Can´t decide - Can´t listen to them all. Please help!

[peter123]

Howdy! I am new here and this is my first post.
I am tempted to buy either a JBL L 65 or a JBL 4425.
I know, there are substernal differences (Pro vs consumer, Horn vs no-horn, 2way vs 3way).
However, I can't listen to both of them as they are both rare as hell in my country.
I am drawn towards the l 65 because of the nice look and the 077 tweeter, but I also read,
that the l65 has a shrill, tonal unbalanced sound and that the 4425 is a very fine speaker BUT
can be tiring when listening over long periods. I use a 7591 tube amp or a UREI 6260 amp.

I am a casual listener, however I like a some good imaging and sound stage and I don't like
shrill horn speakers - although, I've heard, that the 4425 sounds very pleasant with some amps.
I know, there is no general advice but since this forum here is the ultimate knowledge base, I thought i
give it a try. Right now, I listen on my 4311, and I like the sound, but I feel I need more

Any advice is appreciated!
Thank you

[SaturationPt]

Somewhat like asking which coffee you will like better or what color to paint your house.

The L65 series (there are three, with some differences L65, L65A, L65B) is a very nice piece of furniture that has JBL's period-standard midrange and woofer with an excellent tweeter, and is a very good speaker for a home.

The 4425 is an excellent 2-way monitor, that will be flatter and IMO more revealing but doesn't quite have the furniture-friendly look of their consumer speakers.

I'd choose the 4425 without question, my wife would have had me keep the L65s.

[peter123]

Somewhat like asking which coffee you will like better or what color to paint your house.

The L65 series (there are three, with some differences L65, L65A, L65B) is a very nice piece of furniture that has JBL's period-standard midrange and woofer with an excellent tweeter, and is a very good speaker for a home.

The 4425 is an excellent 2-way monitor, that will be flatter and IMO more revealing but doesn't quite have the furniture-friendly look of their consumer speakers.

I'd choose the 4425 without question, my wife would have had me keep the L65s.

Exactly the reply i expected and appreciate My only question would be: if you say more revealing: doesn't the 077 tweeter play a role in that comparison? I always thought, the higher the
tweeter goes, the better for a "revealing" sound. But I can be wrong ( I guess so)

[Mr. Widget]

Exactly the reply i expected and appreciate My only question would be: if you say more revealing: doesn't the 077 tweeter play a role in that comparison? I always thought, the higher the
tweeter goes, the better for a "revealing" sound. But I can be wrong ( I guess so)

As has been said many times on this forum and elsewhere, every speaker is a series of compromises. The L65 does have a great tweeter, but it is poorly positioned due to the low cabinet of the L65. The midrange is essentially the same driver as in the L100. Love it or hate it, that midrange is not the last word in transparency or accuracy. As for the bass, some versions have woofers that appeal to more people than others.

Aesthetically the 4429 requires an acquired taste at best. That said, it has a titanium compression driver that some find a bit harsh and lacking at the very extreme high end.


Widget

[Odd]

I think Mr. Widget meant to write 4425.

But the 4429 is very good.

[johnlcnm]

I think Mr. Widget meant to write 4425.

But the 4429 is very good.

I have one of the few pair of 4429's in the USA. Recently, I have developed a new appreciation for these replacements for the 4425. In the past I have always placed these speakers with the horns pointed towards the listener. Recently I tried repositioning them strait ahead. The imaging improved and the mid-range seams a lot smoother. The 29's don't quite make it into the 30Hz range, but probably into the mid 40's. I also have a pair of 4425's. The horns in these speakers are very flat. The imaging is also quite good, however, IMO the 2214 woofers have a problem making the connect with the horns. The crossover may be too high for that bass driver. The 4429 does a better job of connecting with the mid-horns. Crossover in the 4429 is 700Hz while the 4425 is 1200Hz.

[Mr. Widget]

I think Mr. Widget meant to write 4425.

But the 4429 is very good.

Yes …. Oops!


Widget

[markd51]

As has been said many times on this forum and elsewhere, every speaker is a series of compromises. The L65 does have a great tweeter, but it is poorly positioned due to the low cabinet of the L65. The midrange is essentially the same driver as in the L100. Love it or hate it, that midrange is not the last word in transparency or accuracy. As for the bass, some versions have woofers that appeal to more people than others.

Aesthetically the 4429 requires an acquired taste at best. That said, it has a titanium compression driver that some find a bit harsh and lacking at the very extreme high end.


Widget

Hello All,
Yep, like Widget says here, and in particular, many of these folks know, and many have forgotten more than I know about JBL.

As he mentions, every speaker is a series of compromises. From reading here over the years, all that is JBL has basically been un-earthed, dug up, and laid bare.

There are quite technical critics, and again here in particular, that can pick apart basically any speaker JBL ever made. Its good points, bad points, shortcomings-etc.

As for the 4425, it's not actually an "ugly" speaker, unusual with its Horn of course, but in walnut veneer, and the grill cover is place, it looks basically the same size-wise as many other 12" 2-way or 3-way Speakers.

Again, and like the L-65, either should be placed on some decent stands.

I wouldn't say the LE- Mids were bad, I don't think nobody here is referring that either. Just that there's better, or they like another better.

That actually, most here would pick apart many speakers, including all the 4300 Series. Some would say that yeah, the Horns (with Compression Drivers) can have a lot more of everything in regards to midrange frequencies, but also many were what was termed as being "Beamy". I gather in a nutshell that means "narrower dispersion".

There was no doubt very good reason JBL provided diffraction lenses with both home and pro models.

Mid Drivers like say the LE5-5 in the L-65 is surely not a bad speaker at all for what it is IMO. It can provide clean pleasing midrange sound, just don't expect a 5" driver to fill an auditorium full of sound. They are a home speaker.

The folks here can answer just about any question you may pose about JBL, so I will say you have come to the right place for many reasons.

But, what I would think would be a huge advantage for yourself and quite logical, I'm sure others here would agree, is if you could one day possibly hear some of these speakers you have interest in.

I know it would be impractical for you to drag your own gear along for the audition far away, but you will still probably know in short time whether you like the particular speaker you are inspecting-auditioning, or not for whatever reasons.

As for the 4425/L65 versus the 4311? I always felt the 4311 was a quite "anemic" thin sounding speaker. A sound characteristic I would not place upon the L65, and probably not the 4425 either. I think Greg Timbers was the one who designed the 4425.

[markd51]

Folks do highly revere the larger JBLs, as I reckon they were seen as their pinnacles of design and achievement.

"Anybody here, raise your hands if you wouldn't take yourself a mint pair of Hartsfields!?" LOL Or 4345's?

I reckon one JBL commandment is, "why have just a little bit of JBL, when you can have a lot more?!"

They sure made a lot of cool speakers over the years!

[peter123]

i understand. I am still looking out for other speakers to snatch up locally. So if anyone has another model in the 2000$ region he coud recommend - i would be thankful.

[RMC]

RE "IMO the 2214 woofers have a problem making the connect with the horns." (mentioned in two posts)

A short tentative explanation.

The theoretical upper limit for a 12" is 1.2 khz. (David Weems, Designing, Building and Testing your Own Speakers). On that basis the 2214 would be at the end of its rope MF bandwidth wise.

On the other hand, Eargle indicates that a 12" can be taken to 875 hz (DI 6 db), and an upper limit of 1313 hz (DI 10 db) (Loudspeaker Handbook, p. 113)

A Directivity Index of 6 db is often seen in Spec Sheets, while a DI 10 db is pretty stretched. So the woofer would then be more directional by the time it meets the horn. A narrow dispersion pattern (2214/1.2 khz) meeting a wide one (100°X100° constant directivity horn), which might explain the less than ideal sound connection perceived.

However, since the 4425 is designed to be a control monitor, the sound is often intended to target specifically the sitting recording engineer. While in a hi-fi setup such directional woofer behavior could be seen as an issue, in a control room the requirements can be different. Box placement directions probably take that into account.

Richard

[sebackman]

Even if I totally agree with RMC on that speakers may be designed to meet different demands and that studio speakers may not always be the perfect choice for domestic use, I would suggest to take a look at a pair of used LSR32/6332. Unless you are specifically looking for vintage JBL sound they are in a different league.

They work fine in home environment and are an absolute bargain on the secondary market as no one seem to know what to do with them. There is a pair for sale in Denmark right now. Give them a little help in the low end with a tone control or EQ and you have a very transparent and neutral speaker for coffee money IMHO.

I picked up pair from a studio and run them with the LSR12 subs in my office (overkill I know), but you don't really need the subs to be honest. I just happened to have two of them laying around.

We actually bough 2 pairs and a friend of mine has the second pair. Both of us do have variants of waveguide/driver (M2) style speakers to compare with and these are really good value and I would argue more neutral and transparent than most of the other speakers discussed above.

Kind regards
//Rob

[SaturationPt]

RMC is absolutely correct on the directivity requirements of monitors vs home speakers, in fact I've read JBL literature that talks about the monitors' design giving a narrow dispersion so that the sound not directed at the Engineer is significantly attenuated and produces much less energy for reflections in what JBL expects to often be a reflective / non-optimum room.

The LSR6332/LSR32 is a great monitor for the money (I prefer the 32's carbon-fiber baffle for the cool appearance) but IME does need a subwoofer. I was a bit disappointed in the LF rolloff of the LSR6312P as it doesn't add much to the bottom, but what frequencies it does do it does very well. We found the LSR6312P worked very well with the LSR6328P which are amazing for their size, but still near/mid-field monitors and highly directional (by design).

Decide whether you want to play to a single listener or "sweet spot" or fill a room with music, then choose a speaker design. I've had several designs that make a great pair of headphones.

[markd51]

It appears our friend Peter who started this thread did buy himself L65 Speakers. Congrats!

I think he related to me that the Bass Drivers need a re-foam and will do this very soon. If these are the L65A, then by right they should have the 122A Drivers. And of course hopefully the correct x-over network.

Are there any special notes on the 122A Driver, besides of course gluing the foam surround to the rear of the cone.

Were the cones on the 122A all the same diameter? I know the 126A had different diameter cones.

I gather that yes, the 122A also had a variety of cone size diameters.

[peter123]

It appears our friend Peter who started this thread did buy himself L65 Speakers. Congrats!

I think he related to me that the Bass Drivers need a re-foam and will do this very soon. If these are the L65A, then by right they should have the 122A Drivers. And of course hopefully the correct x-over network.

Are there any special notes on the 122A Driver, besides of course gluing the foam surround to the rear of the cone.

Were the cones on the 122A all the same diameter? I know the 126A had different diameter cones.

I gather that yes, the 122A also had a variety of cone size diameters.

I did and i am certainly very happy. All i need now is a decent foam kit (loonytune2001 - thanks to @markd51 for the hint).
However, i need to ask some very distantly related relatives to have them shipping the kit over to Europe. When that is done, ill have
them refoamed. Just looking at them makes me drool- what a georgeous piece of equipment