JBL vs. AR

[heavyeleven]

Hope to acquire new pair of used "classic" speakers in near. Was looking for used AR3a's on e-bag when someone started me down the JBL road. Suggested L100 or L100t. How will these compare to the AR3a in sound quality? I listen to a mix of classical and popular, lotsa vinyl. My listening post is essentially a hard cube of approximate dimensions 14'x14'x8' - hardwood floors, no soft furniture, two draperied windows, coupla throw rugs. Presently my power comes from an ancient Kenwood KR 9400 receiver, supposedly 100+ w per side when it was new four decades ago. Have recently driven Bose 901 Series 3 satisfactorily.

Of the JBL's, how does the L100 compare to the L100t in sound quality? Any other strong reason to go with one over the other? Aquarius IV may also be an option. Where does that fit into the quality picture, against the L100 and L100t?

Will appreciate any comments.

[Don Mascali]

I had a pair of AR-3a speakers in the day. They were my first serious speakers. Now I have a pair of L-100 in my secondary listening, "Living Room".

Even though I haven't listened side by side, they couldn't be more different. You have the classic examples of the East Coast vs West Coast sound wars of the '60 and '70s. My dollars would vote JBL all the way. The ARs need tons of power to wake them up and L-100s can deliver punchy bass on a few watts.

I guess you could expect to hear that on a Lansing forum.

Good luck which ever way you go and remember, "If it sounds good to you, screw what anyone else thinks".

Don M

[Zilch]

HUH?

[Rusnzha]

I've had both. The L 100 totally smoked the 3A. Even a lesser L series speaker would do the same. But Don is right, let your own ears be the judge.

[Mr. Widget]

... L100 or L100t. How will these compare to the AR3a in sound quality?

The JBLs will have less deep bass, will be more efficient (play louder with a given amp), will have a punchier sound and be more in your face or aggressive. ( Some would call it more dynamic and alive sounding.) The AR's do need at least a solid 100 watts per channel, and have a smooth laid back sound. Neither of these speakers have very good highs.

The L100s and AR3a are so different you really need to decide what you are after in a loudspeaker. I don't think anyone can say that objectively one is better than the other.

Of the JBL's, how does the L100 compare to the L100t in sound quality? Any other strong reason to go with one over the other?

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...ead.php?t=5180

Aquarius IV may also be an option. Where does that fit into the quality picture, against the L100 and L100t?

No bass, no mids, no highs, not very dynamic... but oh what a cool looking package.

Widget

[Zilch]

I have some AR-3a's here painted with latex wall paint.

Take them, please....

[I should use the Kik-Step, anyway. It's safer....]

[mike]

Like everone has said the 3a and L100 are polar opposites. The 3a has a flatter frequency response and a much more laid back sound. The L100 is more colored , more forward and more dynamic. It's ultimately a matter of taste. One thing worth mentioning is that the 3a seems to have a lot of reliability issues.The high frequency drivers burn out fairly easily and in some cases even seem to wear out. The high frequency and mid frequency attenuator pots always need replaced or cleaned. The woofer foam will need replaced. L100's usually need the level pots cleaned or replaced but otherwise seem to hold up very well. Both are probably worth about the same amount of money.

Mike

[Titanium Dome]

I have some AR-3's here painted with latex wall paint.

Take them, please....

[I should use the Kick-Step, anyway. It's safer....]

What color? I need to know the color. Otherwise they might not match my plant stands.

Hold on a sec... What's that, dear? Ahh, oh, right, promised, right, so sorry Angel.

Zilch, never mind.

[alskinner]

As you can see many of us have had a bad AR day. Years ago I owned a pair of AR 10pi s and hate to say it but they were the epitome of throwing a wool blanket over a good speaker. Easy to listen to but boring and laid back. one of the tweeters went out and I replaced it with a radioshack piezo tweeter helped it a little but still couldn't wait to get rid of them. Went JBL and never looked back

AL

[Zilch]

I listen to a mix of classical and popular, lotsa vinyl.

In all seriousness, nothing you're considering is appropriate for that, except the L100t's maybe, which are very different from L100's. The others are notoriously inaccurate. The Aquarius MIGHT be suitable for background music, but only maybe.

In the "bookshelf" size three-ways, look for a pair of 4412's (preferred) or 4410's (not the later "A" versions of either, which aren't in wood veneer boxes, and don't have mid/high level controls). Both are smooth, accurate JBL studio monitors, a designation that actually still MEANS something.

Add a sub later, if you think they need it, after you get over the sheer pleasure of listening to these. We can provide good guidance there, as well.

[pmakres1]

In the mid-70's I owned a pair of AR-2ax's, I used to toast them regularly with my Crown DC-300 Amp. No sooner than I'd get them back from the factory, (AR was pretty good about replacing the woofers under warranty)
then I would toast them again, usually within 24hrs. I think AR knew my name by heart! I finally went JBL, and like alskinner I never turned back!

Very best to all,

Peter M.

[mike]

L100T's are pretty good speakers overall and you can probably get a pair for less than a pair of original L100's. Personally I'd recommend a pair of L110's.
These were sort of a replacement for the L100. They are smoother and more accurate with tighter bass but they retain the punchy and dynamic sound of the L100's. The L110's probably aren't as transparent as the L100T's but they sound more lively.

Mike

[majick47]

heavyeleven you won't be disappointed with any of the JBLs the members recommended. My experience with the "east coast" speakers (ads) was one big flop, they were totally lifeless, about the only thing they might excell at is playing funeral chapel background music.

[mikebake]

Don't know for sure what the recommendations given may cost you, but I bet they aren't much less/more than some 4430's. I hate to get on the 4430 bandwagon 24 years too late, but WTH.

[johnaec]

Of the JBL's, how does the L100 compare to the L100t in sound quality? Any other strong reason to go with one over the other?

Even though the model numbers are very similar, the systems themselves are very different! The L100 is a much older model - the technology in the L100T is far more advanced.

The 12" LF in the L100's use a corrugated surround while the L100T uses a foam surround, so the bass will go a lot deeper in the L100T, especially since the cabinet volume is also larger. Unfortunately, if it hasn't been replaced yet, there's a good chance the foam surrounds may be nearing replacement, (they start crumbling away). If you're good with your hands, you can do this yourself for about $25/pr. - detailed instructions with pics can be found with a search on the forum.

The HF unit is also completely different in the L100T. It's the 035TI, considered to be one of the best HF units JBL has produced. It's in a whole different league from the ones in the plain L100. The midrange is also a much newer design.

Lastly, the crossovers in the L100T are far more advanced than those in the L100.

All things considered, I'd definitely go with the L100T's - they're undeniably much more accurate than the plain L100's.

John