Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: L-112 as oppossed to L-110

  1. #1
    Senior Member Audiobeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St. Peters, Mo just west of St. Louis.
    Posts
    2,407

    L-112 as oppossed to L-110

    L-112s as oppossed to L-110s? I'm going to look at a pair tommorrow to replace a pair of L-110s in the shop. Anyone have any experience with the L-112s?

  2. #2
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    12,193

    Re: L-112 as oppossed to L-110

    Yes, I have experience with both models.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Audiobeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St. Peters, Mo just west of St. Louis.
    Posts
    2,407
    I found the L-110 to be a little boring. I was hoping the L-112 to have a bit more dynamics, Is this the case?

  4. #4
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    12,193
    The L96, L112 and L150A follow the 4313B network design. They use the 044 HF transducer which isn't quite as good as the 066 but is better than the 033.

    The L110 used a 6 dB/octave filter like the L150 and L212. It might be that characteristic you find boring as the LE10/LE111 and LE5 aren't, by themselves, inherently boring. A buddy of mine also found the L110, L150 and L212 boring compared with the L96, L112, and L150A

  5. #5
    Senior Member Audiobeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St. Peters, Mo just west of St. Louis.
    Posts
    2,407
    Ok Now I got your attention, 1 LE10H-1 And a 1 2123H for a LE10H....hows that for less boring!!! LOL

  6. #6
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    12,193
    You want to trade me one LE10H-1 AND one 2123H for one of my LE10H's?

  7. #7
    Senior Member Audiobeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St. Peters, Mo just west of St. Louis.
    Posts
    2,407
    Yes! I have no need for either but need a good LE1oH!

  8. #8
    Senior Member Audiobeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St. Peters, Mo just west of St. Louis.
    Posts
    2,407
    If it's a go Email me your shipping address at [email protected] and I'll get it going!

  9. #9
    Senior Member GordonW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Marietta/Moultrie GA USA
    Posts
    1,455
    I will say this- I never found an L112 to be dynamically boring. In fact, there's aspects of it I liked better than the 120Ti (which basically replaced it)... more "snap" in the midbass, in particular.

    And I will say, I also liked the L96 better than the L110...

    Regards,
    Gordon.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Audiobeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St. Peters, Mo just west of St. Louis.
    Posts
    2,407
    Your right Gordon! I picked up the L-112s last week and have been enjoying them since! They are head and shoulders above the L-110s!!

  11. #11
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    12,193
    "In fact, there's aspects of it I liked better than the 120Ti (which basically replaced it)... more "snap" in the midbass, in particular."

    Ah! Very interesting! Basically that was due to the lack of a conjugate on the LF transducer in the L96, L112, and L150A, unlike the 4313B (The L96, L112, and L150A use a slightly cheaper version of the 3113/3113B filter)

    I personally prefer the conjugate added to the LF filter in the L96, L112, and L150A, which smooths out the midbass a bit

    To each his own

    As for the 120Ti, (or any of the Ti Series) the components in that system were significantly more advanced than their predecessors. Gone is the 8 to 10 dB rising response of the LE5 series. Gone are the peaky resonant frequencies characteristic of the previous dome radiators. Individual transducer impedance curves are flatter, etc. The 104H transducers are very nicely damped with much flatter response than the LE5 series. The Ti domes exhibit ruler flat response to 27 kHz and their transient character is superlative.

    The XPL Series took things even further with nearly ruler flat impedance curves and extremely smooth frequency response.
    Last edited by 4313B; 06-09-2003 at 09:57 PM.

  12. #12
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    12,193
    "They are head and shoulders above the L-110s!!"

    D'oh!

    How do you like the 4313 compared to the L110?

  13. #13
    Senior Seņor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    6,142

    Conjugate, no Conjugate...?

    Ah! Very interesting! Basically that was due to the lack of a conjugate on the LF transducer in the L96, L112, and L150A, unlike the 4313B (The L96, L112, and L150A use a slightly cheaper version of the 3113/3113B filter). I personally prefer the conjugate added to the LF filter in the L96, L112, and L150A, which smooths out the midbass a bit

    I'm confused on the use of "conjugate". Are you referring to R1 on the 3113B? And, are you saying you prefer that "a" conjugate be added to the LF filter in the L96, etc., to smooth out the bass? I think I'm lost a bit in the syntax. I think I understand that Giskard prefers the 4313B (thus the smily face?), but that impression may change with my next re-read! Ha!

    This might be more obvious to me if I had a bona fide copy of the 3113 - the network labelled 3113 on the JBL website is, on closer inspection, a poor copy of the 3113B (revision A) and is nearly identical to the 3113B.
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

  14. #14
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    12,193

    Re: Conjugate, no Conjugate...?

    Hi Bo,

    I wondered when someone would give the 3113/3113B filter a good look. The only difference between the two is a change in resistor values .

    Rev B was changing R1 from 50 ohms to 51 ohms, R2 from 5 ohms to 5.1 ohms, and R3 from 2.5 ohms to 2.4 ohms

    The LF conjugate consists of C1, R1, R2.

    Yes, I prefer the conjugate. Actually I prefer the 3113B network in the L96 if truth be known. Mark Gander, Greg Timbers and I had several discussions about this way back in the early 80's. The second best filter is the L110A network (HF conjugate corrected to facilitate using the 044 or 066 instead of that goofy 033 ). Smokin'! I actually built several networks (using the 4333 biamp switch) that allowed the L96 to switch between the 3113B filter and the N110A filter. Very cool!
    Last edited by 4313B; 06-10-2003 at 08:35 AM.

  15. #15
    Senior Seņor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    6,142

    Ha!

    Hey, Giskard...

    I kept looking at the R values and thought the variance too de minimus to be the sole difference between the so-called "3113" and the 3113B - then I noticed in the area "Bill of Material" (engineer's ID and revisions) they are both the 3113B, only different by revisions A and B. My files are working!

    I would have loved to have A/B'd that L96 jury-rig. What a cool idea. What a very cool idea...!

    Do you have the L110 and 110A networks handy? I'd like a visual on that HF "correction".
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. JBL L 110 Crossover Schematic
    By vifa32144 in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2004, 08:04 PM
  2. L 110 question
    By Hofmannhp in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-25-2004, 11:10 AM
  3. L 112 Century II speakers
    By AMACNEE in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-10-2004, 09:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •