JBL L Series (1990s) [Archive] - Page 4

JBLAddict

04-05-2011, 04:44 PM

the detailed illustration on the effect of placement prompted me to download some test tones, and experiment with frequency response and see if I could validate any perceived differences in LF in my L7s. Pardon my ignorance if any of this sounds remedial/obvious to the more experienced, I was simply looking for some data to work with given the equipment I have on hand

in short, I set the speakers in two positions, one at 15" from the backwall, one 36" from the back wall (both 36" from the side walls). 15" being the WAF spot, 36" the JBLAF spot :D

I played .mp3 files (from a USB into my Oppo) of single tones starting at 30Hz up to 90Hz in 10Hz increments, and then one at 120, 150, 180, 210, then measured the response from the primary seating position with the RS/SPL.

I'll post the numbers later, but the results are interesting. In some cases I measured (and heard), 4-5dB difference between the two positions by changing the tone 10Hz from a point where the two positions were previously equal, wow talk about sensitivity! If I moved my seating position closer/further the effect magnified further, 7-8dB

The most compelling result comes from walking around the room (and up and down) where the measurements and audible tones rise and fall up to 10dB (similar to what Doug posted).....the nulls and peaks I've seen in the calculators really came to life with this kind of isolation, and opened my eyes to how sensitive both speaker and listener position are to the listening experience.

From what I observed, altering the position of the speaker and/or listener, changes the response of multiple frequencies (in some cases in opposing directions) so finding a flat position seems impossible? One could pick a single position of the speaker and listener and use EQ to flatten (if that is one's goal), but I'm wondering how you go about using speaker position without EQ to do anything other than try to elminate the biggest nulls and peaks?

I'm sure I'm just hitting the tip of the iceberg on this complex science and the world of calibration tools out there, would love to hear some feedback on whether my conclusions hold any water. In some ways, it explains to me why I've enjoyed the L7 both close and far from the wall, as in each position, the peaks simply shift to a different frequency, question is which one does my ear prefer?

localhost127

04-05-2011, 05:33 PM

in short, I set the speakers in two positions, one at 15" from the backwall, one 36" from the back wall (both 36" from the side walls). 15" being the WAF spot, 36" the JBLAF spot :D

I'll post the numbers later, but the results are interesting. In some cases I measured (and heard), 4-5dB difference between the two positions by changing the tone 10Hz from a point where the two positions were previously equal, wow talk about sensitivity! If I moved my seating position closer/further the effect magnified further, 7-8dB

The most compelling result comes from walking around the room (and up and down) where the measurements and audible tones rise and fall up to 10dB (similar to what Doug posted).....the nulls and peaks I've seen in the calculators really came to life with this kind of isolation, and opened my eyes to how sensitive both speaker and listener position are to the listening experience.

I'm sure I'm just hitting the tip of the iceberg on this complex science and the world of calibration tools out there, would love to hear some feedback on whether my conclusions hold any water. In some ways, it explains to me why I've enjoyed the L7 both close and far from the wall, as in each position, the peaks simply shift to a different frequency, question is which one does my ear prefer?

all of this is likely due to SBIR off the front wall (and side walls). as you move the L7s closer to the front wall, you increase the SBIR frequency, as the distance between the wall and the L7 is the distance of 1/4freq (+all multiples of that frequency), which will result in a null. same thing for any reflections off the front wall arriving in phase with the original source and resulting in a peak.

you will also have peaks + nulls from reflections off the back wall that is also adding to this mix. this is why a few pages back i pretty much said the best practices for placement of your L7s is irrelevant, and you should really just spend all day with different placements and measuring frequency response to find the real world best placement. the L7 documentation gives you a good start, but even that isn't anywhere near enough information to get optimal placement...you could still spend all day fine tuning in one specific/general area.

From what I observed, altering the position of the speaker and/or listener, changes the response of multiple frequencies (in some cases in opposing directions) so finding a flat position seems impossible? One could pick a single position of the speaker and listener and use EQ to flatten (if that is one's goal), but I'm wondering how you go about using speaker position without EQ to do anything other than try to elminate the biggest nulls and peaks?

right - you need to start adding porous bass traps or pressure based (helmholtz, etc) to combat the peaks and nulls. getting placement right (to the best performance possible) will be a good start. but freq response is only one part of the story. it's the decay times (modal ringing) that really bother me the most. more so than a choppy freq response. bass traps will also tame these and can be measured with a waterfall (time domain) plot.

eq can't do much of anything for infinite nulls, let alone curing any modal ringing/decay issues. not to mention, eq will still only benefit the single listening position, not the entire room (especially true if you have a large sweet spot). that's why placement and good room treatment come first, and eq is just icing on the cake (hopefully for just taming some peaks below 40hz

cheers, (and thanks for the photos, Ti Dome!)

gferrell

04-05-2011, 05:57 PM

It really gets complicated while dancing around the room to the music. :bouncy:

audiomagnate

04-05-2011, 06:08 PM

into an acoustical nightmare of a room. A sparsely furnished maybe 12 X 12 x 8 box and they sound ridiculous. Whatever bass resonance they have to start with is out of control. They sounded great in my irregularly shaped master BR, but they do no love a cube. These little things can get some serious bass vibes going. EDIT: Pulling them way out into the room helps dramatically, but this is my daughter's BR, not a near field mixing room. They actually sound great in the new position.

JBLAddict

04-05-2011, 06:56 PM

localhost127

04-07-2011, 01:45 PM

Hz 15" 36"
30 89 88
40 93 91
50 91 88
60 85 83
70 90 91
80 92 94
90 88 91
the following mp3's were from a different web site so the baseline output might be different from above
120 82 88
150 82 80
180 83 86
210 81 77
280 85 87

unfortunately, there really is no conclusion to draw from such data.
i bet it was fun though :)
wish i was able to play 30hz > 90dB in my place .... damn condo.

JBLAddict

04-07-2011, 04:25 PM

Perhaps, but for me validated my experience that having them closer to the wall did in my room/seating position not cause any glaring audible anomalies. and possibly in my configuration, the lesser output from 70-120Hz might make the 15" position more balanced:dont-know:

was running pre-amp about 54% to the 240WPC soundcraftsmen, lot of power in that puppy, clearly :)

The fact that the L7 is only 3dB down from 40Hz to 30Hz is as testament to the LE120H-1 in that cabinet. The '92 Audio Review of the L7 I posted a few pages back which stated the L7 "LF keeps up with the best speakers he's reviewed as well as several subwoofers" is well backed by my data.

Titanium Dome

04-07-2011, 04:35 PM

unfortunately, there really is no conclusion to draw from such data.
i bet it was fun though :)
wish i was able to play 30hz > 90dB in my place .... damn condo.

Well actually there is. There's an inversion of relative output between 60 and 70 Hz depending on distance to a reflecting surface.

I wouldn't make much of any changes above 90 Hz, but with respect to the changes below that, further investigation might further elucidate the transition point in terms of distance to the wall. Of course, this would be true of most speakers with rear-firing ports in varying degrees, but it's unusual in the JBL world for a side-firing woofer to be part of the equation.

localhost127

04-08-2011, 12:26 PM

and possibly in my configuration, the lesser output from 70-120Hz might make the 15" position more balanced:dont-know:

was running pre-amp about 54% to the 240WPC soundcraftsmen, lot of power in that puppy, clearly :)

The fact that the L7 is only 3dB down from 40Hz to 30Hz is as testament to the LE120H-1 in that cabinet. The '92 Audio Review of the L7 I posted a few pages back which stated the L7 "LF keeps up with the best speakers he's reviewed as well as several subwoofers" is well backed by my data.

no, the data is not of high enough resolution where you can make this comment. you cannot assume linear coorelation between your data points. you could have a massive peak or null that is only 3hz wide (e.g. 65-68 could be an infinite null), but because of your resolution (in 10hz increments)), you never see this. it's the same problem people have when measuring frequency response of the low end and then applying ridiculous smoothing... you really need to see the measurements of each frequency in 1Hz steps on the low end, because things can vary widely due to room modes, LBIR, SBIR, etc.
The fact that the L7 is only 3dB down from 40Hz to 30Hz is as testament to the LE120H-1 in that cabinet. again - this is completely false. you cannot say that the L7 is only 3dB down from 40hz to 30hz. you can only say there is 3dB difference between EXACTLY 30hz and EXACTLY 40hz in your room (with a massive host of variables). with your data, you do not know what is happening between 30 and 40hz. there could be a 20dB peak at 35hz. the data does not support any conclusion that really offers any proof. also, you cannot attest dropping 3dB from 40hz to 30hz to the L7s driver, because it could actually be -15dB, but maybe due to your room dimensions, you have a mode at 30Hz, which is then bumping the response to a -3dB difference. if you measured this in an anechoic chamber, then you could make that claim. while a fun exercise, you cannot draw much of any conclusion from the data.

grumpy

04-08-2011, 06:23 PM

I spent the last week in an anechoic chamber (albeit microwave)...
still damn annoying audio-wise. That's pretty close to the last place
I'd want to actually listen to a stereo system. Great place to test for
anomalous stuff (vs design), but ultimately a "field test" is required,
with all of it's lumps and bumps.

I would say that warble tone testing would be an improvement over
plain discrete tones if attempting to glean some idea of a system/room
response by ear, but just saying it's crap and you're full of it too
isn't helping anyone.

Eaulive

04-08-2011, 06:50 PM

JBLAddict

04-08-2011, 09:52 PM

yes, help would be helpful :p

localhost127

04-09-2011, 10:46 AM

I would say that warble tone testing would be an improvement over
plain discrete tones if attempting to glean some idea of a system/room
response by ear, but just saying it's crap and you're full of it too
isn't helping anyone.

i dont understand? my post was in no way negative towards the user. i didn't say it was "crap" --- i said you are "unable to draw a conclusion" from the test and gave an explanation as to why.

if someone can tell me what concrete conclusions you are able to draw from taking measurements every 10hz (regarding the low end), im all ears.

a standard frequency response plot (with no smoothing) and a waterfall plot will give you the full image on the low end.

there's too many variables going on in the room with SBIR, LBIR, room modes, nulls based on distance between the user and the rear wall (1/4wavelenght distance cancellations) etc, for you to make any conclusion based on moving the speakers from one location to another.

for example - what if by moving it from one location to another (and taking measurements every 10hz), you "think" you are getting a smoother response, but what if in actuality you have created big (+10dB) peaks and infinite nulls at frequencies of which you didnt measure (63hz, 72hz, etc).. ?? there is not enough data to conclude whether you made things better or worse. there is simply not enough data points.

edit: and of course, if one person were to determine the optimal distance from the front (and or side) walls for their L7s, that in no way is transferable to another room, as the room is dictating the low frequency response.

also, by moving the L7s closer to the front wall, you are increasing the frequency of SBIR, which then makes it easier to treat with porous absorption.

localhost127

04-09-2011, 10:52 AM

yes, help would be helpful :p

a cheap omni mic such as: http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Behringer/ECM8000
and free software sure as Room EQ Wizard: http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

you want to test for a few things:
1) frequency response (with no smoothing). response can change drastically even over the course of a few Hz. by measuring every 10Hz as above, you cannot see what is going on in between.

2) waterfall plot. this is based on the time-domain (decay times)...e.g. "modal ringing". so, even if you are able to "eq" your frequency response to be fairly "flat"...you can still have modal ringing which is essentially the time it takes for a signal to decay. for example, if you played a 50hz sine wave (for a brief moment) and measured how long it took for the sound to decay after the source stopped, it could be something as high as 500ms. that means once the source has stopped, it takes a 1/2second for that 50hz energy in the room to decay down. when you are playing music with fast bass notes, long decay times can make things sound muddy and all the notes run together.

3) ETC graph. this is to measure specular reflections/energy.

take a moment to read this if you have time:
http://www.realtraps.com/art_measuring.htm

localhost127

04-09-2011, 11:14 AM

also, a quick/dirty explanation of SBIR.

bass is omni-directional. which means it doesnt matter which way your port or driver faces...bass is emitted in all directions (it wraps around the cabinet and functions as a wave -- and diffracts around objects smaller than the wavelength).

ok, so say you place your sub or L7 3ft from the front wall. what happens?
well, bass is emitted from the driver in all directions as a wave. so it goes directly to your ears in the listening position, but also reflects off the front + side walls, ceiling, etc...

when 2 waves combine (constructively) to be in phase with each other, there will be a peak and an increase in amplitude at that frequency. when 2 waves arrive out of phase (180*), then you will have a null and you will not hear that frequency.

ok, so say your L7 is 3ft from the front wall.
that means, if a particular frequency's 1/4wavelength is 3ft (total wavelength = 12ft), then that means you will create a null. this is because the wave will travel from the L7 to the front wall (1/4wave = 3ft), reflect off the front wall, and enter back into the room. it will travel another 1/4wave (3ft) when it reaches the L7. so what has just happened? you now have (at a particular frequency) the original wave from the driver itself being emitted, but also being COMBINED destructively with the wave that traveled to the front wall, reflected off of it, and is now re-entering the room.

but since it took 1/4wave to the front wall, and 1/4wave back...that = 1/2wave.
so you now have a wavelength that is reflected off the front wall that is COMBINING with the original wave being emitted by the driver and thus is 180* out of phase. this means you will not hear this frequency as you will be in a null.

as you move the L7 (or sub) towards the front wall, you are decreasing the distance between the driver and the front wall, and thus pushing the 1/4wavelength up in frequency. and of course, the higher the frequency, the easier it is to treat/tame with acoustic treatment.

-------------------

the same happens with the rear wall and the listening position.
if your head is 6ft from the rear wall, then whatever frequency (and multiple there-of) has a 1/4wavelength of 6ft, means you will not hear that frequency as you will be sitting in a null (this is over-simplified, but good enough for the scope of this conversation).

the sound wave travels from the L7, past your head, 1/4wavelength from your head to the rear wall + 1/4 wavelength from the rear wall back to your head ... combines with the original signal (1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2wavelength = 180* out of phase), and thus destructively combines to cancel out and create a null.

grumpy

04-09-2011, 11:20 AM

localhost127

04-09-2011, 12:16 PM

I understand what you're saying, and in-room interpretation (even of unsmoothed,
seemingly controlled environment data) is difficult at best (e.g., a single measurement
location is really not sufficient, IMO). Using tools and techniques that you've added
is helpful (also, as a -start- toward understanding room/source interaction), so thanks
for that.

There are also those that would like to try to improve or optimize their listening
experience within what I'd call normal limitations (re both the user involvement
and the listening environment). Not everyone wants to commit to a laptop/mic/
preamp/... or to learning a very useful, and wonderfully provided, but complex tool such
as RoomEqWizard (with which one might go quite a bit further in their learning
journey, should they decide to do so).

I will claim that using purchasable or downloadable tones and test signals with one's
ears and hopefully a sound level meter of some sort, if possible, is both educational
and potentially useful in that some level of improvement is both possible and likely
given decent coaching and signal selection.
Or at least a slightly better understanding of some of the myriad trade offs, limitations,
and potential benefits of scooting placement around, changing speaker height,
moving listening location, taking care with specular reflections, etc...

i don't trust my own ears, especially when it comes to specular reflections (and trying to destroy all early reflections above -20dB within 20ms of the original source; reflection-free-zone)...let alone anything regarding LF (especially decay times). my ears can't "hear" comb-filtering...no matter how detrimental it is to sound quality.

put it this way --- it's orders of magnitude cheaper to do some do-it-yourself room treatments than to buy better equipment/gear. and better gear will still be placed into a room with the same fundamental problems. not to mention, increasing the size of the sweet-spot at hte listening position when applying basic room treatments. it is incredibly inexpensive to build some do-it-yourself treatments...and the noticeable difference in quality is not communicative through words here...

for example: the purpose of a 'reflection free zone' is to destroy all early/first reflections that are above -20dB of the original signal, and that arrive within 20ms of the original signal. the brain cannot distinguish reflections that arrive within 20ms of the original source as a seperate 'echo', thus smearing takes place. not to mention, comb-filtering from a reflected source converging with the original source at your ears...creating a multitude of peaks and nulls.

also, regarding stereo imaging. in a normal room, you have the left speaker emitting sound that travels to your left ear. it will also reflect off the RIGHT wall and enter your right ear. this harms stereo imaging. by placing broadband absorption (or reflecting the sonic energy elsewhere in the room), and by creating a reflection free zone, you will dramatically increase sound quality.
here's a wonderful writeup:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html
http://www.realtraps.com/rfz.htm

localhost127

04-09-2011, 12:25 PM

There are also those that would like to try to improve or optimize their listening
experience within what I'd call normal limitations (re both the user involvement
and the listening environment). Not everyone wants to commit to a laptop/mic/
preamp/... or to learning a very useful, and wonderfully provided, but complex tool such
as RoomEqWizard (with which one might go quite a bit further in their learning
journey, should they decide to do so).

ahh, but people would gladly spend up to and over thousands of dollars on better and better gear ... than to spend $50 on a mic and free software... spend a few hours reading documentation and understanding just what the issues are they're trying to solve, and getting their room sounding good so that ANY speaker will have maximized performance and sound quality.

it's the same as people on the internet debating and bragging about how "ruler-flat" their (expensive) speaker's response curve is (measured in an anachronic chamber, mind you) --- when all of that is completely thrown out the window as soon as the speaker is placed in a room.

grumpy

04-09-2011, 01:21 PM

Not much argument there :) But I wouldn't want to
discourage anyone from learning more, regardless of
their fiscal situation... Same rules apply with minimal
systems.

Titanium Dome

04-09-2011, 02:13 PM

I delayed posting a reply, localhost127, because, frankly, the general tone of your post pi$$ed me off. It's not that what you wrote was technically incorrect, but man you've got to lighten it up. Here's what I originally wrote, but delayed posting.

Well professor, you really have your lectura gravis groove going there, don't you?

I think it's great when an expert and/or genius comes along and uses the forum to bring up short other members who are making irresponsibly speculative and observational comments based on subjective experience and exploration. I really like it when science is invoked in the name of bitch-slapping. Who doesn't like a good dose of over-used acronyms and specious criticism with a cup of Joe? It's so much cooler than making friends. There's hair growing on my chest right now.

Plus you pulled the anechoic card! Loved it! No one's pulled that one out in a while, but damn it was good to see it again. It's so real world, too! "Get thee to the anechoic chamber, Satan! Make sure you use a calibrated mic in there, too, and set it at the correct distance. Don't post again until you have a graph and data set notarized by the NIS/NBS."

If you don't mind, I'll use the "ridiculous smoothing" bit on grumpy next time he's over and he reaches for that darn smoothing menu and dialog box thingy that pops up. Busted!

Ah, good times.

As you can tell, I was not at all happy with the way you tasked JBLAddict. You can be right about something and still be totally wrong in your presentation. You don't need to respond to my quote above, since it's only included to show how I took your post, and you weren't even writing to me. I can only imagine how JBLAddict took your post.

All of us, including grumpy, JBLAddict, and especially myself can learn a lot from the interaction here, but not when it is so heavy-handed, dismissive, and objectionable in tone. I swear that if you try to defend yourself or ask for proof about what was negative or offensive about your manner of posting then I will simply put you on my ignore list and be done with you. Lansing Heritage like most other sites has its own know-it-alls and attack dogs, and they get on the ignore list. Some people have me on their ignore list (or should have done it and just shut up).

Please find the time to read this:

http://nlu.nl.edu/academics/cas/ace/facultypapers/StephenBrookfield_AdultLearning.cfm

grumpy

04-09-2011, 02:49 PM

If you don't mind, I'll use the "ridiculous smoothing" bit on grumpy next time he's over and he reaches for that darn smoothing menu and dialog box thingy that pops up. Busted!

Feel free... as long as you want to sit through an explanation of why
sometimes it's useful to do so ;)

Overall, there's some useful information here,
that may rub off on a few folks that were thinking
they were going to read about L-series JBLs and
got rickrolled. A general audio subforum thread
or pointers to places like the noted Ethan Winer pages
would be good OT detours for further such discussions
or studies.

localhost127

04-09-2011, 03:56 PM

I delayed posting a reply, localhost127, because, frankly, the general tone of your post pi$$ed me off. It's not that what you wrote was technically incorrect, but man you've got to lighten it up. Here's what I originally wrote, but delayed posting.

Titanium Dome, my original response was merely:
"unfortunately, there really is no conclusion to draw from such data."

i then followed-up with a more detailed post explaining why.

Titanium Dome, i understand you contribute a lot to this forum. however, you yourself have the same attitude dismissing any type of scientific or "measurable" information regarding one's room being the issue. your commentary regarding the L7s seem to imply that the room makes no difference in the way the L7s sound, when in fact the room is the single largest factor in any acoustic response. some of the knowledge known today regarding small room acoustics weren't known or weren't well established at the time of the L7's release. you continually give specific details on how and where others should place their L7s, even down to a single degree of toe-in !! you have found optimal placement in your room, and therefore think that you have found the L7s sweet spot, when in fact your are just finding your room's sweet spot. when you communicate L7 placement to others, it is not necessarily transferable to other rooms. there are good "starting points" (e.g. such and such distance from the side/rear walls), but acoustics is far too complex and no two rooms are alike. it's fairly well understood that the room has the single, biggest effect on frequency response and overall quality of sound. low frequency response is largely determined by modal characteristics of the room (via geometric dimensions). i have been debating that every room is different, and thus no exact placement/setup for the L7s in one room will guarantee the same performance in another room ... as each room has their own issues (dimensions, material the walls are made out of, and an almost infinite number of other variables) --- and that each user needs to experiment in their room (hopefully, with measuring equipment) to find the optimal placement. that is the basis of all of my commentary. i disagree that the L7 has a magical sweet spot that will function the same in every room, as you seem to imply. there are far too many variables involved which i think are being dismissed in your commentary.

for example, you've stated:

As you know, I'm a big proponent of the L7 "under the right circumstances." The right placement can solve almost all L7 issues, even if it seems it would not in this case.

the right placement doesn't solve the L7's issues, as the issues generally lie within the room itself. as you are moving the L7's 12" driver from one point to another, you are changing the response at the listening position based on the geometric distances of the boundaries within the room. moving the L7 on any axis will change the frequency response, comb-filtering of mids/highs (early reflections off boundaries), and other factors.

Placement has solved both issues and will solve both issues if you have the freedom to really find the right spot in a more-or-less normal room. If not, then a pair of L5s and a sub would fare better for you.

placement alone cannot solve all issues within a room. you will have peaks and nulls based on the geometric distances between the boundaries (walls), and where the driver is located. you will also have issues that the room creates that happens once the signal has left the speaker (e..g comb-filtering, modal ringing, etc) of which the room dictates and not of the driver itself. when you move your L7s, you are changing the response in every location of the room. in a rectangular (and especially square) room, you will never have a perfectly flat response in a single location. which is why ive repeatedly stated a user should experiment with placement to find the best response in their room via measurements, and from there the remaining specific issues can be addressed with room treatments.

Hey, thanks Detroit for pointing out the obvious.

i suppose it's ok for you to make sarcastic comments but not others.

It can place reflection points before or after traditional, expected places,

reflection points are reflection points. the L7 does not modify this unless you physically move it...geometry is geometry (angle of incident = angle of reflection).

L7s are designed for "normal" rooms, whatever they may be. They weren't designed in the era of "every room should be treated." They were designed in the era of stereo reproduction that assumed there's a hard wall, there's a corner, there's another hard wall, there's an eight foot ceiling, there's a floor.

what on earth dictates a "normal room"? what does the time period in which they were designed in have anything to do with room treatments? how does one design a speaker for a treated room? a speaker should be as flat as possible, and then the room needs to be treated to be flat as well. a treated room is to cure fundamental problems that EVERY room has, due to the nature of acoustics. it is not specific to the L7 or any other speaker for that matter. if you have a speaker that is advertised as flat from 20-20khz (measured in an anechoic chamber), then the second that speaker is placed in a room, the response will change. unless you are outside with no boundaries and the ground is fully absorptive.

you cannot design a speaker for "normal rooms" ... moving the driver feet or in some cases inches will have a drastic effect on frequency response. this is due to the geometric dimensions of the boundaries, not the speaker itself.

I don't have a single room treatment in my office with the L7s: hard walls, right angle corners, hard ceiling, carpeted floor: amazing, glare-free, wonderful, full soundstage, deep soundstage, perfectly balanced sound. Three feet in, three feet over, 17 degree toe-in, perfection

again, all speculative. you yourself know what sounds good in one particular room and therefore you exert this same "solution" onto everyone else in this forum, even though you do not know anything about anyone else's rooms. and look how precise you are in your placement! 17*s ! do you have a polar lobe plot of the speakers horizontal and vertical dispersion? do you have measurements that can back up your claims? you are the one offering this solution to many others on this forum, therefore, it is only fair that one asks for proof that the solution provides performance as you claim!

L7s are picky; they don't work in every room. They don't work like other speakers in every room. You may just need to let them go. I doubt they can be "fixed."

L7s aren't necessarily picky - it's just the difficulties with full range speakers. where be the optimal placement for mids/high's (e.g. directional to the listening position), is not generally the best place for the low frequency drivers. could you detail further how you come to your conclusion that they dont work in every room? what type of room do they work in? all i am looking for is for clarification on your comments. that is all.

Yep. I have "better" speakers but none gave me the "Aha!" moment the L7s did when I finally took the time to do them right. "Oh, that's what they meant about placement."

As you can tell, I was not at all happy with the way you tasked JBLAddict. You can be right about something and still be totally wrong in your presentation. You don't need to respond to my quote above, since it's only included to show how I took your post, and you weren't even writing to me. I can only imagine how JBLAddict took your post.

JBLAddict can speak for himself, and i can address him directly if i have done him wrong.
I didn't task JBLAddict in any way shape or form -- hell, im not even sure what you mean with that statement. i spent a few moments and took time out of my schedule to explain a concept to another member of the forum --- thereby, contributing to the community. you seem to see it as anyone explaining a topic to someone who does not understand it or possible who has mis-understood it as showing off. maybe you read my posts now with a little too much emotion and view my words through an emotional lense.

All of us, including grumpy, JBLAddict, and especially myself can learn a lot from the interaction here, but not when it is so heavy-handed, dismissive, and objectionable in tone.

why didn't you include me in your sentence? i have as much to learn as anyone else. you seem to be drawing a line in the sand (aka "us vs you")..

I swear that if you try to defend yourself or ask for proof about what was negative or offensive about your manner of posting then I will simply put you on my ignore list and be done with you.

i dare you to find any such attitude or dismissive tone in any of my previous commentary.
hey, Titanium Dome, in response to the above quote you said, let me give you a taste of your own medicine. you should read and live by your own words:

"You can be right about something and still be totally wrong in your presentation."

Lansing Heritage like most other sites has its own know-it-alls and attack dogs, and they get on the ignore list. Some people have me on their ignore list (or should have done it and just shut up).

you called me out so it's only fair im able to respond.

my apologies if my response came off as arrogant or pissy. to be honest, this is not one of my core forums i visit and thus do not have a lot of time invested. so i don't take the same amount of time to write my responses as i would on other sites that i value. it's more of a 'drive-by' commenting. i do not sit here and spend 30minutes writing a specific response that is purposely meant to come across as asshole'ish --- if anything, writing too quickly and not reviewing before submitting is the cause of that.

but ive replied to you in depth before with a more scientific approach (even replying to you sentence by sentence), and you immediately shrugged it off, wrote it off, etc without so much as fielding a reputable debate or reply.

you offer insight and knowledge to a host of vintage products that is worth its weight in gold --- as information is so scarcely available. i am grateful for that and you answered plenty of my questions in an outstanding fashion. but i suggest if you disagree with some of my comments regarding the topic at hand, that you field the ball back into my court via a casual debate. present your side of the argument with scientific facts to back them up (vs subjective), and we can see how things play out and everyone can hopefully learn something new. take care.

localhost127

04-09-2011, 03:57 PM

Feel free... as long as you want to sit through an explanation of why
sometimes it's useful to do so ;)

there is nothing wrong with smoothing. in the context of my post, we are addressing low frequency response, where there can be huge swings in amplitude over the course of a single frequency. that is all that i was trying to convey.

Overall, there's some useful information here,
that may rub off on a few folks that were thinking
they were going to read about L-series JBLs and
got rickrolled. A general audio subforum thread
or pointers to places like the noted Ethan Winer pages
would be good OT detours for further such discussions
or studies.

i am not one that can afford a plethora of vintage JBL speakers. i found my L7s on craigslist for a steal. i cannot afford to continually upgrade my gear as others can.
however, by a bit of hard work and studying some acoustics docs, i have been able to create do-it-yourself room treatments at a very minimal cost that have made absolute wonders of noticeable difference in sound quality. as many others who have finally learned how simple room treatments can have drastic differences, i wish to communicate this knowledge to others. i know a few other people who can go out and spend thousands of dollars on upgraded amps, which only offer slight (if any) noticeable improvement ... and yet it costs only a few hundred bucks in insulation and fabric to make measurable differences in a room. it is by far the cheapest bang-for-your-buck in noticable improvement regarding freq response, decay times, and stereo imaging.

grumpy

04-09-2011, 04:45 PM

Cool. Start a new thread indictating what you did with
before and after measurements.

Titanium Dome

04-09-2011, 05:57 PM

you yourself have the same attitude dismissing any type of scientific or "measurable" information regarding one's room being the issue. your commentary regarding the L7s seem to imply that the room makes no difference in the way the L7s sound, when in fact the room is the single largest factor in any acoustic response. some of the knowledge known today regarding small room acoustics weren't known or weren't well established at the time of the L7's release. you continually give specific details on how and where others should place their L7s, even down to a single degree of toe-in !! you have found optimal placement in your room, and therefore think that you have found the L7s sweet spot, when in fact your are just finding your room's sweet spot. when you communicate L7 placement to others, it is not necessarily transferable to other rooms. there are good "starting points" (e.g. such and such distance from the side/rear walls), but acoustics is far too complex and no two rooms are alike. it's fairly well understood that the room has the single, biggest effect on frequency response and overall quality of sound. low frequency response is largely determined by modal characteristics of the room (via geometric dimensions). i have been debating that every room is different, and thus no exact placement/setup for the L7s in one room will guarantee the same performance in another room ... as each room has their own issues (dimensions, material the walls are made out of, and an almost infinite number of other variables) --- and that each user needs to experiment in their room (hopefully, with measuring equipment) to find the optimal placement. that is the basis of all of my commentary. i disagree that the L7 has a magical sweet spot that will function the same in every room, as you seem to imply. there are far too many variables involved which i think are being dismissed in your commentary.

for example, you've stated:

the right placement doesn't solve the L7's issues, as the issues generally lie within the room itself. as you are moving the L7's 12" driver from one point to another, you are changing the response at the listening position based on the geometric distances of the boundaries within the room. moving the L7 on any axis will change the frequency response, comb-filtering of mids/highs (early reflections off boundaries), and other factors.

placement alone cannot solve all issues within a room. you will have peaks and nulls based on the geometric distances between the boundaries (walls), and where the driver is located. you will also have issues that the room creates that happens once the signal has left the speaker (e..g comb-filtering, modal ringing, etc) of which the room dictates and not of the driver itself. when you move your L7s, you are changing the response in every location of the room. in a rectangular (and especially square) room, you will never have a perfectly flat response in a single location. which is why ive repeatedly stated a user should experiment with placement to find the best response in their room via measurements, and from there the remaining specific issues can be addressed with room treatments.

i suppose it's ok for you to make sarcastic comments but not others.

reflection points are reflection points. the L7 does not modify this unless you physically move it...geometry is geometry (angle of incident = angle of reflection).

what on earth dictates a "normal room"? what does the time period in which they were designed in have anything to do with room treatments? how does one design a speaker for a treated room? a speaker should be as flat as possible, and then the room needs to be treated to be flat as well. a treated room is to cure fundamental problems that EVERY room has, due to the nature of acoustics. it is not specific to the L7 or any other speaker for that matter. if you have a speaker that is advertised as flat from 20-20khz (measured in an anechoic chamber), then the second that speaker is placed in a room, the response will change. unless you are outside with no boundaries and the ground is fully absorptive.

you cannot design a speaker for "normal rooms" ... moving the driver feet or in some cases inches will have a drastic effect on frequency response. this is due to the geometric dimensions of the boundaries, not the speaker itself.

again, all speculative. you yourself know what sounds good in one particular room and therefore you exert this same "solution" onto everyone else in this forum, even though you do not know anything about anyone else's rooms. and look how precise you are in your placement! 17*s ! do you have a polar lobe plot of the speakers horizontal and vertical dispersion? do you have measurements that can back up your claims? you are the one offering this solution to many others on this forum, therefore, it is only fair that one asks for proof that the solution provides performance as you claim!

L7s aren't necessarily picky - it's just the difficulties with full range speakers. where be the optimal placement for mids/high's (e.g. directional to the listening position), is not generally the best place for the low frequency drivers. could you detail further how you come to your conclusion that they dont work in every room? what type of room do they work in? all i am looking for is for clarification on your comments. that is all.

JBLAddict can speak for himself, and i can address him directly if i have done him wrong.
I didn't task JBLAddict in any way shape or form -- hell, im not even sure what you mean with that statement. i spent a few moments and took time out of my schedule to explain a concept to another member of the forum --- thereby, contributing to the community. you seem to see it as anyone explaining a topic to someone who does not understand it or possible who has mis-understood it as showing off. maybe you read my posts now with a little too much emotion and view my words through an emotional lense.

why didn't you include me in your sentence? i have as much to learn as anyone else. you seem to be drawing a line in the sand (aka "us vs you")..

i dare you to find any such attitude or dismissive tone in any of my previous commentary.
hey, Titanium Dome, in response to the above quote you said, let me give you a taste of your own medicine. you should read and live by your own words:

"You can be right about something and still be totally wrong in your presentation."

you called me out so it's only fair im able to respond.

my apologies if my response came off as arrogant or pissy. to be honest, this is not one of my core forums i visit and thus do not have a lot of time invested. so i don't take the same amount of time to write my responses as i would on other sites that i value. it's more of a 'drive-by' commenting. i do not sit here and spend 30minutes writing a specific response that is purposely meant to come across as asshole'ish --- if anything, writing too quickly and not reviewing before submitting is the cause of that.

but ive replied to you in depth before with a more scientific approach (even replying to you sentence by sentence), and you immediately shrugged it off, wrote it off, etc without so much as fielding a reputable debate or reply.

you offer insight and knowledge to a host of vintage products that is worth its weight in gold --- as information is so scarcely available. i am grateful for that and you answered plenty of my questions in an outstanding fashion. but i suggest if you disagree with some of my comments regarding the topic at hand, that you field the ball back into my court via a casual debate. present your side of the argument with scientific facts to back them up (vs subjective), and we can see how things play out and everyone can hopefully learn something new. take care.

Perhap you missed this recent post:

There is no such thing as a "perfect room for L7s" but every room can be better or worse depending on how much one cares about the outcome. Since JBL cannot know what room the L7 will be placed it, it gave some best practices for starting the fit the L7 into your room. I ignored that advice for years, and as a result thought that the L7 was a good but not great speaker. It had anomalies like shrill peaks and muddy valleys. Once I listened to what the manual was saying, they had the potential to go from good to great.

Now I always start using the manual as the reference point and make adjustments from there. So a question like "Why do you have the toe-in at 25 degrees when JBL writes 15?" gets an answer like this: "Because I started at 15 degrees, and when I went shallower it sounded worse, when I went deeper it sounded better up to a point and then it got worse again, so I went to the point where it sounded best. It's what works in this room."

It's specific to one room. There's no sense in which this is other than a general guide to a placement process. A process is an ongoing series of activities to reach an intended or hoped-for conclusion. The conclusion in this case is one that the end user finds most satisfactory.

For the typical user in the early '90s, this was it. Neither JBL nor the typical installer talked about SPL meters, EQ, PEQ, room treatments, etc. Audio chain and placement were king and queen respectively. Sure there was science involved in the creation of the products, but limited scientific application at the end user interface. It was preference in the given environment.

You are correct that room treatments would help, but who is thinking about room treatments in a typical home environment, shared with other family members for a pair of $400 speakers (in today's market)? Sure, there are many effective, low impact means: carpets, wall hangings, book cases, drapes, but all of these require participatory decisions that sometimes are difficult to broach in a domestic environment.

In any event, while I am aware of the huge pile of evidence and opinion about the importance of room treatment, its place of importance is certainly open to discussion. You say it is first, and you have good reasons for that assertion. I say it is third, and I have good reasons for that assertion as well. It is very important, but it is not first or second in importance in my experience. In fact it's really 3-B, not 3-A on my list of what's important.

If you want to get into a deeper discussion of this, I'll follow grumpy's advice to you and start a thread. Perhaps this will tempt you.

Here's my list.

1. Speaker
2. Speaker placement
3-A: Room
3-B: Room treatments
4-A: Pre/DAC
4-B: Amp
5. Dedicated power circuit
6. Everything else

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?30852-The-Importance-of-Room-Treatments

In the case of the L7, #2 is even more prominent than with more traditional full range speakers.

(There finally back on thread.)

Titanium Dome

04-09-2011, 06:06 PM

my apologies if my response came off as arrogant or pissy. to be honest, this is not one of my core forums i visit and thus do not have a lot of time invested. so i don't take the same amount of time to write my responses as i would on other sites that i value. it's more of a 'drive-by' commenting.

take care.

I will accept your apology as written and extend my own so we can move on.

Fair enough?

localhost127

04-09-2011, 06:18 PM

cheers, m8.

this thread needs more pics

JBLAddict

04-09-2011, 07:52 PM

Thanks gentlemen for the spirited discussion and helpful links.

I have actually "gone through" most of the links when initially searching for the absorption panels that now line my walls. I can claim to understand a good chunk of it, but at this point am not willing to go down the road of integrating pretty complicated software/PC to my system and attempt to not only make sense of it, but make appropriate changes. From my time on the forums, clearly there are a few who go quite deep in this area, and knowing what they know may understandably get a "little" frustrated when the less informed make bold statements and equipment changes that totally miss what can be fixed with data and appropriate treatment.

I'm pretty happy with my L7s, but was attempting to do a poor man's version of response measurement realizing the room is foremost and I've far from optimized the combination--> clearly this was done incorrectly and out of helpful context.

For now, I guess I'll just use my ears best possible, and if motivated, hire someone to run the tests and recommend the right treatments. As an engineer, data driven action is appealing, but I know my limits in this case.

BMWCCA

04-09-2011, 08:12 PM

"I fight for the users!" —Tron

Thanks for giving us back this thread . . .

-an L7 user.

grumpy

04-09-2011, 08:21 PM

:rotfl:

Regis

04-11-2011, 09:18 AM

I sold the L5's yesterday, to a knowledgable guy. He's owned all the L series and he's settled with the 5's as his favorite. So I'm now L' less. Reading this thread, I find it amazing how controversial the L7 is! In all the years here, never seen the absolute angst about a particular speaker as the L7. Even the bizarre Aquarius, doesn't get that kind of notoriety.

And it's all about the placement and finding that ever so elusive sweet spot. I actually liked the L7's I once had, once I EQ'd them. Keep on exploring, as I doubt this will ever go away. These are a great pair of speakers for the money and that's why they're so popular, but if they give you that much grief, than by all means sell them! There are numerous JBL models that perform superbly for about the same amount of money! I find my 4310's are still excellent sounding speakers and imagine the 4311's, 4312's, L-112's and other bookshelf monitors will give you much enjoyment. Combine any of these with a decent audio-quality subwoofer and you will be stoked at the result!

BTW, the L5 buyer, didn't like my 4315's :p! There's a JBL out there for everyone!

BMWCCA

04-11-2011, 04:37 PM

Reading this thread, I find it amazing how controversial the L7 is! In all the years here, never seen the absolute angst about a particular speaker as the L7. Even the bizarre Aquarius, doesn't get that kind of notoriety.

And it's all about the placement and finding that ever so elusive sweet spot. I actually liked the L7's I once had, once I EQ'd them. Keep on exploring, as I doubt this will ever go away. These are a great pair of speakers for the money and that's why they're so popular, but if they give you that much grief, than by all means sell them! There are numerous JBL models that perform superbly for about the same amount of money!

I disagree. But then I have since my first pair of L7s. They're not that picky with placement. A badly placed L7 sounds better than nearly anything else out there near their original cost—or double it. At their current going market rate, they are nearly impossible to better.

I can stick them in the middle of any room and they sound incredible. Right now one pair is shoved against a wall in a small upstairs bedroom, three-feet apart, toed-in slightly, with an amp rack in between . . . and they sound phenomenal. The bass seems to focus somewhere in the living room downstairs, but they're very listenable in that small room. I have L5s next to them for comparison and L96s on top of the L5s, with stacked L80T/3s outside of those. The L7s still make everyone smile.

No one needs to be this angsty about these speakers. Just buy them, give 'em some decent power, and enjoy their room-filling soundstage. Tweak their position any way you like, but don't worry about not liking them if you don't have the perfect room . . . unless you're as Super-O.C. as some here! ;)

SEAWOLF97

04-11-2011, 05:16 PM

I HAD L7's, they were fine, no real complaints except their looks....got them at a bargain price and was confronted with a trade that was irresistible. No regrets in their loss.

replaced them with AR90 towers - nearly the same size , but walnut and handsome - 4 ways, but a side firing 10 on each side instead of the single 12...better freq response - (23Hz - 30kHz) - not placement dependent.

I had the 4 tens and 2 eights out for refoaming..and will be the first to admit that the AR drivers look cheap & cheesy next to the JBL's ....but the proof is in the listening, and they sound good. :bouncy:

have been around the forum a bit and really appreciate JBL's , but I'm not married to them ( or BMW or Nikon) , the forum pro's arent either ...they grab TAD when they get a chance (or many others)

I guess the summation of this messy post is that if you find L7's at a reasonable price - give them a GO , if you like them..well COOL , if not , they are pretty easy to move on to someone else.

BMWCCA

04-11-2011, 06:28 PM

replaced them with AR90 towers - nearly the same size , but walnut and handsome

Definitely an "eye-of-the-beholder" thing:

50868

Makes me think of "pants on the ground". :rotfl:

SEAWOLF97

04-11-2011, 06:39 PM

Definitely an "eye-of-the-beholder" thing:

50868

Makes me think of "pants on the ground". :rotfl:

yeah, you're right ......(as always :rotfl::rotfl: )...L7'always remind me of
those "remnants of a forest fire" pix..you know, the charred stub of a tree
(still standing and smoking).

hjames

04-11-2011, 06:59 PM

yeah, you're right ......(as always :rotfl::rotfl: )...L7'always remind me of
those "remnants of a forest fire" pix..you know, the charred stub of a tree
(still standing and smoking).

Gotta says - I'm with Seawolf on this - I def prefer walnut and regular wood tones opposed to black ash
or whatever name they give to blackened wood product these days ... black boxes strike me too much like PA/pro cabinets ...
Given a choice between equal quality sound and either walnut or "expresso black wood", I'd take the walnut.

BMWCCA

04-11-2011, 07:35 PM

yeah, you're right ......(as always :rotfl::rotfl: )...L7'always remind me of
those "remnants of a forest fire" pix..you know, the charred stub of a tree
(still standing and smoking).Awe, you're right . . . as always! I'm just giving you a hard time. Heck, I'm even fond of that "spaghetti-wood" the L80Ts are made of.

Your only fault is you're too easily played . . . particularly when the subject is black ash. :applaud:

Remember, only you can prevent L7s!

50872

SEAWOLF97

04-11-2011, 07:37 PM

Gotta says - I'm with Seawolf on this - I def prefer walnut and regular wood tones opposed to black ash
or whatever name they give to blackened wood product these days ... black boxes strike me too much like PA/pro cabinets ...
Given a choice between equal quality sound and either walnut or "expresso black wood", I'd take the walnut.

yup...the reduced quality pic doesnt show it well, but the AR veneer is as good or better than the 70's JBL's (unlike the spaghetti wood/charred ash eras of the 80's/90's JBL's) ...OTOH , almost everyone loves the teak on my 80's era Ti's.

and I agree with HJ...if equal sound, price, etc... I'll take the better looking speakers, most of the time

I did mention the vastly superior build of the JBL drivers, but the stamped steel AR ones that I don't really like to look at, sound virtually as good.

Hey Phil...did BMW ever do charred ash dashboards ?? ;)

Your only fault is you're too easily played . . .

and you're too good at it.....expect a post from you that just says

"4412 , L80"

to see if I'll bite at the bait , just one mo' time ...:crying:

BMWCCA

04-11-2011, 09:37 PM

Hey Phil...did BMW ever do charred ash dashboards ?? ;)Not that I can recall. Though I doubt you'd like the Dark Bamboo or the Carbon Leather dashes in the new ones. Piano Black is even a little weird in a car. I recently talked a B7 buyer out of it in favor of the Individual Alpina Myrle Wood instead. A wood dash should have a grain, IMHO.

gferrell

04-12-2011, 11:22 AM

So you guys and gals think the L7's are ugly. Here is my solution!

50886

Just hide them behind some pretty speakers.

JBLAddict

04-12-2011, 11:33 AM

well played

now, is that that the Jubilee, LE, BQ, or standard

gferrell

04-12-2011, 11:36 AM

well played

now, is that that the Jubilee, LE, BQ, or standard

Depends on what I'm drinking at the time!

SEAWOLF97

04-13-2011, 02:22 PM

So you guys and gals think the L7's are ugly.

I looked around and couldn't find a pic of Sidney posing with his L7's ...sorry :p

(courtesy HJ)

BMWCCA

04-13-2011, 06:16 PM

I looked around and couldn't find a pic of Sidney posing with his L7's ...sorry :pAt least he realized the 250s looked better in black . . .

:D

SEAWOLF97

04-13-2011, 06:58 PM

nice try..

as I read it somewhere, he had a pair BEFORE they were available in black ,
but seem to recall that GT had a pair in WHITE ?

Titanium Dome

04-13-2011, 11:13 PM

At least he realized the 250s looked better in black . . .

:D

Sez you. :p To me one of the hallmarks of the L250 and 250ti is the veneer finish. I'm thinking the piano black is the worst look of the available options and the most easily blemished.

Of course this is all opinion, and anyone is free to state otherwise. This is also what gives me the freedom to say the black piano finish on a 250ti is the poorest of all.

If any of you have actually seen natural black ash, then the painted finish on the L7 is a pretty good choice considering the era in which it was made.

gferrell

04-14-2011, 01:50 PM

SEAWOLF97

04-14-2011, 04:14 PM

HELP! I think I am coming unglued! Upon my recent inspection of this LE120H I found a detaching surround. What kind of glue do I use? Tips and tricks to repair would be appreciated. 50917

Thanks to all that reply!

"Just hide them behind some pretty speakers." :o:

glue ? NO

pull the woofer out , strip the old foam..then refoam them
(them as in BOTH) ....if one is going bad , the 2nd isnt far behind.

if you aren't comfortable doing that ....take them to someone who is ... s/b
about $30 each

dont play them until that is done.

BMWCCA

04-14-2011, 07:23 PM

I'm thinking the piano black is the worst look of the available options and the most easily blemished.Awe, you just don't like finger-prints and scratches!

You probably drive a white car . . . too! :D

Titanium Dome

04-14-2011, 10:08 PM

Awe, you just don't like finger-prints and scratches!

You probably drive a white car . . . too! :D

Actually, I do, after getting rid of my black car. :p

Well, the company car is white. My sole remaining personal vehicle is a red '89 Chrysler TC Maserati. I've never wanted a red speaker, though I saw a pair of Ferrari red Ti10Ks a few years back. Weirdly attractive.

I guess I could get out the filler and sand paper to make the L7s ready for a coat of Imron®. :hmm:

gferrell

04-15-2011, 06:25 AM

"Just hide them behind some pretty speakers." :o:

glue ? NO

pull the woofer out , strip the old foam..then refoam them
(them as in BOTH) ....if one is going bad , the 2nd isnt far behind.

if you aren't comfortable doing that ....take them to someone who is ... s/b
about $30 each

dont play them until that is done.

I don't think they make kits for these surrounds?

Any other recommendations. It's not like the foam is deteriorating.

SEAWOLF97

04-15-2011, 02:36 PM

I don't think they make kits for these surrounds?

Any other recommendations. It's not like the foam is deteriorating.

Oh sorry ..... I thot you wanted the serious / correct answer..:crying:

in that case .... just dump a couple of tubes of superglue all over it ,
wait 3 minutes to dry , crank 'em to 11 and have another drink.

OBTW ...(just for future reference)...its a standard 12 inch foam that every
shop carries.

done.

briang

04-16-2011, 05:55 PM

So...I just picked up a set of L7, set them in place of some L96 as the main right and left in the living room "home theater".

The L7s do sound very good, and I've spent no time setting them up.

The pair is missing the plastic bases but I'm very happy with them.:applaud:

hjames

04-16-2011, 07:54 PM

Really - check the image - it doesn't look like its going bad, it doesn't look like a failing/splitting surround, it just looks like the outer edge wasn't glued down to the frame properly ... sheesh - no reason to sling poo at the man

"Just hide them behind some pretty speakers." :o:

glue ? NO

pull the woofer out , strip the old foam..then refoam them
(them as in BOTH) ....if one is going bad , the 2nd isnt far behind.

if you aren't comfortable doing that ....take them to someone who is ... s/b
about $30 each

dont play them until that is done.

SEAWOLF97

04-16-2011, 08:08 PM

Really - check the image - it doesn't look like its going bad, it doesn't look like a failing/splitting surround, it just looks like the outer edge wasn't glued down to the frame properly ... sheesh - no reason to sling poo at the man

sheesh ..they are 1990ish vintage ....21 years old ....foams are generally estimated at a lifespan of 12-15 years...that exposed lip is too small..and there is maybe another slit just to the left...the poster has not done his homework.

I don't think they make kits for these surrounds?

many foams look OK, right before they fail ..would you just glue them up ?

hjames

04-16-2011, 08:24 PM

sheesh ..they are 1990ish vintage ....21 years old ....foams are generally estimated at a lifespan of 12-15 years...that exposed lip is too small..and there is maybe another slit just to the left...the poster has not done his homework.

many foams look OK, right before they fail ..would you just glue them up ?

Why not? Besides, how much time would he lose? As long as he uses the correct glue,
the frames could still be cleaned up later with MEK -
and it'd be good practice on a refoam job at some later point if it does fail anytime soon.

audiomagnate

04-19-2011, 12:09 PM

I was reading a Stereophile review and found out you could do this. There's a tiny lip at the top but I think they look better than "normal."

BMWCCA

04-19-2011, 12:25 PM

I was reading a Stereophile review and found out you could do this. There's a tiny lip at the top but I think they look better than "normal."
Beauty is nearly always in the eye of the beholder.

I'll just say I won't be holdin' my L1s that way! ;)

JBLAddict

04-19-2011, 12:50 PM

stereophile magazine mentioned you could put the cover on upside down?

BMWCCA

04-19-2011, 02:06 PM

stereophile magazine mentioned you could put the cover on upside down?
Bugger!:

I left the grille for last because it's the one thing an L1 owner will play with for a few weeks. For some stupid reason, the designers gave it a bulge which, when positioned correctly, gives the slope-baffled L1 a perpendicular face. Unfortunately, the grille is braced with enough plastic for a 1/24th scale model of a Spitfire, and
Even worse, the area in front of the tweeter contains a tight grid which could double as a colander. And it doesn't half-bugger the dispersion. So I played them with the grilles mounted upside down. They even looked better that way...
On the other hand, there are strong arguments in favour of removing the grille altogether. In effect, it acts as a corrective filter with three positions:
1) Placed correctly, the speakers lose their sibilance, but the price you pay is a slight lack of detail and serious buggering of the imagery.
2) Placed upside-down, the tweeter is still tamed, but to a milder degree.
3) Removed, the speakers image like a dream, but then you have to worry about all that naked treble.
:dont-know:

audiomagnate

04-19-2011, 02:36 PM

Beauty is nearly always in the eye of the beholder.

I'll just say I won't be holdin' my L1s that way! ;)

Actually, naked looks best. The review is not from Stereophile, it's from Hi Fi News and Record Review. I guess you can't believe everything you read on eBay.

JBLAddict

04-19-2011, 03:48 PM

is there an open link that you're both finding this review...?

the ways "bugger" and "bloody" can be used never ceases to amaze...

audiomagnate

04-19-2011, 04:49 PM

is there an open link that you're both finding this review...?

the ways "bugger" and "bloody" can be used never ceases to amaze...

http://cgi.ebay.com/JBL-L1-PAIR-AUDIOPHILE-SPEAKERS-VERY-FINE-COND-/170627047830?pt=Speakers_Subwoofers&hash=item27ba2a2196#ht_1693wt_1135

You have to click on "see full description". For posterity, here is the text of the full article:

Prejudice is a weird phenomenon. Are we all so vulnerable to the once-bitten-twice-shy system that we simply cannot deal with the rehabilitated? Hi-fi is riddled with brands which -- in the eyes of the British dealer/press/consumer -- can do no right, just as there are unworthy brands which many believe can do no wrong. JBL has, for a least a decade, been written off a domestic-audio-for-pro-wannabees, and the company has no-one to blame oter than itself. So successful is it in pro circles that it assumes that every playback system, regardless of type, warrants the kind of speakers which can loosen plaster while cutting glass. Unbreakable, yes. Brighter than an active arc-welder, ditto. Worse, they seem to embody all of the traits of America that allows psuedo-intellectual Aussies like Clive james to take the piss out of my homeland.
JBL'-ness' that allowntellectual Aussies (Aussies! The spawn of criminals!) like Clive J And JBL is as American as Levi 501s, making them the bane of Spendor/Rogers/Harbeth loversird phenomenon. Are we all so vulnerable to the once-bitten. But the times they are a'changin'.
No, I haven't suddenly written off two decades as a resident of the UK. No, I'm not about to suggest that you ditch cricket for the equally mind-numbing baseball. But I buried my half-life as a Brit, my lust for Things Anglo such as LS3/5As and Lovejoy and KitKats to investigate the rumours that JBL has entered the 1990s. Indeed, so curious am I about this change of direction that I've signed up for a trilogy review as JBL is a three-headed-monster: domestic, pro and in-car. And, as I've spent the last ten months wallowing in nostalgia for my lost youth, I want to see if JBL is capable of reviving a latter-day equivalent of their best-selling speakers from the days I entered hi-fi as a civilian. What I want is a 1993 JBL Decade or Century.
So what do I find when I open the small (for JBL) L1 carton? A pair of speakers in one container, small enough to rest on 24in stands. Two-way, not three. Black ash finish. But with a couple of clues to suggest something other than a Britclone...even though metal dome drivers are a British institution. But these are titanium 1in domes with a diamond pattern stamped on to them to increase structural rigidity with no increase in mass. They rest on sloped baffles, above 6.5in woofers made from a paper-like composite of felt and glass-fibre, featuring concentric ribs. The frames are made from cast aluminium. Build quality? Terrific. Especially at £399 per pair.
The enclosure --401x209x254mm (HWD) -- betrays only one trace of resistance to modernity: the L1 isn't bi-wireable. The back contains the tuned port, with nice multi-way binding posts in a recess near the bottom.

Spec-wise, the L1 could be one of a number of standard two-ways available in the UK. The frequency response is listed as 47Hz-27kHz (+/-6dB), sensitivity is a sensible 87dB for 1W, impedance a safe 8 ohms and the power rating? An easy drive working well with 35-watters, yet it's capable of handling 200W. Remember: the three letters on the badge serve as a red rag to HM bulls. Even if you
crossing over at 3kHz to Oh, there is one other bone to pick: the drivers are not arrayed symmetrically., the tweeters offset to the left.ed rag to HM head-banging bulls. JBL could issue a telephone speaker and most of the faithful would expect it to yield 120dB at 10m. But that's the downside of having such a strong image, eg all Ford drivers can't really be boy racers, can they?

I left the grille for last because it's the one thing an L1 owner will play with for a few weeks. For some stupid reason, the designers gave it a bulge which, when positioned correctly, gives the slope-baffled L1 a perpendicular face. Unfortunately, the grille is braced with enough plastic for a 1/24th scale model of a Spitfire, and
Even worse, the area in front of the tweeter contains a tight grid which could double as a colander. And it doesn't half-bugger the dispersion. So I played them with the grilles mounted upside down. They even looked better that way...
On the other hand, there are strong arguments in favour of removing the grille altogether. In effect, it acts as a corrective filter with three positions:
1) Placed correctly, the speakers lose their sibilance, but the price you pay is a slight lack of detail and serious buggering of the imagery.
2) Placed upside-down, the tweeter is still tamed, but to a milder degree.
3) Removed, the speakers image like a dream, but then you have to worry about all that naked treble.

I know, I know. At this price point, and speaker which doesn;t work well with £250, 50-watters from the Pacific Rim is history. And it does sound OK with your basic, rolled-off-at-the-top-like-a-vintage-NAD3020 budget integrateds. On the other hand, this baby comes into its own -- and I can hear the technoid/spec-freak/propeller-heads at JBL gnashing their teeth -- when you run them off valves. And I just so happened to have a brace of pure tube integrateds to hand, costing under £1000 so as to not render this review as meaningless. Conversely, they sound terrific on a pair of Krell MDA300s. Which is amusing when you consider that two sets of Krell pointy feet cost more than the JBLs.
Driven by either the Croft Integrated or the Woodside ISA230 Line Integrated, fed by the ungodly Marantz CD52 Mk IISE, I was listening to a single-source system costing £1300-£1700 less stands and accessories. Not cheap, but then HFN/RR readers are not novices seeking out their first-ever purchases. Anyway, while you could shave a few hundred quid off by using an upper-low-fi solid-state integrated, but life's too short for such compromises. Besides, you wouldn't be doing the JBLs and favours and would therefore have to select other speakers, like Britboxes at the £149-per-pair point. Which is not the point of this review.
The JBLs, in a word, cook. They are not refined, yet they have nothing in common with the JBLs of yore which were sold on the strength of their ability to shatter glass. They go only so deep, sounding light enough to paint expressions of puzzlement on the knuckledraggers who only want JBLs because that's what some brain-dead axe-hero uses on stage for filling stadia. But they create enough of a realistic foundation to satisfy any 'normal' music lover in a listening room with a floor plan under 8x6m. They don't replicate the 'vanishing walls' effecft of the better dipoles, yet they don't sound at all boxy. But what they retain of traditional JBL values are those which placed so many pairs of Decades in so many college dorm rooms in the USA during the late 1960s and early 1970s.
And we're talking about virtues which elude the traditionalists. They have punch throughout the frequency spectrum, managing even to cope with the Sousa track on Test Disc 3 without fuss; the amps ran out of steam before the L1s. Switching to the Krells and exercising caution only because the review pair was the only pair in the UK, I managed to reach the hands-over-the-ears point without any sounds of distress. And the woofers didn't look like they were about to part company with their chassis. SO the JBL diehards can relax: the company has not sold out to the tweaks.
And yet there's a new grace which I haven't heard from many JBLs. On subtle, quiet recordings such as the gorgeous new Ry Cooder disc on Water Lily, the L1s displayed finesse worthy of a BBC-approved design. Smooth, neutral in the midband, only slightly too crisp at the top, the L1 showed itself to be a mature, adult speaker...a far cry from the yahoo, Let's Party! image which has made this brand the fave of Neanderthals the world over.
Am I impressed? You bet. JBL was the last company I expected to produce a speaker which can stand up against the best of the British two-ways in the sub-£500 category. The only problem I see that of expectations. Too much conditioning means that the typical JBL customer will expect these things to work ideally with the heads off their bass amps which they use as a hi-fi between gigs. Too many JBL supporters are bomber-jacket-wearing hairies with hearing impaired from standing in front of PA systems at Metallica concerts. And too many potential customers for a speaker of this quality won't even have JBL on their long-lists. I suppose it's like finding tasty food at McDonald's: possible but not probable.

BMWCCA

04-19-2011, 06:09 PM

is there an open link that you're both finding this review...?
Don't misconstrue my quoting of the article as an endorsement of the premise. I find the entire discussion silly . . . with a sibilant emphasis on "silly".

;)

gferrell

04-19-2011, 06:42 PM

My wife says the upside down grills look like a beer gut!

audiomagnate

04-20-2011, 05:58 AM

I hate to admit it, but the look is growing on me. It certainly allows for some serious woofer movement.

localhost127

04-21-2011, 02:34 PM

damn, someone sniped a single L7 tower on craigslist before me -- for $60 !

gferrell

04-21-2011, 03:03 PM

damn, someone sniped a single L7 tower on craigslist before me -- for $60 !

Sometimes you have to act fast!

Titanium Dome

04-21-2011, 09:57 PM

Sometimes you have to act fast!

Or not act at all... :)

I'm slowly learning to back my finger off the trigger, but, darn, there are so many deals to be had. :banghead:

JBLAddict

04-22-2011, 09:01 PM

the little dive into the L1 inspired me to do some serious listening of the pair I purchased for one speaker as a center channel, until replacing it with an L3, at which point the L1s went to the garage shelf.

swapping between L1 and L7, it really is amazing how much LF the L1 puts out @ <15% of of the L7s cabinet volume, and minus a 12" and 8" driver. The L1 is smooth and deep and could easily be a rewarding full time stereo pair on a stand. At 87dB sensitivity, they need a majority of my 240WPC amp to belt out some volume, but are strong and clear, with the 035Tia drawing a little attention to itself crossed @3kHz

Switching over to the L7, off the bat you need to drop the volume a bit with 91dB sensitivity, and first thing you notice is the mid-range presence due to the dedicated driver, while the 035Tia mellows a bit with the jump to 4kHz xover. After a few more seconds the increased VLF sets in, and you're in that balanced 4 way zone.

anyway, the L1 is a really great bookshelf, as long as they are well powered. For anyone space limited, the ~$120 these go for is tough to beat in a small 2-way IMVHO

SEAWOLF97

04-22-2011, 09:09 PM

anyway, the L1 is a really great bookshelf, as long as they are well powered. For anyone space limited, the ~$120 these go for is tough to beat in a small 2-way IMVHO

I've never heard the L1 , but another great sounding small 2 way is the L16/L19 ...they punch way above their weight class, and many times are under $120

gferrell

04-23-2011, 09:14 AM

HELP! I think I am coming unglued! Upon my recent inspection of this LE120H I found a detaching surround. What kind of glue do I use? Tips and tricks to repair would be appreciated. 50917

Thanks to all that reply!

I just wanted to thank Heather who was kind enough to send me some glue to fix my LE120H. Just a drop of glue and about 5 minutes and it is as good as new. I am really grateful to have a place to go where there are great people willing to help when you need it. Thanks Heather!

JBLAddict

04-25-2011, 10:49 AM

For now, I guess I'll just use my ears best possible, and if motivated, hire someone to run the tests and recommend the right treatments

curiousity got the better of me, so I took the first step toward more revealing measurements. Downloaded the test tone zip file from RealTraps and followed their recommendation to go Hz by Hz with and SPL and plot out the data, which is included here with the L7 about 15" from the back wall and 3' from the sides, in my primary seating position

I also downloaded the Room EQ Wizard, and figured out basically how to use it, need to buy the mic which I plan to do.

Previously when going in 10Hz increments I missed the severe dips at 142Hz and 155Hz. I didn't measure the entire range again, but when pulling the speakers back to 36" from the back wall the two troughs disappeared. I'm going to run the full sequence again at the 36" position, and get the mic to start testing differences in speaker/listener position as well as traps and diffusers.

localhost127

04-26-2011, 06:02 PM

Previously when going in 10Hz increments I missed the severe dips at 142Hz and 155Hz. I didn't measure the entire range again, but when pulling the speakers back to 36" from the back wall the two troughs disappeared. I'm going to run the full sequence again at the 36" position, and get the mic to start testing differences in speaker/listener position as well as traps and diffusers.

:)
this was precisely the scenario i was describing a few pages back which started that whole mess. resolution is important on the low end. a lot can change over the course of 10hz.

room eq wizard will make your life much easier regarding the testing. i'll go PM as it's been stated this thread is not the place for this type of discussion.

opimax

04-27-2011, 06:15 AM

don't go PM, start a new thread!!interesting topic, please

Mark

JBLAddict

04-27-2011, 10:53 AM

Titanium Dome

04-27-2011, 03:05 PM

Nice work. :)

JBLAddict

04-27-2011, 03:26 PM

actually I searched earlier (unsuccessfully) for your Chris Neuman calibration thread, if you could point me to it :o:

now that I've opened this box, hoping I could gain more insight from your experience

edit: I did look at the synthesis room treatment thread, aside from having put generic panels and diffusers in select spots throughout the room, can you highlight how many true bass traps are part of the installation

Regis

04-27-2011, 03:26 PM

The dips get more intense between 280-290. Though this is all manual, the dips shown on the SPL are very audible- the sound disappears and reappears over the span of 4 Hz.

It is nice work and while it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, the range up to 4hz, covers that midbass region that I feel is recessed. Side by side, against the 4315's, there was material that I could clearly hear on the 4315's, that seem subdued, if not missing from the L7's. Not saying that it is an inferior speaker, but I think there's something more than just 'placement'.

Could it be the upward tilt of the drivers as they're placed in the cabinet? You've got all the drivers firing upwards, up and over the listener as they're positioned on a couch or seat. I found that if you tilt the L5's forward, you had a difference in what you heard. Other JBL designs fire directly forward (at least with the midbass and higher speakers).

I've posited this before, but EQ'ng the L7 works wonders and researching the recessed midbass on this thread, Ti Dome had the documentation for the L7 and it specifically called out for mandatory modification by the dealer if you bi-amped the speakers, as you had to use an electronic crossover with this setup to differentiate between the bass and midbass (only a portion of the internal crossover is used in bi-amping). This is in page 8 of this thread.

JBLAddict

04-27-2011, 03:54 PM

no secret that I was an L7 recessed mid-range champion. In my experience improved upstream components, primarily the DAC, had a huge effect there, and as I started changing listening position to avoid the LF nodes, I found the mid to come into much better perceived balance. Comparison to forward oriented control monitors may be a factor in perception as well, since much of what I said was from my upgrading from L100A to L7. I can't speak to the characteristics of the 4315 however

For all these reasons, I'm very motivated to get measurement capability to back some of these things up with numbers. There are so many qualitative assessments in audiophilia, I feel strongly that measurement and correction can go a long way toward clarity

edit: 4hz?, did you mean 400Hz?

Hopefully I'll make some time to redo the graph with 3' from the corners to at least see what speaker position alone does since that's what kicked off this discussion, and from there if I get the REW s/w working, can experiment with treatments as well.

Regis

04-27-2011, 04:07 PM

I'm intrigued! The moving of position to avoid the LF nodes, so that the midrange comes in better, is similar to what I've experienced when I've got the bass turned up too loud on my Velodyne subs. The excess bass, seems to 'mask' the lower midbass and some of the midrange. When you turn down the sub, suddenly the midbass and lower midrange comes back. Haven't seen this discussed yet (at least in my limited experience), but have been experienced the full-on bass bloom of a pair of XPL-200's in a narrow room and oddly enough, that's all you heard, was that bass bloom. It dominated every other frequency.

Keep up the good work. When you've got the measurements done in front of the speakers, I'd be curious as to what response you get on the upward tilt, up and away from the tilted baffle on the cabinet.

JBLAddict

04-27-2011, 04:45 PM

actually, this whole discussion came about regarding the bass coupling of the L7 to the walls, and how positioning does matter, and why JBL recommends 3' from the corners as a starting point.

The questions I'm trying to answer are:
1) Frequency response by speaker position
2) Frequency response by listening position
3) Whether treatment can reduce the sensitivity of the first two-- as purveyors of room treatments such as Real Traps go to tremendous lengths to demonstrate with videos loaded with actual recordings and measurement graphs before and after, that while serving a marketing purpose are pretty damn compelling

My goals are to determine whether:
1) Moving the speakers out in the middle of room is worth the obtrusion (since I'm not changing my primary listening position
2) I should spend a few hunny on bass traps in addition to the standard absorbing panels I've put in the room
3) I need new speakers :D

lastly, I think there's absolutely no doubt that an overabundance of VLF information gives the perception of recessed mid-range, mid-bass, and the L7 has that overabundance if not positioned and treated properly (compare my <100Hz measurements to that >100Hz). If you still owned L7s, take the tie bars off and plug only the top speakers in and see if they're still "recessed" once the <190Hz is removed--hint: the answer is NO

edit, I fully realize this thread may be too off-topic for L series, but since it's been a slow mover anyway, seems harmless as long as the measurments are L based

Titanium Dome

04-28-2011, 05:25 PM

I'm all for keeping it here.

JBLAddict

04-28-2011, 05:41 PM

I'm all for keeping it here.

cool, if you're online would you mind telling me how much bass trapping you have in the HT, and the link to your pro calibration thread?:bouncy:

localhost127

04-28-2011, 07:03 PM

There are so many qualitative assessments in audiophilia, I feel strongly that measurement and correction can go a long way toward clarity

measurement and correction are the only way to clarity!

localhost127

04-28-2011, 07:07 PM

I'm intrigued! The moving of position to avoid the LF nodes, so that the midrange comes in better,

yes, but you will never get an idealistic response simply by repositioning the speakers - you just want the best overall 'starting position' for which you can then attack specific issues with treatment.

you will still need low-freq treatment (absorption/trapping) to remove LF sonic energy to attenuate room modes (constructive/destructive interference) as best as possible.

Keep up the good work. When you've got the measurements done in front of the speakers, I'd be curious as to what response you get on the upward tilt, up and away from the tilted baffle on the cabinet.

his frequency response above the schroeder critical frequency (where sound functions as rays) will be dominated by comb-filtering from early reflections. you will not be able to draw any conclusion from the freq response regarding any performance from the upward tilt on the baffle. the room will mask everything (but this can be solved).

localhost127

04-28-2011, 07:30 PM

The questions I'm trying to answer are:
1) Frequency response by speaker position
2) Frequency response by listening position

ok - sound that functions as waves (low freq content below the schroeder cut-off freq, where the wall surfaces in each plane are smaller than the wavelength) - you will measure that with the waterfall plot ... 0-300hz is generally sufficient. put the time domain to 1000ms.

for sound that functions as rays (~500-20khz) - we can look at the frequency response but it's not terribly important. what we need to focus on in this range (sound that functions as rays, not waves) is the Envelope Time Curve (ETC) ... which will detail you specular energy with respect to time. this will detail to you the first of the sonic energy all the way until the last of the energy in the room is damped. the whole picture with the decay trail. there is no such thing as reverb in small acoustical spaces (not 'statistically random'), as it is more or less of a discrete set of specular reflections in the room. the first-order reflections (e.g. reflections off the ceiling, side walls, rear of the room, desk, coffee table) are all detrimental.

2 issues. the first, a reflection arrives at your ear slightly after the original sound. they combine constructively (peak) and destructively (null), just like room modes. however, they do they multiple times over the course of the frequency range - producing comb-filtering. secondly, the reflection-free-zone room model concept is very necessary in small rooms. the goal is to have all reflections that arrive within 20ms of the original source attenuated (absorbed), as the brain cannot distinguish a reflection that arrives within 20ms of the original source as a separate, distinct echo...therefore smearing and quality loss takes place. bear in mind also regarding music, that the "room" that the music was recorded in is already present in the recording (e.g. the reverb of the room of the recording) --- by having these early reflections combining with the original signal at your ear (within 20ms), you are hearing your room, instead of the room (reverb) on the recording. your room is masking the sound of the room in which the recording took place. once the 20ms ISD gap has passed, then you could treat your room to impose a nice late arriving diffused soundfield.

the other thing about the first reflection points, is the disruption to stereo imaging. what happens is, the left speaker signal will go directly to your left ear. another part of that signal from the left speaker will travel off-axis to the right wall, reflect off the right wall and enter your right ear. so now the left speaker signal has combined at the right ear. once you attenuate (absorb) the energy from these reflection points, then you hear the direct signal from the speaker without all of the reflections smearing and being destructive. this is probably the most significant thing you could do that causes an absolutely massive increase in ability to hear the original signal clearly - and the stereo imaging becomes laser pinpoint-able,

so, for all non-bass content, we will use broadband absorber panels at the first reflection points (e.g. ceiling, side-wall, rear wall, etc) -- any place where you can place a mirror and see a speaker from the listening position. absorbers need to be placed here. you can measure your room with the ETC and see these 'reflections', and how long after the original signal they are incident. since we know the speed of sound, we can work backwards to find the length of the path the reflection took, and from there determine what object/wall that reflection is coming from, and apply absorption.

here is an example of a 5.1 setup and where the reflection points are on the wall. these areas would need to be attenuated (e.g. via absorption), so that the first-order early reflections to not impose on the original signal.

51170

the top graph shows these discrete specular reflections, and the bottom graph shows the first reflections absorbed (RFZ: reflection-free-zone) for 20ms after the original signal, and then the rest of the energy within the room arrives at the listening position.

51169

3) Whether treatment can reduce the sensitivity of the first two-- as purveyors of room treatments such as Real Traps go to tremendous lengths to demonstrate with videos loaded with actual recordings and measurement graphs before and after, that while serving a marketing purpose are pretty damn compelling

yes, absolutely. this is very fundamental level of acoustics we are discussing right now. the solutions are well known and measurable.

My goals are to determine whether:
1) Moving the speakers out in the middle of room is worth the obtrusion (since I'm not changing my primary listening position
2) I should spend a few hunny on bass traps in addition to the standard absorbing panels I've put in the room
3) I need new speakers :D

1- why would you move your speakers to the middle of the room? you'll always be in a null when in the middle of 2 parallel of walls.

2- bass traps and broadband absorbers are very easy to build yourself. there's very little to it.

3- when you apply treatments at the first reflection points and bass trapping to flatten the low end and minimize modal ringing, then you'll be 'hearing' your speakers for the first time - without the room masking its sound over top of the speakers.

DIY is very inexpensive and easy to do, and massively effective. and most importantly, measurable

lastly, I think there's absolutely no doubt that an overabundance of VLF information gives the perception of recessed mid-range, mid-bass, and the L7 has that overabundance if not positioned and treated properly (compare my <100Hz measurements to that >100Hz). If you still owned L7s, take the tie bars off and plug only the top speakers in and see if they're still "recessed" once the <190Hz is removed--hint: the answer is NO

this is why most speakers are measured in anechoic chambers (which absorb all sound so no reflections are allowed to combine with the original signal (destructively nor constructively). but then people brag about how ruler flat their speaker's response curve is, and all of that goes *completely* out the window once they are placed within a room.

localhost127

04-28-2011, 07:45 PM

51150
The dips get more intense between 280-290. Though this is all manual, the dips shown on the SPL are very audible- the sound disappears and reappears over the span of 4 Hz. I realize this is manual and doesnt' account for decay, one note bass and other effects, but what is clear is that the listener's perception of how well their speakers/system are performing is highly impacted by speaker/listener positioning and treatment.

precisely. small acoustical spaces impose many problems. once specific problems are measured, then the appropriate treatment can be selected - and then measured again to verify the issue has been resolved.

I haven't yet rerun with the speaker pulled out to see if the overall balance is better. Of course the RT website goes to great lengths to demonstrate how much LF flattening can be had with bass traps. Ideally, I would have the measurement s/w setup and treatment on hand to run a bunch of experiments. Taking this one step at a time.

yes, porous (velocity based) bass traps do work. they are broadband, and can be made from standard attic insulation, or rigid fibgerglass insulation. they work by converting kinetic energy (from the sound wave) into heat. thus, they are most effective at 1/4wavelength as that is where particle velocity is highest (and pressure is zero). at a boundary, velocity goes to zero as pressure maximizes. you cannot generally absorb low-freq energy at flat boundaries, beacuse pressure goes to zero and the porous bass trap does not absorb via pressure. also, because low-freq wavelengths are so long, they will diffract around the object if placed in the room (spaced off a boundary). bass waves will not 'see' the panel, unless the panel was larger than the wavelength. therefore, we place the bass traps/absorbers in corners where the reflection off the walls forces the low-few wavelength/energy to traverse through the absorption (since it cannot effectively 'diffract' around the trap). it should be noted that there are 12 corners within a standard room. the more bass trapping the better. if you have overlapping dimensions (overlapping room modes), then you will have even more difficult time taming the low end.

pressure based absorbers are possible too (and more effective for the lowest octaves that you cannot necessarily treat with porous absorption) -- but they are not broadband and generally only functional over a very small range of frequencies.

there are many solutions - all do-it-yourself for very very little money or effort.

Titanium Dome

04-29-2011, 09:04 AM

cool, if you're online would you mind telling me how much bass trapping you have in the HT, and the link to your pro calibration thread?:bouncy:

I have four traps in the Two Jims Theatre. Two are in the front above the proscenium at the left and right, and two are in the back against the rear wall, left and right, from floor level to 48" high. They are on the walls, not angled across the corners.

http://www.acoustimac.com/index.php/bass-traps/dmd-basstraps/dmd-bt4000-bass-traps-48x24x4.html

In addition, I have the bass dump that was planned through the rear side opening (where Chris said "No door") that lets the longest waves out of the room, and the disrupted ceiling (the big cross dividing it into quadrants).

Of course, these treatments do not act in isolation, so it's important not to place too much emphasis on them without considering the diffusers that are also in use in that room, the other acoustic panels, and the reflective surfaces intentionally untreated. The first reflection points on the sidewalls are not treated for the L, C, and R mains.

I should also point out that the room was designed from the ground up to house one specific system, the JBL Synthesis® One Array, whose speakers are designed for specific placement with predictable results.

All of this is capped with one of the most sophisticated processing and PEQ systems around, far more capable than current consumer-oriented systems, including Trinnov and Audyssey.

I couldn't say how L7s or any other speaker system would sound in there. My guess is pretty good, but probably not their best. It's not a "typical" (the word I've used frequently) or "standard" (the word I see localhost127 using) room, and the L7 is a far different speaker than what's in there. It would be fun to drag a pair of L7s in there, fire them up, and see what happened. They might sound wonderful, they may sound lifeless and dull, they may sound weak in the bass, but I'm certain they wouldn't sound bright. :D

Unfortunately my L7s are in my downtown LA office and yours are in the OC, so that's not likely to happen unless you want to bring yours over. :p OTOH, the next time you're here, we can take the L5s down there and try them out if you want to mess around with it. We can listen to them in the guest room, then listen to them in the Two Jims. We'll get some different readings for sure! :applaud:

Titanium Dome

04-29-2011, 09:47 AM

JBLAddict

04-29-2011, 10:11 AM

gferrell

04-29-2011, 10:15 AM

A quick question while we are on the subject. Can bass traps be put behind a layer of sheet rock?

JBLAddict

04-29-2011, 10:33 AM

You may want one of these threads. I think it's the second.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?23833-JBL-Synthesis-Something-BIG-is-on-its-way...&highlight=

http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?25102-JBL-Synthesis-Room-Design-and-Treatment

One thing I couldn't tell from reading the thread was if the treatments were determined through iterative measurements (as I plan to do), or if they were an educated guess with digital EQ doing all the leveling from there?

localhost127

04-29-2011, 02:49 PM

They are on the walls, not angled across the corners.

porous bass traps (panels) need to be straddled in the corner. that is where they are most effective. this is porous absorption, so thickness (spacing off the boundary towards 1/4wavelength of particular frequency) determines on effectiveness. by straddling it in the corner, you have effectively deeper traps than the physical depth of the insulation (since the trap is spaced well away from the corner/boundary). you do not want to place bass traps flat against boundaries.

Of course, these treatments do not act in isolation, so it's important not to place too much emphasis on them without considering the diffusers that are also in use in that room, the other acoustic panels, and the reflective surfaces intentionally untreated. The first reflection points on the sidewalls are not treated for the L, C, and R mains.

for the most part, they are in isolation. LF sound functions as a wave. thus, the treatment is applied differently than we do for frequencies that function as rays. they really do not have an impact on each other one way or the other ... the only possible issue is when people install lots of broadband bass traps that end up absorbing specular energy (and making the room sound dead). this is why membranes or reflective material is generally installed to the outside face of the trap, to reflect low and mid freq content back into the room. the bass traps are only there to treat LF issues that function as waves. we can then treat the specular (time-domain) issues with broadband absorption at the early reflection points. there doesn't need to be any additional broadband absorption except to create the ISD. diffusers can then be placed elsewhere in the room so that specular reflections can be diffused and returned to the listening position at the ISD-termination. e.g. a late-arriving diffused exponentially decaying soundfield.

one must also note that diffusers also have a fairly high absorption coefficient. yep, that's right...diffusers are absorbers, and absorbers can be reflectors :)

so in order to properly apply diffusers, you need to make sure you're not sucking too much specular energy from the room with your broadband absorbers. people really go overboard on the absorption and start applying it to entire walls. absorption needs to be surgically placed at early reflection points. you need the remaining sonic energy to be preserved in the room so that the diffusers can function accordingly.

All of this is capped with one of the most sophisticated processing and PEQ systems around, far more capable than current consumer-oriented systems, including Trinnov and Audyssey.

just an fyi to anyone else who may be reading this, EQ should be used as icing on the cake only. EQ cannot do anything to the signal once it has left the speaker and the room imposes on the response. EQ doesn't solve comb-filtering issues because the frequency response can change drastically even over the course of moving your head a few inches in either direction. EQ also can't solve the stereo imaging issues imposed by early reflections that i mentioned on the previous page. EQ should (preferably) only need to be used to tame the lowest octave bass peaks (not nulls!) - that one is otherwise not able to treat with pressure or velocity based traps.

localhost127

04-29-2011, 02:55 PM

Great responses, thanks guys.

To remind, I do have 4-48x24x2" panels and 2-48x12x2" panels already (see post 698 for small view of the speakers in the room):

two at first side reflections, one on a large rear right wall, one on the 50" wide back wall (rest of back opens to the rest of the house), the 12" wides are in the front corners but probably not doing much since they're not bass traps. I'm not going to put ceiling traps up, but do need a floor rug on on the laminate floors in front, the other walls are windows with blinds which are staying put----basically, I have as much non-bass absorption as I'm willing/able to do, but almost certainly needing two bass traps in the front corners.

i would mount your 2" broadband absorbers (for specular reflections) 2" from the wall. spacing porous absorption away from the wall effectively doubles it (2" insulation 2" from the wall performs like 4" of insulation right on the wall). this is porous absorption and works most effectively at areas of high particle velocity - NOT high pressure (which is all you have when it is mounted flush with the wall).

note that you really need lots of coverage with porous bass traps. i wouldn't expect too much from 2 24"x48"x4" traps straddled in the corners. you need lots of coverage in as many of the 12 corners in the room as possible. the energy content is much greater on the low freq stuff...

Adding those is as far as I'm willing to go with treatment. So, wrt to measurements, I want to see how bass traps change the picture, how moving the speakers changes the picture, how removing my existing traps change the picture......and determine a best fit from there!!

again, for reference:

waterfall plot (0-300hz, 0-1000ms) - will detail to you the low freq issues, including modal ringing and decay-times. you will use corner bass traps to treat issues here.

ETC graph will detail you the specular energy with respect to time. this is what you will use to determine where there are early reflections within your room - which you can then treat with absorption, and then reverify via another measurement that the treatment is indeed functioning correctly. once you have a clean 20ms ISD after the original source, most of your (non-LF) problems will be solved. you will use wall-mounted broadband absorbers (at early reflection points) to issues found in the ETC.

you do not even need a full 20hz-20khz frequency response at this time. that doesn't tell you much, and certainly no where near as much detail as the waterfall combined with the ETC.

:)

localhost127

04-29-2011, 03:09 PM

A quick question while we are on the subject. Can bass traps be put behind a layer of sheet rock?

sheet rock, as in drywall?
bear in mind that drywall itself flexes when a pressure wave hits it, so some LF energy is attenuated that way. the problem is that since the LF content has such massive wavelengths, that they don't 'see' most objects in the room. any object that is smaller than the wavelength, the LF wave will not even 'see' it - and will just diffract around.

with porous absorption (velocity based), it is placed into corners where the sound wave is forced into the absorption by reflecting off the multiple boundaries in the corner.

putting insulation behind a layer of sheet rock will not be effective unless there is a solid boundary on the other side. porous absorption needs to be at areas of high particle frequency in order to be effective!

localhost127

04-29-2011, 03:12 PM

One thing I couldn't tell from reading the thread was if the treatments were determined through iterative measurements (as I plan to do), or if they were an educated guess with digital EQ doing all the leveling from there?

-porous bass trapping takes place in the room corners (2D and 3D).
-broadband absorption is placed at the early reflection points to cure early specular reflections.

those are somewhat general statements regarding small room acoustics and the reflection-free-zone model. one could blindly place an absorption panel at the reflection point on the wall, by using the 'mirror' technique, but until verified by an ETC, then you will not know for certain if it is placed properly and absorbing all of the incident specular energy. measuring beforehand is really needed just because you want to know what the specific issues are within your room. you also want to know what difference is made from treatments, and you want to re-verify after treating that the treatments indeed corrected the problem!!

EQ should not be used except for the lowest octave peaks! EQ only gives you a clean response in one very particular location (and even then, additional problems exist). when the room is treated, you can treat for as large of a listening position as needed (rows of chairs in a theater). why would you settle for a band-aid that only works if you strap your head to a vice so it doesn't move from the exact position the mic was in when the EQ took its measurement?

JBLAddict

04-29-2011, 04:37 PM

alright now we're cooking, good stuff

--first, if I buy a mic and plug it into my Dell laptop is the stock soundcard enough for me to run the Room EQ Wizard s/w I downloaded

--assuming yes, what is ETC? I get the waterfall...

--are you saying straddling the 2" traps (that I already own) in the corners can be an effective porous bass trap, such that I can forego buying the 4-6" versions they sell as "bass traps" I'd like to use as much of what I have without spending more if possible

localhost127

04-29-2011, 04:47 PM

alright now we're cooking, good stuff

--first, if I buy a mic and plug it into my Dell laptop is the stock soundcard enough for me to run the Room EQ Wizard s/w I downloaded

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18486257#post18486257

--assuming yes, what is ETC? I get the waterfall...

The ETC provides a total picture of the specular response in the room - from early arrivals to the 'last' of the energy, be it totally damped or a decaying diffuse soundfield. And this is all done with respect to time.

The ETC allows you to see exactly what kind of energy distribution you have currently, and allows you to select and precisely place the treatment you have chosen in order to create the effect you desire - be it damping, redirection, or diffusion. It also allows you, upon repeating the measurement, to see the precise impact the positioning of the chosen type of treatment has. from this you may be satisfied, or you may want to further refine the positioning in order to insure the proper response is accomplished.

--are you saying straddling the 2" traps (that I already own) in the corners can be an effective porous bass trap, such that I can forego buying the 4-6" versions they sell as "bass traps" I'd like to use as much of what I have without spending more if possible

2" of insulation is not going to do anything regarding LF content.

2" is unlikely enough to even absorb the full range of specular energy we need at the early reflection points. 4" (eg OC703 or equivilant) with a 2-4" air-gap is highly effective at the first reflection points. you do not want to simply absorb the highs and leave the mids/lower mids alone in the specular range (where sound functions as 'rays') ... but regarding bass traps? no ... 2" is not going to do a damn thing.

you can very with an ETC graph (since it measures total energy; frequency is irrelevant with regards to the ETC) .. you can place an absorber at a first reflection point, then measure with ETC to verify the reflection has been attenuated at least -20dB.

regarding the bass traps, remember, we're talking about ridiculously long wavelengths! and porous insulation works most effectively when particle velocity is maximum - at 1/4wavelength! so you need very very deep traps of porous material in order to tame the LF issues. and the deeper the traps, the LESS DENSE (lower gas-flow resisitivity) material. the MOST EFFECTIVE porous bass traps are actually the cheapest! big, thick corner traps of loosely coupled pink fluffy attic insulation.

if you have real estate issues and can't do super deep traps of pink fluffy, then 6" OC703 (or equivilant density) with a large air gap will still be effective - assuming that you are covering enough surface area!! 2x panels stack in a corner isn't going to do much of anything. if you are using panels, then lay them sideways (so they are 48" across and 24" high), and then stack the panels like that to the ceiling. that way, you have brought the absorption out much further away from the wall and it will be much more effective! placing porous based bass traps flat against a boundary is a complete waste!

also, if you are building your frames, make sure you do not put a wood backing, covering the back of the panel. keep it exposed/open so the incident sound and flow through the insulation, hit the wall, and re-enter the insulation from the back side (back out into the room)...

gferrell

04-29-2011, 04:53 PM

sheet rock, as in drywall?
bear in mind that drywall itself flexes when a pressure wave hits it, so some LF energy is attenuated that way. the problem is that since the LF content has such massive wavelengths, that they don't 'see' most objects in the room. any object that is smaller than the wavelength, the LF wave will not even 'see' it - and will just diffract around.

with porous absorption (velocity based), it is placed into corners where the sound wave is forced into the absorption by reflecting off the multiple boundaries in the corner.

putting insulation behind a layer of sheet rock will not be effective unless there is a solid boundary on the other side. porous absorption needs to be at areas of high particle frequency in order to be effective!

The reason I asked is I have a staircase in one corner with space under it I thought I could fill with insulation to cause that corner to be a bass trap. The space is covered with drywall and a 2235 diy sub is in front of it.

localhost127

04-29-2011, 05:31 PM

The reason I asked is I have a staircase in one corner with space under it I thought I could fill with insulation to cause that corner to be a bass trap. The space is covered with drywall and a 2235 diy sub is in front of it.

can't really say without taking measurements before and after. far too complicated of a topic to assume.

you would at least want some insulation in there because a enclosed space like that can and will likely resonate - and then could lead to unwanted vibrations/sounds.

just a thought,

Titanium Dome

04-29-2011, 09:26 PM

I'd suggest reading this:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20110429/6079.pdf

Then take a deep breath before plowing ahead too quickly.

Titanium Dome

04-29-2011, 09:45 PM

Titanium Dome

04-29-2011, 09:59 PM

Take Part 2 with you:

http://www.sound-thinking.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=30223

Again, there's some practical commentary on positioning speakers and treating a room. Ah, Brunhilde!

Near the end, you'll see a simple explanation of the polycylindricals I use in the Two Jims and understand why they're so important working in tandem with S4Ai surrounds.

Titanium Dome

04-29-2011, 10:19 PM

... Part Three will make you sleepy (in a good way).

http://www.sound-thinking.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=30244

It will illuminate the issues of low frequency reproduction and control. Of course you already know why the subs in the treated and calibrated Two Jims are where they are and why the traps are where they are, and you also know why the Performance Series rig on the main floor has four subs and what a different room that is and how impossible treatments are in there.

And then good night. :snore:

Titanium Dome

04-30-2011, 12:59 AM

porous bass traps (panels) need to be straddled in the corner. that is where they are most effective. this is porous absorption, so thickness (spacing off the boundary towards 1/4wavelength of particular frequency) determines on effectiveness. by straddling it in the corner, you have effectively deeper traps than the physical depth of the insulation (since the trap is spaced well away from the corner/boundary). you do not want to place bass traps flat against boundaries.

I made certain to note that the traps were flat against the wall, since the common practice is to do just as you present it. In this case, your method would be incorrect. Your first assumption is that this is a porous bass trap, and it is not a pure porous bass trap. Nothing of consequence is going to get past the closed back of the panel and reflect back into it. The meaningful absorption and reflection are taking place within the panel confines, so standing it off the wall or straddling the corner is just a waste of space. Your second assumption is that the intent in this room is to control the bass inside of the room, when that is really only part of the intent. By "control the bass inside of the room" I mean an instance in which one would try to deal with it strictly within the physical dimensions of the room. If the room were closed and discrete, your method would be better, but the room is not closed and discrete (by choice). In this case, we also deal with and control the bass outside the dimensions of the room, and this is by means of the bass dump into the second room which is of nearly identical room volume.

Of course we adhered to the Harman white paper's placement guidelines with respect to the subs, and planned for the longish waves that would be most bothersome in a room of these dimensions (about 60-125 Hz) to freely get out of the room rather than be trapped in it or attempt to capture them there. We also accounted for the size of the exit needed for the amount of pressure that could be generated in the room. My math and knowledge not being up to the task, I paid an expert to do the math for me, then I built what he said.

So, sometimes you do want to place bass traps flat against the wall. It's okay to apply science in more than one way if the variables are different or if the desired outcome is different. It's also okay to give general principles, but definitive statements with no understanding of context are problematic.

Do you have pictures of how you do this in your room and what your room looks like? That would be a good way to add some context to your statements. The more examples of actual implementation in real world situations that you can show, the more JBLAddict can reference his own space and conditions.

for the most part, they are in isolation. LF sound functions as a wave. thus, the treatment is applied differently than we do for frequencies that function as rays. they really do not have an impact on each other one way or the other ... the only possible issue is when people install lots of broadband bass traps that end up absorbing specular energy (and making the room sound dead). this is why membranes or reflective material is generally installed to the outside face of the trap, to reflect low and mid freq content back into the room. the bass traps are only there to treat LF issues that function as waves. we can then treat the specular (time-domain) issues with broadband absorption at the early reflection points. there doesn't need to be any additional broadband absorption except to create the ISD. diffusers can then be placed elsewhere in the room so that specular reflections can be diffused and returned to the listening position at the ISD-termination. e.g. a late-arriving diffused exponentially decaying soundfield.

one must also note that diffusers also have a fairly high absorption coefficient. yep, that's right...diffusers are absorbers, and absorbers can be reflectors :)

so in order to properly apply diffusers, you need to make sure you're not sucking too much specular energy from the room with your broadband absorbers. people really go overboard on the absorption and start applying it to entire walls. absorption needs to be surgically placed at early reflection points. you need the remaining sonic energy to be preserved in the room so that the diffusers can function accordingly.

Again, in a standard room, this will be an effective strategy, but it's insufficient without some context. As I hope we've established by now, the room I'm writing about is not a standard room. Between 80-90% of the front wall is covered with absorbers of varying thicknesses from 1" to 4" with different goals for each. They are all flat against the wall. They accomplish what we wanted them to.

There are no absorbers at the first reflection points on purpose. Panels at that point would be a mistake for this room and the vertical horn speakers that serve as L, C, R mains. The reflections are needed, as explained in a couple of the Toole articles I linked to for JBLAddict.

It is true that (most) diffusers also absorb, and that some absorbers are designed to reflect as well. However, solid surface, polycylindrical diffusers filled with inert foam are designed not to absorb, but to redirect virtually everything. (Yes, I know nothing is 100%.) The diffusion patterns of polys are different than other diffusers and even from one poly shape to another.

When the surround speakers are designed to control the point of their first reflections (like the JBL S4Ai), then these can be precisely focused on polycylindrical diffusers for highly effective diffusion (with no absorption), while a combination of diffusers and absorbers can handle reflections of the mains off the back wall.

None of this will address JBLAddict's situation, but it's important to offer a counterpoint to some of your unilateral statements. Again, if you have some photos of how you've done this in your place or someone else's, it will give him some practical insight into what you're writing. He's seen and heard what I've done here and already formed his opinions about how well it works or not.

just an fyi to anyone else who may be reading this, EQ should be used as icing on the cake only. EQ cannot do anything to the signal once it has left the speaker and the room imposes on the response. EQ doesn't solve comb-filtering issues because the frequency response can change drastically even over the course of moving your head a few inches in either direction. EQ also can't solve the stereo imaging issues imposed by early reflections that i mentioned on the previous page. EQ should (preferably) only need to be used to tame the lowest octave bass peaks (not nulls!) - that one is otherwise not able to treat with pressure or velocity based traps.

All of this is capped with one of the most sophisticated processing and PEQ systems around Instead of "capped" I might have written, "And the icing on the cake is..." but I wrote "capped," as in the last step, the final touch. You turned a single comment into a paragraph of absolutes: cannot, doesn't, can't. I guess I'll just comment on your assertion that EQ cannot do anything after the signal leaves the speaker. In my experience, EQ is applied after the system is operating, not before. It's actually measuring the sound in the room as it reacts with the room, seeing how the room affects it, and making changes to the output to compensate for the room's effect. This can be a highly effective course of action.

I agree that some, maybe most, consumer auto-EQ systems are full of shortcomings. I have also heard in a few situations an exceptional improvement. In the instance you react to above, it's pretty clear that I'm not writing about some program inside a receiver that takes a couple of measurements and it's good to go. The cost of having the JBL tech do it was more than most people spend on a great receiver, and then there's the cost of the equipment itself that can make the changes and keep them in memory once the two computers that are part of the calibration system upload all the data collected. It's a process that takes hours, uses five mics, and requires a proprietary CPU to be brought on site. Every aspect of the room and the system is measured, tested, verified both as an individual part and as a whole system. It is a central part of taking a really good system and making it great. No amount of room treatment will ever accomplish the final 20-30% improvement that that calibration did.

Again, the post you quote here was in response to a question about a specific room, system, and process. That was very clear, and I answered the question in eight rather simple sentences, just about that room and that experience. I stated clearly it was one room and one system. You responded with a 28 or 29 sentence analysis, making it sound as though I had issued a universal pronouncement for all rooms everywhere.

If you didn't know what a Synthesis system or Synthesis calibration was, you still could have asked why the bass traps were flat against the walls, or what type of diffusers were being used, or what the main speakers were, or what I meant by most sophisticated processing and EQ. JBLAddict knew because he's been here, and I was answering his direct question based on his level of experience here. It's unclear why you wrote about it at all.

I have not been sarcastic or derogatory in this reply because I know you do not like that. At the same time, I have been straightforward in challenging the singleminded approach of your comments. There are many different starting points, many different paths, and many different destinations in this journey of a hobby. You have found one that excites you and clearly you want to share it. Continue to express your enthusiasm by all means, but be careful not to let your enthusiasm appear to be contempt or disregard for others and their knowledge and experience. Also, please show us how you've put into practice for yourself or others the things that you post about and tell others to do. This kind of context is essential for seeing the real world applications of what you've done, and that validates your comments in a concrete way.

localhost127

04-30-2011, 06:55 AM

Near the end, you'll see a simple explanation of the polycylindricals I use in the Two Jims and understand why they're so important working in tandem with S4Ai surrounds.

i dont prefer poly's for diffusion, simply because they only offer spatial dispersion (and no temporal dispersion).
they are effective spatially, and quite inexpensive to make - so they are beneficial in some sense.

a schroeder QRD or PRD (preferably PRDs, as they are non-symmetrical) will perform both temporal and spatial dispersion.

in attempting to create a late arriving (exponentially decaying) soundfield, the temporal (time-domain) dispersion is incredibly important. otherwise, all of the 'diffused' reflections are arriving back to your ears at the same time - vs some being temporarily delayed via the different well lengths of a QRD/PRD.

edit: the fact that Toole is insisting that 'bookcases, fireplaces' etc in that document, will provide 'diffusion' is laughable.
they will provide scattering, but certainly not mathematically predictable diffusion. and i dont see any reference to how different wavelengths will react differently to these 'bookshelf' diffusers.
as we all know, frequencies with a larger wavelength than the object will not 'see' the object and will simply diffract around.

localhost127

04-30-2011, 07:03 AM

Then read Part One:

http://www.sound-thinking.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=30222

Think about what kind of speaker an L Series (1990s) pair is in light of the observations Toole makes about the development of multi-channel sound. Consider his discussion of room layout and speaker positioning.

blackbird studio c is the new standard for room models for multi-channel surround.
you'll notice the effort to attenuate early reflections...

localhost127

04-30-2011, 07:42 AM

I made certain to note that the traps were flat against the wall, since the common practice is to do just as you present it. In this case, your method would be incorrect. Your first assumption is that this is a porous bass trap, and it is not a pure porous bass trap.

could you please elaborate on the type of material used within your 'traps'?
if you say it is not porous, then i assume it is a pressure based (tuned) trap then? if so, they certainly you place it at areas of high pressure (flat against boundary). did you build helmholtz?

do you have a simple freq response (0-300hz) or preferably waterfall plot?
you could simple remove the trap, take a measurement, and place the trap back in place and provide another measurement. this is why i always recommend to take measurements pre and post so we know whether the treatment is placed effectively or if it cured the original issue that the treatment was procured to treat.

So, sometimes you do want to place bass traps flat against the wall. It's okay to apply science in more than one way if the variables are different or if the desired outcome is different. It's also okay to give general principles, but definitive statements with no understanding of context are problematic.

if they are bass traps made of porous material and are meant to absorb LF content, then no, we do not want to place them against flat boundaries. they are most effective in the corners, because LF wavelengths are large (so much larger than the size of your panel) - that they simply diffract around and do not even 'see' the panel. they are placed in the corner so the LF waves are reflected and forced through the absorption (and then reflected through again on the way back into the room). if it is porous absorption, then it is most effective where particle velocity is highest. this is how porous absorption works! via velocity, not via areas of high pressure! a broadband absorber flat against a boundary will work fine for specular energy, as the wavelengths are so short that the absorption fits within the 1/4wavelength distance ... but for large wavelengths, you need the material spaced far from the boundary. this is also why the deeper the porous bass trap you build, the better...as you are bringing the insulation out away from the wall towards areas of 1/4wavelength.

Do you have pictures of how you do this in your room and what your room looks like? That would be a good way to add some context to your statements. The more examples of actual implementation in real world situations that you can show, the more JBLAddict can reference his own space and conditions.

here is an example i found on google images:
http://i.imgur.com/9JhR6.jpg

a porous 'bass trap' needs to be straddled in the corner, bringing the insulation out further from the wall to areas of higher particle velocity. it will not be as effective putting the insulation flat against the boundary where velocity = 0.

and you really need a LOT of square area to be effective. of course, this can all be measured so you know whether the treatments you are using have actually solved anything.

and if one were to stack the traps horizontally (instead of vertically) in the corners, then they would be even more effective.

Again, in a standard room, this will be an effective strategy, but it's insufficient without some context. As I hope we've established by now, the room I'm writing about is not a standard room. Between 80-90% of the front wall is covered with absorbers of varying thicknesses from 1" to 4" with different goals for each. They are all flat against the wall. They accomplish what we wanted them to.

could you detail those goals so others could determine whether that approach will fit their design requirements? do you by chance have an ETC of your room so we can determine what the energy looks like when taken this approach?

It is true that (most) diffusers also absorb, and that some absorbers are designed to reflect as well. However, solid surface, polycylindrical diffusers filled with inert foam are designed not to absorb, but to redirect virtually everything. (Yes, I know nothing is 100%.) The diffusion patterns of polys are different than other diffusers and even from one poly shape to another.

when i said 'absorbers can sometime reflect' - i meant in regards to high angle of incidents , approaching +/- 90*. many people place broadband absorbers at early reflection points and just assume that it is attenuating all of the signal. this can only be verified with an ETC; but at high angles of incident, the sound will actually 'skip' off the insulation.

When the surround speakers are designed to control the point of their first reflections (like the JBL S4Ai), then these can be precisely focused on polycylindrical diffusers for highly effective diffusion (with no absorption), while a combination of diffusers and absorbers can handle reflections of the mains off the back wall.

could you perhaps provide an ETC?

None of this will address JBLAddict's situation, but it's important to offer a counterpoint to some of your unilateral statements. Again, if you have some photos of how you've done this in your place or someone else's, it will give him some practical insight into what you're writing. He's seen and heard what I've done here and already formed his opinions about how well it works or not.

just take a look at the design of any modern control room - where the room is required to be as neutral as possible. LEDE/RFZ dominates this. and now, blackbird studio c's model dominates this.

localhost127

04-30-2011, 11:04 AM

on the subject of poly diffusers,
a stand alone poly:

http://i.imgur.com/BLlI0.gif

4x polys in an array

http://i.imgur.com/r9yTG.gif

but again, no temporal dispersion via polys.

with diffusers, multiple periods really are key to get good lobing.
and as you build an array, you need to adhere to the Barker Code (re: PRD/QRDs)

via: http://reflex.afmg.eu/index.php/rf-features-en.html

Titanium Dome

04-30-2011, 11:52 AM

Okay, I think we're wasting each other's time.

It looks like you have not done much of this yourself. Instead you paraphrase a book and post pictures of others' work, then task people to do things you haven't done and ask them to justify their work based on what you can quote and extract from things you've read or can pull off a Web page.

Reading is important; you can see I recommend it myself. I did not mock any of the sources that you referenced earlier, even though you didn't provide much in the way of source material for context. (There's that word context again.) You did find a way to diminish the work of Floyd Toole in a single, condescending remark.

Reading is a form of education, and education is one of the cornerstones of learning and knowledge. The others are experience, opportunity, and observation. To be clear, experience is doing something and learning from it, opportunity is having the conditions and means to do something, and observation is both watching and learning from someone else and being watched and guided by someone else. I see no propensity from you to do most of this; it's all limited to telling others to do what you've culled from a few texts, with repetitious use of buzzwords, acronyms, and your favorite methods of proof. Pulling a screen shot for a piece of software off the Internet doesn't improve the noise level of the discussion. Do you own the software? Have you used it? Was the diffuser in question a Steven Klein Sound Room Saturn? Was the graph being shown taken in a room where a Saturn was 7.5 feet away from the right-firing 45 degree drivers in a JBL S4Ai? Were there acoustical panels adjacent to the diffuser on any axis relative to the sound that it was intended to diffuse? How far from a reflective surface (like a ceiling) at a right angle was it? These are all real-world measures that supply context. A graph pulled from a Web page that does not address any of these is no help to the discussion. It seems to be a way to prove that we didn't do things right.

I'm not interested in debating you when you keep regressing to the same lecturing style and reiterating the same mantra over and over, even though it was clear what you said the first, second, and third time. Life is too short to be trapped in such a spiraling and time-consuming debate.

The proof is in the pudding, as it is said, and enough members here have seen and heard what I'm writing about, and they've read the references I cite. They know the work of Toole, Olive, Devantier, Eargle, Foreman, and Welti, et al. They've been to the Harman labs, Todd-A-O, AIX; they've spoken to Fosgate, Dressler, Timbers, Voecks, Kessler, Lee.

I am the beneficiary of many of these members' observations, particularly by observing those who know more than I do as they demonstrate the value of their own education, experience, and opportunity, and by trying what they suggest in good faith rather asking for a series of tests and proofs beforehand. Luckily, many opportunities come my way to experiment, to try new things, and to apply in a practical way those things that science helps us to understand. When these members help me to grasp the useful application of the science they know and experience and observe, it's always in the context of let's see how this works, let's get a sense of the measurable changes, and let's decide in our final test do we actually like how it sounds.

Once or twice I may have been helpful to them as well.

In any event, there are no hard feelings here, but let's just put each other on ignore and move on. If you ever get to LA you're welcome to stop by. Just ask a local member to PM me and we'll set it up.

localhost127

04-30-2011, 12:17 PM

Okay, I think we're wasting each other's time.

i concur.
porous absorption is velocity based, and thus needs to be placed at areas of high particle velocity.

if you wish to ignore or debate this, then by all means...
every post i make regarding treatment preaches the use of measurements; both pre and post so that one can verify the treatment is working as it should (and the measured problem is indeed resolved). we don't just blindly install treatment and then tell everyone specifically what is there and "how" it works - but unwilling to provide measurements. if you want to know what your bass trap is doing, take an unsmoothed freq response 0-300hz without the bass trap in the room, and then place it back in the room and remeasure. it's that simple!

i understand you have lots of 'treatment' in your space and you talk about why it is there.

i am not directly communicating to you; im also (as ive said before) mentioning issues so anyone else who may be reading this doesn't get the wrong impression or idea. im discussing areas where certain treatment is most effective.

if we are 'treating' a room, why would we place treatments at areas where they are not effective?

there is so much BS in the realm of home audio, and it does not need to spread in regards to room treatments. eg. people claiming 'bookshelves' are "diffusers" ... or egg cartons.. or 1" of OC703 that they read an absorption coefficient chart and rely on that to say that it will "fully absorb" such-and-such frequencies. and never measure once the treatment is in place to verify that it is indeed performing as it should

e.g., i posted those images regarding poly diffusers for your benefit.
you brought up the polys - i saw in one of your photos that you were using them.
i presented polar graphs that clearly show the difference between an array of 4 polys and a stand-alone poly. i thought maybe you would find this information beneficial and possible look at a different approach of applying diffusers in your room. there wasn't anything in my post criticizing your "diffusers" - i was merely point out to others that polys dont offer temporal dispersion!!

and your rant about me not having my own space to "prove my knowledge" is irrelevant.
i live in a 580ft^2 condo in the city. i don't have the luxury of space to build a proper room. it doesn't diminish my knowledge on the subject. if doesn't diminish basic physics regarding where specific treatment is most effective. it doesn't diminish the fact that everything we discuss regarding treatments needs to be measured pre and post.

i used to be a rally driver. i no longer participate in the sport (privateer racing is expensive!) - but does that mean my knowledge on vehicle dynamics is suddenly invalid?
must one have a million dollar theater to prove basic physics?

In any event, there are no hard feelings here, but let's just put each other on ignore and move on

again, taking everything so personal. why on earth would i ignore you? why would i ignore anyone on a public forum?
knowledge is knowledge. debate is debate. everyone learns something new. please stop taking my replies to your presented data/opinions/etc as a personal insult. thank you -

hjames

04-30-2011, 12:32 PM

I think you need to start your own thread on your system of sound absorbtion and treatments - this was a thread on 1990 L series speakers and your posts have nothing to do with that topic.

You are diminishing the original thread topic for anyone who comes looking for THAT information

If you are that informed about the topic, please start your own thread -
others may wish to hear of it IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT!

i concur.
porous absorption is velocity based, and thus needs to be placed at areas of high particle velocity.

if you wish to ignore or debate this, then by all means...
every post i make regarding treatment preaches the use of measurements; both pre and post so that one can verify the treatment is working as it should (and the measured problem is indeed resolved). we don't just blindly install treatment and t

i used to be a rally driver. i no longer have my vehicle (privateer racing is expensive!) - but does that mean my knowledge on vehicle dynamics is suddenly invalid?
must one have a million dollar theater to prove basic physics?

-

localhost127

04-30-2011, 01:54 PM

I think you need to start your own thread on your system of sound absorbtion and treatments - this was a thread on 1990 L series speakers and your posts have nothing to do with that topic.

you may have missed the post a page back where JBLAddict is discussing treatments and I say it is best to go PM, and others dictate that the conversation would be preferred to remain here.

: /

hjames

04-30-2011, 02:55 PM

you may have missed the post a page back where JBLAddict is discussing treatments and I say it is best to go PM, and others dictate that the conversation would be preferred to remain here.

: /
I did not say to take it PM - it would not be a teaching moment if you had done that.

But do consider that this is TiDome's thread on a specific series of speakers, and
its easy to see these latest posts are not on-topic for early L series speakers ...
they should be in a thread for Room Treatments ...

EDIT 6:15
My Bad - I just found, 3 pages back,
TiDome's comment that, rather than putting it in a new thread,
he was all for keeping it here ...

Its his thread - and his choice ...

I apologize for intruding on the discussion ...

actually, this whole discussion came about regarding the bass coupling of the L7 to the walls,
and how positioning does matter, and why JBL recommends 3' from the corners as a starting point.

edit, I fully realize this thread may be too off-topic for L series, but since it's been a slow mover anyway,
seems harmless as long as the measurments are L based

I'm all for keeping it here.

localhost127

04-30-2011, 03:03 PM

I did not say to take it PM - it would not be a teaching moment if you had done that.

But do consider that this is TiDome's thread on a specific series of speakers, and
its easy to see these latest posts are not on-topic for early L series speakers ...
they should be in a thread for Room Treatments ...

verywell. i apologize if you saw my commentary as in a form of "diminishing" the integrity of the thread; as it was not an intention. i thought the discussion on the appropriate (most effective) placement for specific treatment to tame specific problems was of value. cheers,

grumpy

04-30-2011, 05:15 PM

You guys and gals are taking this far too seriously, it's a beautiful day :)
(OK, I have U2 running through 2450SL w/Be on 2352 horns)...
it -is- a beautiful day.

Dome/JBLAddict, I received my 24/192 mic pre back from the shop...
if you -do- want to run ETCs or cal your mic's FR for L series + room
measurements, let me know.

-g

Re blackbird c... 90 tons of raw MDF to start with... that's a serious commitment.

BMWCCA

04-30-2011, 05:30 PM

I love this thread and its original purpose and intent. It has proven useful and eye-opening to many here and new members as well.

Might I humbly propose that a moderator take this recent acoustic debate and move it to its own thread? I realize T-dome promoted the idea of continuing the acoustic discussion within the thread but I'm guessing about now even he would agree posterity and the integrity of the thread are better served by separation. :frantic:

JBLAddict

04-30-2011, 05:51 PM

Titanium Dome

04-30-2011, 08:56 PM

BMWCCA

05-01-2011, 07:26 AM

I'll be taking a break now. :drive:
Not before a sincere vote of thanks for pretty much single-handedly elevating the '90s L-series JBLs to a level where they are taken seriously as a credit to their designers (thanks Chris Hagen) and lifting them out of their former Big-Box frame of reference.

T-dome's detailed appraisal piqued my curiosity enough to detour and pickup a pair of L5s which led me to a pair of L7s. That small-change adjustment to my JBL frame of reference is really responsible for my ultimate search and purchase of something I thought might even be better (and was) but I'd never have rekindled the interest in that part of my hobby without T-dome's enthusiastic support for the neglected L7 and L5.

Now go enjoy the Spring weather in that Maserati! Does yours sport the optional belt-drive CD player? ;)

JBLAddict

05-01-2011, 12:32 PM

thanks for the articles, I just finished reading the last of them. take a breath before moving too quickly was clearly the right advice ;)

I say this because Floyd's articles cover so much ground, I'm fairly confused, as he doesn't (or intentionally avoids) make general recommendations that I can directly apply NOW. While I get that its a mix of the speaker, room, position, gear, treatment, it still seems to boil down to needing measurement capability to make any decisions.

Where I put my L7s, where I sit, and what I put on my walls, floors and ceilings, appears to require not only measurement but knowing what to do as a result. This is frustrating, as I sincerely want to make the most out of the system I have, but feel that the tools for doing so require expertise that is not realistically attainable. I'll pull em to 3' from the corners for critical 2ch listening because JBL said so, but for the fairly non-aesthetic panels adorning my walls I'm scratching my head not knowing if they're unecessary, or if actually adding treatment is worth pursuing??

your comment about considering the design of the L7 as a stereo vehicle makes sense, but I'm much less concerned with how my L series 5.1 is meeting "social" goals as Toole puts it, than I am blissful 2Ch experience for one listener (a.k.a. me). with this goal in mind, how would you recommend I go about optimizing the L7 around position and treatment only?

localhost127

05-02-2011, 04:17 PM

While I get that its a mix of the speaker, room, position, gear, treatment, it still seem to boil down to needing measurement capability to make any decisions.

it is a breath of fresh air that you understand that concept so quickly! on some of the studio design forums im on, it's amazing how many want such a quick (and one-size-fits-all) answer, without so much as taking measurements to make clear what the issues in the room are that they even need to treat!

don't let the task daunt you. in small acoustical spaces, there are general guidelines to follow. but measuring first is important so you can see the direct (measured) improvement that treatments have made. we dont blindly place treatments, and we always take measurements to verify.

guidelines:
(1) as many and as deep of porous bass traps as you can in the corners (remember, 12 in a standard/rectangular room!).

you can make corner chunks like:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-acoustics/7758-corner-traps-finally-finished.html

and

http://www.radford.edu/~shelm/acoustics/bass-traps.html (http://www.radford.edu/%7Eshelm/acoustics/bass-traps.html)

or you can stack the OC703 batts (usually 24"x48" in size), and straddle in the corner. the deeper the insulation (or the more spaced away from the wall) - the more effective the trap is. we're converting kinetic energy into heat --- so we want the insulation at areas of high particle velocity!

(2) broadband absorption at areas of early specular reflections. this eliminates comb-filtering from a reflected signal constructively and destructively combining with the direct sound at your ear (causing peaks and nulls).
you do *not* want a wooden frame around the insulation for these panels, as the edges will diffract. i build my frame behind the insulation (leaving the sides of the insulation exposed, a 50% increase in exposed surface area on a 4" panel!!) - which also spaces the insulation away from the wall 1.5", making the absorber more effective.

http://i.imgur.com/TMAUh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/f2jWA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/jQax7.jpg

Where I put my L7s, where I sit, and what I put on my walls, floors and ceilings, appears to require not only measurement but knowing what to do as a result. This is frustrating, as I sincerely want to make the most out of the system I have, but feel that the tools for doing so require expertise that is not realistically attainable. I'll pull em to 3' from the corners for critical 2ch listening because JBL said so, but for the fairly non-aesthetic panels adorning my walls I'm scratching my head not knowing if they're unecessary, or if actually adding treatment is worth pursuing??

your comment about considering the design of the L7 as a stereo vehicle makes sense, but I'm much less concerned with how my L series 5.1 is meeting "social" goals as Toole puts it, than I am blissful 2Ch experience for one listener (a.k.a. me). with this goal in mind, how would you recommend I go about optimizing the L7 around position and treatment only?you are more than free to investigate any modern control/mastering room.
LEDE/RFZ dominates this. absorption early reflections allows you to hear the direct signal, NOT your room. if i am listening to music recorded in a wonderful concert hall, why would i want to impose the sound of my tiny room on top?

as for surround sound (5.1 music), blackbird studio c ambechoic is the new the standard.. the evolution of the reflection free zone -
http://i.imgur.com/VSEsY.jpg

makes my PRD look puny in comparision :(
http://i.imgur.com/EGmvZ.jpg

if you're interested in more, this is essentially the bible (schroeder diffusers, polys, helmholtz, limp membrane, bass traps, etc - you name it):
RPG (D'antonio) are the authorative figure on diffusers.

http://www.amazon.com/Acoustic-Absorbers-Diffusers-Theory-Application/dp/0415471745/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304377707&sr=1-2

a decent small room acoustical write-up (light-weight to read)

http://www.gcmstudio.com/acoustics/acoustics.html

briang

05-03-2011, 07:32 AM

gferrell

05-03-2011, 06:52 PM

Nice score, the L3's are really good. They will blend in good as surrounds, what are you using for fronts?

briang

05-04-2011, 08:45 AM

Nice score, the L3's are really good. They will blend in good as surrounds, what are you using for fronts?

L7 for Right and Left, and an old L86 as a center.

I have the components to build a center based on the L7 without the LE120H (i.e. I have spare 708g-1, 704g-1 and 035TIA with a pair of old L7 crossovers. I just need to get around to building a cabinet (probably will never happen).

gferrell

05-04-2011, 06:02 PM

JBLAddict

05-04-2011, 08:37 PM

I did that and it turned out to be a great match. Movies are fun with 5.1 but I enjoy 5.1 for music most. It just takes some time to get the right balance. The L series just has a good all round timbre.

have to give that a big +1

though from a time before HT, I think they do a super job on 5.1 music once powered and balanced correctly. as killer as TD's Performance setup sounds, when listening to my L setup within hours of hearing the PS, I'm really impressed how well they hold their own...and think it's the timbre that you point out as the strength

just received Gaucho DVD-A in the mail today, and have it running through the OPPO 83SE analog outs, and just, wow.......Genesis--We Can't Dance DTS 24/96 last week, another great MCH disc :spin:

Slare

05-05-2011, 01:56 PM

What a thread.

Room treatments are nice, but for the average Joe Bag-o-Donuts like me, that won't be happening.

I just picked up a set of L3 advertised on Minneapolis' Craigslist. I paid $120.00USD. The cabinets are solid, the drivers are good. Cosmetics need help on the front. I'll be sanding and repainting with a rattle can (and sanding, and repainting, and sanding, and repainting) the fronts to bring them up to accepable to me.

The L3 will serve rear channel duty in a 5.0 system in my living room.

I had everything but L3's, so I can't make this statement very strong... but in case you haven't noticed there are two different finishes on the L series speakers.

The thin smooth black which was on the front baffles of my L5/L7's can be treated like auto paint, it polishes and buffs out nicely, and at worst case could be duplicated/refinished well enough with good rattle can work.

The grained surfaces have an almost wax like soft finish on them, and sanding on that with the goal of refinishing would be a nightmare. I'm not sure anyone has detailed an attempt at restoration of that finish yet. It may be better to just fill in the scratches in those areas with a repair crayon.

gferrell

05-05-2011, 03:39 PM

JBL 4645

05-27-2011, 02:52 AM

I think you need to start your own thread on your system of sound absorbtion and treatments - this was a thread on 1990 L series speakers and your posts have nothing to do with that topic.

You are diminishing the original thread topic for anyone who comes looking for THAT information

If you are that informed about the topic, please start your own thread -
others may wish to hear of it IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT!

Thou me and Heather have disagreements with each other most times I have to say this thread is being steered off its original objective which is about JBL L Series (1990s).

Its nice to see JBL in room with skyline on the front wall but several pages about 101 acoustics come on.

I like peeking at picture show of other members JBL speaker set ups.

JBL 4645

05-27-2011, 02:58 AM

if keeping the port uncovered is the biggest issue, up top works just fine...

I'll attach a basic pic to show the setup. Remember, the small J50s aren't hooked up. Just sitting there. I'd replace the SC305 with the L1.

I'm not sure floor space would work for me. Turning it upside down should remove the "problem" of it being angled, right? The port isn't going to be blocked up on top of the rptv. The second pic should show the difference in angle of having it right-side-up vs. upside-down.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=50121&d=1298476481

that's kinda disappointing...but I've also read a lot of "reviews" that say the opposite of the ratings with Denon. Guess the only way to find out is to plug it up.

Either way, I know I'm not going to max it...so even if I'm using 50W of the Kenwood vs. 50W of the Denon, I'd like to think it's a bit better sound.

BTW...painting the wall black while the wife was out of town was loads of fun. It's been that way for >10 years now!! When you turn the lights out and the TV comes on, all the speakers and equipment just fade away. I've also thought about moving the L5s outside of the subs and angling them in a bit more.

Thing I noticed with model placed upside down is its kinder like what cinema surround speaker would be like JBL 83 series with sloping front baffle.

Maybe a whole cluster of these in room on sidewalls and rear wall upside down so the sloped edged baffle points downwards over the and around the setting area. Bet it puts out a reasonable bass/mid for smooth highs.

gferrell

05-30-2011, 07:05 AM

Good deal on L7'S

http://raleigh.craigslist.org/ele/2409073757.html

JBLAddict

05-30-2011, 10:26 AM

That's someone here. Pics are back some pages when first purchased. Wonder what prompted the sale

JBLAddict

06-07-2011, 09:37 PM

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290574749519&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123:D

gferrell

06-18-2011, 06:25 AM

BMWCCA

06-18-2011, 05:11 PM

I happen to know where a pair of L3's in great shape are for $150. Does anyone think this is a good deal as an investment? I already have one pair I am not using but the cabinets are in rough shape.
That's the cap I put on myself for those in excellent shape. Passed on a couple over distance. I wouldn't consider any of this stuff an investment, particularly the L3 with its penchant for blowing the surrounds on the 708G-1 rendering them nearly useless. Seems to be a problem in the L3 much more than the the same driver in the L5 or L7s for some reason. And my personal opinion (worth what you're paying!) is that I prefer the L1 to the L3.

Then as an "investment" in parts such as the tweeters to keep L7s or L5 operating, that price still isn't too bad. :dont-know:

gferrell

06-18-2011, 07:17 PM

Thanks for the opinion. The L3's are great sounding and my current L3's are spares, so I really don't need the $150 pair. I just don't know if the drivers are going to be more or less valuable in the future. However they are rather rare in the first place.

Ed K

08-16-2011, 11:59 AM

:eek: I have finally secured a replacement 708G-1 for my L5's. Two years to get the darn thing and now I am missing my set screws. Anyone have a source, extras, ideas?

rdgrimes

08-16-2011, 01:11 PM

now I am missing my set screws. Anyone have a source, extras, ideas?
Lowes has a selection of machine screws that will work.

Ed K

08-16-2011, 01:55 PM

Thank you for the advice rdgrimes. I am happy to report I found them!!!:D

Excited to see how they respond to Emotiva XPA 2 power.

Ed K

08-18-2011, 09:10 AM

My replacement driver should be here in a couple hours and rather than fixating on the diminished state of my Scott Trade account I figured this dilemma much more pleasant to consider. Currently Running a Denon 3808 CI tied into a Super Cube1 and have a Emotiva XPA 2 amp driving very reticent Ert 8.3 fronts, which I a selling. I accumulated all these "modern" items because I was frustrated by my inability to locate a replacement driver in a timely manner. Four grand later and, the circle has closed.

As the L5's I recall have a dynamic low end I'm wondering about a few things.

How low shall I go?

Audyssey or no

Liquidate & Start Over

Embrace the addiction- go retro.

Man I am excited-ED

Sonance'84

08-22-2011, 11:44 AM

I have a question about the minimum wattage that I should use with these L5's I picked up.

Brief back story...

I found the speakers first, then proceeded to borrow my stepfather's Yamaha M-60 (185 wpc into 6 ohms) to power them with because I read a few people say they were power hungry. While the amp sounds pretty darn good with the speakers...I started to it has slightly stronger output of mids/lows in the right channel than the left. I have not checked bias yet due to needing to borrow a DMM from a friend, but I think this may be the problem.

Now, normally I use a restored H.H. Scott 299-D (34 wpc into 8 ohms) with Klipsch Forte's and it's simply amazing.

:confused: ---> What I'm wondering is...will this Scott 299-D be fine to use until I can get the M-60 checked out? I know the L5's are rated at 6 ohm and 35-300 watts and I had the Scott hooked up to them for a brief moment when I first brought them home. It sounded good!

Basically, I want to make sure that I'm not taxing my Scott 299-D and that it can run the L5's under normal listening conditions, i.e. not cranked up.

Thanks for the help!
Cory

gferrell

09-07-2011, 04:14 PM

From the schematics it looks like it can handle 4 ohms. I think it would be fine, just be careful. Should sound nice too.

WCHurtt

11-27-2011, 06:02 AM

I have thought about getting rid of the wear and tear on my set but it seems like quite a challenge. When I painted my center channel I used the rustoleum all surface satin black which is a very close match. I would like to see someone take on the challenge of refinishing a pair.

I had my L7's professionally painted by a custom body shop a few years ago. They came out great but cost a small fortune to do so, $500 each! They had to use a special primer to fill in the wood grain, I think they said it had chopped carbon fiber in it and then finish coated with Mercedes silver. I bought them new in Okinawa, JA at the PX when I was stationed there in 91. They're currently for sale on eBay.

audiomagnate

01-22-2012, 10:23 AM

A pair of Polk Audio RT5s came up for sale on CL, which got a rave review on Stereophile, http://www.stereophile.com/content/polk-audio-rt5-loudspeaker so I bought them, and they are in my bedroom system, displacing my L1s. What were they smoking? Snarly midrange, no real bass, and worst of all, they sound like....speakers. The L1s are simply amazing. Zero vocal coloration, and they sound like big speakers when called upon. The RT5s are decent, but now I'm thinking someone got paid off.

Slare

01-24-2012, 03:52 PM

I had that same 3808 for awhile in use with L5/L7's. It's a great amp very well matched to the L5's as-is... something like a true, clean, 180wpc into 2 channels with good headroom jumps into 4ohms and somewhere around 120wpc into 5 channels. A good deal better than most any midrange AVR will do today. All the newer Denon models afterwards started skimping on the amplifier section but the 3808/4308 were extremely solid and the 5308 was a complete monster. You could very well get away with storing the XPA2 unless you a running 7 channel full range getup.

Regarding setup with the Denon when I had the L5's I used two different configurations for music and home theater.

For music I ran the L5's full range, no Audyssey, no sub. Just a very slight eq tweak using the manual 7-band eq to trim the upper midrange down by ~1db as I typically prefer. If your sub mixes well, then another option would be to run the L5's crossed low, say 40-50Hz. That way the sub will take the beating of any of the real low content, making life easier on your L5's and most certainly eliminating any need for an external amp over the 3808. Personally I could never get my subs mixed in quite right and just stuck with pure 2.0.

For HT use let Audyssey do its thing. I found the biggest key to getting good results from Audyssey is to use a tripod to put the mic at ear height, and weigh the measurement points towards your sweet spot. The normal directions say to pick 8 seating locations in your room, but if you think about it, that is a bit daft if you are selfish and want to calibrate your system to your seat. So when running Audyssey I would do something like picking 4 locations very close to my main seat, and having the other 4 locations relatively close by, like where your girlfriend would be sitting. It is also very important to avoid picking any measurement spot that outside of the perimeter formed by your speaker arrangement. Following this I was able to get a EC35 center channel to match up acceptably well, though a L1 or another L5 would certainly be better. Audyssey XT in that box really did a smashing job with speaker matching and sub eq for me.

Following those tips I was extremely satisfied with the 3808 / L5 combination. It was really a lovely setup, and I'd still have it if not for moving to the Performance Series. Honestly the L5 is one of my favorite speakers out there, regardless of price.

My replacement driver should be here in a couple hours and rather than fixating on the diminished state of my Scott Trade account I figured this dilemma much more pleasant to consider. Currently Running a Denon 3808 CI tied into a Super Cube1 and have a Emotiva XPA 2 amp driving very reticent Ert 8.3 fronts, which I a selling. I accumulated all these "modern" items because I was frustrated by my inability to locate a replacement driver in a timely manner. Four grand later and, the circle has closed.

As the L5's I recall have a dynamic low end I'm wondering about a few things.

How low shall I go?

Audyssey or no

Liquidate & Start Over

Embrace the addiction- go retro.

Man I am excited-ED

Sonance'84

01-24-2012, 04:57 PM

FWIW, the L5's in my setup could not create low bass and if called upon to do so, the bottom 8" woofer would make chuffing/fart-like noises even at 1 foot from the back wall. I have a pretty high vaulted ceiling in a fairly large room as well. Under normal listening conditions they sounded great but if I felt like turning it up a bit, they just couldn't hang with my other speakers. I know he drivers aren't damaged either.

For example, the 1812 Overture even at moderate volume sounded like it was overworking the 8" woofer when the cannons go off. On other music, such as pop and rock, the woofer would do the same thing on drum kicks and bass at higher volumes. This makes you listen to the music at a level that the speakers can handle and not what my ears would like, for certain passages. For this reason, they only lasted about 1 week in my setup. (Yamaha M-60, Rotel RC-850, Marantz SA8003, Kimber Kables)

The L7's sound much better in the low end and would be the only speaker from this series I would look at if wanting a close to full-range speaker. (going down to 30Hz does not qualify a speaker as full-range to me...this would require bass extension down to 20Hz) The L7's can reproduce ample bass though and would be more than enough for most people. I could live with them if I had to. The pair I heard was a friends, but they were replaced by 240Ti's since then.

Never heard the L1's or L3's. This is just my 2 pennies.

gferrell

01-24-2012, 05:27 PM

You must be a young man if you can hear below 30Hz. I can only feel it now.

Sonance'84

01-24-2012, 05:49 PM

You must be a young man if you can hear below 30Hz. I can only feel it now.

Not sure I can hear much below 30Hz, but if the speaker can't produce it cleanly in the first place then you won't be able to feel it either.

Either way, I have heard speakers that can produce bass in the 20Hz range at +/- 2-3db and they sound amazing. You get the full extension of bass that you can hear, plus the thunderous feeling of the bass you can't hear. Definitely the sound I'm looking to reproduce.

We are paying for electronics that produce 20Hz-20kHz (sometimes higher)...so why not use a speaker that can produce as much of that spectrum as possible? That is my opinion for someones MAIN pair of speakers.

I'm not trying to take this off topic at all, but was just stating my thoughts on the L5's and L7's. Great speakers for what they are!

JBLAddict

01-24-2012, 11:02 PM

Titanium Dome

01-25-2012, 12:02 AM

I hear ya man, I won't stop looking until I find a full range set that goes low enough to make me soil myself.............:p

LOL! C'mon over. I now have four 18" subs in the Two Jims Theatre, and here you go... :moon: :barf: (somehow combine the two, and you get the inference)

Seriously, though, by every exam I've taken it's not likely that I'll hear anything below 30 Hz, and what I'll feel is really higher in frequency than that. Nonetheless, I know that my pants (if I'm wearing them—don't ask!!!) will flap even if I cannot feel or hear the sub 30 Hz output. If I feel my pant legs flapping, I know I'm there, right?

-------------------------------------------

Sonance84: The Hafler amps I'm using with the PT250s grumpy and I cobbled together spec out at 0.2 Hz to 100 kHz +/- 3 dB. I'm pretty sure I won't find any normal, affordable speakers that can tackle that FR, yet I have not given up on real world speakers whose FR is more modest and realistic than that.

I have two pairs of 240Tis sitting unused in my garage, and a pair of L7s and a pair of L5s in systems that are used regularly. They are simply better speakers in ways that matter to me, unless getting below 30 Hz is the more important quest. For you, this seems to be an important characteristic. For me it is not.

I'm often self-classified and characterized as a bass whore, but you may have bettered me in this regard. :)

Titanium Dome

01-25-2012, 12:14 AM

Not sure I can hear much below 30Hz, but if the speaker can't produce it cleanly in the first place then you won't be able to feel it either.

Either way, I have heard speakers that can produce bass in the 20Hz range at +/- 2-3db and they sound amazing. You get the full extension of bass that you can hear, plus the thunderous feeling of the bass you can't hear. Definitely the sound I'm looking to reproduce.

We are paying for electronics that produce 20Hz-20kHz (sometimes higher)...so why not use a speaker that can produce as much of that spectrum as possible? That is my opinion for someones MAIN pair of speakers.

By this criterium, those K2 S9900 speakers I have in my stereo system wouldn't make the cut. To tell the truth, I've added a pair of S2S subs to handle any info below 40 Hz, so maybe I'm admitting the K2s can't do everything.

Weirdly, I've never entertained the idea of using subs with the L7s. Perhaps I should, except I haven't felt the need.

Which speakers have you heard that produce bass in the 20 Hz range (+/- 3 dB) that give you the amazing sound? I'm pretty sure they cost more than the current $400-550/pair that L7s are going for these days, but probably a lot less than the $44,400 of the K2s. If I could get the purity of the K2s all the way down to 20 Hz (+/-) at a lesser price, I'd be eager to know about it.

Any insight you have would be appreciated.

Sonance'84

01-25-2012, 03:29 AM

Sonance84: The Hafler amps I'm using with the PT250s grumpy and I cobbled together spec out at 0.2 Hz to 100 kHz +/- 3 dB. I'm pretty sure I won't find any normal, affordable speakers that can tackle that FR, yet I have not given up on real world speakers whose FR is more modest and realistic than that.

I have two pairs of 240Tis sitting unused in my garage, and a pair of L7s and a pair of L5s in systems that are used regularly. They are simply better speakers in ways that matter to me, unless getting below 30 Hz is the more important quest. For you, this seems to be an important characteristic. For me it is not.

I'm often self-classified and characterized as a bass whore, but you may have bettered me in this regard. :)

I guess I meant that most people are using gear that produces the audible human hearing (when in perfect working order), while some are using (as you are) extremely high bandwidth gear. Trying to find speaker that can do 20Hz-20kHz is what I'm saying the goal is for most people looking for 'reference' level sound reproduction. But, once you go below 40Hz, the speakers start getting really expensive. So, for me, trying to find a speaker that gets as close to hitting 20Hz-20kHz +/- 3db is my goal for sound reproduction...the closer the better. My budget will decide the rest. :D

The 240Ti's I've heard have been refoamed (woofs and tweets) by Upland and recapped completely with Sonicaps. The L7's and L5's I judged them against were stock. My quest for sound is neutral and accurate reproduction...throughout the entire audible range. I look for clarity and openness just as much as I do bass. I hate boomey, uncontrolled bass though.

By this criterium, those K2 S9900 speakers I have in my stereo system wouldn't make the cut. To tell the truth, I've added a pair of S2S subs to handle any info below 40 Hz, so maybe I'm admitting the K2s can't do everything.

Weirdly, I've never entertained the idea of using subs with the L7s. Perhaps I should, except I haven't felt the need.

Which speakers have you heard that produce bass in the 20 Hz range (+/- 3 dB) that give you the amazing sound? I'm pretty sure they cost more than the current $400-550/pair that L7s are going for these days, but probably a lot less than the $44,400 of the K2s. If I could get the purity of the K2s all the way down to 20 Hz (+/-) at a lesser price, I'd be eager to know about it.

Any insight you have would be appreciated.

Let me first state that I'm a very budget oriented guy and buy only used gear. My MAIN system has less than $5K into it.

I've never used subs with any of my speakers. My favorite speakers (up until a few months ago) were my Klipsch Forte's that have completely new crossovers and a new Ti tweeter diaphragm. They spec at 32Hz-20kHz (+/- 3db) and I used them with a 34wpc tube amp. Very clean and plenty of bass. They beat out every other speaker that came along in my price range, including the L5's (until one day...).

Now, I've only heard 2 types of speakers that can produce sound in the 20Hz range, and by that I mean 20-29Hz +/- 3db...which are the "Usher BE-20 Diamond DMD" (22Hz-40kHz) and "Acarian Alon IV" (29-24kHz)...I own the Alon IVs (which can do 20Hz-24kHz, but only at +/- 10db). The Ushers sounded better to me than the B&W 800D, yet they cost half the price. My Alons sound as good to me as the B&W 800Ds and pretty darn close to the Ushers. This is telling me that price isn't everything...let your ears do the deciding.

The Alon IVs quickly became my new favorite speaker, especially for the price I paid. They bested my Fortes on every level (even with the 34wpc tube amp). But, I did end up getting a nice 200wpc amp that is very stable and sounds amazing, to power them. The Alon IVs were $900, but I got them on a very good deal...usually they go upwards of $1200. They were $5K new in 1993 with the Rosewood option, which I have.

I'm not saying that my speakers sound better than the K2s by any means (never heard 'em), but they do get me closer to the sound I'm looking for. Hope this helps you see where I'm coming from. There is still plenty for me out there to explore yet. ;)

pathfindermwd

01-25-2012, 05:08 AM

The L890 goes down to 28hz. :dont-know:

JBLAddict

01-25-2012, 10:25 AM

Weirdly, I've never entertained the idea of using subs with the L7s. Perhaps I should, except I haven't felt the need.

I've crossed them at 40Hz to a single L8400p (22Hz +/-3dB) and full range is markedly better. Yes only one sub, but think it was more the fact that for anything but 1812 Overture and organ pipe music which I don't own, the full range L7 more than covers almost any range of typical "music" as they are designed to handle, and does it better than using subs

LOL! C'mon over. I now have four 18" subs in the Two Jims Theatre, and here you go... :moon: :barf: (somehow combine the two, and you get the inference)

Seriously, though, by every exam I've taken it's not likely that I'll hear anything below 30 Hz, and what I'll feel is really higher in frequency than that. Nonetheless, I know that my pants (if I'm wearing them—don't ask!!!) will flap even if I cannot feel or hear the sub 30 Hz output. If I feel my pant legs flapping, I know I'm there, right?

-------------------------------------------

Sonance84: The PT250s spec out at 0.2 Hz to 100 kHz +/- 3 dB.

I have two pairs of 240Tis sitting unused in my garage, and a pair of L7s and a pair of L5s in systems that are used regularly. They are simply better speakers in ways that matter to me, unless getting below 30 Hz is the more important quest.

The two 18's had my sunglasses swaying on my shirt, literally, when the cannons were firing in that movie :shocking: , yes we may need to skip the lunch next time with double the power :D

-----------------------------------
0.2Hz, is that a typo?

Re: 240Ti,L7. Interesting they both have the same range 30-27k, and cross MF/HF at 900/4000... however, the LE14H-1 has to carry the load to 900Hz, where the L7's 120LEH-1 only up to 180Hz, leaving the 180-900 for another driver. I think this results in a fantastic bottom end, and similarly on the L5, even the smaller 8" 708G-1, having only to carry to 190Hz does a great job. I've never heard the 240Ti but seems most only reference it wrt how inferior it is to it's 4 way brother.

The L890 goes down to 28hz. :dont-know:

Yes +/-3dB

Titanium Dome

01-25-2012, 11:36 AM

0.2Hz, is that a typo?

Nope. Imagine a speaker that could handle that.

Sonance'84

01-25-2012, 12:57 PM

The L890 goes down to 28hz. :dont-know:

Yep, but the issue lies within the design using 8" LF drivers. Very rarely have I heard 8" woofers that can produce real low and clean bass, when implemented into a floorstanding speaker (especially a ported one).

The L5's can reproduce most music in great detail and clarity, only the bass lacks for me. The 1812 Overture was just a test I do on most big speakers, to see what they are capable of. For most other types of music, the L5's are great, as long as your not trying to play your favorite song real loud. I like my speakers to sound just as good at higher volumes as they do at low volume.

JBLAddict

01-25-2012, 02:45 PM

Yep, but the issue lies within the design using 8" LF drivers. Very rarely have I heard 8" woofers that can produce real low and clean bass, when implemented into a floorstanding speaker (especially a ported one).

The L5's can reproduce most music in great detail and clarity, only the bass lacks for me. The 1812 Overture was just a test I do on most big speakers, to see what they are capable of. For most other types of music, the L5's are great, as long as your not trying to play your favorite song real loud. I like my speakers to sound just as good at higher volumes as they do at low volume.

all true. I first bought the L5 (6.5"MB+8"LF) to replace a vintage JBL with 12". The bass was comparable, but when the L7 with it's 12/8 combo arrived the difference in LF output was the most striking difference from 5-->7. The L5 is a pleasure to listen to but when the L7 is sitting right there, the choice is a no brainer if you have the right room and power.

no offense on the 1812 comment, I know it's often used as the bass "acid test", but so much net discussion revolves around the Hz lower limit, when for typical music listening, below around 35Hz is probably about the least important spec/character of the speaker IMHO. JBL has been prolly the undisputed king of bass in the past 40-50 years(?), yet none of their highest achievements, even their pinnacle Project Systems, go below 30Hz. Hell if the Sub1500 bottoms at 25Hz there seems no justification why any full range towers need to go to 20Hz for music?

SEAWOLF97

01-25-2012, 05:57 PM

I like my speakers to sound just as good at higher volumes as they do at low volume.

this is something I love abt the 250Ti's ....they just scale higher & higher and don't seem to distort , have had them waayyy louder than comfortable , and they just keep going ...I chickened out first

no offense on the 1812 comment, I know it's often used as the bass "acid test", but so much net discussion revolves around the Hz lower limit, when for typical music listening, below around 35Hz is probably about the least important spec/character of the speaker IMHO.

yup

we've been through this mult times ...as I recall..the contra bass (tuba ?) produces the lowest bass in an orchestra and seems like it did low 30's and who wants to hear much of that ?

1812 ? How many times do you really listen to this piece ?? one a year ? the only real need for that type of bass is for movies or to show off ..:o:

Sonance'84

01-25-2012, 06:18 PM

all true. I first bought the L5 (6.5"MB+8"LF) to replace a vintage JBL with 12". The bass was comparable, but when the L7 with it's 12/8 combo arrived the difference in LF output was the most striking difference from 5-->7. The L5 is a pleasure to listen to but when the L7 is sitting right there, the choice is a no brainer if you have the right room and power.

no offense on the 1812 comment, I know it's often used as the bass "acid test", but so much net discussion revolves around the Hz lower limit, when for typical music listening, below around 35Hz is probably about the least important spec/character of the speaker IMHO. JBL has been prolly the undisputed king of bass in the past 40-50 years(?), yet none of their highest achievements, even their pinnacle Project Systems, go below 30Hz. Hell if the Sub1500 bottoms at 25Hz there seems no justification why any full range towers need to go to 20Hz for music?

I don't use subs. YOU might not want a full range floorstander to go to 20Hz, but I do and thats what make listeners different. If we all had the3 same system, it would be really boring going to a friends to listen. I wouldn't call JBL the undisputed king of bass...I will dispute that.

Dont take offense, this is just how I feel.

we've been through this mult times ...as I recall..the contra bass (tuba ?) produces the lowest bass in an orchestra and seems like it did low 30's and who wants to hear much of that ?

1812 ? How many times do you really listen to this piece ?? one a year ? the only real need for that type of bass is for movies or to show off ..:o:

Ok gang up on me, but I wan't saying that I listen to 1812 every day and need speakers to do just that...I was stating my opinions on the type of speakers I'm I like to use and their characteristics. I listen to a plethora of different types of music, which some have really low bass that I would like to reproduce. Go play "Welcome to the Machine" loud on the L5's and tell me it sound as good as the L7's or even 240Ti's...I won't believe you.

Can't I have an opinion that doesn't coincide with you guys, or is that wrong?

grumpy

01-25-2012, 06:36 PM

LOL... of course a different opinion is fine.

There are quite a few commercial recordings
that can benefit in a real and visceral way from
an extended low end response. Not just
fireworks, train engines, and cannons. :)

But to be honest, my system's in-room
response is sufficient for most of my
listening needs, and doesn't require a
vacated house to enjoy :) So the SUB1500
based house shakers haven't seen a lot of
regular action... a bit of a shame, really.

SEAWOLF97

01-25-2012, 08:07 PM

Ok gang up on me, but I wan't saying that I listen to 1812 every day and need speakers to do just that...I was stating my opinions on the type of speakers I'm I like to use and their characteristics. I listen to a plethora of different types of music, which some have really low bass that I would like to reproduce. Go play "Welcome to the Machine" loud on the L5's and tell me it sound as good as the L7's or even 240Ti's...I won't believe you.

Can't I have an opinion that doesn't coincide with you guys, or is that wrong?

I had L7's and agree with most of what has been said here (and wasn't trying to gang up on you S84) .....and I have been listening to "Welcome to the Machine" (2011 Immersion remaster) and it sounds great on my ADS L-1290's - dual 8's and sweet mid/highs

and .....I do enjoy my little Sonance MB-30's :bouncy:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?17712-Speaker-Safari&p=191910&viewfull=1#post191910

Rex Everything

01-25-2012, 08:11 PM

I let my L7's go as they were pretty beat in looks but did sound good. I don't think my room was big enough for them though they were very nice sounding and to me leagues above the L5's Sonance has. I am very pleased with my 240Ti's. They sound excellent and reproduce most if not all of what I listen to on them. I would love to have the extra 8" found in the 250Ti's and probably will have a pair when I'm lucky enough to find them in my budget.

Sonance's Alon's are a very sweet sounding and looking pair of speakers. I really want to hear them and the 240Ti's in the same room on the same system but neither Sonance or myself are much for draggin our prized speakers across town.

JBLAddict

01-25-2012, 09:08 PM

No ganging up. Just a healthy discussion on the merits of ultra low register bass in stereo application.

You made the point about preferring 2 speakers that go down to 20Hz for stereo music application. I am asking even among the acknowledged great speakers, money no object, which go to even to 22Hz. And second, in what genre and percent of all music are there even tones as low as 25Hz for it to be a useful capability. And I guess third, how much power you would need to accurately reproduce a flat response even if the speaker was capable?

I love my Performance Series stereo stacks because the PT800 produces amazingly clear and accurate noise above 130Hz and leaves the balance to a matched LF PS1400 that goes to 28Hz and has it's own 600W source to ensure supply when there is a demand. Not to get too far off topic as I know some here went a step further and mated PT800s with Sub1500 but the premise is the same. I have a small amount of dance/trance/electronica music that has some really low, albeit synthetically generated tones but only in this instance(non instrument tones) are those frequencies actually part of the input.

Lastly, I fully admit that if there's anyone on this and most forums that has something to learn, it is me. And if there is an aspect of stereo enjoyment that I'm missing I sincerely want to understand the basis, so I can start plotting my next gear move........

Sonance'84

01-26-2012, 11:07 AM

Sorry for how off topic this is getting.

You made the point about preferring 2 speakers that go down to 20Hz for stereo music application.

I didn't make a point of preferring those 2 specific speakers...I was just answering a question that TIdome asked about what speakers I had heard that can get down into the 20Hz range. Although, I do prefer these Alon IV's to any other speaker I have tried in my system (and within my budget), hands down.

I am asking even among the acknowledged great speakers, money no object, which go to even to 22Hz.

These are all new 2010/2011 models... (just a few)

- Vandersteen 3A Signature (26Hz)
- Magnepan 20.1 (25Hz)
- Vandersteen 5A (22Hz)
- Usher Be-20 (22Hz)
- Revel Salon2 (23Hz)
- Vienna Acoustics "The Music" (22Hz)
- Wilson Sasha (20Hz)
- Hansen The Prince V2 (23Hz)
- Vandersteen Model 7 (22Hz)
- Nola Baby Grand (20Hz) <--- formerly Alon
- MBL 101 E MkII (24Hz)
- Wilson MAXX 3 (19.5Hz)
- Magico M5 (22Hz)
- Verity Lohengrin II (15Hz)
- Wilson Alexandria X-2 Series 2 (19.5Hz)
- Focal Grande Utopia EM (18Hz)
- MBL 101 X-Tremes (20Hz)

And second, in what genre and percent of all music are there even tones as low as 25Hz for it to be a useful capability.

As stated, I listen to all kinds of music. As for the music that does require extended bass response...I have been listening to a healthy does of electronic, ambient and heavy synth styles lately. Even the jam/rock bands I listen to have keyboardists that use synth sounds that can get pretty low. Heck, even when a bass player hits that 6th string, you want to know it. It's not like I listen to low bass only/all the time...but when there is a passage that has ultra low bass in it, I'd like it to be reproduced by my speakers (to the best of their ability).

Just like if I had a 700HP Corvette ZR1...I wouldn't be driving around at 100+mph all the time, but knowing that I could reach 200 in that car when I wanted to is all that matters. I want my speakers to perform when called upon, which the L5's clearly couldn't do in the low end department.

And I guess third, how much power you would need to accurately reproduce a flat response even if the speaker was capable?

According to my speakers, the Alon IV...the builder says 100wpc minimum, but 200wpc is recommended. I use a 200wpc OCM 500 amp with them and they just sing. It has a power transformer that would make most mono blocks jealous, literally. :D

There is no doubt that these Alons produce sounds in the low bass region which weren't as noticeable with my Fortes, and they do so with authority. They also have a cleaner and flatter response than the Fortes. It was a no brainer to make these my new main speakers.

----------------------------------------------

I'd also like to add that a lot of designers employ sharp subsonic cut-off filters into their design, keeping the power focused on reproducing the main human audible frequency. Some, as stated, use ultra high bandwidth designs. Both proving that there are some ultra low frequencies passing through the electronics during certain passages.

And, I'll say it again...I don't just listen to ultra low bass all the time, but when called upon, I'd like my speakers to perform as best they can for my budget and listening area.

You guys picked out that I wasn't satisfied with the bass on the L5's but read right over my thoughts of the rest of the frequency range. I'm just as concerned with the mid and high FR as I am with the low end. I merely shared my opinions about the shortcomings of the L5s...but I guess I'm a little picky. ;)

Sonance'84

01-26-2012, 11:16 AM

I've never heard the 240Ti but seems most only reference it wrt how inferior it is to it's 4 way brother.

What 4-way brother are you talking about...the 250Ti? If so, then yes, I would probably agree. But, I've never heard 250Ti's.

hjames

01-26-2012, 03:00 PM

The thread is 1990 L series - Alon aint them!!

Please move this to a NEW THREAD All Aboot Alon, si?

Sorry for how off topic this is getting.

I didn't make a point of preferring those 2 specific speakers...I was just answering a question that TIdome asked about what speakers I had heard that can get down into the 20Hz range. Although, I do prefer these Alon IV's to any other speaker I have tried in my system (and within my budget), hands down.

These are all new 2010/2011 models... (just a few)

- Vandersteen 3A Signature (26Hz)
- Magnepan 20.1 (25Hz)
- Vandersteen 5A (22Hz)
- Usher Be-20 (22Hz)
- Revel Salon2 (23Hz)
- Vienna Acoustics "The Music" (22Hz)
- Wilson Sasha (20Hz)
- Hansen The Prince V2 (23Hz)
- Vandersteen Model 7 (22Hz)
- Nola Baby Grand (20Hz) <--- formerly Alon
- MBL 101 E MkII (24Hz)
- Wilson MAXX 3 (19.5Hz)
- Magico M5 (22Hz)
- Verity Lohengrin II (15Hz)
- Wilson Alexandria X-2 Series 2 (19.5Hz)
- Focal Grande Utopia EM (18Hz)
- MBL 101 X-Tremes (20Hz)

As stated, I listen to all kinds of music. As for the music that does require extended bass response...I have been listening to a healthy does of electronic, ambient and heavy synth styles lately. Even the jam/rock bands I listen to have keyboardists that use synth sounds that can get pretty low. Heck, even when a bass player hits that 6th string, you want to know it. It's not like I listen to low bass only/all the time...but when there is a passage that has ultra low bass in it, I'd like it to be reproduced by my speakers (to the best of their ability).

Just like if I had a 700HP Corvette ZR1...I wouldn't be driving around at 100+mph all the time, but knowing that I could reach 200 in that car when I wanted to is all that matters. I want my speakers to perform when called upon, which the L5's clearly couldn't do in the low end department.

According to my speakers, the Alon IV...the builder says 100wpc minimum, but 200wpc is recommended. I use a 200wpc OCM 500 amp with them and they just sing. It has a power transformer that would make most mono blocks jealous, literally. :D

There is no doubt that these Alons produce sounds in the low bass region which weren't as noticeable with my Fortes, and they do so with authority. They also have a cleaner and flatter response than the Fortes. It was a no brainer to make these my new main speakers.

----------------------------------------------

I'd also like to add that a lot of designers employ sharp subsonic cut-off filters into their design, keeping the power focused on reproducing the main human audible frequency. Some, as stated, use ultra high bandwidth designs. Both proving that there are some ultra low frequencies passing through the electronics during certain passages.

And, I'll say it again...I don't just listen to ultra low bass all the time, but when called upon, I'd like my speakers to perform as best they can for my budget and listening area.

You guys picked out that I wasn't satisfied with the bass on the L5's but read right over my thoughts of the rest of the frequency range. I'm just as concerned with the mid and high FR as I am with the low end. I merely shared my opinions about the shortcomings of the L5s...but I guess I'm a little picky. ;)

JBLAddict

01-26-2012, 04:12 PM

yes, 250Ti

again, no there is no discussion on the L5, it has it's LF limits, is not an L7, nor comparable to any remarkable LF capable system, just does a nice job for it's design/cost limits.....that's all I was sezzin'

thanks for the list of big name speaker specs, saves me a lot of time researching ;)

if the Alon is really all that, it was a smoking deal even at the MSRP of 3500/pr back in 96, congrats on your score

Fully understand the Vet analogy, and concur, but aside from having a variety of music that "goes pretty low" the quantitative/fundamental to this whole discussion question remains, does any of the music have tones below 25Hz for it to be a useful feature of stereo speakers, regardless of whether it's one song on one disc, or in many tracks and so low you can only feel the vibration but not hear it. If that can be stated affirmatively and with backing, I'll start saving now.....

and lastly agree that this has moved too far past the relevance of the thread, but a good discussion nonetheless

Titanium Dome

01-26-2012, 04:40 PM

I am very pleased with my 240Ti's. They sound excellent and reproduce most if not all of what I listen to on them. I would love to have the extra 8" found in the 250Ti's and probably will have a pair when I'm lucky enough to find them in my budget.

Sonance's Alon's are a very sweet sounding and looking pair of speakers. I really want to hear them and the 240Ti's in the same room on the same system but neither Sonance or myself are much for draggin our prized speakers across town.

What 4-way brother are you talking about...the 250Ti? If so, then yes, I would probably agree. But, I've never heard 250Ti's.

Well, you live in the same town, right? ;) Next time I'm in Vegas, shall I rent a van and meet you guys? :drive: I think the 240Tis would be the easier move, but I don't know who has stairs, narrow doors, ankle-nipping dogs, etc.

When I take my 240Tis out of the box for a meet in my home, they're usually one of the first demos I give, and they are a surprise to many of the guests who may not have heard any JBLs since the L100-200-300 era. Even though I keep the L7s and L5s out all the time, I still wouldn't want to part with the 240Tis, because they do have something special, too. It's just "different" special.

Once they hear the L250 or the PT250, of course there's no going back, but by itself the 240Ti makes a good impression, especially compared to the bookshelf or thin floorstanders they're used to.

I know I've beaten this drum a number of times in this thread, so what's one more pounding? :D It is after all an L Series thread. In the right room with the right placement and the right amount of power, the L7 is hard to beat. However, in the wrong room or with the wrong placement, it's just another good speaker.

tom1040

01-26-2012, 04:40 PM

Rex Everything

01-26-2012, 05:23 PM

Well, you live in the same town, right? ;) Next time I'm in Vegas, shall I rent a van and meet you guys? :drive: I think the 240Tis would be the easier move, but I don't know who has stairs, narrow doors, ankle-nipping dogs, etc.

When I take my 240Tis out of the box for a meet in my home, they're usually one of the first demos I give, and they are a surprise to many of the guests who may not have heard any JBLs since the L100-200-300 era. Even though I keep the L7s and L5s out all the time, I still wouldn't want to part with the 240Tis, because they do have something special, too. It's just "different" special.

Once they hear the L250 or the PT250, of course there's no going back, but by itself the 240Ti makes a good impression, especially compared to the bookshelf or thin floorstanders they're used to.

I know I've beaten this drum a number of times in this thread, so what's one more pounding? :D It is after all an L Series thread. In the right room with the right placement and the right amount of power, the L7 is hard to beat. However, in the wrong room or with the wrong placement, it's just another good speaker.

Get the van and come on by ;) The 240Ti's would be much easier to move. No steps at either place.

I liked the L7's and might have been able to make them work but they had been a party speaker and were far beyond my ability to get the cabs looking good again. They were missing the bases also. They did sound good and if I found another pair in the price range that looked good I might scoop them up.

The 240Ti's were a lucky grab. They needed the foam so I sent them off to Ken at Upland. While waiting I recapped them with SoniCaps for the fun of it. I'd love to have a pair of 250Ti's and keep an eye out for them.

Sonance'84

01-26-2012, 06:17 PM

The thread is 1990 L series - Alon aint them!!

Please move this to a NEW THREAD All Aboot Alon, si?

I didn't come in here starting a discussion about Alons...I stated my opinions about the L5, then the L7. I got questioned and the Alons just happened to come up in the context, as did a bunch of other speakers. I said it was off topic a while back. I have no urge to start a whole new thread about Alon IVs and this should not be moved, as it was just a little veer off topic, that's it.

Back to the 1990 L series!! ;)

again, no there is no discussion on the L5, it has it's LF limits, is not an L7, nor comparable to any remarkable LF capable system, just does a nice job for it's design/cost limits.....that's all I was sezzin'

Fully understand the Vet analogy, and concur, but aside from having a variety of music that "goes pretty low" the quantitative/fundamental to this whole discussion question remains, does any of the music have tones below 25Hz for it to be a useful feature of stereo speakers, regardless of whether it's one song on one disc, or in many tracks and so low you can only feel the vibration but not hear it. If that can be stated affirmatively and with backing, I'll start saving now.....

I totally agree on what's been said about the L5 and L7.

As for the second part...that is a good question. I think some genres do have music tones that go that low, like some the the types I stated above. It would be cool to somehow test certain passages to see how low they actually get compared to what we think its reaching down to. I'd love to hear a demo on one of those 15Hz or 18Hz speakers. :D

Well, you live in the same town, right? ;) Next time I'm in Vegas, shall I rent a van and meet you guys? :drive: I think the 240Tis would be the easier move, but I don't know who has stairs, narrow doors, ankle-nipping dogs, etc.

I know I've beaten this drum a number of times in this thread, so what's one more pounding? :D It is after all an L Series thread. In the right room with the right placement and the right amount of power, the L7 is hard to beat. However, in the wrong room or with the wrong placement, it's just another good speaker.

Yeah, about 15 minutes from each other. I'm cool with having a demo of both speakers, anytime.

I feel that same way about the L7s.

The 240Ti's were a lucky grab. They needed the foam so I sent them off to Ken at Upland. While waiting I recapped them with SoniCaps for the fun of it. I'd love to have a pair of 250Ti's and keep an eye out for them.

Definitely a great find even though they needed work, but knowing they are up to spec gives you peace of mind. Not to mention they sound great too.

Even I keep an eye out for 250Ti's. :p

I really would love to hear some of the bigger JBLs, i.e. PT250's or anything in the Synthesis series.

Rex Everything

01-26-2012, 06:42 PM

Definitely a great find even though they needed work, but knowing they are up to spec gives you peace of mind. Not to mention they sound great too.

Even I keep an eye out for 250Ti's. :p

I really would love to hear some of the bigger JBLs, i.e. PT250's or anything in the Synthesis series.

Now I just need to get the cabs refinished ;)

I'm with ya on the bigger JBL's!

Speakerasaurus

01-29-2012, 11:58 AM

Wow, after going through a dozen or so pages of this, it has been interesting to see what the comments have been. The 90s vintage L Series line was kind of an enigma. They were a mix of old-school electronic elements with new-school design. The design crew was younger, but were pretty loyal to the, at that time, longstanding record of the engineers that went before them. There were definite winners, and a couple of mixed bags. One of the tradeoffs with this line vs the other L Series product before them was that this is the least efficient line of them all. They needed real power to get them to work right, which, in a sense, was part of their downfall.

Overall, the L1 is the "standout", with the only real shortfall being that it comes on the port pretty hard. It provides good usable bass below 50Hz, and is very punchy and dynamic with a solid amp. The voicing is pretty close to "spot on" to my ears, with only the port tuning kind of messing the presentation up a bit. However, it does make them kind of fun to listen to.

The L3 is the "clunker" of the line. It should have been a 3 way, since the off axis midrange is a bit lacking. It should have been a 3 way with the 6" woofer, but that blew the budget a bit, and the emphasis was placed on a more pronounced bass output, which essentially made it a moderized version of the old L60T, which had the same problems (but was still a speaker I liked in the day). It's not a bad speaker at all, the others are just more "put together" sonically. In the big picture, it's actually a nice improvement from the old L60T.

The L5 is the other "standout" speaker. It suffers from a bit of overcomplexity, but it's not as demanding to drive as the L7, is far less room sensitive, and has a much higher WAF. They got the crossover right in spite of it all, and with sufficient power, is a very nice speaker.

The L7 is the hard one to pin down. With BIG amplification, proper set-up, and decent gear on the front end, the results can be fabulous. The vast majority are being driven by receivers, not properly set up, and not even coming close to their potential. It was a statement product in a sense, but the distribution network that JBL had at the time wasn't really set up to handle the speaker's demands. It was a great product, but it was exactly the wrong product for their distribution at the time.

The CL505 center was a "punt". It was built to budget to try to move the L Series into the home theater domain. It had the form factor, but not the performance needed to keep up with even the L1s, and the voicing was "off", largely because of the different drivers. Again, something that was dictated due to distribution, since a real L series center would have retailed for well over $400, if not $500, and Circuit City woudn't have stocked it. The bulk of the L Series of this vintage was sold through Circuit in the US. It was better than nothing.

BTW, I've heard the L7 on a big Threshold amp, properly set up. Yeah, it works. It works well. You just have to feed it.

Titanium Dome

01-29-2012, 12:06 PM

The bulk of the L Series of this vintage was sold through Circuit in the US. It was better than nothing.

BTW, I've heard the L7 on a big Threshold amp, properly set up. Yeah, it works. It works well. You just have to feed it.

Got mine at the small Midwest chain, ABC Warehouse, which was even less capable than CC. They couldn't sell them to save their souls, which worked out well for me: a pair of L7s, a big Soundcraftsmen amp, and a set of very expensive speaker cables for just over $1000. It was an insane deal at the time.

Your last line is right on the money. :yes:

BMWCCA

01-29-2012, 05:43 PM

Wow, after going through a dozen or so pages of this . . .

I pretty much agree with you, especially on the L3 though I hold even a lower opinion of the L60T than you do!

I hope we can keep up this charade of the L7 being the difficult child a little longer because so far I've only found two pair of them locally I was able to buy for $200, or less. I don't need any more, but I'd buy 'em if I found 'em. They can use all the power you can feed them but they actually perform reasonably well with just a Crown PS400 in my living room. Can't wait to bi-amp them with four Crowns someday, just for the heck of it. Now that'd be a real lease-breaker! :thmbsup:

Speakerasaurus

01-29-2012, 07:40 PM

I pretty much agree with you, especially on the L3 though I hold even a lower opinion of the L60T than you do!

I hope we can keep up this charade of the L7 being the difficult child a little longer because so far I've only found two pair of them locally I was able to buy for $200, or less. I don't need any more, but I'd buy 'em if I found 'em. They can use all the power you can feed them but they actually perform reasonably well with just a Crown PS400 in my living room. Can't wait to bi-amp them with four Crowns someday, just for the heck of it. Now that'd be a real lease-breaker! :thmbsup:

But a Crown PS400 is hard to quantify powerwise with the term "just". At 60 lbs, it's no limp noodle amp. I've seen a set on a big cheesy Sony HT receiver from that era. Yeah, that was a treat. It didn't shut down, but it wasn't doing much with the L7 either. The woofer did move a bit, it just didn't move enough to make any bass.

Speakerasaurus

01-29-2012, 07:53 PM

Got mine at the small Midwest chain, ABC Warehouse, which was even less capable than CC. They couldn't sell them to save their souls, which worked out well for me: a pair of L7s, a big Soundcraftsmen amp, and a set of very expensive speaker cables for just over $1000. It was an insane deal at the time.

Your last line is right on the money. :yes:

I'm familiar with them, and yes, they were even lamer than CC. Jack, their salesman used to be able to talk them into stuff they should have never brought in, but they always liked to think of themselves as a bit more high end than they actually were. In the end, it got blown out and someone got a deal. That happened fairly often.

I really do like this series of speakers. If 70s vintage amplification was available in the 90s, these speakers would still be in production in one form or another. Unfortunately, as amplification got weaker and weaker, speakers designers had to dummy down the loads to work with the lack of available amplification. From a power demand point of view, they were largely obsolete over a decade before they were ever released. However, they are a testament to the engineers they had around at the time. They made most of the right choices for the speakers, just not for the market they had to compete in.

Sony did the same thing to itself years ago when they did the ES speaker line. Pretty nice speakers, but Sony didn't sell anything in the US market that could effectively drive them. Oops.

Don Mascali

01-30-2012, 07:54 AM

I hope we can keep up this charade of the L7 being the difficult child a little longer because so far I've only found two pair of them locally I was able to buy for $200, or less. I don't need any more, but I'd buy 'em if I found 'em! :thmbsup:

A pair just showed up here for $200. I have one set I bought just to see what all the fuss was about. I will have to by the other pair.
As to location, I will post a pic of the way they ended up in my bedroom. Back assward to recommendations but they do a great job on a QSC RMX-1450 pro amp.

Don Mascali

01-30-2012, 08:13 AM

Here are my L7s. I ended up pointing the woofers outboard because in a smaller room I couldn't get them to work well in the corners. They are back assward but sound pretty good.

BMWCCA

01-31-2012, 08:20 PM

They are back assward but sound pretty good.

:thmbsup: Way to go Don!

Glad to see you in the L7 Club. There is no better deal out there.

gferrell

02-04-2012, 09:18 AM

Bought a couple of those Soundcraftsmen S800's from over in the amps section. My first Soundcraftsmen purchase. Those are great sounding, they make the L7's sing effortlessly. What a great bang for the buck. My wife was in the next room when I hooked them up and didn't know. I turned up the volume and she immediately ask what I had done, she said that it sounded much clearer. I may have to get a couple of more to drive the L5's and my 4412A's. By the way if you have not read my post in the amp section, those S800's are a little banged up but they do not look (on the inside) like they had ever been used. Most circuit boards will at least show a small amount of residual dust but these had none whatsoever.

TD you were right the Soundcraftsmen gear really is nice.

Titanium Dome

02-04-2012, 10:22 AM

.

TD you were right .

I feel a little faint... thanks. :)

Congrats on a great purchase. Those little shoeboxes pack a big punch, they last a long, long time, and they do seem made in heaven for 80s and 90s JBLs like the L Series.

JBLAddict

02-04-2012, 12:52 PM

gferrell

02-09-2012, 06:57 PM

I have to say my speakers are sounding better than ever. The soundcraftmen amps really tamed the high end. The newer (but still old) MOSFETS really keep the sound clearer in the mid to upper frequencies than the Bi Polars. My L5's are getting new power tomorrow as well. I have tried Adcom 555's, Crown's, NAD's, and Carvers and have come to the conclusion the Soundcraftsmen shoe boxes sound the best by far. I will be listening to much music this weekend. Enjoy!

Titanium Dome

02-09-2012, 10:47 PM

It's hard to argue with success or happiness (though people do try :banghead: sometimes), so enjoy, enjoy enjoy. When I had my L7s prowered by a pair of Soundcraftsmen A400s they were amazing. Right now the L7s are unused as I wait for an office update, but when it's done, my babies and the A400s will be back together. :dancin:

JBLAddict

02-10-2012, 09:57 AM

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=110822004932

L5 bases not available that often

L7 here

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=110822007592

gferrell

02-11-2012, 04:45 PM

Im gonna get one as well. One of the two I own has the fan too loud, the other pops fairly loud when turned on and hums out the left speaker. They have great authoritative juice that was born for the L series. The insides are pretty gunked so looking forward to one that is essentially new, rare opportunity on what I believe was a $500 box 20yrs ago

Did you ever get one of those? I bought the last beater and a mint one. They just don't look like they were ever used, they came in the original boxes, packing and everything. I just wish I could find a service manual or schematics if I ever need it. About a month ago I ran across a Kenwood Basic M2 for $50 it is 220 wpc and a damping factor of over 1000. It is now doing LF on the L7's and the upper is run by the S800. This is the best combo I have found. (or can afford) My mint Carver M-500T went up for sale to pay for these. I was surprised by the Kenwood and how good it sounded when I checked it out on my 4412A,s. I read it had very good bass and it really does. Thats why I have it running the bottoms on my L7's now.

JBLAddict

02-12-2012, 09:14 AM

Arrives tomorrow! Went with one of the newer units, as I already have to S800.

EDIT, Sunday: With the arrival of the PS setup, the L5s were moved to the bedroom and paired with my 93 Kenwood 100WPC integrated. I'm putting together some presentation material for a work trip tomorrow. Listening to some Soundscapes off digital cable as usual, and man are they sweet. For this room (12x12, vaulted ceilings), the bass is absolutely a perfect balance, any more would be too much, any less would be too little

Scharnhorst

06-05-2012, 10:59 PM

Hey guys,

I just inherited a pair of the L5s, they are in pretty good condition, weren't really used too much, and work perfectly. I don't know a whole lot about speakers... what I have been using this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882290174
Obviously I didn't pay anything near that price for it :) and a denon avr 1611....

What do I do with these L5s? I think they sound great but they probably aren't great for home theatre which is something I predominantly use. Do I sell them? Is there a way to make a complete system with these?

Appreciate the help

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh252/scharnhorst310/IMG_0700.jpg

Titanium Dome

06-05-2012, 11:12 PM

Hopefully JBLaddict will chime in since he and I have both had complete L Series (1990s) HT systems. I had L7s up from, L5s on the sides, and further back L7s on the rears That was probably a waste of a pair of L7s back there, but I had plenty, so... :dont-know:

Practically speaking, no one who came over for dinner and a movie nights every said the system was anything other than the best they'd ever heard, but truth be told I suspect they hadn't heard much. You can make a very dynamic HT system with L7s or L5s up front with maybe an L3 as a center, then L3s or L1s as your surrounds and rears. Add in at least two subs (at the midpoint of the sidewalls) and you'd beat almost anyone you know for great HT sound.

Such a system will definitely kick the Polk's butt, but at the expense of more real estate in your room.

Full disclosure: I have a better system now, JBL Synthesis® One Array, but it cost at least 15 times as much as the whole L Series system picked up from ebay or craigslist (minus the original L7 pair which I bought new), and it's fantastic, but not 15x fantastic.

Titanium Dome

06-05-2012, 11:19 PM

BTW, welcome Scharnhorst! :wave:

Scharnhorst

06-05-2012, 11:39 PM

Thank you for the reply Titanium

That is a tad extreme given the space I have is limited... argh

Thanks again for your contributions in this thread titanium, i've tried to do as much research as I can on these things, and truth be told there isn't a tone of info out there except for here. Its been very helpful. I just find myself at a loss as to what my next move should be. These paired with a sub would be pretty good just for stereo, I.E. music? Could you also use such a setup for TV and basic movies? Anyway to make the speakers I got be of any use :)

jblsound

06-06-2012, 03:23 AM

JBLAddict

06-07-2012, 12:44 PM

I will second the L series for HT. But as to your own words, if the Array is not 15x better, then why did you spend 15x more?
If I were to go beyond a Performance Series HT, every $ spent = every $ better, or not worth the bother.

we all know this is a subjective argument, what does 15X better mean? to who?

I heard the PS HT at his house, and own one, and also watched a movie on the Syn HT, to me, it was worth the 15x if one could afford it (when one could afford it :p). it might not have 15X the flat response or 15X the power compression, but I can tell you when the cannons went off the movie was 15X better...to me

JBLAddict

06-07-2012, 01:08 PM

Hopefully JBLaddict will chime in since he and I have both had complete L Series (1990s) HT systems.

Hey guys,

I just inherited a pair of the L5s..... I think they sound great but they probably aren't great for home theatre which is something I predominantly use. Do I sell them?

I had the L5 as mains, L7 as mains, and EC35,L1,L3 as centers in various configs over two years. Bottom line, the L5 make fine fronts for HT, surely better than what you own now by a margin. The 9" width and front firing woofer (compared to the L7) make them great for flanking your screen, the 4 way design works well and if/when you want to play music, even without a sub they do a very admirable job with the 8" and 6" dual bass configuration.

The center channel is the big problem with L-series; L1 and L3 work decently as two ways, but they're still two ways and IMO pale in comparison to designs with a dedicated mid-range. Therefore if you use an EC35 like I did, while a nice center, the timbre match is off from using a different tweeter and multichannel music suffers. All told, I'd still use the L5 in place of the set you have now

hjames

06-07-2012, 01:41 PM

Don't know if you are interested but I just posted an LC2 center speaker for sale here -
should be a good tone match as Center with your L5s if you want to do Home theatre ...
It IS Cherry finish and not black ash. Its a 4 way dual woofer center speaker.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?33036-JBL-LC2-Cherry-High-quality-L-series-Center-speaker

You may find other L5s, L3s or L1 to use as rear surrounds to make the whole system.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=55941&d=1339101287

Hey guys,

I just inherited a pair of the L5s, they are in pretty good condition, weren't really used too much, and work perfectly. I don't know a whole lot about speakers... what I have been using this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882290174
Obviously I didn't pay anything near that price for it :) and a denon avr 1611....

What do I do with these L5s? I think they sound great but they probably aren't great for home theatre which is something I predominantly use. Do I sell them? Is there a way to make a complete system with these?

Appreciate the help

JBLAddict

06-07-2012, 01:53 PM

good point, not trying to help sell your center, but the LC2 is the one center I considered the best available match.

but I forgot to the include the LC1 I originally purchased for 250 before buying the EC35 for 140, before trying the L1 and then the single L3 from TiDome's garage. In trying to avoid the 400+ the LC2 was going for at the time, I blew through the same amount buying multiple centers that either didn't perform well, or had poor dimensions for mounting. The LC2 was the best choice in retrospect.

However now that I have a fully matched Perf Series upgrade, it doesn't really matter other than the orphan speakers I have in storage.:banghead:

Scharnhorst

06-07-2012, 10:51 PM

let me bounce a few question by you guys. How are the JBL speakers of today and what are some of the advantages of today's speakers? I've read used speakers are normally a pretty good bet because speaker technology doesn't really drastically change like many others.

I'm just stuck... not sure what the best route is. I know using the other L series for a center channel is one route, but not ideal, and not for me. They sound good and maybe i'm just over analyzing, i could probably just get by using these two and a sub for awhile.

Titanium Dome

06-08-2012, 06:13 AM

I will second the L series for HT. But as to your own words, if the Array is not 15x better, then why did you spend 15x more?
If I were to go beyond a Performance Series HT, every $ spent = every $ better, or not worth the bother.

As JBLAddict correctly writes, it's just a number. How does one quantify a qualitative improvement? Whenever these comparative numbers get beyond "2" (it's TWICE as good) I tend to think they're simple hyperbole. I could have written the Performance Series is 5 times better than the L Series, and the One Array system is 12 times better than the Performance Series. Would that mean it's 60 times better than the L Series? No.

It's easy to compare prices. $5000 is ten times $500 which is ten times $50. But is the new speaker I bought at $5000 ten times better than the used $500 speaker that cost $2500 when new, or is the used $500 speaker ten times better than the $50 speaker picked up at a garage sale that's really worth $1000?

When it comes to qualitative assessment, real numbers are difficult. For starters, what's the scale? 1-10? 1-100? What represents "1"? My original L100s? In the case of this thread, the L1? The L5?

So the One Array is better than the Performance Series, and I think it's worth it to pay 15x as much as the super killer deal I got on the Performance Series because I'm very pleased with it. But there's no way it's 15x better, even if there were a way to actually measure that. When I'm listening to either system, I don't think about how I wish I were listening to the other, and when I listen to the L7s or the L5s, I don't wish I was getting 5x, 10x, or 15x better sound listening to my K2 S9900s. I just enjoy the moment.

JBLAddict

06-08-2012, 09:48 AM

it's fun discussion the qualitative attempt to quantify, but probably the reason for 50% of the text in online AV forums....good times

to each his own, one man's treasure, and so on.....makes me think of that bay commercial with the guy's GF making fun of him trying to sell his green car online, and the other guy with his apt decked in all green seeing the posting and expressing "sweet mother....!" :bouncy:

JBLAddict

06-08-2012, 10:22 AM

Friend

You ask one of the most difficult and vague questions to answer. This forum is loaded with 1000's of threads debating that topic. Your position reminds me of when I joined 4 yrs ago to check out the L100s I inherited from my childhood home. I'll try to give you my simple perspective a few $10K's later, though surely everyone here feels different to a degree.

I started with my 1976 speakers that I was quite happy with and proud of. Searching here opened me up to the decades of iconic JBL offerings, and I started to lust after legions of speakers between 1975 and 2008. I asked a lot of questions, read a LOT, had some chances to hear many of them, and kept OCD-like "wish lists" including their original MSRP and driver content. The deeper I got the less I was able to decide how to spend my hard earned dinero. Speakers, driver swaps, plumbers pipe plugs of bass-ports, amps, AVRs, pre/pros, DACs, :new_to_me:

I've had years of learning and enjoyment now going from L100 to.... HK AVR354, L5, LC1, L7, L1, EC35, L3, PT800, PC600, PS1400 , Soundcraftsmen S800, Soundcraftsmen A400, AVA7......and very very seriously considering 4412, Ti10K, K2S5800, Array 1400 along the way.....and spending good time with the Everest 2, K2 S99000, 4338, S4800, TS8000, LS80 for an informed perspective

So....if I could turn back the clock to where you are knowing what I know now, what would I do? Well, first the newer gear is better, period. The same company continued to make technological progress, albeit at diminishing returns for a lot of new money, hence many here buy old to get very very good and very very good prices, but make no mistake, JBL's latter best are better than their former best.

That said, for those of us on a limited budget, who don't like selling gear, going direct to the best you can afford is the move I would recommend to avoid amassing a speaker and electronics collection, while getting the best audio you can until having the means to move up later (maybe). I'm still glad that I've had the chance to experience so much JBL for so little an investment, until dropping a load on the Performance Series (still at a third of the original MSRP)......but if I could go back a few years to when the 1400 array was selling for 4-7K, I would pull the trigger and bypass all I've acquired to this point. I don't like having unused speakers wedged in corners of the house, the garage, in a storage unit etc. I don't like messes and I have one on my hands right now (I have a wonderful complete PS HT setup, with two giant L7s wedged between them for lack of a space to put them).

The hard part is deciding what's the best you can afford. You have to either take the account of others, or hear them yourself to make your wish list from top to bottom, and then decide based upon how available they are and at what price, what you're willing to spend.

one man's opinion FWIW....Godspeed

let me bounce a few question by you guys. How are the JBL speakers of today and what are some of the advantages of today's speakers? I've read used speakers are normally a pretty good bet because speaker technology doesn't really drastically change like many others.

I'm just stuck... not sure what the best route is. I know using the other L series for a center channel is one route, but not ideal, and not for me. They sound good and maybe i'm just over analyzing, i could probably just get by using these two and a sub for awhile.

gferrell

06-09-2012, 01:30 PM

This weekend I decided to put my L7's back up front in my setup.The XPL160's are very clear and accurate but the sound stage is just not there for movies and multichannel. Maybe it is just my room, even in stereo the L7's just have an incredible soundstage if placed properly. I love the clear midrange on the XPL but the sound stage wins. It is hard to beat the L7 L5 combo for HT and multichannel. So Scharnhorst if you have enough room you may find some L7's to go with your L5's. Oh by the way, this thread just never seems to die, just hibernate.

Aqualung1956

09-21-2012, 02:27 PM

Titanium Dome

09-21-2012, 05:05 PM

I see you have both. How would you compare the 4412 to the L series? I have L5's but I'm thinking about trying to score some 4412's or 4410's (reason: bigger woofer)

I know you're not asking me, but I sold my 4412s a couple of years back, and I still have my L5s on active duty in one of the spare bedrooms.

The L5s give up very little at the low end to the 12" woofer in the 4412, and the bass is cleaner in my opinion. The 4412 can dig a little deeper.

In the midbass and midrange the L5 is the clear winner for my tastes. The high frequencies are pretty equal, though the transition from mids to highs is better in the L5 by a long shot in my experience.

L5s are more room friendly. You can get more out of the 4412 by observing its studio roots and mounting it accordingly.

quad250

09-22-2012, 05:18 AM

Just read the last pages of posts and saw the difficulties you have finding a matching center speaker for the L5/L7.

As I have multiple speakers of the european L series (L20/L60/L80) I recently bought the L Center to possibly set up a HT.

56926

The unit uses:

Low/Mid 2 *JBL 705 H

Tweeter JBL 050 Ti

I expect them to match the L5/L7 quite good as the low/mid units are of the same series as the L5/L7. A little black spray on either side of the black grill will create a visual close match as well. I dont know if a set up with a mixture of 035ti and 050ti tweeters will work, but both are titanium based tweeters that have a very similar setup.

Problem for you guys in the States might be to find one as I believe these were only sold in europe.

Aqualung1956

09-22-2012, 12:22 PM

I know you're not asking me, but I sold my 4412s a couple of years back, and I still have my L5s on active duty in one of the spare bedrooms.The L5s give up very little at the low end to the 12" woofer in the 4412, and the bass is cleaner in my opinion. The 4412 can dig a little deeper.In the midbass and midrange the L5 is the clear winner for my tastes. The high frequencies are pretty equal, though the transition from mids to highs is better in the L5 by a long shot in my experience.L5s are more room friendly. You can get more out of the 4412 by observing its studio roots and mounting it accordingly.Thanks for the reply. I like the L5 but I find the midrange a little bit hot. I turn my midrange tone control down one notch (11 oclock) and this makes the sound less fatiguing. The 035tia may be the best tweeter I've ever heard, and this includes EMIT and HEIL!

Titanium Dome

09-22-2012, 01:23 PM

Thanks for the reply. I like the L5 but I find the midrange a little bit hot. I turn my midrange tone control down one notch (11 oclock) and this makes the sound less fatiguing. The 035tia may be the best tweeter I've ever heard, and this includes EMIT and HEIL!

My ears are older. ;)

The 4412 is a good sounding speaker and doesn't need any apologies. I just like the L5 better.

migman

05-21-2013, 05:57 AM

Hi all,

First a bit of background. I am a fairly recent member of the L series club. I currently own L1s, 3s, and 5s. My main and only setup at the moment is a combination 2-channel/HT situation. I am using my L5s as my main speakers along with a Synthesis S2S 15" sub to supplement the low end. I am using an Audio Research LS3 pre-amp which feeds an Ashly XR1001 crossover. The high frequencies (crossover set at 40Hz) feed a Yamaha PC2002M amp which in turn feeds the L5s. The summed mono low frequencies feed a bridged Yamaha P2500S which is connected to the S2S. I have been playing with crossover settings for the last month or so and I think the 40Hz setting lets the L5s and sub mesh very nicely.

I will be moving in a month or so and my new house will allow me to separate my 2-channel system and HT system. I will also be picking up a set of L7s in the next week or so. My new stereo room will allow me to setup the L7s properly with no equipment in between them. I plan to bi-amp them using my setup above with the only changes being the crossover frequency and of course I'll be running the P2500S in stereo mode to feed both L7 woofers. Can anyone verify the internal jumper setting on the L7s to make this happen? From the photo below it looks like all I would have to do is move the jumper from "Normal" setting over to the "Bi-amp" setting as well as remove the plates from the binding posts. Is this correct and do I need to do anything else? Thanks.

[QUOTE=localhost127;304201]

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9950/crossoverw.jpg

gferrell

05-23-2013, 12:33 PM

I believe that is correct. I have a similar setup to yours using XPL-160's, I have L5's for the rear with a rear 2235 music sub "B380 clone". I am not currently using my L7's but may pull them out and try what you are doing with the crossover just for fun.

mfkbank

08-17-2013, 07:16 PM

if you used an identical amp for each speaker wouldn't the factory crossover work?Just pulling the jumper bars off and wiring in 2 amps works.I used 2 hafler dh-500 amps and the l7s roared.If I wired an amp to hf and the other to lf what would change.mfkbank

BMWCCA

08-17-2013, 08:40 PM

That's fine if you aren't running an external crossover. Works very well. It'll likely improve using a setup like migman's.

In your setup the amps are still running full-range

hificanada

09-03-2013, 01:47 AM

The blue jumper wire on the LF crossover can also be changed, that will bypass the capacitors C1 and C2, the woofer will produce a lower frequency.

BMWCCA

09-03-2013, 07:43 AM

The blue jumper wire on the LF crossover can also be changed, that will bypass the capacitors C1 and C2, the woofer will produce a lower frequency.

Sure, and if you look back seven-years in this thread you'll find that reference:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?7498-JBL-L-Series-(1990s)&p=177549&viewfull=1#post177549

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?7498-JBL-L-Series-(1990s)&p=178680&viewfull=1#post178680

Not sure what you mean by "will produce a lower frequency" though. :dont-know:

Zvuchniak

09-06-2013, 09:32 AM

Here's some inside pics of JBL L100mk2, bass, mid and xover:

http://www.diyaudio.rs/blog/10/entry-134-jbl-l-100-mk2-slike/

I'll do the measurements with holmimpulse in few days and post them here.

Xover looks bad and sad. Electrolytic capacitors are done. They need replacement and coil on the bass is with Fe core. That will be replaced with Jantzen toroidal 4.7mH.

I know that they can do better with few components replaced but they sound good even like this. Midrange is a bit like someone put curtain in front of it but i think that will dissapear when the 100uF electrolytic capacitor is replaced with polypropylene one.

gravi

09-11-2013, 06:33 AM

Hi, I came across this forum couple of years ago and follow it on and off. I thought it would be a good idea to register and share my thoughts and comments. I purchased a pair of L5 speakers in May 1994 from a big-box retailer. They sold for $1200 a pair at the time but I got it on sale for $1000. Since that time I have used them as my primary speakers for both music and HT. Barring two house moves they have stayed in the same spot in my dedicated HT room. Over the last 15-20 years I have auditioned several renowned audiophile speakers as potential replacements: KEF, B&W, Monitor Audio, Paradigm, Dynaudio, etc. Amazingly, no sub-$3K speaker has come close in performance. This could be confirmation bias at work or I have just grown used to the sound of the L5. The really cool thing is that they are truly hidden gems, very few in the audio world know about them. When I mention these speakers in other forums, I am met with blank stares, figuratively. It is like you know of this incredibly cool garage band and no one else in the world has an idea.

The best part of the L5s is the fact that they are as close to a studio monitor sound as I can find . This is counter-intuitive to many, since it is assumed titanium tweeters are overly bright and forward sounding. JBL in general also has a casual reputation as "rock and roll" type (read loud and boomy) speakers. The L5s can sound boomy in situations, but with minimal placement and room treatment the bass is tight and punchy. They are also built like a tank and I can easily see myself using them for a lifetime.

I have gotten tons of useful information here, so thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts.

BMWCCA

09-11-2013, 06:26 PM

I have gotten tons of useful information here, so thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts.

Thanks for adding your experiences to the thread! :applaud:

Zvuchniak

09-14-2013, 01:49 PM

As i promissed:

Frequency response measurements for JBL L100mk2

http://i43.tinypic.com/2rdgnk8.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/2lc9xuh.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/20z8rir.jpg

Sound card : M-audio 0202 usb
Mic: Panasonic WM61A
Software: HOLMimpulse

Sound is Ok but not perfect. Bass is good but it sounds much better when i plug the BR. Like there is an echo from it. I think JBL made a mistake puting it on back side of cabinet. There is a lot of sibilance from tweeters. I am guessing that 3dB rise from 8KHz to 18KHz contribute a lot to that. Atenuation for it should be redone. I will do it in a few weeks because exams take away little spare time that i have.

JBLAddict

03-10-2014, 02:03 PM

L7s off to storage today, had them in the garage for two years, occasionally out for a spin, but head to head with the PSeries, just no point taking up space. And how about the room in cargo space in a 7 seat sedan!

61624

gferrell

03-11-2014, 06:03 PM

Mine have been in storage for almost 2 years now, I may have to pull them out and play them on the new equipment. Enjoy yours!

gferrell

03-11-2014, 06:11 PM

mortron

06-24-2016, 05:33 AM

I am so very torn between which L series speakers to look for... My heart says L7 or bust, a rational part says L5 or even L3... anyone faced a similar conundrum?

Chris Brown

06-24-2016, 10:21 AM

I am so very torn between which L series speakers to look for... My heart says L7 or bust, a rational part says L5 or even L3... anyone faced a similar conundrum?

The "easy" choice is to simply go with what deal you actually find available for a reasonable price. Seeking out a specific pair too often results in a huge price premium being paid.

Beyond that, there are the potential positioning issues with the L7 due to the woofers being on the side of the speaker. Posts are all over the spectrum as to just how big of an issue this actually is.

There is also the issue of bass. The L5 can only do so much given it's 8" woofer. If you augment your setup with a subwoofer, or if you simply do not listen to music loud and/or listen to music with lots of bass, then this might not be an issue. Here is an example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZR12g1WJgw) of what the woofer in the L5 looks like while trying desperately to produce bass that would be fairly trivial for any 12" woofer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zrm2QbCfU4) and probably for most 10" woofers also.

mortron

06-24-2016, 10:27 AM

The "easy" choice is to simply go with what deal you actually find available for a reasonable price. Seeking out a specific pair too often results in a huge price premium being paid.

Beyond that, there are the potential positioning issues with the L7 due to the woofers being on the side of the speaker. Posts are all over the spectrum as to just how big of an issue this actually is.

There is also the issue of bass. The L5 can only do so much given it's 8" woofer. If you augment your setup with a subwoofer, or if you simply do not listen to music loud and/or listen to music with lots of bass, then this might not be an issue. Here is an example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZR12g1WJgw) of what the woofer in the L5 looks like while trying desperately to produce bass that would be fairly trivial for any 12" woofer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zrm2QbCfU4) and probably for most 10" woofers also.

Placement is at the front of my mind. Then again, I am coming from Dipoles, which some say are even pickier than boxed speakers... It's all a game of compromises I guess. Thanks for your reply.

rdgrimes

06-24-2016, 02:12 PM

There's never any substitute for big-assed 4-way JBLs. Positioning issues aside, the L7 will kick the snot out of everything else in that line, simply because of the 4-way design.

daveschott

06-25-2016, 10:32 AM

There's never any substitute for big-assed 4-way JBLs. Positioning issues aside, the L7 will kick the snot out of everything else in that line, simply because of the 4-way design.

You mean compared to other vintage gear, 25+ years old, yes?

mortron

06-25-2016, 06:10 PM

Is it true that the L7 surrounds, once deterioration has taken its toll, are not replaceable?

robertbartsch

07-05-2016, 04:06 PM

I owned one of these. ....never again!

BMWCCA

07-05-2016, 05:28 PM

Is it true that the L7 surrounds, once deterioration has taken its toll, are not replaceable?
I thought I answered this but don't see my reply. Perhaps a senior moment. I'll give it another go:

The L7's side-firing 12-inch woofer has a conventional "foam" surround that can deteriorate and can easily be replaced. The LE120H-1 is a great woofer, used in stand-alone subs from other manufacturers. Of my two-pair of L7s, none of the LE120H-1 appears to need re-surround.

The 8-inch woofers use a unique mix of what appears to be butyl rubber and fabric in their surrounds. It has been documented here on a couple of occasions where the surround have separated from the cone, if not split. Each case, to the best of my recollection, occurred on L5s. My assumption was always that they were overdriven or fed turntable rumble as source material. One case I remember they were being used in a dance studio to provide background music for exercise classes, and mounted high off the ground on top of walls. The 708G-1 is a driver that puts out beyond its weight-class. But perhaps it's asked to do too much in the L3? I have two pair of L7, one L5, and one L3. In none of these is there any indication of damage or wear to any of the surrounds, and that includes eight 708G-1s. :dont-know:

For the price of these speakers, I really wouldn't focus on the surround aspect. Now I did worry about that when before I acquired my first L7, and now I don't. I think I've got enough spares between the spare L7 pair and the (sacrificial) L5s, if I need them. I suppose someone could even supply a non-stock foam replacement if the need arose.

I'm also not buying into the legendary difficulty of positioning the L7. Sure, it has a side-firing woofer which are intended to fire inward, so you shouldn't stack them right against your audio shrine. But I've had them slam against a rear wall, in a small room, and they have always produced room-filling sound and an amazing image within the room that defies the prime seating-position required by many speakers. If they have a fault, it's their impressive bass response, which makes them a liability in an apartment where neighbors might complain. I know my wife and kids in a downstairs room will always ask me to turn them down when the L7s are playing in an upstairs room. In those cases I usually just switch to the L5!