AR3a vs. JBL-100
D.D. JunX
Write in and win!
-----------------------------
http://audiojunx.webjump.com/
-----------------------------
Bobhorn375
Much better Mids, More accurate woofer, and over all more efficient!
Bobhorn
Mr. Muckle
Were the L-100's also called the "Centuries"?
MYanchick
is a more accurate speaker but is very compressed and lacks dynamics. The L100
(with lpads set in the flat position) is colored and forward sounding. But one
can adjust them to sound pretty smooth. The L100's are more musical and you can
use them with small tube amps as they are very efficient for a bookshelf
speaker. L100's like all old JBL's were built extremely well and the midrange
and woofer are easily competitive with modern drivers. Overall I'd say the L100
is a more versatile speaker. They do a few things wrong, but with tubes they
are very enjoyable. On the other hand if you want to rock put a big ss amp on
them and your ears will complain before the L100's will.
Mike
John Scott Pattison
myan...@aol.com (MYanchick) wrote:
I agree with Mike. I just got a set of vintage JBL L-65 (Jubal) speakers in
excellent condition, and they have the exact properties that he describes for
the L100s. They do have some coloration, but with tweeter/mid level controls
you can get a fairly accurate frequency response. But the key to the old JBLs
is their dynamics and lively, lifelike, sound. They have lots of "jump factor"
and can fill a room with sound on less than 30 watts. Of course more power will
enable you to get an even louder, cleaner sound that makes them seem like they
can take unlimited power. JBL speakers were VERY rugged tranducers that could
take a fair amount of power without damage (severe clipping excluded, of
course).
They only real drawback with my JBLs is that they are a floorstanding speaker
that is really to short to be a floorstander. But if you listen from a distance
of at least 8-10 feet, the sound stage is quite big and does have height.
Certainly no worse than a pair of (also short) Thiel CS-1.5s, which I have had
in my listening room before.
What I also like about the JBL speakers (especially the Jubal) is the cool
cabinet design. The Jubals came with their smoked grey glass insets intact.
Plus the underlay felt was professionally redone and has the cutouts for the
original square, metal JBL insignias that were also included.
I have also auditioned the AR3as in the past. They are good speakers too, but
they sound rather "bland" in comparison. Plus they are MUCH more inefficient
than the JBLs and require a fairly big amp to open up at all.
-- John Pattison
AMitch9448
inaccurate?
Al Mitchell
NYC
MYanchick
I guess in practice it would, but I think on paper they were probably the
flattest thing available in their day. I wasn't very impressed with the pair I
had a few years ago.
I've talked to recording studio guys that told me they wanted to use and
tried to use the 3a's but they would burn out way before they reached a live
performance level. ( when you record rock music you have to playback at this
level to determine mic placement). The only alternative was to have large
Altecs like 604's or A7's or the big horn loaded JBL's. When JBL came out with
the pro version of the L100 they filled a huge gap, that gap being a bookshelf
size monitor that would play very loud and clean.
Mike
Ross Lipman
It probably didn't held that the 3a was designed for far field
listening.
Ross Lipman
Stan
they're more rare, since the ::koff:: "state of the art" (gawd, I hate that
phrase) has grown to special heights.
West Coast Vs. East Coast sounds: I lost a good friend over that
discussion.
Well, to make a long story short, I won a pair of AR-4Xs in a bet, and took
them home, intending that they be secondary speakers. I puzzled log and
hard over why I preferred the sound of the li'l ARs, never realizing that in
this particular case it was my environment.
what eventually tore it for me was when our new kitten chewed the top edges
of our Burnt Orange foam grills on the L100s. a quick advert, and man did
they sell fast! made me wonder..
mind you, that was 27 years ago, and I still have the 4xs.
David Lawrence wrote in message <37D3833F...@uxmail.ust.hk>...
>FWIW, back in the late '70's, when I bought a pair of DCM Time Windows,
>we compared those speakers to the JBL100's. We thought the Time Windows
>were clearly superior, even though they costed a a few hundred dollars
>less. Anyway, that was with transistor electronics. The DCM's were also
>pretty sensitive, but I imagine not as much as the JBL's. They also
>sounded pretty good with tubes.
>David Lawrence
>
>
David Lawrence
Frederic Phillips
Stan <cd...@nothotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eXEA3.8279$m7.8...@quark.idirect.com...
> remember, these were the days when breakthroughs were frequent. today,
> they're more rare, since the ::koff:: "state of the art" (gawd, I hate
that
> phrase) has grown to special heights.
>
> West Coast Vs. East Coast sounds: I lost a good friend over that
> discussion.
>
> Well, to make a long story short, I won a pair of AR-4Xs in a bet, and
took
> them home, intending that they be secondary speakers. I puzzled log and
> hard over why I preferred the sound of the li'l ARs, never realizing that
in
> this particular case it was my environment.
>
> what eventually tore it for me was when our new kitten chewed the top
edges
> of our Burnt Orange foam grills on the L100s. a quick advert, and man did
> they sell fast! made me wonder..
>
> mind you, that was 27 years ago, and I still have the 4xs.
>
>
>
The AR-4x is one of the best kept secrets I know of.
Summer before last, I was out on a Sunday doing some garage sales (another
passion of mine- you know what they say about "one man's junk"...) and I
stopped by a sale in what was probably one of the most affluent
neighborhoods in the metro area I resided in at the time.
The guy had lots of nice stuff, but the prices were high beyond reason. As I
was on my way out, I noticed the music system he was playing was for sale as
well. It consisted of:
*An Onkyo receiver (smallish- maybe 20 wpc- can't remember the
model number because I gave it away to a needy friend shortly
afterward).
* A mid-70s low end Pioneer cassette unit (wound up not buying
it-
didn't really want it or need it anyways).
* A pair of AR-4x.
Guy had the stuff tagged at $100 for the lot, with a little sign explaining
that one of the tweeters was blown in the speakers (having had some
experience with AR speakers before, when he wasn't around I jiggled the
level pot, and the tweeter came back to life).
Even though I didn't want the cassette unit or the receiver (I'd had no
experience with the 4x in particular, but I'd been wanting to put together a
second system for my computer room, and I'd picked up a Fisher 500T s/s
receiver for practically nothing a few weeks before, so I figured I'd go
with the ARs on reputation alone, and they sounded pretty decent even in the
crude setup he was displaying the stuff in), I went to the guy and tried to
buy it. He declined to sell, saying he'd had someone else there earlier who
was allegedly coming back to buy the whole package. Even waving five $20
bills in front of his face wouldn't change his mind. He did say, however, if
the other person hadn't come back by 4:00 that afternoon (it was about noon
then), he'd sell it then (I did have to admire his integrity!).
Took a shot, and came back at 4:00- and the tape deck was gone, but the
receiver and speakers were still there! The guy recognized me, and told me
his original customer came back, wanting to buy the tape deck alone. He then
told me he'd sell what was left for $60- I couldn't get the money out of my
wallet fast enough!
I got the baby ARs home, did some quick emergency surgery (good shot of
WD40 in the level pots), and took them in my living room, where I placed
them on top of my AR-3as, and hooked the up to my Fisher 500C (ah glorious
tubes!). I put in a favorite CD, and those little ARs came alive and blew me
away! Smooth, neutral, detailed, and well balanced! Sure, the bass wasn't
nearly as good as the 3a- but then again, how many box speakers can beat an
AR-3a for just out and out bass response anyways?
One of these days, I'll pick up a Fisher 400 to go with the 4xs as soon as I
can get the new wife properly indoctrinated (gotta retire that 500T- it's a
travesty to the Fisher name anyways, and it has an intermittent tuner
problem- it'll look good sitting on a shelf, as it is almost mint
cosmetically). Until then, listening to the little ARs still makes me smile-
actually prefer them to the 3a on certain discs. I'm drooling to hear them
with tubes again!
OK, I'm done rambling,
Fred
tom_ty...@my-deja.com
but it should come as no surprise. When *Consumers Union* tested the
4x they thought it was one of the best speakers they had ever tested,
regardless of price. The little 4x has such undistorted bass and
clean, widely disperse midrange/treble without the interference effects
of big baffles and multiple-driver arrangements, that it sounds great
in the near field as well as in the reverberant field. Best of all,
the AR-4x is natural sounding and doesn't "call attention to itself,"
as so many other loudspeakers.
--Tom Tyson
tomt...@nr.infi.net
tom_...@hp.com
In article <Qd%B3.8942$r6.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D.D. JunX
fully explored yet. It may be an unexpected surprise to many younger
vintage-audiophine.
Presently I am listerning to a pair of Advent which I just have them
re-foamed, the sound was stunningly good with the Scott 299D (not with
my Fisher gear), I think they should deserve the same attention too.
-D.D.JunX-
Http://aoudiojunx.webjump.com/
tom_ty...@my-deja.com
>
> >Wouldn't a lack or dynamics make the 3a
> >inaccurate?
> >Al Mitchell
> >NYC
> ></PRE></HTML>
>
AR-3a vs. JBL L100
This message was posted some time back regarding the AR-3a vs. JBL L100
in a studio situation. The AR-3a doesn't "lack dynamics" as Al
Mitchell is saying here. It's a relative thing: in actuality, the 3a
has wider dynamics than the L100 because it goes much deeper with lower
distortion and is just as extended on the high end (though down
slightly relative to the midrange). It will not play as "loud" (SPL)
as the L100 in the middle frequencies, if that is what Mitchell
implies, but it will play about twice as loud as the L100 in the low
frequencies below 20 or 30 Hz. The L100 does little below 40 Hz.
> I guess in practice it would, but I think on paper they were
probably the
> flattest thing available in their day. I wasn't very impressed with
the pair I
> had a few years ago.
> I've talked to recording studio guys that told me they wanted to
use and
> tried to use the 3a's but they would burn out way before they reached
a live
> performance level. ( when you record rock music you have to playback
at this
> level to determine mic placement). The only alternative was to have
large
> Altecs like 604's or A7's or the big horn loaded JBL's. When JBL came
out with
> the pro version of the L100 they filled a huge gap, that gap being a
bookshelf
> size monitor that would play very loud and clean.
> Mike
It is true that many studios wanted the accuracy of the AR-3 and AR-3a,
but could not sustain the burn-out rate of midrange and treble drivers
when driven to sustained high energy levels. Therefore, these speakers
never caught on in many pop-music studios (except the classical-music
producers such as Decca, DGG, Angel, Philips and others did use AR-3as
to some extent). Acoustic Research's answer to this problem was the
AR-LST, a speaker with the spectral balance and accuracy of the AR-3a
but with much greater power-handling capability. During the 1972-1977
period the LST was a de facto standard in most important studios that
produced classical and jass music. The LST was very accurate, but it
presented a very difficult and inneficient load to most power
amplifiers.
It probably didn't held that the 3a was designed for far field
listening.
Ross Lipman
This is probably the main reason that studios continued to use horn
speakers: the need for "immediate, up-front midrange clarity" and not
so much attention to the "power response." The L100 is much better at
the midrange "detail" than any of the AR speakers, and studios love
this quality, but the L100 lacks the overall accuracy, bandwidth and
balance of the AR-3a or AR-LST in the far field.
--Tom Tyson
tomt...@nr.infi.net
MYanchick
>has wider dynamics than the L100 because it goes much deeper with lower
>distortion and is just as extended on the high end
Yes it is a relative thing, therefore the only situation in which the 3a
would prove to have wider dynamics would be when listening to a signal
generator, pipe organ music, rap, or some weird synthesizer music. Most music
doesn't contain much information below 50hz relative to the mid-bass, midrange
and highs. Also speakers that go down very low don't necessarily play loud at
low frequencies, they bottom out.
To be honest you can buy some cheap $300 speaker by NHT or Paradigm today
and it would be more transparent and accurate than the 3a or the L100. Modern
speakers the size of an L100 that will play loud and clean like the L100 are
few and far between though.
Mike
tom_ty...@my-deja.com
>
> Yes it is a relative thing, therefore the only situation in
which the 3a
> would prove to have wider dynamics would be when listening to a
signal
> generator, pipe organ music, rap, or some weird synthesizer music.
Most music
> doesn't contain much information below 50hz relative to the mid-bass,
midrange
> and highs. Also speakers that go down very low don't necessarily play
loud at
> low frequencies, they bottom out.
Mike,
If you listen to any music today, be it classical, jazz, pop or
whatever, you will quickly find that there are many, many recordings
that contain a great deal of information below 50 Hz. Granted, some
pop recordings don't contain much information below 50 Hz., but many
others do have lot's of energy down to the 30-40 Hz. range. There can
be no question that many classical recordings have information not only
to the 40-Hz. range (typical bass drum fundamental), but all the way
down to 18 Hz. and below (organ recordings and some up-close recorded
Steinway Concert D piano recordings). Jazz and New Age, etc., are full
of powerful deep-bass recordings. A good example is Russ Freeman's
Rippington's *Topaz* recording. Try "Snakedance" and tell me about low
frequency. I could probably drum up 50 other good examples. I also
hasten to add that these are digital recordings I am referring to, not
analog or LP recordings, which typically compress some of the extreme
deep-bass information on some recordings.
There is no basis in fact for your statement about speakers that go low
can't play loud; they bottom out. Where did you get this notion? In
truth, an AR-3a -- which is acoustic suspension -- is much better
protected against "bottoming" out than the L-100 which becomes unloaded
at subsonic frequencies due to its bass-reflex design, yet the AR-3a
can go much lower in frequency than the L100. In fact, the AR-3a can
play much louder at 20, 30 or 40 Hz. than the L100 because it is
capable of reproducing the fundamental frequency without gross
distortion. This is not a criticism of the L100 specifically: it was
not designed to reproduce the lowest frequencies to begin with. It is
more of a midrange/prescence-sort-of design, and it is superb as a
studio monitor for that reason. But the L100 is no match for an AR-3a
at low frequencies. By the same token, the AR-3a is no match for the
L100 at mid frequencies in terms of SPL output.
> To be honest you can buy some cheap $300 speaker by NHT or
Paradigm today
> and it would be more transparent and accurate than the 3a or the
L100. Modern
> speakers the size of an L100 that will play loud and clean like the
L100 are
> few and far between though.
> Mike
You might find some "cheap $300 speaker by NHT or Paradigm today" that
is brighter sounding than the AR-3a, and perhaps better on-axis output
at the highest frequencies than the AR-3a, but that's where it would
end. They would never match the AR-3a in power response, overall
flatness and power bandwidth.
Don't get me wrong. The L100 is a fine speaker -- I have a pair -- but
this speaker system was designed with a different goal in mind than the
AR-3a. It is brighter, more "up front" sounding than the AR-3a, but
lacks the overall smoothness, accuracy and extension of the AR-3a
--Tom Tyson
Sam Berger
Peter Wieck
There were three cap manufacturers represented: Royal, Sprague and Chicago Cap. Every cap had an AR part number on it - and both the Sprague and Royal caps shared the same number for the 150 uF cap. And Sprague, Royal and Chicago shared the correct numbers for the others. So, over the years, AR clearly used multiple suppliers. The two speakers were very close in serial number - but the internal configurations were quite different. One had the back-wired tweeter, the other had the front-wired tweeter. One used clear (white) elephant-snot glue, the other black. One had solid wood braces internally, the other particle-board. But they both sounded fine after the work.
I did not replace the pots.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/274797772950?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290
These (and why I deliberately linked to eBay - hurry up, guys and gals before I jump on a spare) are the best cleaning tools for electronic purposes that I know. There are various inserts from 'kiss a soap bubble' to 'peel chrome from a trailer-hitch'. The marl is non-conductive, and it can fit into tight spaces. I used mine to clean the pots after disassembly and they work just fine.
As to the JBL100 - to me, it is an indifferent-sounding speaker as compared to the AR, an excellent example of the California Sound and very well-made (for a mass-production speaker). But I do not find it as compelling as the AR - the very nearly perfect example of the Boston Sound.
Superficial definitions:
California Sound: Emphasis on the highs and the lows - with specific leaning towards the lows (e.g. Cerwin-Vega). with the mid-range being somewhat neglected. Somewhat more brighter than not.
Boston Sound: Almost painfully flat across the entire range. So relatively merciless.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Sam Berger
Suffice to say that I enjoy all kinds of music on both speakers. If I had to pick only one pair to own it would be the L100's. My tastes lean towards their sound a tiny bit more then the 3's, and because of this and their efficiency, which allows me to enjoy them with a wider range of amplification then the 3's, I would choose them. But I adore my 3's(probably having been born and raised in the Boston area in the 60's/70's has something to do with that....) and unless forced into that uncomfortable decision of choosing one pair I will never let them go. Having the ability to easily switch between the two speakers is wonderful.
Peter Wieck
I am glad that you enjoy both sets of speakers, nor am I suggesting that JBL speakers are "bad". Nor do I disagree with you on any one speaker is any more suitable for any given type of music than any other. But the JBLs are not to my taste.