Discussion in 'The Lansing Legacy' started by mingodog, Jun 1, 2017.
which would rather have, both being of equal shape?
I'd take both of them....why?
Collector value, and depending what mood you're in, play the speaker that will make you happiest at that time.
But that's just me own view.
AR's. They are simply better at what I want in a loudspeaker.
Speakers are like people in that it's what we see as well as whet we hear that attracts or detracts.
I agree with the above comments, and as we always say, let your ears decide.
Seeing that you've already got a pair of HPM-100s, which are essentially the L100's younger brother, I'd go for the ARs.
As someone who has both, I can tell you that my L100s are at my Dad's camp, and I bought two more pairs of 3as for myself.
both great. Both different. I agree since you have the HPM-100's that the AR3's might be a nice option for something different.
Apples and oranges.
Not a big fan of the east coast speakers.
Would choose the...
Acoustic Research as they are AS ( acoustic suspension ).
AR because they are AS.
None for me.
I've had both. Very different, as has been said. If you want to listen to punchy 70s rock go the JBLs, for jazz or acoustic go the AR3a's.
I've owned both. Depending on the type of music you listen to. I like my JBL's. I tried to like the AR3a's but grew tired of them.
I would not shoehorn the AR's into the Jazz-blues-acoustic guitar category and call it a day. I listen to a variety of genres. Especially a lot of electronica, funk, and live recordings, and the 3's can rock just as great as with any other speaker I own. Keep in mind, they must be restored to preform as designed. Tweeters and mids are now being able to be restored to near new output and the improvements are astonishing.
Agreed. I see that response a lot re: east coast vs west coast sound - JBL = rock, AR = jazz etc - and for me it's always been the opposite. I find JBLs to be fatiguing on rock, many rock records are bright and punchy so combined with the JBLs it's too much of a good thing. I find the ARs much more forgiving and take the edge off of a lot of harsh rock recordings - making them much easier to crank up.
You'll not find many knowledgeable music or hi-fi fans defending either as being anywhere near the best you can do for the money. I'm a JBL hoarder and you won't hear me defending the L100, even against other JBLs of much lesser monetary value in today's market. My LSR305s at $200/pair new will quite honesty shame the L100. I grew-up when the L100 and the ARs were new, and didn't care for either back then. I now own the first pair of L100s I ever heard which belonged to a friend from high-school and college. I keep them for an historical reference, only.
Well, the AR3a can go down to 30hz where the L100 starts choking at 50hz....
Both are overpriced for their performance and buying to capitalize on their continued appreciation is an investment for a different board. For sound quality, there are an awful lot of other speakers out there that perform better and cost less. These two have joined the Pio/Mar/Sui gear as having a purchase tax on them.
If I had to enjoy one of these speakers, the AR-3a, early models in cherry, perfect condition, consecutive serial numbers, all boxes and packing material and paperwork. Something that will have serious added tax for being special when they get sold on.
A 1971 quandary.
East coast /West coast sound debate been going on for 50 years, I can explain what each does well and you can decide.
AR has less than 7% distortion down to 20 HZ where the JBL is faltering below 50 hz with over 20% distortion. The JBL is probably more accurate above 200 HZ to 5,000 HZ. Both are pretty irritating above 7KHZ.
Separate names with a comma.