JBL 4411 Control Monitor score

[badman]

No malice intended. But the original 123 was designed specifically for smaller cabinets, or in-wall mounting, as a compromise compared to other "more robust" 12" JBLs of the time. Certainly not a bad driver and (as Harvey says) it's an excellent guitar-amp speaker. But it's a bit of a stretch to call it a woofer in the ancient sense because JBL compromised on it's low-end purposely to realize other benefits. Similarly with the tweeter, which was most likely more of an economic consideration. Granted the drivers in any vintage JBL are usually "very good". But, in most cases, there are often better ones available—some of the same vintage—that will outperform those built for a compromised intended use, or other constraints. In this case a 128H does a better job producing low-frequency and an 044 does a better job producing high-frequency. Esentially the jobs of a woofer and a tweeter.

In answer to your question about why no one delineated the differences between the L100 and the 4411: The OP has the 4411s and had owned L100s. Most figured by now he'd understand the difference, as you seem to do, and that perhaps he'd now appreciate my tongue-in-cheek response to your statement.

If the 123A was designed for smaller cabinets, then the designers were pretty stupid. The Vas is quite high (235L), and the Fs very low, neither of which are condusive to small cabinets. Further, it has a pretty healthy 7.87mm Xmax.

Compromised on its low end? 25Hz and .5 Qts is anything BUT a low end compromise. These drivers are more low-end capable (as far as alignment goes) than most modern subwoofer drivers, which will typically have a lower Vas (and reference efficiency) and lower Qts to allow smaller vented cabs. In most any alignment, the 123A will do better at reproducing the bottom octave than the highly damped 128H. The 128H in contrast has a very low Qts at about .24. The 128H DOES have higher reference efficiency but in getting the really deep stuff out, the 123A has the advantage.

In the L100, the 123A was crippled in the low bass by a too-high too-small vented cabinet. It was a god-awful alignment, but did reproduce the boomy bass sound that many people really liked. Add the minimalist crossover (which does have some benefits besides cost) and you have a speaker with a lot of personality and a sound that was very appealing to many people.

But any negative attributes of that personality aren't due to the 123A which is a superb woofer.

[BMWCCA]

Compromised on its low end? 25Hz and .5 Qts is anything BUT a low end compromise. These drivers are more low-end capable (as far as alignment goes) than most modern subwoofer drivers, which will typically have a lower Vas (and reference efficiency) and lower Qts to allow smaller vented cabs. In most any alignment, the 123A will do better at reproducing the bottom octave than the highly damped 128H. The 128H in contrast has a very low Qts at about .24. The 128H DOES have higher reference efficiency but in getting the really deep stuff out, the 123A has the advantage.

In the L100, the 123A was crippled in the low bass by a too-high too-small vented cabinet. It was a god-awful alignment, but did reproduce the boomy bass sound that many people really liked. Add the minimalist crossover (which does have some benefits besides cost) and you have a speaker with a lot of personality and a sound that was very appealing to many people.

But any negative attributes of that personality aren't due to the 123A which is a superb woofer.

I know the mantra here is "more data, less wank", or whatever. But I can't measure them. Nor does driver-spec data always correlate to the performance you'd think. But this is not some condemnation of the L100, in fact the question was comparing the 4311 to the 4411. The L100 is in a larger cab than the 4412A, and almost exactly the same size as the L112, yet one produces much less bass than the others.

The question shouldn't be why does everyone insult the L100, but should be why can't one say one driver is better than another without L100 owners getting insulted? How many L300/4333 owners get insulted when told their system would improve if they only would replace their woofers with a 2235? If you can't compare the drivers in one system to another without causing antagonism, then why not have every thread on this forum locked after the first post, too?

If your intent is to answer the question about driver differences between the two systems under discussion in the original post, then have at it. Tell us why one member posts that he likes his 4311b but loves his 4412s, and how his observations are wrong.

Sheesh. If it wasn't Summer, I'd think everyone here had cabin fever!

[mike]

The amazing thing about the 123a-1 is that it combines a low free air resonance with a very extended upper range.

The early L100's with the inline drivers crossed over at 2500Hz and are surprisingly natural sounding in this region.

Mike

[badman]

I know the mantra here is "more data, less wank", or whatever. But I can't measure them. Nor does driver-spec data always correlate to the performance you'd think. But this is not some condemnation of the L100, in fact the question was comparing the 4311 to the 4411. The L100 is in a larger cab than the 4412A, and almost exactly the same size as the L112, yet one produces much less bass than the others.

The question shouldn't be why does everyone insult the L100, but should be why can't one say one driver is better than another without L100 owners getting insulted? How many L300/4333 owners get insulted when told their system would improve if they only would replace their woofers with a 2235? If you can't compare the drivers in one system to another without causing antagonism, then why not have every thread on this forum locked after the first post, too?

If your intent is to answer the question about driver differences between the two systems under discussion in the original post, then have at it. Tell us why one member posts that he likes his 4311b but loves his 4412s, and how his observations are wrong.

Sheesh. If it wasn't Summer, I'd think everyone here had cabin fever!

The issue I took with your post was one of facts. You seem to be ignoring the fact that alignment changes have a significant influence upon the bass performance of a speaker systems. That's a design question, not a driver question. The L100 is vented MUCH too high, creating a boomy, 1 note bass, with nothing significant below tuning. You state that 123A is designed to work in small cabinets. Not really the case, it requires every bit the cabinet of nearly any 12", and more than the vast majority. Max flat sealed alignment is about 7 ft^3.

You talk about it's compromised low end. The L100 has a compromised low end due to a poor alignment choice. The 123A in a proper alignment has gobs of bass.

A couple more points- I'm not a L100 owner. I'm not getting offended, I don't think anyone is. And nobody's questioning the OP for his preference. He's welcome to his preference. But you're spreading inaccurate information. Don't do that!

Comparing drivers is one thing. Comparing drivers based upon their use in completed systems, one of which is very poorly designed, is akin to testing one brand of racecar fuel in a honda civic to another brand in a proper vehicle (I'm going to assume the 4412s were properly aligned).

Make no mistake, the 123A is NOT bass-compromised, it is a racecar fuel driver.

[4313B]

Just for grins I went ahead and checked what BB6P wanted to do with both drivers in a High Fidelity Closed Box, High Fidelity Vented Box and Extended Bass Vented Box:

It's fairly easy to see where JBL came up with the ~ 1.6 and ~ 4.0 cubic foot volumes for the L112 and L150/L150A.

[midlife]

Off topic and subjective, but I am looking to do some LF driver swapping to improve the sound and balance of my L65s. Would 123A drivers be a possible improvement? And I am not very technical, so what do the below graphs demonstrate?

[mike]

I have heard of people doing this and liking the results but I don't know if there are any theoretical wrongs in doing it. I would bet that it might improve the midrange.


Mike

[badman]

Just for grins I went ahead and checked what BB6P wanted to do with both drivers in a High Fidelity Closed Box, High Fidelity Vented Box and Extended Bass Vented Box:

It's fairly easy to see where JBL came up with the ~ 1.6 and ~ 4.0 cubic foot volumes for the L112 and L150/L150A.

A little different than some of my modeling (BTW: I believe accepted MMs for 123A is 100g, not 58, not that it really matters much here), but you see that the 123A tends to have excellent extension about an octave deeper than the 128H in any max-flat alignment. The 128H is definitely more of a small-box speaker due to the very low Qes (strong motor on that puppy). Glad we got that 'small box design' thing resolved.

As to the L65, the 128H would actually be more likely as a replacement since the original 122a was a very low Fs, highly damped driver, very similar in Thiele-Smalls to the 128H.

The 123A is excellently suited to open baffle usage, for those willing to break the 'maximum output' mold. This is my preferred usage of it, and it really sings in that app (mounted near floor level on a very squat baffle, similar in some respects to a trapezoidal variant of the JE labs style)

[4313B]

(BTW: I believe accepted MMs for 123A is 100g, not 58, not that it really matters much here)

I suspect Harris Tech "fixed" it because an Mms of 58g is supported by the rest of the published parameters. My guess is that the JBL published Mms of 85g is correct and one or more of the other parameters was fat fingered. This is a perfect example of "measure your own specific driver". I'm not going to buy one to measure it, but if I had an application requiring one I would definitely measure it first.

The published parameters for the 2213 also appear to be jacked and JBL never published the 2212 parameters.

Here is the published parameters again for anyone who cares:

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Thi...Parameters.pdf

Take them with a grain of salt, some of them are definitely off. For example, I think we went through this before with the E145.

The 123A is excellently suited to open baffle usage

Yep, could be. Someone who likes it should do a project and post a thread about it.

Off topic and subjective, but I am looking to do some LF driver swapping to improve the sound and balance of my L65s.

That isn't going to happen with the woofer sitting right next to the floor unless you're going to cross it over really low (which isn't possible with that specific driver set). They are what they are.

If you want to improve the balance build yourself some nice mirror imaged L166 type boxes, put your components in them and get them up off the floor (Don't bother veneering the boxes until you know that you like the way they sound).

The 128H is the suggested replacement (in pairs) for the 122, 126 or 129.

[badman]

4313B:

I agree, the MMS is much more likely to be high. It's an awful thing to have to measure, either via subtractive motor strength or disassembly. While it's a lightweight coil assembly, the coated cones are quite a bit heavier than 'plain paper'.

The 2213 and 123A both appear to be accurate specs, as far as my testing was concerned. Fs, Qms, Qes, (and accordingly Qts), Re, Le, were all well within tolerance. I didn't test Vas but suspect it to be accurate based upon efficiency in-application.

Point taken re: post a thread. We'll see what sort of documentation I can pull together.

[Gannon]

I know it's an older thread but I am just reporting back that after re-foam and many hours use these speakers are FANTASTIC and have for the time being replaced my L100's in my home studio with these 4411's. I used them during the recording of my bands new album and couldn't be happier. Thanks to everyone here!

[Gannon]

Whoa... just went back and saw what got stirred up from my original thread. I took off for a couple weeks on my bike and started recording using these 4411's and never checked back on my thread until I had time just recently. Sorry to poke a hornets nest here.
BTW... my L100's went on loan to my old friend and bass player (for his new home studio) from my band after using the 4411's. Most Excellent!

[Akira]

The original poster figured it out. One has a real woofer and a real tweeter. The other has that L100 stuff.

The LE20 is hugely under rated because of it's falling off response above 15K. (actually falling off from around 10K) But, it does exactly what it's original designers intended... a seamless extension of the mid driver that mimics the response of the Altec 604's upper compression driver... with the sweet sound of paper no less.

I like this tweeter. Applied in it's original application in the 4310 monitor it was a perfect instrument for the vinyl limitation of 15K in the golden age of rock.

I own a pair of 4411's and like them a lot. Evolution wise, they are probably the best of a series in a long line of pedigree that was spawned by the Great Grand Daddy of them all--the venerable 4310. BUT, for listening to Carly Simon's "No Secrets," Grand Dad takes all of his own off spring to school... after all, it was the 4310 that mixed those golden classic albums in the FIRST PLACE. Sorry, but in this case that 'L100 stuff' rules.

[Eaulive]

The L100 really has the power of heating up any thread

I have a love / hate relationship with this speaker, it's hard to talk about it