L65 vs L5

[gasfan]

I'd like to strike up a minor debate if possible between these two. I just recently sold a pair of L5 I thought sounded pretty good. I concur with what I've read here about them; great speakers. OTOH, I just recently refoamed the 122a woofers in my L65As. They were in great shape when I got them but the foams were just wrong. As a result, they sounded boomy. I refoamed them with correct foams with a 30hz test tone. The bottom end is now well defined and articulate, so no more boominess. They sound not just good but very good. Not sure where 'flat' is on the L-pads but I have them set between 2 and 3 for mid and tweeter. 0 turns them off so I know that's not right. So I'm wondering about the lack of love for the L65. "Spitty" is how I've seen it defined more than once here. But the L-pads take care of that issue lickety-split. Tailored to the room, the transition between drivers is seamless. In comparison, I would say the L5 with the titanium tweeter and no L-pad is more so. It also can't compete with the L65's bottom end. They don't need a sub whereas the L5 does. Imo the L65 easily spanks the L5. So I'm just wondering why there doesn't seem to be much respect for the L65 when they are a really great sounding speaker that imo definitely belongs in the Hi-Fi category.

[SEAWOLF97]

As an Ex-L65 owner , here is my take.

Nothing wrong with the drivers.
Some have said they were designed as "corner tables" , not really to be a stereo set.

they are too low. Need to be on stands, but the funky little pedestals makes that difficult.

glad you tamed the "boomy bass" problem , I never did. Never knew how inaccurate they were
until moving up the line .. JBL - wise.

IMHO/YMMV

[gasfan]

The foams are after market, much stiffer than what was on them. I'm comparing to Kef 105.2, and Infinity Kappa 9 for the most part. I have them leaning back with a 1.5 inch wedge. They really do hold their own.

[SEAWOLF97]

Glad you like yours .

My 65A's only were played a short time before moving on to 4410/4412/L-166 (all gone too)
Now very happy with 120Ti's & 250Ti's. (and ESS AMT's)
To me the 65's were worth more in resale than enjoyment.

I normally replace binding posts by rote, but those in the 65's were gonna be too much work.

Had L7's (yeah, different animals than L5's) and they lasted a little longer, maybe a year ..

Those 2 models are NOT among the ones that I now regret selling.

You asked, that's my honest opinion.

[speakerdave]

If you like your speakers you should just go ahead and enjoy them.

I would guess a goodly number of the members here have owned those speakers; I certainly had a pair for awhile.

There are more than two hundred threads here where that speaker is mentioned or discussed. Spending a pleasant hour or two reading in the LH archive would be very helpful, I do believe. Some people have owned the L65 for years and swear by them. Others have used them for awhile and moved on, out of perceived need, or just curiosity. I went from them to LSR32, still my TV speakers, 4333A, which I enjoyed very much, 4345's, very impressive and difficult to let go of, but I needed to to make room for my uber project of s.o.t.a. JBL and TAD drivers.

I hope you enjoy your journey as much as I have enjoyed mine.

[gasfan]

Thanks, guys. I had them for sale on CAM since I refoamed them and been listening to them in the mean time, hence my assessment. They have not sold. I suppose I'm asking too much. But the apparent market value of the 077s alone is upwards of 700. I offered them with 2405A for a reduced price. I'm now having second thoughts about selling them. They are in exceptional condition with new black grill cloth from Rick Cobb.

[BMWCCA]

Rick Cobb sells grille cloth?

I think a more apt comparison is the L65 and L7, not the L5. The problem with the L65 isn't just their sound (yeah they need a lift-kit) but the fact that the going rate is well beyond their sound value. That's driven by the value of the 077s, which isn't the L65's fault! But when you compare the sound from the L7 to that from the L65, the L7 cleans its clock and often for 1/3 the price, if not less. The "problem" with the L65 is they under-perform for their current market value. The attraction of the L7 is that they perform well above their current market value. That's not a slam on the L65. It'd be a very nice $600 speaker . . . if I didn't already own two-pair of L7s that cost less than $200.

[Donald]

2 things impressed me about my L65s when I first got them.

I hooked them up and threw on a CD. At the other end of the house my Dad said the windows were vibrating. The bass was impressive.

I was impressed by the high end. I describe it as cutting glass. Very sharp.

I think the system is under served by the mid-range. To me a horn would have been better.

[martin2395]

I found out that old JBL's with soft foam suspension are boomy when fed with an amp that has a low damping factor, old receivers and tube amps in particular.
They respond extermely well to heavy PA amps with DF>150 and benefit greatly from new, thicker internal wiring.

[gasfan]

Rick Cobb sells grille cloth?

I think a more apt comparison is the L65 and L7, not the L5. The problem with the L65 isn't just their sound (yeah they need a lift-kit) but the fact that the going rate is well beyond their sound value. That's driven by the value of the 077s, which isn't the L65's fault! But when you compare the sound from the L7 to that from the L65, the L7 cleans its clock and often for 1/3 the price, if not less. The "problem" with the L65 is they under-perform for their current market value. The attraction of the L7 is that they perform well above their current market value. That's not a slam on the L65. It'd be a very nice $600 speaker . . . if I didn't already own two-pair of L7s that cost less than $200.

Sorry, no. I got the cloth from Steve Barnes in Huntley, IL.

[gasfan]

I found out that old JBL's with soft foam suspension are boomy when fed with an amp that has a low damping factor, old receivers and tube amps in particular.
They respond extermely well to heavy PA amps with DF>150 and benefit greatly from new, thicker internal wiring.

The foams that were on them before had a very large radius and were very soft. No damping at all when tapping on the cone. Just a long sustained 'bong'. I have no idea how close to oem the new ones are but even the Fisher SA-100 I've been using controls them well.

[martin2395]

Original foams are indeed very, very soft and the cone wobbles a little when you tap on it.

[SEAWOLF97]

.

"I remember the L65 Jubal as an interesting speaker but sounding a bit too forward, even for a JBL, and the bass was "not quite right", a bit boomy. Is my recollection correct or what are your experiences with this particular speaker?"

Basically we would run around to every Jubal 65 port we saw and stuff the dirtiest sock we could find in it

Actually, it isn't a real good idea to "floor load" an LF transducer that is operating very high up into the frequency range. If you get the L65's a few feet off the floor they aren't so bad. Of course that kind of negates the "end-table configuration", yet another example of function following form

"And since we're on it, what are good mods for the L65, if any?"

Replace the whole mess with a 5.0 cubic foot floor standing enclosure loaded with a 2231/2235 mounted up off the floor and go, go, go!

[gasfan]

Original foams are indeed very, very soft and the cone wobbles a little when you tap on it.

The ones I replaced were also after market. I know they were wrong because there was no room left for the foam gaskets. These new ones damp them very well. For what they are, I can't fault these speakers in any way. They seem to do everything well. As far as forward sounding goes, I found the L5 to be that way with the titanium tweeter. They should have attenuators imo. I have a pair of Mission V-63 with soft dome tweeters that I actually prefer. But the L-pads on the L-65 render this issue moot, no? You can turn that tweeter right off if you want to.

[SEAWOLF97]

As far as forward sounding goes, I found the L5 to be that way with the titanium tweeter. They should have attenuators imo. I have a pair of Mission V-63 with soft dome tweeters that I actually prefer. But the L-pads on the L-65 render this issue moot, no?

I'm a fan of the 035Ti & 044Ti , but don't think it's the titanium that sounds forward. The 044Ti is somewhat reserved/polite/not in-your-face and IMHO , a bit more accurate. The lack of pots on the L80T to tame the 035 was part of my problem with that speaker. The 035 , while enjoyable , does not seem very "musical" (whatever that means).

As far as musical ..my daily drivers are a pair of a/d/s towers with the famous sticky dome tweeter that I think got used in many models. AFAIR , both members SPEAKERLABFAN & MR. WIDGET have a/d/s's and may chime in. Those seem "sweeter" and again more "musical" (still can't define it , but I know it when I hear it )

The problem with the L65 isn't just their sound (yeah they need a lift-kit) but the fact that the going rate is well beyond their sound value. That's driven by the value of the 077s, which isn't the L65's fault! But when you compare the sound from the L7 to that from the L65, the L7 cleans its clock and often for 1/3 the price, if not less. The "problem" with the L65 is they under-perform for their current market value. The attraction of the L7 is that they perform well above their current market value. That's not a slam on the L65. It'd be a very nice $600 speaker . . . if I didn't already own two-pair of L7s that cost less than $200.

I think Phil nailed that one. In addition, to me (and I've owned both) , the 120Ti is far superior to the much older L65 and not on anybody's radar and thus super ones (with boxes) are less than half the going rate of L65's. A real sleeper , IMHO.