities ( which he did > from his perspective ).

If better imaging is one's goal then try his mods ( if one has the money ) or reverse engineer his efforts ( fwiw, all the necessary info is actually on that page for those who have the talent and inclination ).


Well what condition are his in?? After how many years who knows?? They don't look right based on his measurements. Do these have a foam pad as well or did they consider the phenolic self dampening and not need one??

Troels consistently shows he has great respect for JBL's transducer designs ( he likely hasn't had enough of them pass through his fingers to create an opinion on JBL's QC abilities ) .

He's also the first ( serious ) speaker designer to offer up some very public shout-outs for the le20 ,le25 & le26 tweeters.

"Imaging" isn't for everyone ( & the lack of it in many of JBL's middlin home products hasn't really hurt JBL's sales in past decades ).

I kind of doubt that GT will come here to explain JBLs' reasoning behind releasing so many speaker systems into the market with muddled imaging ( & I suspect it's a subject that many of the JBL faithful don't really want to hear ).

:)

[santashooter]

I only know Troels Gravesen based on his L100 century filters which have been very popular here in Denmark.
Having had 4 pairs of L-100 myself, restoring and showcasing them for friends and on forums i have heard more times that i like to, that "If you want them to sound better - make the Troels Gravesen filter".
While i do admire the filter Troels Gravesen makes and his way of working, the sound of the filters aren't for me - it takes away some of what i like about JBL. It might not be a "Theoretically correct" sound in terms of modern loudspeaker designs, and you can throw better crossover charts at me all day, but that doesn't change the fact that, in my mind, it takes away what i like about the sound. which leads me to my critique, because there is something I just simply cannot fathom in the approach:
If you don't like the sound of your speaker - why not buy a different speaker?


I love my JBL's for how they sound - with good and bad. There are a lot of people who love their original JBL's as well, and who has a hard time getting a pair that is still original, and in good condition.
Instead of modding or tricking out your speaker to become something else, why not sell it to someone who wants exactly that, and look for something that kills the itch? (Or buy all the components and build a clone :D)

and of course, i know it is fun to tinker, and that you don't necessarily harm any part of the speaker, trying a new crossover (As long as you take care with foilcals taking out the filter screws and keep the L-pads mounted since the new filter doesn't use them) - but still?
I often compare vintage audio with vintage cars - it seems counter-productive to make your old mustang into a vintage jaguar;)

[Earl K]

I only know Troels Gravesen based on his L100 century filters which have been very popular here in Denmark.
Having had 4 pairs of L-100 myself, restoring and showcasing them for friends and on forums i have heard more times that i like to, that "If you want them to sound better - make the Troels Gravesen filter".
While i do admire the filter Troels Gravesen makes and his way of working, the sound of the filters aren't for me - it takes away some of what i like about JBL. It might not be a "Theoretically correct" sound in terms of modern loudspeaker designs, and you can throw better crossover charts at me all day, but that doesn't change the fact that, in my mind, it takes away what i like about the sound. which leads me to my critique, because there is something I just simply cannot fathom in the approach:
If you don't like the sound of your speaker - why not buy a different speaker?


I love my JBL's for how they sound - with good and bad. There are a lot of people who love their original JBL's as well, and who has a hard time getting a pair that is still original, and in good condition.
Instead of modding or tricking out your speaker to become something else, why not sell it to someone who wants exactly that, and look for something that kills the itch? (Or buy all the components and build a clone :D)

and of course, i know it is fun to tinker, and that you don't necessarily harm any part of the speaker, trying a new crossover (As long as you take care with foilcals taking out the filter screws and keep the L-pads mounted since the new filter doesn't use them) - but still?
I often compare vintage audio with vintage cars - it seems counter-productive to make your old mustang into a vintage jaguar;)

Those are all good points ( & I believe they are well made ).

IME, the pursuit of imaging in my own projects can lead to sacrifices in "Tone" that are very hard to quantify ( & harder to rectify ).

I find it does end up being a balance between the two ( when not willing to just chuck the components and look for some that are less dynamic > or smoother sounding ).

In a nut-shell, I find that as one sharpens the image then one is also sharpening possible transient related audible annoyances that will also need some attention. It's truly a double-edged sword. So, many times it's just easier to soften the focus to retain the tone ( which I speculate JBL used to do ).

BTW, my budds original 4310's still sound great in their original form ( with great tone et al ).

:)

[Ian Mackenzie]

My impression is it was a consumer sound Jbl wanted to portray at the time.
Therefore it is (was) what it is.

I actual recall hearing the L112’s. They were a Impressive bookshelf loudspeaker which was a popular category at the time but well above my budget.

The competition were Avid 103’s, ESS Tempest and the like in the West Coast Sound space to name a few. I mentioned the 103’s because l ended up with the Avid 102’s which were to my taste and budget at the time.

If today you compare an AR3 to an L100 or an L112 you will find the AR3 needs a lot more power.

In contrast Jbl Pro was exploiting the new bi radial monitors which were a true monitor if the dates in the L112 article are correct.

I agree with Earl in that tone wins over attempts to image. I recently heard a few live jazz sessions in Scotland and it’s about tone, instrumental clarity and vocal definition. That may sound like a line out of the 4343B brochure but that’s the real deal 15-20 feet from stage.

[Robh3606]

I recently heard a few live jazz sessions in Scotland and it’s about tone, instrumental clarity and vocal definition. That may sound like a line out of the 4343B brochure but that’s the real deal 15-20 feet from stage.

Hello Ian

Couldn't agree more, a couple weekends back had a trumpet player start playing at the back of the crowd about 30-40 ft behind me and walk up through the center of the crowd until he ended up on stage right in front of me. It was like it was a a real life surround sound demo! His trumpet cut through everything the clarity and tone was simply amazing!

Rob:)

[rusty jefferson]

I'm going to play a little Devil's advocate here. I think you will improve the performance of your speakers with a new set of crossovers, plus someone who knows what they're doing designed it for you. The quality of film/foil capacitors available today for audio is amazing. Check out the cap test page at Humble Hifi.
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Cap.html

....I agree with Earl in that tone wins over attempts to image. I recently heard a few live jazz sessions in Scotland and it’s about tone, instrumental clarity and vocal definition.....
I don't know why we'd assume a loss of tonal qualities or timbre. They are good drivers (though dated), as stated in the article. The adjustment he made to the crossover points and slopes are minimal, and the use of high quality capacitors (and possibly bypass capacitors) will likely improve the tonality of the speakers.

In their configuration those speakers probably create a good center image but are never going to recreate a 3 dimensional vision of a live musical event. I recognize that no monitors I'm aware of, and few home speakers of that era do either, but imaging and particularly imaging specificity are critical attributes of a high quality home system, imho.

[BMWCCA]

In their configuration those speakers probably create a good center image but are never going to recreate a 3 dimensional vision of a live musical event.
Please help those of us without your experience and talent understand why this must be the case! :dont-know:

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hi Rusty

I think you misinterpreted my comments

Taken in context of Earls second post and the reality of actually hearing live un amplified jazz the notion of imaging is not what the focus is on. It’s the tone.

As l said in my post :

“My impression is it was a consumer sound Jbl wanted to portray at the time.
Therefore it is (was) what it is.”

My post did not make specific reference to the article per say. But l support Earl’s comments in that if one takes an
empirical approach to obtaining the right “tone” the design ideology behind approach’s to create the illusion of imaging become less important.

If you look at Dave Wilson’s (RIP) top designs he adjusts the “X” “Y” dimensional location of individual drivers at installation relative to the listeners ears for the image properties. He also selects and or arranges custom drivers for tonal and other characteristics and carefully blends them with other drivers as a system. But you are talking about systems up to US$685,000 here.

Other attempts to create a loudspeaker that image well may sound like a clock radio compared to a large system that can really bring the tone of musical instruments to life.

Back to JBL we look at the 4313B that design was all about making an accurate loudspeaker and Jbl states this.

I personally find going to an event and listening a good leveller or reality check in terms of what matters most.

[rusty jefferson]

Hey Ian,
I get what you guys are saying. Clearly these speakers weren't made for recreating a soundstage. I think the author is probably describing better focus of the image with his adjusted crossover and that probably will have a minor tonal change. I'm just suspecting overall performance would be better with the more modern network. They are good drivers, and with modern network components would likely improve. Plus, it's a fun project. Not too expensive, and a good learning experience. Once built, the OP could experiment with different types of capacitors to voice them.



....Other attempts to create a loudspeaker that image well may sound like a clock radio compared to a large system that can really bring the tone of musical instruments to life....
Agreed, and pertinent to Phil's question. The argument that the "ideal" speaker would be a point source in a sphere that's got flat response from 20hz-20khz and hangs rigidly in space. :) Though that speaker is unlikely to materialize in our lifetime, low diffraction speaker designs and dipole/bipole speakers for the home can do a good job creating the original event and still have good tonality. Again, speakers of this era just weren't designed with both in mind. No flames intended.

[Earl K]

Hey Ian,
I get what you guys are saying. Clearly these speakers weren't made for recreating a soundstage. I think the author is probably describing better focus of the image with his adjusted crossover and that probably will have a minor tonal change. I'm just suspecting overall performance would be better with the more modern network. They are good drivers, and with modern network components would likely improve. Plus, it's a fun project. Not too expensive, and a good learning experience. Once built, the OP could experiment with different types of capacitors to voice them.


Agreed, and pertinent to Phil's question. The argument that the "ideal" speaker would be a point source in a sphere that's got flat response from 20hz-20khz and hangs rigidly in space. :) Though that speaker is unlikely to materialize in our lifetime, low diffraction speaker designs and dipole/bipole speakers for the home can do a good job creating the original event and still have good tonality. Again, speakers of this era just weren't designed with both in mind. No flames intended.

Rusty

I agree that the components themselves have an innate attraction for some of us perpetual tinkerers ( like myself ).

I know that if I owned these nice components ( wrapped up in a L112 label ) I would be doing something just like Troels has done.

And most of the driving impetuous would be to maximize imaging capabilities. So;

I would build new boxes that might be larger ( & try an MLTL alignment just for the fun of it ), vertically array the drivers, redesign the crossovers for less lobbing all the while trying to have all 3 drivers maintain a positive driver polarity ( unlike so many other designs ).

The flip-side; it's also my experience that as imaging gets dialed in ( ie; sharpened ) then the minute nuances heard from different passives ( capacitors, coils, even resistors ) becomes more apparent and more contributory to the overall voicing.
- As I mentioned before, pursuing "imaging" is a huge double-edged sword.

- That's why if someone has the itch ( needing to be scratched ) the Troels design is at the top of the heap ( of available mods that may well work out for them ).

:)

[rusty jefferson]

....The flip-side; it's also my experience that as imaging gets dialed in ( ie; sharpened ) then the minute nuances heard from different passives ( capacitors, coils, even resistors ) becomes more apparent and more contributory to the overall voicing.
- As I mentioned before, pursuing "imaging" is a huge double-edged sword.

- That's why if someone has the itch ( needing to be scratched ) the Troels design is at the top of the heap ( of available mods that may well work out for them ).

:)
Earl,
No argument there. Insert thumbs up emoji.

[BMWCCA]

Agreed, and pertinent to Phil's question. The argument that the "ideal" speaker would be a point source in a sphere that's got flat response from 20hz-20khz and hangs rigidly in space. :) Though that speaker is unlikely to materialize in our lifetime, low diffraction speaker designs and dipole/bipole speakers for the home can do a good job creating the original event and still have good tonality. Again, speakers of this era just weren't designed with both in mind. No flames intended.
Thanks for taking time to educate. As the owner of two ears and someone used to hearing live performances, I struggle to understand how any point-source can possibly replicate an orchestra-sized sound-stage. I get the diffraction argument with respect to component placement, but I also feel a stereo pair has a better chance of creating an appropriately sized sound-stage if they're separated properly and of large enough size. A mono system is closer to a point-source but, unless your normal seat is at the back of the house, I can't see that mono array creating much of a realistic sound-stage. Most likely that's due to my pedestrian non-engineer hi-fi experience which, interestingly, began with a mono 030 system. Once I acquired a stereo pair of the same components, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven!

Thanks for the civil conversation. :cheers:

[BMWCCA]

- That's why if someone has the itch ( needing to be scratched ) the Troels design is at the top of the heap ( of available mods that may well work out for them ).

Earl, thanks for your thoughts.

The OP's question was, "Anyone tried Troels Gravesen L112 upgraded crossovers?"

It is apparent that no one here has. Not really sure why we give so much credibility to what he offers in modifications but it's all conjecture based on (IMHO) his Internet reputation. Still waiting for someone who has actually tried it in a controlled environment. I'm from Missouri: Show me!
:)

[rdgrimes]

$0.02:
Before spending a dime or a minute on crossovers, I'd be first locking down the absolute best quality source hardware to feed those beasts.

As I type this I am listening to my L112s fed by an SACD in a Oppo BDP-105, direct analog connected to a pair of Outlaw M2200 mono blocks.
I couldn't be happier, and tearing open the crossovers is the last thing on my mind. ;)

[BMWCCA]

$0.02:
Before spending a dime or a minute on crossovers, I'd be first locking down the absolute best quality source hardware to feed those beasts.

As I type this I am listening to my L112s fed by an SACD in a Oppo BDP-105, direct analog connected to a pair of Outlaw M2200 mono blocks.
I couldn't be happier, and tearing open the crossovers is the last thing on my mind. ;)
Just purchased my first SACD player in anticipation of setting up my system in my new home. Problem for another thread but . . . I have no SACDs to listen to. Beyond DSOTM (which I'm so over), any suggestions to stun my ears with in a new medium?

[grumpy]

I’d look for familar recordings of acoustic instruments and voices, less compression will show off dynamics.
May not float your boat but the sacd reissue of Getz/Gilberto was a hoot.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Perhaps we need a more historical perspective to appreciate loudspeakers then and now.

The other way of looking at this is to look back at what a buyer was interested in?

If you were into rock music then it was about finding a pair of loudspeaker within your budget that sounded the best on rock music. The dream was a big loudspeaker but large format monitors were beyond most budgets. But they sounded great on a demo in the shop. Ie the L200 or L300. They went louder, lower and had a bigger sound.

If you could not do that then it was a bookshelf loudspeaker.

Overall there was either west coast or east coast sound.

Being a rock music listener you weren’t interested in the east coast loudspeakers.

So it was about what you could afford in the west coast sound.

Jbl were basically the “kings” of loudspeakers in this area because they had the best drivers. They were cleaner and went louder than the less expensive competitors offerings. Above all they had better bass.

You either had a budget for a 10 inch Jbl system or a 12 inch system.

Today it’s s completely different market.

What people listen for and decor (size) are big influences. Bookshelf loudspeakers if anything are smaller and larger bookshelf systems have evolved into slender floor standing tower systems with multiple vertically aligned 6-7 1/2 inch woofers. These are much narrower enclosures than the Jbl bookshelf systems of the 70’s and 80’s. Loudspeaker designers know narrow baffles have better imaging properties in the midrange and treble so this becomes a design focus. However narrow baffles have a downside and the bass is weaker due loss of sensitivity at lower frequencies. This This is why these systems use multiple woofers.

Getting all these drivers to work together nicely require a more sophisticated approach to crossover design. So a loudspeaker designers first reaction to the Jbl 12 inch systems is going to be a desire to introduce more control in the crossover network.

The above isn’t a complete analysis but more a snapshot view of the two different eras as far as consumer loudspeakers are concerned.

[BMWCCA]

I’d look for familar recordings of acoustic instruments and voices, less compression will show off dynamics.
May not float your boat but the sacd reissue of Getz/Gilberto was a hoot.
Thanks. I have the re-mastered CD version already so that would be a good comparison.

[rusty jefferson]

Ian,
Well said. In the home audio heyday we listened to music, and now there is more emphasis on experiencing music. I'm guilty of this myself.

There are other reasons besides imaging for the smaller woofers and narrow baffles though, including lower distortion, less beaming and of course less cost. It is largely unheard of today to cross over a 12" woofer at 1.5khz in home speakers because of beaming and potentially, distortion. 200-300hz would be the highest you can expect to see now in home speakers with a 12" woofer (and moving toward the built in subwoofer). The reduced beaming of woofers and mid woofers does also greatly improve imaging.

[Robh3606]

Since we seem to be talking about imaging and how JBL seemed to be blind to it. It wouldn't hurt to take a look at what JBL actually says in their marketing brochure for this particular model.

http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1980-l112.htm


Rob:)

[Earl K]

http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1980-l112/page3.jpg

Seems like Boiler Plate and Bafflegab designed to support/leverage the in-arguable success of the 4310/1 monitors from the 1970's.

ie; If a record is tracked, mixed and maybe even mastered on speakers ( with similar components arranged in a similar manner ) then it really should play back properly on speakers cut from the same cloth.

It's my experience that recordings from this 1970-1980's era ( once one has ascertained to a high degree of probability that they were mixed on 4310/1's) have mixes that will literally fall apart when played back on speakers with more traditionally accepted inline ( or point-source ) componentry .

This becomes the un-stated dilemma / danger in trying to "fix" these older speakers ( while striving to keep the original musical presentation ).

IOW, there's a real good chance that a lot of one's favourite Classic Rock tunes will become absolutely " > un-recognizable < ??? " if the speaker rethink goes completely modern.


:)

[rdgrimes]

Just purchased my first SACD player in anticipation of setting up my system in my new home. Problem for another thread but . . . I have no SACDs to listen to. Beyond DSOTM (which I'm so over), any suggestions to stun my ears with in a new medium?

Acoustic Sounds (http://store.acousticsounds.com/) is a good source for discs and downloads. Buy what you want to listen to and be aware that re-issues of old analog masters can have mixed results. Ray Brown: Soular Energy and Muddy Waters Folk Singer are 2 of my go-to high res sources for demo.

[SEAWOLF97]

The reduced beaming of woofers and mid woofers does also greatly improve imaging.

lots of talk here about imaging. I've a a few speakers in my days (;)) , and the best imaging ones
have usually been small 2 way 8 inchers (usually British). Not sure why :dont-know:

[Chas]

Just purchased my first SACD player in anticipation of setting up my system in my new home. Problem for another thread but . . . I have no SACDs to listen to. Beyond DSOTM (which I'm so over), any suggestions to stun my ears with in a new medium?

Phil, if you like Dylan, Blonde on Blonde on SACD is quite remarkable. Enjoy your new set up!

[Ian Mackenzie]

Earl makes a great point.

Way back in the early 80’s l used to hear Maggie’s regularly on weekends with mainly jazz labels....

Most of these quality labels had a familiar presentation.

But once l got my diy 4343 Biamped clones going we became familiar with right sounding recordings.
52nd Street really snapped with dynamics and clarity on the 4343’s.

I can only assume Jbl monitors were used in the recording process.
In any case we craved for well recorded imported pressings and enjoyed marathon listening sessions that lasted whole weekends.

The benchmark of enjoyment was the next door neighbor knocking on the front door for 15 minutes or so. We only heard the knocking between tracks. The complaint was he could not play his own LPs because the stylus kept skipping across the surface of the record with the bass vibrating through his house! (True story). Never a problem with the Kenwood KD650 turn table equiped with FR 12 arm and FR mc cartridge.

Edit. Our friend with the Maggie’s said at the time the JBL midrange was the best.

[Robh3606]

any suggestions to stun my ears with in a new medium?


There is a duet with Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong that is really something! Or some Dire Straights or Billy Joel An Innocent Man

[rusty jefferson]

lots of talk here about imaging. I've a a few speakers in my days (;)) , and the best imaging ones
have usually been small 2 way 8 inchers (usually British). Not sure why :dont-know:
Small 2 way monitor speakers do create a good center image with a stereo recording and are used in mastering just for that reason. Many can also create depth in that image to give the feeling of space. Others present the image right on plane with the speakers. But generally speaking, the drivers are closely aligned with just one crossover point to get right, you're sitting close to them and don't play them loud enough to distort. However we (I) are talking about something beyond just creating the center image.

In what has long been referred to as the Absolute Sound, recreating an unamplified live recorded musical event in an acoustic space (opera or orchestra primarily), the goal is to have all the characteristics of the event be reproduced by the stereo. To do so precisely will not happen in our lifetimes, too many factors.

One of those factors is creating the soundstage image and the image specificity (pinpointing where on the stage a particular person/instrument is located) . To do this the system must be able to create the image wider than the speakers, and also behind and above the speakers. Then, it must layer the image from front to back and left to right so you sense the placement. Violins near the front left, then cellos, brass, woodwinds, etc. all moving farther away until the tympani are in the back left corner of the room, seemingly 30-40 feet away. All sound is disconnected from the speakers. They are standing in the room, but no sound appears to be coming from them, because it's coming from everywhere. This can only be accomplished with simple 2 or 3 microphone recordings, because it's the time delay of sounds getting to the microphone that's being reproduced.

It's enigmatic, but can be thrilling. Or not. Many hear such systems and it doesn't rock their boat. Then there's the downside of such systems. They generally can't be as dynamic as horn speaker systems or played as loudly without distortion, or they are inefficient, or you need a dedicated room with the speakers sitting 10ft into it with room treatments, etc.

It's just a natural evolution, or branch of evolution in the hobby. The last audio show I attended as many people seemed to like the modded Quad 63s with plasma tweeters, as liked the Volti Audio 2 way horn speakers. Very different speakers.

[SEAWOLF97]

It's enigmatic, but can be thrilling. Or not. Many hear such systems and it doesn't rock their boat. Then there's the downside of such systems. They generally can't be as dynamic as horn speaker systems or played as loudly without distortion, or they are inefficient, or you need a dedicated room with the speakers sitting 10ft into it with room treatments, etc.

It's just a natural evolution, or branch of evolution in the hobby. The last audio show I attended as many people seemed to like the modded Quad 63s with plasma tweeters, as liked the Volti Audio 2 way horn speakers. Very different speakers.

thx for answer

I have a pair of Walsh F2's (omni) that create such an enveloping sound stage that many listeners remark that they've never heard anything like that. They can point to an empty space in the room and say something like "the trumpet is right there, I can hear it, but I can't see it".

You can stand a foot away from 1 speaker and not lose the image tho the other speaker is 6 feet away.(yeah, sounds crazy, but is true) . They are very dynamic and people are surprised how small the driver (not the cabinet) is ...only downsides are: they are inefficient, fragile, 4 ohm, and cannot play super loudly.

If you ever get the chance to audition the latest Ohm Walsh speakers, it's very educating.

pics in this thread ==>>

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?13871-I-must-be-living-right&p=384129&viewfull=1#post384129

The Ohm F2 was the first Ohm F cabinet with a second generation driver. It increased the sweet-spot and maximum output, while also extending the treble. The driver was smaller and the system was vented through a vent on the driver board which extended the bass and reduced the distortion.

[rusty jefferson]

Thanks, I am familiar with omnidirectional speakers. They are another good attempt at recreating that space, and many types do it well, but as you stated, there are downsides. Every speaker has a downside. :)

[marco_gea]

The main reason for the comparatively poor imaging capabilities of many older JBL (and non-JBL) speakers is that their crossovers were relatively crude and paid little to no attention to inter-driver phase tracking. And incidentally, the latter is more difficult (but not impossible) to achieve in a loudspeaker system employing horn-loaded compression drivers and passive crossovers.

But there is no valid justification why a modern, carefully designed system of this latter type cannot have spectacular imaging too. It can be done.

I'll just give a couple of current-production examples of such systems below (which I have had the pleasure to experience myself).


- JMF Audio HPM500 (http://jmf-audio.com/speakerHPM500_en.htm) (from France)

- GT Sound SRS-1 and SRV-1 (http://www.gt-sound.com/english/gt_reference_e.html#srs1) (from Japan).

Both happen to be rather "exotic" products manufactured in limited series by small high-end companies. But don't be put off by that. Similar results can be achieved by careful DIY efforts, provided one understands the underlying design principles.

Here's my humble (but let me say, pretty successful) attempt at a similarly engineered system:

- http://www.homebuilthifi.com/project/18865

Regards,
Marco

[Robh3606]

As far as imaging the smoother and more uniform your off axis response is will certainly help things. And as far a speakers being a point source to reproduce a live event is concerned I don't think so. Not only are the instruments not point sources as in they have different directivities vs frequency the stage distances even in a small intimate club can be quite large.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hi Rob

Not sure about that

With the recording process the mic distance is constant over the frequency range of a particular musical instrument (assumed).

Therefore if there is no time alignment continuity with frequency in the loudspeaker for that particular instrument you have phase issues

At Two k hertz the threshold of time alignment is around 1 ms.

I agree at the stage in a live situation this is irrelevant.

[Robh3606]

Hello Ian

This is what I am talking about. All of these instruments have unique radiation patterns that change with frequency. If you sit on the left or the right or change height it's going to sound different.

Rob:)

[Earl K]

andresohc,

Here's a 2 year old L112 Restoration (https://hifiwigwam.com/forum/topic/119505-its-time-for-another-restoration-jbl-l112/?page=1)that might interest you.

- The cabinets were redone ( which is a real understatement ) and the crossovers were recapped ( using Clarity Caps ) and partially rewired.

The British author also owns restored Yamaha NS1000M 's ( & so is able to compare them to his L112's ), though little of this gets mentioned within the thread.

Additionally, the author is quite familiar with the Troels mods ( for both the L100 & the L112 ).

Here are a few pics of his restoration;

82463824648246582466

82467

Anyways, my thought is that you might register over at that forum and pop into that thread and ask ( now that two years have passed ) what the author thinks of his lightly modded L112's ( and whether or not he would bother pursuing the Troels full-blown mod. ) .

:)

[Doctor_Electron]

Just purchased my first SACD player in anticipation of setting up my system in my new home. Problem for another thread but . . . I have no SACDs to listen to. Beyond DSOTM (which I'm so over), any suggestions to stun my ears with in a new medium?

I think true binaural recording and playback would be stunning. There is a recent hi-rez source of binaural recordings available but the company offering the material escapes me. I will look for its URL.

Here's a throwback. Too bad it didn't catch on, possibly due to the overwhelming competition from, and general acceptance of the more conventional approach to stereo LP production and playback.

[Earl K]

I think true binaural recording and playback would be stunning.
It certainly is that!

I bought a Sennheiser Binaural mic setup back in 1978 ( & I'm currently looking at the mannequin-head part holding a bunch of my golf hats ).

I used to use the setup to record some of the bands that I was mixing at the time.

Suffice to say that playback must be over headphones ( then it's truly spooky-real in it's replay of a "snap-shot" from a past aural event ).

:)

[rusty jefferson]

Well, we have been moving off task quite a bit, and I apologize for my contributions. Maybe Mr. Widget would want to move some posts to a new thread?


As far as imaging the smoother and more uniform your off axis response is will certainly help things. And as far a speakers being a point source to reproduce a live event is concerned I don't think so. Not only are the instruments not point sources as in they have different directivities vs frequency the stage distances even in a small intimate club can be quite large.
Hey Robh,
The idea of the theoretical speakers being point source mounted in spheres is all about off axis response as the spheres have no diffraction issues as well as no variations in radiation patterns as the point source would be a single driver with no crossover. Again, not happening in our lifetime. Frequency response would be the same at any position, theoretically.

I am certainly no expert on the subject but I believe the biggest factors in creating the quality 3 dimensional image are cabinet diffraction, radiation patterns at crossover, and room interaction.

Here's a review of a small 2 way monitor that was designed to a more optimal cabinet shape to reduce diffraction. There is a discussion about cabinet shape in the article. These speakers are as absolutely transparent as any I've heard. They simply disappear in the room and create an excellent soundstage. However, as always, there are other shortcomings. They don't have the dynamics of horns, deep bass, the ability to play at high sound pressure levels without distortion, etc.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.soundonsound.com/reviews/se-electronics-munro-egg-150%3famp

[rusty jefferson]

Earl, that link doesn't appear to be working?

[SEAWOLF97]

Thanks, I am familiar with omnidirectional speakers. They are another good attempt at recreating that space, and many types do it well, but as you stated, there are downsides. Every speaker has a downside. :)

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?13871-I-must-be-living-right&p=169729&viewfull=1#post169729

forum member SOUNDBOY stopped by today. Pete knows more about speakers and electronics right now than I ever will. He's been in JBLs for many years and runs Dynaudio mains with a JBL 18 in sub in his primary system, plus JBL's in his other 3 systems. He knows his stuff, besides playing in a band and really knowing what instruments sound like.

So we played his fav CD and he sure had a grin on his face. We eventually subtracted all processing and eq so he could just hear the F's.

without boring everyone, I'll try to remember his final quote...something very close to "If those F's were mine , they would be my mains, they make all my JBL's sound like sh1t and I would have to invest a lot more money into my already substancial system to even come close to that sound"

He did say that he had more bass, but it wasn't as natural.

Not trying to provoke anyone, and I do also enjoy my JBL's , just saying that there are other fine speakers available.

If I am misquoting you Pete, please publically correct me.



SOUNDBOY's followup

What I think I said was "If I had these Ohm's in my house, I would have to start tweaking all my other systems so they wouldn't sound like shit in comparison"

Yes, this is a JBL forum, yes I am an old JBL nut, and yes the Ohm F's made the mint 4412's sound like a cardboard cutout....and you can quote me on that too. The ohm's didn't sound at all like a speaker, period. Just a vocalist, piano, or a guitar. Wow.

The only downside is....maximum volume level....but...they were loud enough... and the bass was surprising.....not only did it sound completely effortless and natural, but it shook the floor when it was supposed to, just like my 2245's, just not as powerful....amazing stuff.... Ok, here comes the retaliatory attacks, huh?...."There must be something wrong with your JBL's, or your hearing" or "what box you got those 2245's in?" or "MY 4412's sound killer"....but you haven't heard the OHM's, or your ears would be amazed at what is missing.... Time to go home an reavaluate the Dynaudio's, and all my JBL's

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?13871-I-must-be-living-right&p=169729&viewfull=1#post169729

[Earl K]

Earl, that link doesn't appear to be working?

Fixed now, hopefully.

:)

[Doctor_Electron]

It certainly is that!

I bought a Sennheiser Binaural mic setup back in 1978 ( & I'm currently looking at the mannequin-head part holding a bunch of my golf hats ).

I used to use the setup to record some of the bands that I was mixing at the time.

Suffice to say that playback must be over headphones ( then it's truly spooky-real in it's replay of a "snap-shot" from a past aural event ).

:)

I was not aware of the need to listen to binaural with headphones. I have to check it out, I like spooky-real sonics.

I did some live recordings with the X-Y configuration in a good venue. The results were perhaps not overly stunning, but they definitely gave a convincing feel of the space relationships within that room. Unfortunately the tapes were lost some time ago. I used a Teac 3300 R to R converted to 1/2 track stereo by Tascam in Orange Co. Ca.
The best TOTL Scotch 1 mil tape at 7 1/2 ips. Tascam were unable to get the record EQ and playback EQ of the 3300's stock circuitry to play nicely together at 15 ips. Still the results were quite acceptable. The mics were EV, borrowed from a friend's studio mic cabinet, and I don't recall the model. Nice mics for sure anyway.

[Ian Mackenzie]

My own Interpretation is that at home your room, loudspeaker placement and the actual recording are hierarchical influences on the illusion of imaging, soundstage or whatever you want to call it. If you grab your jbls and take them to a proper hall or auditorium and put them on the stage then sit in the centre half way back you will wonder what all the fuss is about?

Within the context of loudspeaker playback in the near field it’s not that difficult to create a reasonable image with modern nearfield monitors and appropriate acoustic treatment.

But once you apply the domestic influencers like decor/industrial design, randomly diverse living room acoustics and waf to loudspeaker placement everything goes to hell.

I agree that some loudspeakers and recordings convey the illusion of the recording environment in a domestic situation better than others. But if you compare being at a venue as l pointed out earlier with what’s going on at home it’s like are you kidding me?

What stands out is the sheer intensity, tone and clarity. That’s what gets people emotionally engaged.

So then you go after those quality’s and you end up with a large format loudspeaker...possibly a soa two or a vintage four way and you are happy.

Most of us aspire to the ultimate strategy for perfection but it more of a conversation piece than anything ever really being done about it.