JBL 4311,4312,L100,etc.

Posted by: JSF13

JBL 4311,4312,L100,etc. - 03/10/04 10:14 PM

Anyone here have experience with these "studio monitor" JBL's?How do the m-60/m-80'S compare to these?
Posted by: JAS1

Re: JBL 4311,4312,L100,etc. - 03/10/04 10:53 PM

I replaced the JBL S312 Studio Series Towers, the S38 Studio Bookshelves, and the JBS S-Center with M80s, VP150, and the QS8s. The JBL speakers are not even close to the sound quality of the Axioms. I believe the JBLs you refer to were the replacement models for the ones I had.
Posted by: joema

Re: JBL 4311,4312,L100,etc. - 03/11/04 03:50 PM

I formerly owned Pioneer HPM-100 speakers, designed specifically to compete with the JBL L100/4310. I've heard L100s a lot, and have asked myself your exact question many times.

Unfortunately I can't do an A/B comparision since I no longer have the HPM-100s. But I've played the exact same stereo material on my Axiom M60s that I played many times on my HPM-100s, trying to determine are the Axioms better, just different, etc.

There's no question the L100 and HPM-100 were very impressive speakers for their time. With two 12" woofers (per pair), you definitely didn't need a sub. They were very efficient, probably equivalent to M60s in this regard. Overall my impression is my M60s are more accurate and playing the same material I hear things I never heard on the HPM-100s or L100s. OTOH those old speakers had a "kick you in the chest" impact that the M60s don't have (by themselves).

Augmented with my Hsu VTF-3R sub, the M60s are better in every way -- more accurate, better base, etc. JBL never published response curves for the L100, but I think other people tested them and they weren't stellar. It's the old controversy -- which counts more, good subjective sound or good numbers?

The NRCs research shows that a scientific objective approach to speaker design produces good sounding speakers. The L100 and HPM-100 certainly sounded impressive, and some people prize them even today. However given the choice I'd take my M60s over the L100 or HPM-100 any day. One caveat: if you're used to speakers like those old ones, you should probably have a sub, even with M60s.

Some related links:

HPM-100 pix:
http://www.fifartwc.rr.nu/~patrik/HPM-100
http://www.oldhifi.com/pioneerhpm100.jpg

History of L100:
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm
L100 Owner's Manual:
http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Owner%27s%20Manual/L100om.pdf
Posted by: JSF13

Re: JBL 4311,4312,L100,etc. - 03/11/04 07:26 PM

Thanks for the responses.Joe,sounds like you know exactly what I'm going through Thanks for the links also.
Posted by: Scottinwa

Re: JBL 4311,4312,L100,etc. - 08/20/14 12:59 PM

I was never impressed by the HPM except for sweet-ish treble. Ok sounding midfi. Overrated "vintage" speaker. I have owned the JBL 4312A (bad imaging, bass rolloff at 60hz) L80t and L100t.

L100t/L80t
The strong points: The aquaplas midrange was very detailed and transparent.
The bass was tight, and controlled. Extended treble. Very strong into the 30's.

The bad points: The Ti tweeter sounded AWFUL unless you have no-kidding quality solid state or tube front end. The bass sounded boxy unless carefully positioned. The speaker REALLY needed a STRONG 200wpc + to shine.

IIRC, the crossover used mylar caps or electrolytics with mylar bypasses. I'd swap out all equal value metallized polypropelene.

JBL never made a tweeter that I liked, certainly not as praiseworthy as what Axiom is using now.
Posted by: Scottinwa

Re: JBL 4311,4312,L100,etc. - 08/20/14 03:56 PM

Example: this is the crossover from the l100t. Note the small value mylar bypass caps.

Swapping all the caps out for metal poly will REALLY wake these speakers up.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7259/n100t.jpg

Sibilance has nothing to do with multiple drivers or arrangement. It's usually poor parts or stereo components.