JBL CENTURY L-100 opinions pleaseMy [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : JBL CENTURY L-100 opinions pleaseMy



theebadone
06-25-2009, 01:16 PM
My neighbor of 20 years is moving soon and gave me a pair of jbl century l-100s, I was just wondering what your guys opinions are of these speakers. I have them hooked up to my mcintosh 2505 runnin a luxman cd player and they seem niceeeeee.:)

mlsstl
06-25-2009, 01:27 PM
These are a classic 70s rock & roll speaker. They are efficient, play loud and have the characteristic JBL "punchy" sound. However, not too many people think of them as a neutral speaker. Listeners tend to gravitate toward a "love 'em" or "hate 'em" response.

In short, they are a classic speaker with a fairly well established set of virtues and flaws. If their strengths happen to line up with the traits you like in a speaker, you're good to go.

luvtolisten
06-25-2009, 04:14 PM
I remember those speakers well, a friend of mine had a pair back in the 70's. I would consider them a "Classic", a well known speaker from that era, or perhaps the most well known JBL. A great value! Congratulations! Enjoy!

MikeyBC
06-25-2009, 06:08 PM
Here is some more info on these speakers and how to upgrade them.

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/JBL_L100.htm

luvtolisten
06-26-2009, 06:05 AM
Another tweak, and a lot of bang for your buck is to replace the caps on the crossovers with "Jantzen Standards" capacitors from Parts Express. You will hear a difference. I've done it with older speakers, and budget speakers and it really improved the sound.

Feanor
06-26-2009, 06:50 AM
Here is some more info on these speakers and how to upgrade them.

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/JBL_L100.htm

The new crossover network proposed there ought to make a huge improvement over the original. Not only a smoother frequency response, but much lower distortion.

hwirt
06-26-2009, 08:23 AM
Theebadone

Here’s a contemporaneous review of the L100, the font is small but if you zoom in it can be read.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/Hwirt/Stereo%20Equipment/jbl_l100_doc_01.jpg

theebadone
06-26-2009, 11:12 PM
thanks for all the info

theebadone
07-04-2009, 10:01 PM
Another question, will modifying these speakers hurt their value in any way.

MikeyBC
07-05-2009, 01:12 AM
Maybe to a collector who likes their original sound, mint pairs are selling around 400-500 bucks.

thekid
07-05-2009, 01:36 AM
Nice pick-up and a great neighbor!

I have never heard a pair of these but it interesting reading the info on that great link and in that copy of Stereo Review. I was surprised that as big a seller as they were I have never run across a pair in the thrift stores. most likely that reflects their popularity and quality. While a big fan of the "New England" sound I will certainly keep my eyes open for a pair.

Feanor
07-05-2009, 02:30 AM
Another question, will modifying these speakers hurt their value in any way.

That's a tough question. But the value of a used L100 isn't super high to begin with, so I would say that if you make a recognized crossover upgrade such as the one referred to earlier in this thread that their will be no decrease in value, possibly even an increases.

thekid
07-05-2009, 03:04 AM
That's a tough question. But the value of a used L100 isn't super high to begin with, so I would say that if you make a recognized crossover upgrade such as the one referred to earlier in this thread that their will be no decrease in value, possibly even an increases.

I would agree with Feanor on that issue. I have only vintage speakers and whenever I post something about a particular speaker on another site that is more dedicated to vintage gear than AR almost the first response everytime is to do a re-cap. I think it would add value since most prospective buyers would appreciate the upgrade, especially if they saw/heard the improvement based on the link provided nby MikeyBC.

luvtolisten
07-05-2009, 04:44 AM
Another question, will modifying these speakers hurt their value in any way.

Modify no, Replace the capacitors, yes! It's the weak link, caps tend to leak and degrade over time. I would recommend the Jantzen Standards, from PartsExpress. Not too bad on the wallet and good quality.

filecat13
07-21-2009, 06:30 PM
My first new speakers were JBL L100s in 1970. I scrimped and saved, then put them on layaway at Woodville appliance in Toledo until I could pay them off. I loved them then and love them now. Still have the original pair, though I've got a ton of much better speakers.

No speaker has given me more pleasure over the years, 'though many have given me better sound.

-----------------------------------

Some JBL aficionados look down on them but that's why we have this smilie:

:dita:

Hey, guys! :ciappa:

Feanor
07-22-2009, 05:24 AM
My first new speakers were JBL L100s in 1970. I scrimped and saved, then put them on layaway at Woodville appliance in Toledo until I could pay them off. I loved them then and love them now. Still have the original pair, though I've got a ton of much better speakers.

...

Ah, yes, filecat13. You're the guy with the huge JBL collect. :thumbsup:

I've never be much of a JBL fan myself, but hey, I respect a guy with focus. :wink5:

E-Stat
07-22-2009, 07:46 AM
My first new speakers were JBL L100s in 1970...No speaker has given me more pleasure over the years, 'though many have given me better sound.
I feel the same way about Advents. My first pair was purchased in '72. :)

rw

filecat13
07-22-2009, 11:11 AM
Ah, yes, filecat13. You're the guy with the huge JBL collect. :thumbsup:

I've never be much of a JBL fan myself, but hey, I respect a guy with focus. :wink5:

You're very kind. You could have gone to "obsessed" or "fanatical" or "delusional" but you didn't. Mercí.

filecat13
07-22-2009, 11:17 AM
Theebadone

Here’s a contemporaneous review of the L100, the font is small but if you zoom in it can be read.


I still recall Michael Marcus writing in Rolling Stone that the "L100 can knock you on your ass" and causing enough of a stir that JBL credits that review with adding 10,000 pairs to L100 sales at the time.

E-Stat
07-22-2009, 11:38 AM
I still recall Michael Marcus writing in Rolling Stone that the "L100 can knock you on your ass" and causing enough of a stir that JBL credits that review with adding 10,000 pairs to L100 sales at the time.
The 3 db peak at 60 hz did just that. A similar boost centered around 5k also enhanced it's "brilliance". There is no question they were one of the most successful speakers in history. It was the quintessential rock speaker. As for me, I preferred a speaker with less "personality" and better first octave performance. :)

rw

hwirt
07-31-2009, 03:04 AM
The 3 db peak at 60 hz did just that. A similar boost centered around 5k also enhanced it's "brilliance". There is no question they were one of the most successful speakers in history. It was the quintessential rock speaker. As for me, I preferred a speaker with less "personality" and better first octave performance. :)

rw

The review made no mention of the two peaks you describe, see quotes.

“The integrated frequency response of the JBL L100 (with its controls set at “0”) was unusually smooth and flat within +/- 3 db from 55 to almost 17000 Hz. The bass response fell off smoothly below 60 Hz but was still effective down to 45 Hz.”

“Our simulated live –vs- recorded test which is in effect a test for flat response from 200 Hz on up was a real ear opener. Most of the time we were unable to detect the change-over from the original sound to its reproduction through the L100. In this important though not definitive test the JBL L100 ranks with the most accurate speaker we have tested- certainly no other has been better.”

emaidel
07-31-2009, 04:28 AM
I remember that review quite clearly, and like most in the industry, was astonished that Stereo Review made the claims that they did on the L-100. Though immensely popular, especially so for a relatively expensive speaker, other than rock fans, few audio enthusiasts liked the L-100 because of its obvious coloration. There was no question though about its construction, which was typically first-rate, as all JBL's were in the day. It was also the first speaker to use foam as a grille material. Foam was the most acoustically inert grille material around at the time, and the L-100's "egg-crate" foam grille was available in several colors. No one knew then that the foam would eventually rot, just as the foam surrounds on speakers do, but there was no doubt that the L-100 was a great looking speaker.

JBL took a different approach around 1978-79 when the L-100 was discontinued, and a newer model, the L-110, appeared. The L-110 was an attempt by JBL to produce a "neutral," or "flat" loudspeaker, but failed miserably and sounded awful. The 4311 (not the 4310, as a previous post stated) was the "studio monitor" version of the L-100, which consistently outsold the L-110, and by a huge margin.

hwirt
07-31-2009, 05:10 AM
Interesting, can you point to any references to refresh our memories? I also recall the review quite clearly but not the other things.

Luvin Da Blues
07-31-2009, 05:27 AM
Interesting, can you point to any references to refresh our memories? I also recall the review quite clearly but not the other things.

LOL, emaidel IS our local reference.

E-Stat
07-31-2009, 05:36 AM
The review made no mention of the two peaks you describe, see quotes.
“The integrated frequency response of the JBL L100 (with its controls set at “0”) was unusually smooth and flat within +/- 3 db from 55 to almost 17000 Hz. The bass response fell off smoothly below 60 Hz but was still effective down to 45 Hz.”
There is nothing inconsistent with the numbers nor my recollection of the sound. Yes, it fell off smoothly below 60 hz (after the peak!) and was within +/- 3 db (which allows for 6 db variations).

When you compare its sound to that of live music, you'll note the popular peaks. Ironically, its replacement, the L110, wasn't nearly as popular because - they removed the peaks! A friend of mine has some 110s which I prefer. Although they have peculiar imaging due to the unusually high crossover point for the tweeter. The 5" midrange operates up to 5 kHz where it gets very directional. The tweeter, by comparison has very good dispersion. The effect for instruments that span both drivers is like the audio equivalent of a fun house mirror. Image width is pinched in the lower registers and opens up as you move up through the octaves.

rw

Feanor
07-31-2009, 05:44 AM
The review made no mention of the two peaks you describe, see quotes.

“The integrated frequency response of the JBL L100 (with its controls set at “0”) was unusually smooth and flat within +/- 3 db from 55 to almost 17000 Hz. The bass response fell off smoothly below 60 Hz but was still effective down to 45 Hz.”

“Our simulated live –vs- recorded test which is in effect a test for flat response from 200 Hz on up was a real ear opener. Most of the time we were unable to detect the change-over from the original sound to its reproduction through the L100. In this important though not definitive test the JBL L100 ranks with the most accurate speaker we have tested- certainly no other has been better.”

Yeah, that's what they said. Personally I was always able to judge by ear that, in comparison with other speakers of the day such as the AR3a, that this JBL and others were colored.

Earlier in this thread MikeyBC provided an excellent link that corroborated the L100's coloration, and suggested a reason and a solution for it. Basically the crossover in the L100 is primitive and largely responsible for the problem ... http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/JBL_L100.htm

Since the revival of my interest in hifi seven years or so ago, it has become clear to me that many audiophiles like the sound they like because they like it, not because it is truly more accurate reproduction. Hence it's not surprising that rock enthusiast Stereo Review staff lauded the L100 despite its flaws obvious to me as a non-Rock listener.

hwirt
07-31-2009, 06:12 AM
The review does not mention this but Julian Hirsch said at that time that Stereo Review used an AR system as his live reference; can't remember the exact model but is was one of AR's best at that time. So in the opinion of this reviewer "Most of the time we were unable to detect the change-over from the original sound to its reproduction" the two speakers sound very much alike.

I'm mostly in agreement with the comments made, my point is only that the L100 was considered (at least by Stereo Review) to be an "accurate" speaker in comparison to its contemporaries. By today’s standards certainly not.

L110Nut
07-31-2009, 12:37 PM
JBL took a different approach around 1978-79 when the L-100 was discontinued, and a newer model, the L-110, appeared. The L-110 was an attempt by JBL to produce a "neutral," or "flat" loudspeaker, but failed miserably and sounded awful.

Now, I wouldn't go as far to say JBL "failed miserably" and the L110 "sounded awful"!!

I can listen to the L110 all day long and get no listener fatigue. Try the same thing with the L100, there is just no way that you can listen to them with their controls set at neutral. I have to turn the Presence control all the way down to 1 and the Brilliance control to 2 on the L100s in order to make them pleasant to listen to. I do enjoy the bass boost of the L100s. Overall the L110 is a much more accurate speaker and has a much better sound stage. I would have say it's almost 3 dimensional.

Larry
Who's a newby here

hwirt
07-31-2009, 02:04 PM
Here is some info that may explain the peaks (coloration) some experienced when comparing the L100 to the AR3a. Look closely at the graphs and note the -8Db dips centered at about 85 Hz and 8 Khz. Also note the comment on the primitive crossover typical of that era.

The Acoustic Research AR3a
I recently restored a pair of the classic Acoustic Research AR3a speakers, circa 1970. The deep bass is still very impressive, but by modern standards, the crossover is pretty primitive, and that, together with the ad hoc driver placement resulted in severe cancellation modes in the mid-highs. The woofer also had a big hump at the top of its range, which colored the sound. Still, it sounds better than you might think.

Here are the measurements:

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/Hwirt/Stereo%20Equipment/AR3a_room_small-1.gif

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/Hwirt/Stereo%20Equipment/AR3a_on-axis_small-1.gif

Cigarjohn
07-31-2009, 02:12 PM
I've personally never heard the sounds of them, but I hear there great. I personally still use the JBL Decade L36's.

Peace!

markw
07-31-2009, 02:41 PM
But I would never call them accurate. They are great for rock and roll but for classical? Nah!

(pssst.... I run L-26's on my vintage system, but accuracy isn't my goal here.)

E-Stat
07-31-2009, 07:40 PM
The 4311 (not the 4310, as a previous post stated) was the "studio monitor" version of the L-100, which consistently outsold the L-110, and by a huge margin.

<a href="http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/specs/pro-speakers/1978-4311/page03.jpg">Note the peaks JBL measured</a href>! Hmmm. :)

(Click pic for larger version)

rw

E-Stat
07-31-2009, 07:48 PM
Now, I wouldn't go as far to say JBL "failed miserably" and the L110 "sounded awful"!!
Nor would I. The pair I heard vs. some tweaked Advents sounded very neutral tonally and had better high frequency extension. As I noted earlier, however, the choice to run the 5" midrange up to 5 kHz ended up compromising the shape of the soundstage. While the tweeter has wonderful dispersion, the frequencies just below it delivered by the 5 incher are notable narrower resulting in a peculiar hour glass shaped image from a frequency perspective.

rw

atomicAdam
07-31-2009, 09:37 PM
damn you guys are getting primitive on this thread. making us (me) young'in feel, young.

almost wonder, $500 here, $500 there, would it be worth the lesson to drop a K or 2 to learn some history?

What amp CD player to match? Anything worth it's weight in....gold? or how much it would hurt if you got hit by a flying version?

emaidel
08-01-2009, 03:56 AM
LOL, emaidel IS our local reference.

Well, thank you!

For a very brief period in my career (about six months or so) I was a manufacturer's representative with a firm in New England. The lines we represented were JBL, Micro Acoustics and Soundcraftsmen. It was then that the L-110 had recently been introduced, and I recall quite well how poorly it did with all of our dealers, how those dealers regretted the discontinuance of the L-100, and how well the 4311 did.

My partner in that firm loved the L-110, and lent me his sample pair for a personal evaluation. I was using the same speakers I'm using today - the Dahlquist DQ-10's - and he readily invited me to do a comparison between the two, expecting me to be dazzled by the L-110. I did that comparison while I had several other friends in the industry over my place that day, and all of us thought the L-110 sounded awful, and that the DQ-10 just stomped all over it.

I had no problem selling JBL speakers, even though I owned, and preferred, something else. Their manufacturing quality was always second to none, and their driver-build quality was top notch too. One either liked the sound of a JBL speaker, or didn't, but no one ever criticized JBL's oustanding workmanship.

hwirt
08-01-2009, 08:15 AM
<a href="http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/specs/pro-speakers/1978-4311/page03.jpg">Note the peaks JBL measured</a href>! Hmmm. :)

(Click pic for larger version)

rw

I guess it all boils down to whether you like medium size peaks or big dips. :)

L100

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/Hwirt/Stereo%20Equipment/1000.jpg

AR3a

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/Hwirt/Stereo%20Equipment/AR3a_room_small-1.gif

Luvin Da Blues
08-01-2009, 08:26 AM
Well, thank you!

Yer welcome. I've always been impressed with the level of detail you can recall from years back (assuming your not working from crib notes, LOL). Cheers

Luvin Da Blues
08-01-2009, 08:28 AM
I guess it all boils down to whether you like medium size peaks or big dips. :)

I don't LIKE either. I'm thinking "can tolerate" would be a better term. :)

hwirt
08-01-2009, 08:49 AM
I don't LIKE either. I'm thinking "can tolerate" would be a better term. :)


Agreed, thankfully technology has come a long way since the 70's.

L110Nut
08-02-2009, 01:21 PM
Nor would I. The pair I heard vs. some tweaked Advents sounded very neutral tonally and had better high frequency extension. As I noted earlier, however, the choice to run the 5" midrange up to 5 kHz ended up compromising the shape of the soundstage. While the tweeter has wonderful dispersion, the frequencies just below it delivered by the 5 incher are notable narrower resulting in a peculiar hour glass shaped image from a frequency perspective.

rw

FYI the L110 crosses over at 4 kHz between the midrange and the tweeter. I think you are mistaken on L110's dispersion characteristics. Here's a quote from the review on the L110 from the July 1979 issue of High Fidelity:

"Dispersion is exceptionally good, which keeps the tonal balance consistent over a wide listening area. The stereo image, which we judged to be quite good, also holds up well as you move about in the room. These properties usually are regarded as desiderata of speaker design in this country (though not elsewhere, as witness two other reports in this issue), as are the open, airy quality of the sound and even what we have called it's gutsiness. JBL has built on the values that have made its speakers so successful in the past and given us, in the L110, a contempory model that surely will delight a great many listeners."

Here's a link to a graph of the L110's dispersion characteristics along with other characteristics of the system: http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4552

I also believe that edmaidel, comparing the Dahlquist DQ-10 to the JBL L110, was actually comparing apples to oranges! Were the L110s on the floor along side the DQ-10s or were they up on stands? The DQ-10 is a 5-way system with a 12" woofer, a subwoofer and a passive or active crossover network. In saying that the L110s sounded "awful", I think you must have been prejudiced to begin with. Your partner obviously thought highly of them.

In my opinion the L110 is a much better loudspeaker than the L100. The L110(A) is a refinement of the orignal L110, which takes away the orginal L110's gutsiness making it a much smoother sounding system.

E-Stat
08-02-2009, 04:33 PM
FYI the L110 crosses over at 4 kHz between the midrange and the tweeter.
My mistake. At least it is lower than the Century's 6 khz figure. That's still too high for a 5" cone midrange. Most tweeters today operate above 2 kHz.


I think you are mistaken on L110's dispersion characteristics...Here's a link to a graph of the L110's dispersion characteristics along with other characteristics of the system.
The vertical polar response (fig. 6) supports what my ears tell me very well. Look at the dreadful response at 2 kHz which would surely be as bad until the tweeter took over an octave higher. By 4 kHz, the tweeter opens things back out.


The DQ-10 is a 5-way system with a 12" woofer, a subwoofer and a passive or active crossover network.
Now it is you who are mistaken. The woofer is physically the same as the 10" (actually 9.5" cone) used by the Advent. It used the 10" woofer until 400hz, then a 5" driver until 1 kHz (the right way to do it), a dome midrange until 5 kHz, a dome tweeter until 12.5 kHz, then the piezo above that. It is a more coherent sounding speaker.


In my opinion the L110 is a much better loudspeaker than the L100.
Agree completely. As one who values coherency very high, however, I prefer Advents to the 110s despite the fact that the 110s have better top end response. It was in direct comparison to Advents that I was immediately aware of the peculiar imaging.

rw

emaidel
08-03-2009, 04:08 AM
I also believe that edmaidel, comparing the Dahlquist DQ-10 to the JBL L110, was actually comparing apples to oranges! Were the L110s on the floor along side the DQ-10s or were they up on stands? The DQ-10 is a 5-way system with a 12" woofer, a subwoofer and a passive or active crossover network. In saying that the L110s sounded "awful", I think you must have been prejudiced to begin with. Your partner obviously thought highly of them.

.


I was comparing one loudspeaker to another, as per my partner's request. He genuinely expected me to prefer the L-110 to the DQ-10, but I didn't, nor did any of the other three industry members present at the time. JBL made stands for the L-110, which I used, and I disconnected the subwoofer for the listenting "test" so as not to have that alter the overall perspective. My amp at the time was a Luxman L-110 integrated unit, which actually gave the JBL L-110 an advantage over the DQ-10, as it generally prefers an amp of much higher wattage and current. I had hoped to at least like the L-110, as I was selling JBL loudspeakers at the time, but didn't, nor did any of my dealers. Still, there were, and are, those who like it, and that's fine by me too.

E-Stat
08-03-2009, 05:23 AM
I guess it all boils down to whether you like medium size peaks or big dips. :)
First of all, I've always thought the 3a sounded dull. As did the LST that followed. While the JBL's response was performed in an anechoic chamber, I doubt your graph was done likewise. Room response is a different animal.

rw

hwirt
08-03-2009, 12:38 PM
First of all, I've always thought the 3a sounded dull. As did the LST that followed. While the JBL's response was performed in an anechoic chamber, I doubt your graph was done likewise. Room response is a different animal.

rw

The second graph in post 29 is on axis anechoic response; the low frequency cut off is a 200 Hz. Note the big dip (in the center of the big valley) at 8.5 kHz, looks to be about -12.5 db. The room response actually looks better about -8db (in the center of the big valley). Between the two speakers, the L100 would be much easier to correct using a graphic EQ.

I can recall that AR had an advertisement showing the response curves of the individual drivers tested in a fixture in an anechoic chamber. When the curves were spliced together on a graph the response looked great. But as the author said in post 29 “ together (the poor crossover) with the ad hoc driver placement resulted in severe cancellation modes in the mid-highs” This really made a mess of things. At the time I thought they were great sounding speakers; I liked the L100 better, looking at the curves I can see why.

E-Stat
08-03-2009, 01:01 PM
The second graph in post 14 is on axis anechoic response; the low frequency cut off is a 200 Hz.
I trust you mean post 29. This is a test of a late 60s speaker done in 2000? Anyway, it certainly doesn't look like the graphs Acoustic Research published. No matter. As I indicated, I prefer Advents, especially when doubled. Here (http://www.kallhovde.com/advent/speaker-reviews.pdf) is an ancient test of the speaker. Note the text indicating the peak at 120 hz was attributed to the room and that the HF response (and anomalies) above 6 kHz tracked with the microphone calibration curve.

rw

hwirt
08-03-2009, 01:21 PM
Read the reviews; pretty impressive. Comparing the Advent to the L100 when tested by Julian Hirsch assuming similar test setups:

Advent +/- 6db 30Hz to 15 kHz.

L100 +/- 3db 55 Hz to 17 kHz.

They match up closely but the JBL was much more efficient and had greater power handling. (was also more expensive)

At the time I recommended the large Advents to my friends that could not afford the JBL’s

Feanor
08-03-2009, 01:31 PM
I trust you mean post 29. This is a test of a late 60s speaker done in 2000? Anyway, it certainly doesn't look like the graphs Acoustic Research published. No matter. As I indicated, I prefer Advents, especially when doubled. Here (http://www.kallhovde.com/advent/speaker-reviews.pdf) is an ancient test of the speaker. Note the text indicating the peak at 120 hz was attributed to the room and that the HF response (and anomalies) above 6 kHz tracked with the microphone calibration curve.

rw

In the era of those Advent review, I was just getting into hifi. My first speaker was the Dynaco A25; I soon traded up (?) to AR7, and subsequently AR5. I considered the Advent an also-ran design, though I never owned it -- if I had I might have felt differently.

Yes, the ARs generally sounded a bit rolled off at the top end. After the AR5, (circa 1973), I went to Braun L-710, (basically the same as ADS versions); this was a flatter speaker in my recollection.

E-Stat
08-03-2009, 01:59 PM
I After the AR5, (circa 1973), I went to Braun L-710, (basically the same as ADS versions); this was a flatter speaker in my recollection.
You and I have followed similar paths. Following double Advents purchased in '72, I went to the Braun LV-1020 in '74 which was an active, tri-amped version of the 710 using a single 12" woofer instead of the dual 7" woofers. The dome midrange found in both ensured very uniform polar response from 550 hz upward. I replaced those two years later with Maggies. :)

rw