Re: Should I Re-cone a JBL L-65 Woofer ??

[Mr.T]

"GregS" > wrote in message
...
> >Speaker are incrementally better today. Your speakers
> >were never designed to handle digital media.

Of course they were, they just didn't know it (or advertise it) at the time.

>In addition
> >the material sciences involved in speaker building has
> >greatly benefitted from computerization which wasn't
> >available in the 70's. Today we can build better
> >mouse traps but they often lack the aesthetics of the
> >Jubal, for example.

Exactly, or cost a lot more in todays dollars.

> Digital media? I remember digital ready! But its hard to find woofers with
square
> wire.

Those JBL woofers DO have square wire, or flat ribbon wound on edge to be
more accurate.
Nothing to do with digital of course.

> The jubal played very loud. I'm sure they can handle "digital" media.

Exactly.

> They were a bit bright, I thought at the time, so I didn't spend the $800
> or so to buy a set. I was really impressed by the look and advertising
sheet,
> but not the sound.

You didn't realise there was a treble control on the back? :-)

> >Much would depend on your intended application? IMO
> >$450 might be better spent on new (modern) drivers and
> >crossovers, there are many source vendors.

Yes, and most of them aren't any better.
I'd fix the JBL's.

MrT.

[Powell]

"Mr.T" wrote

> > >Much would depend on your intended application? IMO
> > >$450 might be better spent on new (modern) drivers and
> > >crossovers, there are many source vendors.
>
> Yes, and most of them aren't any better.
>
Quack,quack,quack...

[GregS]

In article >, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>"GregS" > wrote in message
...
>> >Speaker are incrementally better today. Your speakers
>> >were never designed to handle digital media.
>
>Of course they were, they just didn't know it (or advertise it) at the time.
>
>>In addition
>> >the material sciences involved in speaker building has
>> >greatly benefitted from computerization which wasn't
>> >available in the 70's. Today we can build better
>> >mouse traps but they often lack the aesthetics of the
>> >Jubal, for example.
>
>Exactly, or cost a lot more in todays dollars.
>
>> Digital media? I remember digital ready! But its hard to find woofers with
>square
>> wire.
>
>Those JBL woofers DO have square wire, or flat ribbon wound on edge to be
>more accurate.
>Nothing to do with digital of course.
>
>> The jubal played very loud. I'm sure they can handle "digital" media.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> They were a bit bright, I thought at the time, so I didn't spend the $800
>> or so to buy a set. I was really impressed by the look and advertising
>sheet,
>> but not the sound.
>
>You didn't realise there was a treble control on the back? :-)

I or the salesman turned them to minimum after I first heard them. Still was bright to me

I got some used JBL speakers a couple years ago. Cheaper model, but
something not to bad either. Well I had to do a few things. Tightnen
up some screws, solder some faulty crimped leads. The titianium tweeter
and the speaker in general had 1 or 2 dB too much treble above 10 kHz, so I
tamed them down by modifying the crossover. Sounded much better.
Perhaps JBL just felt that they needed to prove, having a titianium tweeter, that the treble
was super good!

greg



>Much would depend on your intended application? IMO
>> >$450 might be better spent on new (modern) drivers and
>> >crossovers, there are many source vendors.
>
>Yes, and most of them aren't any better.
>I'd fix the JBL's.
>
>MrT.
>
>
>
>