L-300 VS 4333

[markd51]

Hello All,
Not sure if this topic has been previously discussed, and if it has, please forgive me.

My question is, has anybody either through A/B Testing, or from personal experience auditioned both of these, and can they comment?

I would assume that these were actually two different animals basically, and I do know of the cosmetic differences.

I had extensively auditioned a true one day old brand new pair of L-300's 34 years ago, and in truth didn't like them, as much as I thought I would, and to me, the Bass was somewhat muddy-floppy compared to my own L65 Jubal. Looking back, this speaker may have been "too new", and my evaluation may have been skewed due to not even being yet fully broken in.

The L-300 used the 136A Woofer, with what I remember the Foam Surround. I'm assuming the 4333 used a totally different Woofer, and would like asking, this particular Woofer didn't have foam surround, did it? I would also assume the 4333 had a heavier Magnet structure, but I've leave others to comment.

I get the impression JBL used Foam Surrounds on many of it's "home" Drivers to enhance low end excursion, but my questions are "at what cost"?, and as bass as Bass response went, what differences were there with the L-300 versus 4333?

I'm guessing that the 4333 had tighter, cleaner Bass Response, but perhaps at the cost of the last few hz of low end excursion?

Are my assumptions correct. or no? Are there any other notable differences in sound in regards to these two speakers (Midrange-High frequency Sonics?)
Thank you all, Mark

[speakerdave]

They used the same components. The baffle layouts were different. See the LH library.

[Chas]

One used consumer the other used pro series. Difference was only cosmetics and model numbers. The only difference MAY be the box volume and tuning? Others here may know the answer to that.

[markd51]

They used the same components. The baffle layouts were different. See the LH library.

As far as I can remember, and recall, they didn't use the same components, bit perhaps somewhat "similar". As I remember 34 years back, the pro 4333 used a woofer with a much heavier magnet weight-structure versus the L-300.

This was one of the shortcomings the salesman, and I noted, and conclusions we came to 34 years ago about the L-300 versus many of the professional series 15" Woofers, a lighter, "wimpy by comparison" magnet.

The one other noteable difference I noted about the 077 versus the 2405, was a higher wattage rating. As far as I can remember, other than cosmetic differences, with the acrylic lens versus the Alu one, there was essntailly no drastic performance-frequency-dispersion differences between the two. Any comments?

I'm certainly not saying that any of the foam surround Woofers were inferior, other than the fact that they needed replacement every 6-10 years. The first time my four Jubals went bad after 8 years into ownership, I was on the phone with JBL, complaining about their warrantee, and the claim of free replacement-repair due to "defective materials". Tney ignored me like I had leprosy when I called them about their rotted surrounds.

I was always of the belief, that another suitable material, such as polypropylene-butyl rubber could've perhaps been used?

Generally, the rubberized Canvas surrounds lasted forever, without the need of replacement. Mark

[speakerdave]

Yeah, the foam thing is unfortunate, but you know that is part of the price of admission for the good sound. The foam absorbs the energy better so you don't have it travelng back down the cone so much. I had to refoam the woofers on my 4333a's and found it was well worth the trouble.

I've listened extensively to both the 136/2231 and the 122a and your comment that the bass is better in the L65 does not compute for me. Both, by the way, will do better if you get them off the floor. That little 12" woofer in the L65a (122a) went wooly real fast when driven at all hard. The 2231/136 15" woofer (with the foam surround) can put out a lot of real good bass sound, enough for my neighborhood, that's for sure.

Plain English--the drivers in the 4333a and the L300 are the same--just different cosmetics and numbers to differentiate between pro and consumer divisions of the company.

No I don't have any comments about the differences between the 077 and the 2405 except that when I'm listening to the 2405 I miss the twinkle of the acrylic phase plug in the 077, especially at night. Other than that, they are the same excellent UHF driver. I did notice a difference between the L65 and the 4333a, and that was that in the L65 the upper midrange/tweeter margin was much too harsh for my ears, but I don't attribute that to the drivers themselves, per se, but rather to the fact that the LE5-5 is used at too high a frequency and the 077 is used at too low a frequency in that speaker, and the crossovers probably needed to be rebuilt and updated.

David

[markd51]

Thank you David for your comments.
What I noted with the L-65 (126A) versus the L-300 (136A back then was a bit better quickness, speed, and tightness of bass in the L-65 versus the L-300.

When I first heard these particular L-300's, AB'd with the L-65, driven by the McIntosh MC-2205 Amp, I mentioned to the Salesman "what did you guys do, already damage these speakers with excessive high amounts of wattage"?, as that's what they sounded like to me, and he said, "we just taken these speakers out of their boxes yesterday, they are bramnd new, one day old speakers!"!

Hmm? As I said, they may also were not fully broken in, but I've never typically noted any JBL Speaker sounding horrid fresh out of the box before?

Can anybody comment what the magnet weight was on the 136A, and the Bass Driver on the 4333? Were they the same, or no? I assume both used 4" voice coils.

I've read that the LE-5-5 was a very decent midrange, and have heard some say that this Mid was the best of the LE-5 models, but of course the hearsay I've heard could be incorrect? I don't doubt that perhaps X-over, or enclosure tweaking could've improved the L-65 in some way.

I hope you folks don't mind my rambling. I love discussions like this, as its always nice to learn new, and unknown things from others about all these truly wonderful speakers. Thank you again, Mark

[Audiobeer]

I've owned both the L-300 & the 4333. The only difference to me was the slight tilt in the L-300 towards my ears. To me that was an advantage. As for as comparing the L-300 bass to the L-65......well there wasn't any comparison. 15" woofer moves a hell of a lot more air than the L-65 woofer. I liked them both!

[markd51]

I've owned both the L-300 & the 4333. The only difference to me was the slight tilt in the L-300 towards my ears. To me that was an advantage. As for as comparing the L-300 bass to the L-65......well there wasn't any comparison. 15" woofer moves a hell of a lot more air than the L-65 woofer. I liked them both!

Thank you audiobeer for your comments, and input about this topic. I have absolutely no doubts about your findings, and assessment that the 15" woofer should by all means provide a more authoratative "you are there"! bass response.

Of course I'm going by fond memories of what took place 33-34 years ago, in the Oak St MusiCraft in Chicago, (Where I bought my Mac, and JBL, and TEAC Gear) it is very possible that the L-300's that I auditioned were either faulty, or maybe more likely incorrectly wired?

Guess, I'll never know the correct answer, but back then I had auditioned also, quite a few pair of L-200's both in store, and at a good freind's house, and was quite satisfied-impressed with the sound these speakers provided. I would assume JBL didn't take a step backward when they introduced the L-300, and that it should've been all the L-200 was, and more.

As for the L-65, I believe back then, they claimed this to be a floorstanding Speaker, but due to its sort of "smallish" size relative to the larger L-200, L-300 4331, 4333, etc Speakers, getting good Mid, and High Freq driver placement in regards to listening position was not optimal I felt. In quad array back in the 70's, I always used to have these on four custom fabricated Steel Welded Spiked Stands, getting them up about 18" off the Floor, and now lately, I just use my four L-65's in a stacked configuration here in New Mexico.

Certainly not the best way to listen to them, but they still kick serious butt after all these years.

Although I'd still love to "graduate" to larger Vintage JBL's one day (perhaps the L-300, 4333, or 4343) before I get too old (and Deaf), they'll have to make a large enough Casket to bury me with these four L-65's, as I'll never part with them.

After 34 years, none even have a mark on their veneers. Although it was a bit of a PITA, I was smart enough to keep all of the original Boxes, and packing materials all these years. Mark

Thanks again, Mark

[soundboy]

[quote=markd51;177041]Thank you David for your comments.

What I noted with the L-65 (126A) versus the L-300 (136A back then was a bit better quickness, speed, and tightness of bass in the L-65 versus the L-300.

Bigger is louder, but not always tighter, or faster sounding, IME.

When I first heard these particular L-300's, AB'd with the L-65, driven by the McIntosh MC-2205 Amp, I mentioned to the Salesman "what did you guys do, already damage these speakers with excessive high amounts of wattage"?, as that's what they sounded like to me, and he said, "we just taken these speakers out of their boxes yesterday, they are brand new, one day old speakers!"!

Hmm? As I said, they may also were not fully broken in, but I've never typically noted any JBL Speaker sounding horrid fresh out of the box before?

That was my experience back in the day, too.

Can anybody comment what the magnet weight was on the 136A, and the Bass Driver on the 4333? Were they the same, or no? I assume both used 4" voice coils.

I hope you folks don't mind my rambling. I love discussions like this, as its always nice to learn new, and unknown things from others about all these truly wonderful speakers.

I think speakerdave gave an excellent answer already. The drivers are identical...including the woofers, so they would have the exact same woofer magnet and voice coils. The only differences were the decals and paint color.

[richluvsound]

Hi Folks ,

My 4333a's have an acrylic phase plug in the 2405 painted black. I had thought about trying to remove the paint. I can't figure out how to do it without damaging the acrylic.

Everything else is as it should be as per the information here on the forum. The 4333a and the L300 have identical components.

Rich

[Fred Sanford]

Can anybody comment what the magnet weight was on the 136A, and the Bass Driver on the 4333? Were they the same, or no? I assume both used 4" voice coils.
Thank you again, Mark

Some info for you here:

http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/pro-comp/2231.htm

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10667

The first link is the specs of the "A" 2231, the second shows performance info on the H versions.

je

[mech986]

Hi Mark,

I posted an answer to this same question you raised in a previous thread but perhaps you didn't see it so I'll repost the information here, sorry for the duplication. 4333 in red due to being used as search keyword.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markd51
One question that arises in my mind though, that many seem to believe, and insinuate, is that the L-300 was just a "prettied up" version of the 4333 Monitor, and this isn't the case, is it?

The 4333 didn't use a 136A Woofer, did it? I also doubt the 077 was present, and am thinking it was probably the 2405H instead? Also, perhaps a quite different design X-over. What about the Horn, and Driver? Mark

Hi Markd51,

Please review the JBL consumer brochure regarding the L-300 here:
http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/.../1975-l300.htm

Also see:
http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Te...ummit%20ts.pdf

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Te...ummit%20ts.pdf

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Stu...ries/4333B.pdf


A significant number of JBL's driver designs have consumer-professional equivalents (a good design is a good design) and only utilize different cosmetics, badging, or numbers to distinguish them.

For the L-300/4333 series here are the functional acoustical and mechanical eqivalents:

Woofer:
L300 = 136A alnico
4333 = 2331A alnico
Later L300 = 136H (ferrite version)
4333A and B = 2331H (and occasionally 2235H?)

Midrange compression driver:
L300 = LE85 w/H92 horn & L91 slant lenses
4333, A & B, 2420 w/2312 horn and 2308 slant lenses

Tweeter:
L300 = 077 alnico slot diffraction tweeter w/acrylic wedge
4333, A = 2405 alnico slot diffraction tweeter w/black aluminium wedge
4333B (maybe some A) = 2405H ferrite slot diffraction tweeter

Crossover wise, the L300 = 4332, both passive crossovers. The 4333 had provision for biamping but otherwise equivalent crossovers.

The L300 and the 4333 are identical designs in slightly different enclosures.

Hope that helps.

New Today:

For clarity, the crossovers have the same identical circuitry except for the 4333 provision for biamping. The 077 and 2405 are identical acoustic equivalents and only differ in the use of the acrylic versus aluminium center wedge. In fact, on the L300 tech sheet, the 2405H (the later ferrite version) is the recommended acoustically IDENTICAL replacement.

Richluv, IF your 2405's are actually acrylic painted black, you probably could get the paint off with alcohol which will not attack the acrylic. It would be interesting to see if the wedge is actually acrylic but most all 2405's are aluminium.

Regarding magnet weight, JBL 2231A/136A alnico drivers used an alnico slug and magnetic circuit that weighed 12 to 13 pounds depending on when quoted while the 2231H/136H versions used a ferrite magnet and magnetic circuit that weighed 18 5/8 pounds. (Always impressive to quote weight as JBL did then). However, check the magnetic flux density - identical in each at 1.2 tesla. That means the magnetic force at the gap was the same. Note though that JBL engineering was doing their homework in evolving this alnico to ferrite driver - they had to use ferrite because alnico had become very scarce and expensive (do a search on this topic). JBL engineers redesigned the driver with flux stabilizing rings and added improved venting to allow a higher 200W power capacity. Both the consumer and professional woofers benefitted from this change at the same time.

I do have L300's and 4333B's and within the conditional and age ranges, A-B'ed they pretty much sound the same. Both speakers do need to be off the floor to give their best in the LF range as floor and side wall boundry gain will add to the bass response. As with all speakers, and JBL's particularly, experimentation with height and floor placement will yield significant tuning of the sound to the acoustics of the room they are in.

I suspect you and I are of similar age, having heard the same L65's and L300's around the same time of life. Please consider updating your sound recollections with a listen to a properly restored pair of L300's or 4333 series speakers. Let us know what you think.

Then we can start talking about how lots of folks here feel the step up from there will be the 434x, 435x series, the 443x series, and then the L250/Ti's, XPL's, etc. JBL sets a high standard of the time, and continues to improve upon them. What other company can we point to that does that so well?

Regards,

Bart


Regards,

Bart

[markd51]

I wish to thank all of you again, for your helpful, informative, and knowledgeable advice, and thought.

To quote Soundboy, and what he said, I'll agree one side, that yes, the L-65 won't hold a candle to a pair of the large L300, or large 4300 Series, but I have four L-65's, and in regards to moving "air" my fours 12"s just might do a better job than two 15"s.

So, in actuality, I'm running four 12"s, four 5" Mids, and four 077's simultaneaouly.
They just "cruise merrily" along, perhaps at no more than 20 watts a speaker, with my two Mac Amps, and blow you out of the room with a realistic "you are there" wall of sound.

I note many good Bass Amplifier Cabinets from SWR, and Eden use an array of four 10" Drivers, ( I have one) and these typically outperform single one 15" Cabinets by a long shot. Speed, and tightness is the key many Bass Players look for now, and in low end excursion, these 10" drivers do a job quite well.

Please don't get me wrong if you think I'm insinuating JBL 15" Woofers aren't the absolute "Bomb", because they are. I've seen enough big name bands over the years (Zep, Yes, Tull, ELP, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Santana, etc) and knew what was in their arsenal! JBL of course! Mark

[Zilch]

:bitetongue:

[hjames]

:bitetongue:

Ya c'mon luv, don't be shy - speaks your peace and bide your time, hey?

Stacked L65s just GOT to sound better than Stacked L100s, right?

Wonder what the config is ...
... tweeter to tweeter?
... side by side?
diagonal corners aka quasi-surround?