Do the L112's sound all that much better than the older L100's? Anyone here have/had both? Thanks.
Printable View
Do the L112's sound all that much better than the older L100's? Anyone here have/had both? Thanks.
I have had both, now I have a pair of L100s with charge-coupled crossovers. The 112 should sound a lot better. It has a way better crossover and all the drivers are more advanced. Many folks on this site will call me crazy, but I get more enjoyment out of the L100s. Some people like the L88 even more than the 100s. With the mods I made to mine, they seem to be closer to the 88s in some ways. I won’t trade out my 100s again.
There isn't much need to over-think this. Later models use improved crossovers, drivers and cabinet designs, improved power handling, etc. But there's no accounting for personal preference. Rest assured they are different, "better" is a separate question. Many folks will say that the L100t3 is the best example of evolution of the 12" 3-way lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusnzha
You can screw-up almost anything by mishandling an equalizer, too. And some people like to push the "loudness" button and boost the bass control. They all think they're "improving" the sound. I suppose it gets down to what you like. You shouldn't need a vote or consensual validation to tell you what works best for you.
I grew up listening to friends' L100s while I had a pair of 030s. I bought a pair of L112s in 1982 and still have them. I much prefer them to the L100 but then I prefer the 030 to the L112. Most likely because I've lived in the same house with them for over fifty years! :dont-know:
I have both. It depends on what you are playing. For home theater, L100 definitely has better sound. It is more natural with voices and theater type effects. It's sound
distribution is narrow. The L112's are more musical, tighter bass, cleaner highs and a better sound stage - wider sound distribution. That said, it really is a personal preference.
Not being a home-theater person, illuminate me—please! Is it preferable to have your speakers less "musical" with flabbier bass response, distorted highs, and narrower sound stage when used in HT applications? :dont-know:Quote:
Originally Posted by tjrad
"Fake but Fun" always implied to me the hi-fi equivalent of Kodachrome. Easily achieved today with Photoshop for the pictures or EQ for the sound.
I'd be happy to buy my own pair of 4311s and make the comparison but the whole L100 family is overpriced, IMHO, for what they offer.
far as I recall ...Kodachrome was THE standard for fidelity and Ektachrome was the FbF . ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWCCA
Kodachrome was the standard but not because of its fidelity. More for its archival qualities. While it was never garish like Fujichrome (always first choice for photographing clowns and circuses for its enhancement of bright colors), it was nonetheless not know for fidelity, either, but rather for enhancing the shot. We often spoke of how it looked like your memory of the subject rather than the actual subject. More dreamlike. An improvement in some ways over the actual. Like EQ . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97
Photographer Steve McCurry told Vanity Fair magazine describing Kodachrome:If you have good light and you’re at a fairly high shutter speed, it’s going to be a brilliant color photograph. It had a great color palette. It wasn’t too garish. Some films are like you’re on a drug or something. Velvia made everything so saturated and wildly over-the-top, too electric. Kodachrome had more poetry in it, a softness, an elegance. With digital photography, you gain many benefits [but] you have to put in post-production. [With Kodachrome,] you take it out of the box and the pictures are already brilliant.