JBL L100t3 - Classic Vintage 3 way vs. Modern Speakers

zieglj01

zieglj01

Audioholic Spartan
I've been doing some light research and it seems no one can agree which one is best. I'm just wanting to find one that has real cannons, and doesn't distort (maybe that's impossible with my equipment, it wasn't that loud though).
Hard to really find no distortions at all - and with human nature, hard to agree on what is best.
A good way to test both music and voices for your speakers.
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
I have a pair of JBL L100t3's. I've been satisfied with mine since I purchased them new in 1987. Someone alluded to these earlier as being a 3 way system with 15 inch woofer, the JBL L100t3's have 12 inch woofers. I am now refoaming mine.

Interestingly, these speakers often come up on eBay. I think getting a pair of these in mint condition anywhere in the vicinity of a thousand dollars is a bargain. If these were still made today they'd cost about five thousand dollars-for sure. I have not been interested in purchasing anything since I bought my L100t3's, having yet to hear anything that sounds better except for a pair of JBL 4435's played really loud in a studio environment.
 
C

CNguyen777

Audiophyte
Wonderful jbl speakers. I have a pair of l100t3 and love them. They sound even better with a pair of bose 901 eq.
 
B

bonejob

Audioholic Intern
I haven't heard them but there is a lot to be said for three way speakers that feature a 15" woofer in a big enclosure. People don't want big speakers any more, it seems. I know my wife doesn't. I wouldn't worry about the crossovers assuming they are working OK and the drivers should be fine. I would expect them to perform pretty well even when compared to current day speakers.
The JBL L100's used a 12" woofer, not 15". What's more, the woofers used accordion-pleat surrounds, not foam. If someone owns an L100 with foam surrounds, they are not original.

As for the woofers being too big for their enclosures, keep in mind that the L100 was the home version of JBL's classic 4311 compact (for the time) studio monitor. These were tuned for tight and accurate bass and high efficiency, not low bass extension.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
 
B

bonejob

Audioholic Intern
Wonderful jbl speakers. I have a pair of l100t3 and love them. They sound even better with a pair of bose 901 eq.
Seriously? The Bose EQ is tailored for only the Bose 901 speakers. The Bose EQ consists of a HUGE bass boost and a slightly less huge treble boost - the classic (or notorious, depending on one's viewpoint) "smile" equalization curve.

I can't wrap my head around this setup sounding at all good. I liked these speakers too, but played flat (little or no tone or EQ), like God and the designers at JBL intended.

Moreover, I'm surprised you haven't blown your tweeters - they weren't designed for what you are doing. Neither were the woofers, for that matter. But if they stand up to this mistreatment, it speaks well for the robustness of JBL's design.

Oh well... If you love how they sound this way, don't listen to me. But I'm just saying... I just don't get it. It's as if maybe you're putting me on...

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
The JBL L100's used a 12" woofer, not 15". What's more, the woofers used accordion-pleat surrounds, not foam. If someone owns an L100 with foam surrounds, they are not original.

As for the woofers being too big for their enclosures, keep in mind that the L100 was the home version of JBL's classic 4311 compact (for the time) studio monitor. These were tuned for tight and accurate bass and high efficiency, not low bass extension.
I think you're confused about fmw's response. He was responding to inquiry about the L100t3, which is not anything like the JBL L100 other than they are both made by JBL and are 3-way speakers they share no significant similarities. The L100t3 does have foam surrounds. When we received them the had succumb to dry rot so we had them re-foamed. They also feature a 1" titanium dome tweeter instead of the paper one found in the L100. The enclosure size of the L100t3 is significantly larger as well.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
Oh well... If you love how they sound this way, don't listen to me. But I'm just saying... I just don't get it. It's as if maybe you're putting me on...
There's a lot of people who like "smile" EQ settings. Those people are not concerned with accuracy. To be perfectly honest I still like how these JBL speakers sound, especially with the bass tuned hot. After everything I've considered regarding these speakers I would not buy them for accuracy, I would buy them for their larger than life sound. Since I can't say I would regularly enjoy that type of listening, they wouldn't serve much purpose to me in my home. Others may feel differently and that is fine.
 
B

bonejob

Audioholic Intern
There's a lot of people who like "smile" EQ settings. Those people are not concerned with accuracy. To be perfectly honest I still like how these JBL speakers sound, especially with the bass tuned hot. After everything I've considered regarding these speakers I would not buy them for accuracy, I would buy them for their larger than life sound. Since I can't say I would regularly enjoy that type of listening, they wouldn't serve much purpose to me in my home. Others may feel differently and that is fine.
Points well taken. That said, from my perspective, speakers designed or otherwise made "larger than life" are fatiguing - even outright unpleasant to listen to for any length of time. Why spend for good low-distortion electronics, good turntables, top-end (or even mid-fi) cd players with separate DAC's, etc. if you are going to listen to it all distorted through speakers that are the aural equivalent of circus fun-house mirrors? People are of course free to listen to whatever they like however they like it, but I have to say, I just don't get it.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
He did, on two counts. Just a few quick words from him and I'm no longer interested in taking the JBLs home. Company policies would have had me stuck with them if I bought them and I can't demo them at home first either. It would have been a royal pain in the arse anyway.

He also found this for me.

http://www.amazon.com/1812-Overture-Capriccio-Italien-Wellingtons/dp/B000PMFTE0
Yes, Seth did ask me to recommend an 1812 with real cannon. In this case bronze cannon made at Douai France and the same cannon use by Napoleon in 1812 at Moscow. The recording also includes the carillon at the Riverside Church New York.

This was my reply to Seth.

Funnily enough, by far the best version of what you are looking for comes from the fifties!

This is by far the best and has the most realistic cannon shots. The performance is also the best.

There is nothing to touch this one.



Back then the Minnesota Orchestra was the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra.

These Mercury Living presence recordings were made by the legendary Robert Fine, and his wife, Wilma Cozart. The recordings were made on Ampex machines, this one a two track. Microphones were spaced Telefunken omnis. This Telefunken outfit morphed into Neumann.

His wife when she was nearly a hundred years old remastered these great recordings for the Digital age. She had a vintage Ampex machine tweaked to perfection by a Japanese specialist.

She did a remarkable job of remastering.

A lot of these Mercury Living presence recordings were originally recorded in three channel, left, center, right. These were either three track Ampex magnetic tape, or three track optical recorders. Wilma Cozart remastered these for SACD, and they are fantastic.

On the CD is the history of the recording of the old cannons and the historic cannons for Beethoven's Wellington's Victory.

This is a fun disc and the fidelity is superb and puts the vast majority of modern engineers to shame.

Yes, this recording will give any subs a work out. It is not just the bass though, the whole acoustic envelope is perfect with phenomenal transient response.

Trust me, you won't go wrong with this one!

The only negative to this recording is that there is no chorus. Overall though despite the fact this recording was made in 1958, the mono one in 1954, this is still by far and away the best recording technically. Really everybody should hear this, and see how in many ways how little far we have advanced.

Despite the over dubs, the tape hiss is slight and never intrusive. As far as I can tell Robert Fine never saturated the tapes which is an amazing achievement.

I have just listened to it. I have not played it in some time. I'm even more impressed. After the quiet string introduction the first hard drum beat made me jump out of my skin.

Everything is recorded perfectly, strings, woodwind percussion and especially the brass. In fact I think this gets absolutely top honors over anything done since, for the most realistic recording of orchestral brass. It is just like the real thing.

The disc also contains a wonderful performance of the Capriccio Italien and Beethoven's Wellington's Victory. This includes very accurate recording of vintage muskets.


Initially Beethoven was going to dedicate his third symphony, the Eroica to Napoleon. However Beethoven came to realize what an awful despot Napoleon was and vigorously scratched out the dedication. To rub salt in the wound he wrote a piece to celebrate the Duke of Wellington's victory over Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815.

In April 1959 we all made our way to the Hotel Russel on Russel Square, for the annual Audio Fare.

Just about every room was trying to belt out this recording, largely unsuccessfully. Styluses jumping grooves and general miss tracking the rule, along with blown and bottoming speakers.
That year was quite the show!

Even now this recording can only be reproduced properly by the very finest of reproducing systems. It takes much more than good subs, I can tell you that!
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
I should just buckle down and start saving my pennies until I can afford one of Dennis' larger designs. :)
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
I'm anxious about the 2214H-1's from my JBL L100t3' being refoamed; that's to say, I can't wait to get em back from the Speaker Exchange. Until then, I'm using my rear channel JBL L20's with a JBL B380 subwoofer now for up front, which sounds pretty good.
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
Update, I got my L100t3 woofers back from the Speaker Exchange, where they were re-formed. Cosmetically, they look good and they sound great again. Interestingly enough, JBL is now producing an L100 Classic, which I discovered a week or two ago on this forum. They will sell for about $4000 a pair, which seems about right. I've contacted JBL to discern a stocking dealer for these in my area, but, apparently there are none in Louisville, KY. I'd like to hear them, for sure. At any rate, someone here described the JBL sound as larger than life and another responded that such larger than life sound was fatiguing. My 30 years satisfaction with the concept tells me it's the speaker's ability to produce life like volume and not sound loud that is most attractive. Bottom line, it's like having a $142 ticket to listen to Diana Krall live in a Jazz Club setting, but with much greater convenience and economy.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Update, I got my L100t3 woofers back from the Speaker Exchange, where they were re-formed. Cosmetically, they look good and they sound great again. Interestingly enough, JBL is now producing an L100 Classic, which I discovered a week or two ago on this forum. They will sell for about $4000 a pair, which seems about right. I've contacted JBL to discern a stocking dealer for these in my area, but, apparently there are none in Louisville, KY. I'd like to hear them, for sure. At any rate, someone here described the JBL sound as larger than life and another responded that such larger than life sound was fatiguing. My 30 years satisfaction with the concept tells me it's the speaker's ability to produce life like volume and not sound loud that is most attractive. Bottom line, it's like having a $142 ticket to listen to Diana Krall live in a Jazz Club setting, but with much greater convenience and economy.
My JBL SS312's still sound wonderful as well. They will fool you into inching the volume up past safe levels and leaving it there. Fortunately, these have rubber surrounds, which is good considering, AFAIK, that JBL doesn't stock parts for these. Even still, I keep them dust free, since that's what kills surrounds quicker than age otherwise would.

What's also different is, I never used the "smile" EQ setting on any of my speakers. Mine was more of a moustache favoring midrange. With 15" woofers, the bass didn't need help and was always set to flat, as was the treble. With modern speakers, almost everything is flat, other than a tick on the upper bass range, yet progressively less on the lower and sub bass frequencies.

Still love the sound of these JBL's without additional subwoofers. They are no joke. I'll probably break them out next weekend for a good session and to loosen up whatever dust I miss.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top