4312B v L100?

[MR Bubble]

Hey all, I've owned a pair of JBL 4312B's for close to 20 years and still love them. We all can agree the sound stage isn't the best here and the "sweet spot is about 6 inches with the planets all lined up just right. But good lord, those beautiful, detailed highs and mids...

Anyhow, I can remember the L100's somewhat throughout my history, but I can't quite remember how good they were. You know, a memory thing. I do remember choosing the 4312's over the L100 T's at time of purchase, and do remember the adjustable crossovers were the real deciding factor (for versatility). Now, I'm faced with an expensive re-coning in the near future, while at the same time, have bee hearing a lot about the old L100. My question is for anyone who has owned both, or compared the two (4312B vs L100), how do they compare with each other? How does the old paper coned tweeter stack against the titanium? Which one gives the wider sound stage? Or do they both bite at this equally? Should I pay the $500 for a re-coning on the 4312's or procure a very nice condition pair of L100's? Are there any drawbacks, other than the grills? Oh, by the way, the cones on the L100's I'm looking at are pristine.

Thanks for the help, and thanks to the forum members for helping choose the Cambridge 540 CD player a couple months ago!

MR Bubble

[matt39]

I can't help any from my own experience but I can suggest that you check over at Audiokarma (www.audiokarma.org) which is a site for vintage equipment. There are a lot of JBL guys there and they are pretty nice about helping out. You might be able to get some advice on diy reconing too. There is a vintage forum here too as well as one on Audio Asylum. Hope this helps.
Gary

[E-Stat]

My question is for anyone who has owned both, or compared the two (4312B vs L100), how do they compare with each other?
While I haven't heard the 4312, I am familiar with the L100. It was considered the rock music reference in the 70s because of the peaks in the upper bass and lower highs. Lots 'o punch and sizzle. I suspect the 4312 is more neutral in its sonic character. Depends what you seek.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While I haven't heard the 4312, I am familiar with the L100. It was considered the rock music reference in the 70s because of the peaks in the upper bass and lower highs. Lots 'o punch and sizzle. I suspect the 4312 is more neutral in its sonic character. Depends what you seek.

rw

Actually the 4312 is voiced quite simular to the L100. Its no more neutral than the L100 is

[MR Bubble]

Judging by the responses, is it safe to assume that as far as staying with classic JBL's I'm not really missing much with the 4312's? Well, other than the thought of owning something considered "More special."

MR Bubble

[E-Stat]

Actually the 4312 is voiced quite simular to the L100. Its no more neutral than the L100 is
Thanks for the correction. For some reason, I thought it was more like the L-110 which is more neutral.

rw

[CharlieBee]

You should be able to place the surrounds for about $25. If you need to recone more.

Charlie

[emaidel]

I'm not familiar with the 4312, but I know that the "professional" version of the L-100 was the 4311. All are of the same general vintage, and image was hardly JBL's specialty at that time. Whereas there were only cosmetic, and no aural, differences between the 4311 and the L-100, I don't know what the differences were between the 4311 and the 4312, though I suspect the overall differences were small. There was a decided "family" kind of sound throughout the entire JBL line for a while.