JBL D130 vs 130A using a 001 systemin in a C35 Reproduction

[iamhifi]

Hello to all,Hopefully someone with knowledge can help with this. I read somewhere that in the 60's the D130 and 130A use the same baskets, same cone and are more like 8 Ohms, with the only differences being a voice coil on the 130A made of copper and D130 of aluminum, and the dome on the D130 aluminum. Here is the question if baskets and cones are the same shouldn't the bass be the same only the D130 reproduces high frequency because of the aluminum dome close to the coil. I will be using a D130 in perfect shape because I can’t find a 130A in the same shape. I wonder if the D130 will do a nice Job getting to 1.2 K and let the 175 do the rest. This will be my vintage system using a 001 system with a Mcintosh MX110Z and a pair of MC30 amps.Thanks,Angel

[hjames]

Be patient ... posting the same Question more than once won't get you an answer any sooner ...
Its a Saturday, lots of folks are offline or elsewhere (Vacations?) on this, the last weekend before the labor Day weekend ...
and the Lansing Forum is not the busiest site on the web -
folks that know about such older drivers should get back to you in a couple of days ...

Hello to all,Hopefully someone with knowledge can help with this. I read somewhere that in the 60's the D130 and 130A use the same baskets, same cone and are more like 8 Ohms, with the only differences being a voice coil on the 130A made of copper and D130 of aluminum, and the dome on the D130 aluminum. Here is the question if baskets and cones are the same shouldn't the bass be the same only the D130 reproduces high frequency because of the aluminum dome close to the coil. I will be using a D130 in perfect shape because I can’t find a 130A in the same shape. I wonder if the D130 will do a nice Job getting to 1.2 K and let the 175 do the rest. This will be my vintage system using a 001 system with a Mcintosh MX110Z and a pair of MC30 amps.Thanks,Angel

[NickH]

You are correct the speaker frame is the same. And the cone is too. The extra weight of the copper voice coil on the 130a improves the bass response though.

I'd stick with the 130a. The d130 is a very well regarded driver but the aluminium dust cap does produce a high frequency beam of death if there not crossed low enough.

There both really good drivers though in the right applications.The recommended crossover point for the 130a is 1.2khz too.

Hope this helps.

FYI JBL did change the 130a later in life to a half roll surround type woofer.

[iamhifi]

Nick,
I have the paper surround cone, and yet is hard to find a nice shape 130A, that said in the future I might recone to a 130A, although i'm told that the the paper surround is much better than the new type.
Thank you

[iamhifi]

Be patient ... posting the same Question more than once won't get you an answer any sooner ...
Its a Saturday, lots of folks are offline or elsewhere (Vacations?) on this, the last weekend before the labor Day weekend ...
and the Lansing Forum is not the busiest site on the web -
folks that know about such older drivers should get back to you in a couple of days ...

James,
Agree, I forgot about vacations, and I know now that qiestions like this are technical and not general
Angel

[Mr. Widget]

I'd stick with the 130a. The d130 is a very well regarded driver but the aluminium dust cap does produce a high frequency beam of death if there not crossed low enough.

Beam of death.


Widget

[iamhifi]

So the D130 is the "beam of death”
Then why most catalogs from the 60's and 70’S state following
"Used alone, the D130 use alone is a full body performance. At any time, the 075 or the 175DHL high frequency transducer can be added to make a perfectly balance two-way system with even greater clarity and brilliance".
Tell me what you think
Thanks

[Wagner]

So the D130 is the "beam of death”
Then why most catalogs from the 60's and 70’S state following
"Used alone, the D130 use alone is a full body performance. At any time, the 075 or the 175DHL high frequency transducer can be added to make a perfectly balance two-way system with even greater clarity and brilliance".
Tell me what you think
Thanks

The D130 is a "full" range driver and it's most popular use even to this day is/was as a musical instrument speaker
For "hi-fi" was often the ONLY driver in the box even for early stereo systems
The 130A is a true woofer (rolls off by design) intended for use with other drivers from the very beginning

All of these modifiers and quantifiers in old catalogs are based on the meanings of the words during the 1950s an 1960s and the frequency responses expected and were the norm and all that was expected by many end users back in those times

You also see many D130s used in do it yourself clones of JBL systems and cabinets where JBL would have installed a 130A main reason being the D130 offered "full range" performance for only a few dollars more and for many the sonic differences were negligible (the era of Garrard Type As). The D130 could be used as a stand alone and requiring no crossover.

Bottom line? The CORRECT low frequency driver to employ in a true and correct "001" system is...........the 130A

Not difficult to figure it out with a trip to the library

But using a D130 until you can acquire the correct speakers certainly isn't the end of the world and will come close to what a correct system would sound like. The D130 will meet and exceed the needed crossover point for your "001". The knocks on them are folks assuming the extended range of the D130 will introduce a sin of inclusion which you may not even experience or notice, subjectively. In your room, your boxes and your equipment.

I have also observed that many members here having nothing positive to say about the subjective or measured performance of any of these ancient designs so don't get too hung up about it. Other than some recognition as to being historically significant valuable or interesting.

That's changing a lot lately though as far as the music loving and listening world is concerned. Just look at the prices these old drivers are routinely realizing.

Paradigm shift in just the past 10 years

Assemble them and enjoy them. Stop trying to figure out how they'll sound by posting at a forum. Losing game.

*Edit: Bad information as to original costs. The D130 was actually 3 or 4 dollars more than the 130A
Sorry

[iamhifi]

Advise taken
thanks

[speakerdave]

The D130 and 130A/B frames are not the same. The 130A is meant to be very slightly under hung and for that reason the gap depth is .007 greater. A 130A/2220 cone kit in a D130 frame will not make a 130A.

As the OP noted, one reason that the early systems sometimes have D130 as woofers is that JBL (as did EV) used to market the "building block" idea of starting with an extended range driver and then adding a crossover and a tweeter or horn when the budget allowed. This was in the days before most people had credit cards.

[Wagner]

The D130 and 130A/B frames are not the same. The 130A is meant to be very slightly under hung and for that reason the gap depth is .007 greater. A 130A/2220 cone kit in a D130 frame will not make a 130A.

As the OP noted, one reason that the early systems sometimes have D130 as woofers is that JBL (as did EV) used to market the "building block" idea of starting with an extended range driver and then adding a crossover and a tweeter or horn when the budget allowed. This was in the days before most people had credit cards.

Excellent and concise clarification on the facts of the matter.

[NickH]

The D130 and 130A/B frames are not the same. The 130A is meant to be very slightly under hung and for that reason the gap depth is .007 greater. A 130A/2220 cone kit in a D130 frame will not make a 130A.

As the OP noted, one reason that the early systems sometimes have D130 as woofers is that JBL (as did EV) used to market the "building block" idea of starting with an extended range driver and then adding a crossover and a tweeter or horn when the budget allowed. This was in the days before most people had credit cards.

Yes the original d130 and the 130a used the exact same frame and magnet. Even Harvey Gerst has pointed this out. I'm talking before jbl pro.

I should have been more specific when I said it before.

[speakerdave]

Yes the original d130 and the 130a used the exact same frame and magnet. Even Harvey Gerst has pointed this out. I'm talking before jbl pro.

I should have been more specific when I said it before.

Nope. Mr Gerst admitted his error when it was pointed out from technical data of the time that the frames differed as I have described.

[NickH]

Well then okay. Only 7 mils though, can't see how that could make that much of a difference. But I'm sure there's some effect.