How many watts can a JBL D-130 safely handle?
Jim Kroger
Subject line says it.
Thanks for any info,
Jim
Teleologist
Jim Kroger wrote:
>
> Thanks for any info,
>
JBL Pro in Northridge CA has/had a fax back system with spec
sheets for most of the old speakers including the D's & DF's(the
DF's are listed as F's in JBL's index). Sorry don't have the
number. Maybe some day they'll put this stuff on the net.
I would say 50-60W in an open back cab and 100-120W in a closed
back cab are safe numbers for DF's or reconed D's with the F
kit. The original D's had a problem tearing up the surrounds at
high levels - the F's had the surround rubber-treated to fix
this problem. BTW, JBL Ds, DFs, & Es, have reverse polarity just
like old Jensens. Red = negative unless someone switched to
connectors. Best to test them with a worn out 9V battery.
Harry Avant
It's amazing about the variation in answers you'll get. Watts of what
kind? RMS at 30 hertz? White noise? The question has almost no
meaning without stating some parameters.
If you look at the original spec sheet for the speakers in that series
you'll see that the D-130 is rated at 25 watts. Since this appears on
the rear of the pamphlet that gives dimensions for recommended B/R
enclosures, one should assume that it is 25 watts when mounted in the
proper cabnet.
You should find that about 20 to 30 watts into one of these in a
proper sized enclsure will drive you out of the room. If you put it
in an undersized and over damped box like a Benson then the speaker
will take more power, but it will need it to get the volume.
The D-130 was/is an effeceint speaker. It doesn't need a lot of input
to get a lot out.
Harvey Gerst
On the other hand, I saw a lot of D130's come through with fried voice
coils that were running off a 12 Watt Williamson amp during the 50's and
60's. Integrated music from HiFi systems caused one kind of problem -
using the D130 as a musical instrument speaker created other problems.
That's why I suggested the D130F (which was a redesigned D130), made
expressly for musical instrument amps, as were the D110F (a totally new
design), the D120F (a redesign of the D131), and the D140F (a new design
using existing parts).
Power specifications for the F series were nominally 35 to about 60
Watts. How did I arrive at these figures? Pretty simple, I played guitar
and bass through them and kept increasing the power till they blew. Then
I downrated them from the power that fried them. Pretty hi-tech, huh? It
seemed to work pretty well (of course we didn't have synth players back
then).
The major amp manufacturers back then were Fender, Sunn, Kustom, and
Ampeg. Rickenbacher and Mosrite also bought some, but nowhere near the
volume of the other amp makers. All had JBL speaker options.
And yes, the "F" stood for Fender, since they were the largest single
buyer, and also distributed the F series to music stores. They had no
part in the design or the idea for the new series, I am solely to blame
for that.
--
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://users.aol.com/harvgerst/records/studio.html
Indian Trail Records
http://users.aol.com/harvgerst/records/records.html
Teleologist
Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> Harry Avant wrote:
> >
> > It's amazing about the variation in answers you'll get. Watts of what
> > kind? RMS at 30 hertz? White noise? The question has almost no
> > meaning without stating some parameters.
> >
>
> had no part in the design or the idea for the new series, I am solely to
> blame for that.
>
great music thru the years! Also appreciate having some 'expertise' on this
newsgroup, so keep on posting!
Dick Dale seems to be the one claiming Fender went to JBL on behalf of him.
In "Fender Sound Heard Around the World" he's quoted as saying the "F was
invented as a result of melting voice coils & destroying surrounds". It's
also stated that "the aluminum dust cover was Leo's idea". In his 9/96 GP
interview he talks of the 'Dick Dale' kit available from JBL which includes
a larger magnet, larger voice coil, thicker wires, aluminum dust cover, &
rubberized front rim which brings the speaker(presumably a D130) up to Dick
Dale & Fender specs! I'll be 'kind' and say that he comes off as 'a bit
arrogant' in the interview!
The other reference to Fender going to JBL was in conjunction with the
development of the 1959 Vibrasonic. In Morrish's Fender amp book - Bill
Carson recalls testing a protype JBL with a copper instead of aluminum
voice coil & a thin paper cone? Can you shed some light on this obscure
piece of JBL history?
For the original poster - regarding power ratings, I checked my
official(3/70) JBL spec sheet for the F models and the 110F, 120F, & 130F
are all rated at 100W continuous, the 140F @ 150W continuous. JBL defines
'continuous power' in my 4311B spec sheet as 3dB greater than RMS which
would put the RMS rating of a D130F at 50W. On the other hand, D120Fs &
D130Fs ran reliably in Showman 12s, Showman 15s, and early Boogies at
considerably more power, so Mr. Gerst's & JBL's ratings are not marketing
hype! It also appears that the 120F & 130F use identical magnet structures
@ 11 pounds, 12,000 gaus flux density, and 275,000 maxwells total flux.
Harvey Gerst
Teleologist wrote:
>
> Dick Dale seems to be the one claiming Fender went to JBL on behalf of him.
> In "Fender Sound Heard Around the World" he's quoted as saying the "F was
> invented as a result of melting voice coils & destroying surrounds". It's
> also stated that "the aluminum dust cover was Leo's idea". In his 9/96 GP
> interview he talks of the 'Dick Dale' kit available from JBL which includes
> a larger magnet, larger voice coil, thicker wires, aluminum dust cover, &
> rubberized front rim which brings the speaker(presumably a D130) up to Dick
> Dale & Fender specs! I'll be 'kind' and say that he comes off as 'a bit
> arrogant' in the interview!
I never had the honor of meeting or talking to Dick Dale, so I'd have to say
that perhaps his memory has been clouded by the passing years. It's true that
the JBL F series was partly about improving the current 2 models being used by
Fender and others, namely the D130 and D131. It was my proposal to expand the
line of speakers and at the same time, make some refinements to those speakers
to make them more suitable to the guitar market. Here's what I did and why:
Opened the voice coil gap slightly on the D130F to allow more tolerance in
mounting. Most people didn't realize that even though 8 mounting holes were
available, only using four is the recomended mounting. And you don't screw them
down tight to the board - that warps the frame. You use two fingers to do the
final tightening - the casket will them complete the seal. When you warp the
frame by overtightening, the voice coil can go out of round and eventually drag
and short out. I opened the gap slightly to allow for this problem with just a
very slight loss in efficiency - less than 1 dB.
Did the same thing on the D131 (and renamed as the D120F).
Using parts from the D130A and D150 woofers, I created a new woofer desinged for
bass guitar applications called the D140F. This had a copper voice coil and an
aluminum dome.
Using the magnet assembly from the D123 and the basket from an LE-10, I added
the D110F to complete the line of musical instrument speakers.
The surrounds were NOT "rubberized". JBL had developed a high viscosity coating
to add to the existing hifi line of speakers that reduced ringing. I used it for
a different reason. The hifi speaker surrounds dried out when exposed to
excessive sunlight and heat, and I reasoned the viscose coating (we called it
"goop" back then) would help prevent that.
> The other reference to Fender going to JBL was in conjunction with the
> development of the 1959 Vibrasonic. In Morrish's Fender amp book - Bill
> Carson recalls testing a protype JBL with a copper instead of aluminum
> voice coil & a thin paper cone? Can you shed some light on this obscure
> piece of JBL history?
Bill's probably refering to the D130A which was simply a standard JBL woofer at
the time - all the woofers had copper voice coils. The 130A was basically a D130
with a copper voice coil and a paper dome and was used in the 001 system
primarily (D130A, N1200 xover, and 175DLH driver/horm assembly). I felt the cone
was too light for bass guitar and we wound up using the cone from the 150 woofer
- a heavier unit. The duraluminum dome was added to the D140F, instead of the
paper dome for cosmetic reasons at first, but later proved useful in adding a
little more top end to the bass (not much though).
> For the original poster - regarding power ratings, I checked my
> official(3/70) JBL spec sheet for the F models and the 110F, 120F, & 130F
> are all rated at 100W continuous, the 140F @ 150W continuous. JBL defines
> 'continuous power' in my 4311B spec sheet as 3dB greater than RMS which
> would put the RMS rating of a D130F at 50W. On the other hand, D120Fs &
> D130Fs ran reliably in Showman 12s, Showman 15s, and early Boogies at
> considerably more power, so Mr. Gerst's & JBL's ratings are not marketing
> hype! It also appears that the 120F & 130F use identical magnet structures
> @ 11 pounds, 12,000 gaus flux density, and 275,000 maxwells total flux.
The D120F and the D130F, like their close cousins, the D130 and D131, all shared
the same voice coil, dome, spider, and magnet assembies, except for the
slightly wider gap on the top plate. I think the flux density was really around
11,700 gauss or so on the 120F & 130F because of the slightly enlarged gap,
mentioned earlier.
Power handling was always a touchy subject and I just basically guessed at what
I thought it could handle, based on normal playing. It was a little tricky since
we were dealing with rock, country, jazz, and blues players and the power
handling figures were just suggestions, regardless of how official the spec
sheet looked.
We now return you to your regularly sheduled programing.
Harry Avant
Teleologist <Teleo...@Sorry.NoEmail> wrote:
>> Power specifications for the F series were nominally 35 to about 60
>> Watts. And yes, the "F" stood for Fender, since they were the largest
>> single buyer,
>For the original poster - regarding power ratings, I checked my
>official(3/70) JBL spec sheet for the F models and the 110F, 120F, & 130F
>are all rated at 100W continuous, the 140F @ 150W continuous. JBL defines
>'continuous power' in my 4311B spec sheet as 3dB greater than RMS which
>would put the RMS rating of a D130F at 50W. On the other hand, D120Fs &
>D130Fs ran reliably in Showman 12s, Showman 15s, and early Boogies at
>considerably more power, so Mr. Gerst's & JBL's ratings are not marketing
>hype! It also appears that the 120F & 130F use identical magnet structures
>@ 11 pounds, 12,000 gaus flux density, and 275,000 maxwells total flux.
That is probably true but we're mixing oranges and grapefruits here.
Kroger's original post asked about the power handling of a D-130. Not
a D-130F. I'll stick to my earlier post which listed the power rating
well below the specs for the F series.
I think Kroger did get a D-130 without any F, G , Q or what ever and
that should make for the difference in power handling. And as we all
know all to well the cabnet and so forth will make the "specs" moot
anyhow.
Harry
Harvey Gerst
Harry Avant wrote:
>
> That is probably true but we're mixing oranges and grapefruits here.
> Kroger's original post asked about the power handling of a D-130. Not
> a D-130F. I'll stick to my earlier post which listed the power rating
> well below the specs for the F series.
>
> I think Kroger did get a D-130 without any F, G , Q or what ever and
> that should make for the difference in power handling. And as we all
> know all to well the cabnet and so forth will make the "specs" moot
> anyhow.
Harry,
The D130 and the D130F were essentially the SAME speaker. Exactly the
same voice coil, cone, spider assembly, magnet, basket. The only things I
did to the F are listed in a previous post, along with my reasons for
doing them.
I revised the guitar ratings since those D130 ratings were for INTEGRATED
music, like a symphony or a full band playing from the radio, tape or a
record. The rating for a single live instrument like a guitar is much
different, since there is nothing below 80 Hz or above 5 or 6 KHz coming
out of a guitar (at least back then). A D130F (or a D130) could easily
live with a higher power rating and we/JBL/I adjusted the rating
accordingly. The new rating would also apply to a JBL D130 if used for
that purpose.
If you had called JBL back then, you would have been transfered to me and
that is what I would have told you. Since I was in charge of that
division, I was responsable for creating those ratings and that was
our/my official position on the subject. As far as power handling, there
was no difference - the rating was changed to more accurately reflect
what the D130 or D130F could handle if used with a guitar as the source.
The lower rating also still applied if either speaker was used for full
range music reproduction. For what Jim Kroger wants to do with the
speaker, my original comments and ratings still stand. These were my
"babies" and if you want to disagree with me, that's fine. If you were at
JBL at the time I was designing these, we could have had some rousing
discussions about it. And besides, I think I also wrote those spec sheets
for the D130 as well.
Teleologist
Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> [snip - thanx, much good stuff]
> Using parts from the D130A and D150 woofers, I created a new woofer desinged for
> bass guitar applications called the D140F. This had a copper voice coil and an
> aluminum dome.
>
A couple more Q's & I'll leave you alone:) - Didn't know the D140F has a copper
voice coil - is it an edgewound ribbon like the aluminum coils? What were the
reason(s) for using copper (vs. aluminum) in the D140F?
Bill Hatcher
Harvey. Since you are the man when it comes to these JBL speakers,
which are my favs along with the Altec 416 and 418s, can you tell me
why I never liked the 140 JBL series. Even back in the 60s I played
electric bass through the D 130 JBLS. They sounded much better than
the 140 stuff, more top end, better definition etc. I did manage to
blow a few up but a recone was not as expensive as it is now. The K140
series sounded like crap to me. No top end at all. Were these 140s
just designed for low freqs only?? Thanks. Bill hatcher
Harvey Gerst
Harry Avant wrote:
>
> Are we getting a little "touchy" in our advancing years? I DON'T want
> to argue, I'm just trying to get to the facts. It was my D-130 that
> Jim heard and got him started on this quest.
Harry,
Perhaps, but I don't think so. Your post said:
"That is probably true but we're mixing oranges and grapefruits here.
Kroger's original post asked about the power handling of a D-130. Not
a D-130F. I'll stick to my earlier post which listed the power rating
well below the specs for the F series."
"I think Kroger did get a D-130 without any F, G , Q or what ever and
that should make for the difference in power handling."
As I pointed out, using the JBL D130 for a purpose other then that which
it was
designed for, made it a whole new ball game. For a music reproducer, use
the
lower rating. As part of a guitar system, use the higher rating - for
either
speaker, with or without the F.
> Care to comment on the effects of rise time of a guitar and a modern
> amp into a speaker. I've often wondered if the lack of fast rise
> times of the HiFi equipment of the 50's made an easier job for the
> speaker than what they get hit with today using more modern equipment
> along with better response. Does this have any effect on the power
> rating for a speaker?
I don't know if I buy into that one or not. The initial attack on a
guitar is
pretty fast and that hasn't changed much. If you're talking about the
addition
of distortion and odd harmonic components that square the wave, then,
yes, the
older tube amps were more forgiving in that respect. Power ratings, as I
pointed out in previous posts, depend on the signal source and type of
signal.
Most of the modern amplifiers are still based on Leo's old units with all
their
flaws, which have now become the standards of sonic excellence. Don't buy
into
that one much, either.
Here's what ticked me off about your post: you made it sound like these
speakers were two different animals, based on your reading of the specs,
when
in fact, the specs were actually descriptions of the SAME units under
different
application conditions.
> >JBL at the time I was designing these, we could have had some rousing
> >discussions about it. And besides, I think I also wrote those spec sheets
> >for the D130 as well.
>
> Can we still have discussions, maybe not so rousing? The information
> you have is of great value to a lot of us the love the JBL speakers
> for guitar use!
Of course we can. If we can agree that specs, in and of themselves, don't
always tell the whole story.
Harry Avant
Harvey Gerst <harg...@airmail.net> wrote:
>The D130 and the D130F were essentially the SAME speaker. Exactly the
>same voice coil, cone, spider assembly, magnet, basket. The only things I
>did to the F are listed in a previous post, along with my reasons for
>doing them.
>I revised the guitar ratings since those D130 ratings were for INTEGRATED
>music, like a symphony or a full band playing from the radio, tape or a
>record. The rating for a single live instrument like a guitar is much
>different, since there is nothing below 80 Hz or above 5 or 6 KHz coming
>out of a guitar (at least back then). A D130F (or a D130) could easily
>live with a higher power rating and we/JBL/I adjusted the rating
>accordingly. The new rating would also apply to a JBL D130 if used for
>that purpose.
>If you had called JBL back then, you would have been transfered to me and
>that is what I would have told you. Since I was in charge of that
>division, I was responsable for creating those ratings and that was
>our/my official position on the subject. As far as power handling, there
>was no difference - the rating was changed to more accurately reflect
>what the D130 or D130F could handle if used with a guitar as the source.
>The lower rating also still applied if either speaker was used for full
>range music reproduction. For what Jim Kroger wants to do with the
>speaker, my original comments and ratings still stand. These were my
>"babies" and if you want to disagree with me, that's fine.
Are we getting a little "touchy" in our advancing years? I DON'T want
to argue, I'm just trying to get to the facts. It was my D-130 that
Jim heard and got him started on this quest.
Care to comment on the effects of rise time of a guitar and a modern
amp into a speaker. I've often wondered if the lack of fast rise
times of the HiFi equipment of the 50's made an easier job for the
speaker than what they get hit with today using more modern equipment
along with better response. Does this have any effect on the power
rating for a speaker?
>JBL at the time I was designing these, we could have had some rousing
>discussions about it. And besides, I think I also wrote those spec sheets
>for the D130 as well.
Can we still have discussions, maybe not so rousing? The information
you have is of great value to a lot of us the love the JBL speakers
for guitar use!
Harry
>
Harvey Gerst
Teleologist wrote:
>
> A couple more Q's & I'll leave you alone:) - Didn't know the D140F has a copper
> voice coil - is it an edgewound ribbon like the aluminum coils? What were the
> reason(s) for using copper (vs. aluminum) in the D140F?
Yes, the D140F had an edgewound copper ribbon voice coil. Copper has better heat
conductivity than aluminum (think pots and pans) but it's heavier and not as
responsive to high frequencies, due to it's weight. For use in woofers, copper is
the wire of choice.
Actually, had I thought about it some more, I should have probably made the D140F
more of a full range speaker, but it was basically designed as a replacement for
people using D130A woofers for live music.
Harvey Gerst
Bill, I didn't realize youhad posted this to the group as well as
directly to me, so I am posting my previous answer to you here for the
whole group:
Bill, that's an easy one. The D140 was designed for more bottom end with
less treble for those players that wanted more bottom end and didn't care
about the definition. That room shaking bass sound. I wasn't happy about
that until I designed the Acoustic 360. Still no definition though.
Yes, the D140F was designed as a low frequency unit only (to be used by
itself for those players that just wanted bottom end) or with some other
speakers that added some top end. A D110F on top with a 15 mfd capacitor
in series was a nice combination.
I left JBL after the F series, so I had nothing to do with the design of
the K series, which I understand was done by the marketing department, no
musicians involved. I personally like the sound of tens and twelves for
bass and just use more of them to get the power. At Delta Amplifiers, I
built a 360-like horn that used 6-10" speakers. It was a killer sound
since the horn came off the back end of the speakers. The best of both
worlds, the top end and snap of a 10" and the cone area of a big speaker
driving a horn.
I agree that for a lot of bass players like yourself, the D130 or D130F
would have been the better choice over the D140 (which I designed to fill
out the line more than make the ultimate bass speaker).
After all, back then, who really cared about what a bass player wanted?
:-) I mean, look around, bass players don't get no respect. For example:
Question: How do you keep from having your guitar stolen?
Answer: Put it in a bass case.
Question: What's the difference between a guitar and a bass?
Answer: A bass burns longer.
Question: What's the difference between a drummer and a bass player?
Answer: About half a beat.
Question: Why do groups need a guitar player?
Answer: So they can teach the song to the bass player.
Question: You see a bass, a guitar, and a drum set sitting in the middle
of the road. Which do you run over first?
Anwer: The drum set. Business before pleasure.
Question: How many bass players does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: Six; One to change it, and five to fight off the lead guitarists
who are hogging the light.
Question: How can you tell if a bass is out of tune?
Answer: The bass player's hands are moving.
Question: Why are guitars smaller than basses?
Answer: They're not. Guitar player's heads are bigger.
Question: Why are bass jokes so short?
Answer: So guitar players can understand them.
Question: How do you make a bass sound beautiful?
Answer: Sell it and buy a guitar.
Question: How do you make your guitar sound like a bass?
Answer: Miss every other note.
Question: Why do bands have bass players?
Answer: To translate for the drummer.
Question: How many bass players does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: None, the keyboard player does it with his left hand.
Question: How many bass players does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: Only one, but the guitar player has to show him how to do it.
Question: What do bass players use for birth control?
Answer: Their personalities.
Question: Why do some people have an instant aversion to bass players?
Answer: It saves time in the long run.
Question: What is a burning guitar good for?
Answer: Setting a bass on fire.
Question: How do you keep a bass player from drowning?
Answer: Take your foot off his head.
A bass player was hiking in the mountains, and he came upon a shepherd
tending a large herd of sheep
that were grazing in the meadow. The bass player took a fancy to the
sheep, and said: "If I can guess how
many sheep you have, can I have one?"
The shepherd thought this was odd, but since there was little chance that
the man would guess the exact number of sheep, he said "Sure." The bass
player guessed "You have 287 sheep," to the shepherd's astonishment,
since this was exactly how many sheep he had. The bass player got all
excited and asked "Can I pick out my sheep now?" and the shepherd
grudgingly gave his OK. The bass player selected his sheep, bent over,
and swung the sheep over his shoulders, to carry it home.
The shepherd then asked "If I guess what your occupation is, can I have
my sheep back?" The bass player was a bit surprised by this, but figured
that it was unlikely that the shepherd would be able to guess his
occupation, and went along with the deal. The shepherd then said "You're
a bass player, aren't you?" The bass player was very surprised and asked,
"How did you know?" The shepherd responded, "Put the dog down and we'll
talk about it."
murali
Mr. Gerst --
It's great to have your input on the speakers you designed! Thanks for
posting and sharing it with us.
I just acquired a pair of D130Fs (orange backs) from a Dual Showman that
were blown and reconed, supposedly with "the original reconing kit from
JBL". I have three questions:
1. Is it unsual for both speakers to blow out? I thought it would take
a hell of a transient to blow both speakers using a Dual Showman, and
2. Are you aware of such a thing as an "original recone kit" from JBL,
and
3. Can I expect a significant change from the original sound as a
result of reconing, even if we presume the recone kit did come from JBL?
Thank you for you comments.
Murali
@@@@@@@@@kali...@usa.net Santa Fe, NM
jos.me...@gmail.com
> >
> > It's amazing about the variation in answers you'll get. Watts of what
> > kind? RMS at 30 hertz? White noise? The question has almost no
> > meaning without stating some parameters.
> >
> > you'll see that the D-130 is rated at 25 watts. Since this appears on
> > the rear of the pamphlet that gives dimensions for recommended B/R
> > enclosures, one should assume that it is 25 watts when mounted in the
> > proper cabnet.
> >
> > You should find that about 20 to 30 watts into one of these in a
> > proper sized enclsure will drive you out of the room. If you put it
> > in an undersized and over damped box like a Benson then the speaker
> > will take more power, but it will need it to get the volume.
> >
> > The D-130 was/is an effeceint speaker. It doesn't need a lot of input
> > to get a lot out.
>
> On the other hand, I saw a lot of D130's come through with fried voice
> coils that were running off a 12 Watt Williamson amp during the 50's and
> 60's. Integrated music from HiFi systems caused one kind of problem -
> using the D130 as a musical instrument speaker created other problems.
>
> That's why I suggested the D130F (which was a redesigned D130), made
> expressly for musical instrument amps, as were the D110F (a totally new
> design), the D120F (a redesign of the D131), and the D140F (a new design
> using existing parts).
>
> and bass through them and kept increasing the power till they blew. Then
> I downrated them from the power that fried them. Pretty hi-tech, huh? It
> seemed to work pretty well (of course we didn't have synth players back
> then).
>
> The major amp manufacturers back then were Fender, Sunn, Kustom, and
> Ampeg. Rickenbacher and Mosrite also bought some, but nowhere near the
> volume of the other amp makers. All had JBL speaker options.
>
> part in the design or the idea for the new series, I am solely to blame
> for that.
>
> Harvey Gerst
>
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://users.aol.com/harvgerst/records/studio.html
> Indian Trail Records
> http://users.aol.com/harvgerst/records/records.html
jos.me...@gmail.com
If the amp was 50 or 60 watts the cleaner the signal , and to many watts never burn the voice coil,but damages the coneand voice coil which jumps to far out of the gap.
Lord Valve
just now!
OK, where to start.... First, this thread is nearly TWENTY
YEARS OLD. Try to read all those little number thingies at
the top before you respond to something that's so ancient
the pigeons are shitting on it, OK? Second, your temporal
confusion isn't the major ROFLMAO bait here, nor is your
fractured idea that "to (sic) many watts never burn the
voice coil..." (although that one's right up there) but
rather that you are attempting to lecture Harvey Gerst,
the engineer at JBL *who DESIGNED the fucking speakers
that are under discussion* here.
Please - tell Vanna that you'd like to buy a fuckin' clue,
you bewildered piss-pot.
Lord Valve
Expert (fuck you)