To JuBaL or not to JuBaL!? That IS the question.

[medwardb]

Hello all,
below you see a pair of JBL outfitted custom speakers made back in the late 70's buy a very nice person. (..it makes a difference, you know)
And I now have a line on a nice pair of L65 cabs that I was thinking about fitting with the complement of these guys as two of the three drivers are
in line with the original L65 drivers. Or so I believe. (..please let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, folks rarf!)
Anyway, the complement of the customs are: 2405 HF-Rads, 2105 mids, and 124H woofs, respectively. I've got to do a re-re-surround of the 124's as the 30 Hz tone didn't quite work well enough this time and one has developed a tiny bit of VC rub. So the 124 won't be being re-purposed but,
and here's the first question: Would the 2105 and 2405 be suitable in an L65? But really before that what I'd like to know is how do they REALLY sound?! I've heard a lot of different things about the Jubals but I personally have never heard them. Considering what I already have, which do sound pretty darn nice with their hand fab'd crossovers and cabs,
would re-fitting the L-65 with these drivers instead (..and the proper woofers)be a step in an audiologically positive direction?
(..I know this is a kind of hard question to pose considering none of you have heard the customs I use here now but I think that the reasoning is sound so all posting their personal postulates will be positively aPPreciated!
(..eeuw, now i have to clean my screen again!)
NOTE** I'm having s bit of a prob w/ my browser currently so I'll post the pics momentarily***

Thankx ALL,

-MEDz> *

[midlife]

I have recently re-upped on my stereo gear. Bought alot of stuff and getting re-acquainted with critical listening. Any how the speakers I wound up with are L166s and L65s. The 166s for my ears are incredible, excellent xover performance and equally impressive driver performance. Interestingly the 166s need very little presence and brilliance adjustment as well as little eq at the preamp. The L65s are no where near as impressive. Sorry, maybe you will have better luck.

[medwardb]

I have recently re-upped on my stereo gear. Bought alot of stuff and getting re-acquainted with critical listening. Any how the speakers I wound up with are L166s and L65s. The 166s for my ears are incredible, excellent xover performance and equally impressive driver performance. Interestingly the 166s need very little presence and brilliance adjustment as well as little eq at the preamp. The L65s are no where near as impressive. Sorry, maybe you will have better luck.

I've heard some pretty definitive poo-poo's of the L65 around here so I'll just add that one to the list !

Thankx for the opp.

-M> *

[mike]

Jubals are actually a pretty good sounding speaker in my opinion. With the presence and brilliance controls set properly they are surprisingly transparent and seamless. They also image pretty well even though the driver layout would imply otherwise. They are also one of the most sought after JBL's from the 70's.

Mike

[midlife]

They are also one of the most sought after JBL's

Mike

Thats why I gave them a shot...maybe I haven't positioned them correctly and/or haven't found a suitable bias? So far my ears are saying, "are we there yet?"

[SEAWOLF97]

The 166s for my ears are incredible, excellent xover performance and equally impressive driver performance. Interestingly the 166s need very little presence and brilliance adjustment as well as little eq at the preamp. The L65s are no where near as impressive.

there is a member here who rarely contributes -Magnepan- , a long time friend of mine who has 70 some odd JBL pairs ...owning both the L65 & L166 , he made the exact same summation/conclusions to me. and declared the L166 as his favorite JBL bookshelf.

He also said the Jubals sounded poor unless they were on stands at least 22 inches, and once described the HF as being able to cut glass.
I have no personal experience with the L65, but really enjoy my 2 pairs of L166's.

[4313B]

He also said the Jubals sounded poor unless they were on stands at least 22 inches, and once described the HF as being able to cut glass.

It was admittedly a poorly balanced system. The whole design was kind of silly for a "high performance" loudspeaker system. It was a very nice looking end table. The Lancer 55 components were arguably better suited to that box. They also made for a decent subwoofer box when loaded with a 121A/H.

Considering what I already have, which do sound pretty darn nice with their hand fab'd crossovers and cabs,
would re-fitting the L-65 with these drivers instead (..and the proper woofers)be a step in an audiologically positive direction?

Start looking for a pair of 112's (L212) or 2108's (4315) and build yourself a custom pair of mirror imaged 4315B's with cc networks.

[midlife]

Well since we are talking about the Jubals, anyone have recommendations to improve their performance. Location, heigth, tilt, L pad adj...more suitable for larger rooms ie far field listening...any help is appreciated.

[midlife]

[quote=4313B;256797]It was admittedly a poorly balanced system.
Poorly combined drivers? Xovers asked to cover mismatched drivers? What could I do to overcome some of these issues? Might consider spending a little to apply accepted remedies.

[BMWCCA]

Start looking for a pair of 112's (L212) or 2108's (4315) and build yourself a custom pair of mirror imaged 4315B's with cc networks.

Where does that 8" mid-range fit in an L65 cabinet?

[mike]

Adjust the tweeter to -3 dB and the midrange to around -2 dB and you should get a fairly flat sound. The bass is something you either have to live with or you can cut it back with tone controls to get rid of some of the boominess. As others have suggested stands will help the bass but the speaker just dosn't lend itself to stand mounting very well or look right on a stand. Also keeping them on the floor seems to keep the tweeter from biting into your ears as they can. Most importantly enjoy them for what they are, a nice looking nice sounding collectable speaker. The L166a's I had were one of the most offensive sounding speakers I ever owned. Even with the LPads adjusted they were harsh compared to the Jubals and did not image at all. The fact that the Jubal images somewhat ok surprises me though as the driver layout is roughly the same as the L166's .The L166's did have better bass than the Jubals though.

Mike

[midlife]

Adjust the tweeter to -3 dB and the midrange to around -2 dB and you should get a fairly flat sound. The bass is something you either have to live with or you can cut it back with tone controls to get rid of some of the boominess. As others have suggested stands will help the bass but the speaker just dosn't lend itself to stand mounting very well or look right on a stand. Also keeping them on the floor seems to keep the tweeter from biting into your ears as they can. Most importantly enjoy them for what they are, a nice looking nice sounding collectable speaker. The L166a's I had were one of the most offensive sounding speakers I ever owned. Even with the LPads adjusted they were harsh compared to the Jubals and did not image at all. The fact that the Jubal images somewhat ok surprises me though as the driver layout is roughly the same as the L166's .The L166's did have better bass than the Jubals though.

Mike

Thanks Mike, Interesting observations, Room accoustics/size, listening material, personal preferences, front end equip, and speaker condition surely play a part in the end result. I will try a little tweaking with the 65s before pulling the plug....

[4313B]

Where does that 8" mid-range fit in an L65 cabinet?

You quoted me but didn't read the quote.

Forget the L65 cabinet...

Start looking for a pair of 112's (L212) or 2108's (4315) and build yourself a custom pair of mirror imaged 4315B's with cc networks.

He already has the 124/2203, LE5/2105 and 077/2405. It's just a thought is all. I know a couple other forum members are currently playing around with 4315's.

[4313B]

The L166a's I had were one of the most offensive sounding speakers I ever owned. Even with the LPads adjusted they were harsh compared to the Jubals and did not image at all. The fact that the Jubal images somewhat ok surprises me though as the driver layout is roughly the same as the L166's .The L166's did have better bass than the Jubals though.

The 066 and "harshness" was a direct result of poor back end electronics. It was a known issue. The 066 was a real GIGO driver to the dismay of many. It was used in the L166 and L212 as well as the 4313 and could sound absolutely terrible with poor electronics. It sounded really nice with a Citation XX.

The poor imaging was due to the 6 dB/octave network without the requisite vertical driver array.

The better bass response was due to getting the woofer up off the floor where it didn't belong. It's "ok" for subwoofers to hug the floor but that's about it.

[midlife]

The 066 and "harshness" was a direct result of poor back end electronics. It was a known issue. The 066 was a real GIGO driver to the dismay of many. It was used in the L166 and L212 as well as the 4313 and could sound absolutely terrible with poor electronics.

The poor imaging was due to the 6 dB/octave network without the requisite vertical driver array.

The better bass response was due to getting the woofer up off the floor where it didn't belong. It's "ok" for subwoofers to hug the floor but that's about it.

So all common cabinet speaker systems will perfrom better when raising the cab to get the woofer de-coupled from the floor? Generally speaking, how much lift is beneficial?