Do JBL speakers live up to their hype?

[Tom Brennan]

Nah. Every time I mention that they were an abortion, one of the guys on the JBL forum is adiment that the Beatles were mixed on 605s! :sigh:

(Doesn't it say 605 in the pic?)

I wouldn't trust a photo that's been around the internet for years and God knows who added the caption. But I recall reading about a book about the Beatles recording that stated they used 605s. But I may be mistaken.

In any event I think the 605 was pretty damned good speaker. Palpable midrange, very coherant (as they say nowadays), very solid bass in a proper cabinet and able to do the huge image and soundstage trick. Soft on top though.

I did learn for certain though that Ringo used Rogers Swivomatic hardware on his Ludwigs, no doubt about it.

 

[automojo]

Yes, the top models live-up to there reputation much better then the other overrated speakers on this site such as the Magnepans or Dynaco A25s.

I would be hesiant to say-that Magnepans are any more 'overhyped' then JBL's- as it's clearly a personal opinion. Nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about a product-you just have to take opinions for what they are-they aren't meant to be the last word.
Clearly both companys made some great, and not so great speakers-but the majority of their products (of both companies) sound pretty darn good IMHO.
I would also add ESS as well. A pair of recapped/refurbished AMT3's stand up very well to most of today's speakers IMHO when set up properly-the soundstage and imaging and detail is astounding.
As with any speakers-room and associated equipment make a difference-for example hard to really experience or enjoy Magnepans with a 3 watt SET- or in a 8x12 room.

 

[Copa1934]

I would be hesiant to say-that Magnepans are any more 'overhyped' then JBL's- as it's clearly a personal opinion. Nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about a product-you just have to take opinions for what they are-they aren't meant to be the last word.
Clearly both companys made some great, and not so great speakers-but the majority of their products (of both companies) sound pretty darn good IMHO.
I would also add ESS as well. A pair of recapped/refurbished AMT3's stand up very well to most of today's speakers IMHO when set up properly-the soundstage and imaging and detail is astounding.
As with any speakers-room and associated equipment make a difference-for example hard to really experience or enjoy Magnepans with a 3 watt SET- or in a 8x12 room.

Totally agree, especially on equipment and room "acoustics". No lack of speaker envy or speaker biggotry around here.

Cheers!

 

[jlovda]

Ok, here's the history.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/history/jbl-pro/1960s.htm

Mech986, thanks for the history lesson!!

 

[jlovda]

The Beatles at Capitol working with the Altec monitors (probably 604D/E).

Maybe this a little off-topic but about a year ago on the evening news there was a story about the special, tuned, sub-basement beneath the Capital Records studio that was used to add a small amount of reverberation and "depth" to singer's voices. It's still considered a proprietary secret and very few outsiders can see it.

The reverberation chamber made the news because there was some major construction going on across the street and they were afraid it would get screwed up.

You don't know what can be related to the speakers or something else.

 

[Tarl Of Gor]

Do JBL speakers live up to their hype?

I'm listening to my 4430's right now and all I have to say is......yup.

 

[Copa1934]

From Lansing Heritage link above:

"JBL would get its foot in the door of the broadcast and studio segment of the professional market in the 1960's as well.....

.... However, so well known was the 604 "sound", that Ed May had no trouble replicating its sonic character through subjective listening tests."

I didn't want to snip out so much, but I wanted this to appear in the correct position of this thread. What is historically explained is really important in how things took shape and that perception was more important than product, i.e. sounding like a 604 which wasn't all that great a speaker (again per the info, not my opinion) was more important than building something better (which would come later). Why? Because people don't like change. Was it the right decision? Sonically, no. Financially. YES!

This is an excellent example of compromise, and in this case well planed, well choreographed and well executed, on JBL's part.

As for some of the points about collectible, several factors play into this, not the least of which is perception. How valuable, today, do you think a tri-5 (55, 56, 57) Chevy would be had 10's of thousands not been destroyed in demolition derby's? How valuable would an Edsel be today had it not been such a flop? Uniqueness, limited numbers, breaking the mold, many factors may make a speaker highly desirable even when it's performance is not up to par with something remotely close in price. I would love to own a Dino Spyder, for many reasons. But for what they go for today there are far far superior performing vehicles and most for a lot less dough. And if more people knew they were made by Fiat, you'd have to wonder how many people would have second thoughts?

In a nutshell there is something intrinsic with collectible "gear", but that doesn't stop me from shaking my head in disbelief with many purchases, like Mach Two still in their original boxes selling for well over $500 (I believe closer to $700), plus shipping. Go figure. I think a pair of 4312, in boxes, sold for close to $1k. You know that wasn't for their performance.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

It's nice that the article credits me with the design of the JBL Musical Instrument speakers, which opened the door for the introduction of the JBL studio monitors. I'm flattered.

 

[mech986]

It's nice that the article credits me with the design of the JBL Musical Instrument speakers, which opened the door for the introduction of the JBL studio monitors. I'm flattered.

Hi Harvey,

Important to give credit where credit was and is due. Thanks for your insight and ability to get the drivers built and used. Started a whole industry right there. Anything you'd add to that part of the story, or to the development of the JBL studio monitors of the time we're talking about?

Bart
Also at Lansing Heritage

 

[EPI-Center]

this conversation really makes me wonder....in listening to vinyl, obviously records will have different sound depending on who's doing the mixing, but it makes you wonder if the mixer is influenced differently by different monitors in diff studios. I mean if one studio is running jbl, and another running ADS, would the same mixerman create different sounding recordings based on what he's hearing?

 

[dnewma04]

I'm sure that occurs, but that's all part of the production, not reproduction. So, if your thought is that you'd need the same speakers as used during production stages to accurately portray what the person intended, I'd say no.

 

[Rapidan]

this conversation really makes me wonder....in listening to vinyl, obviously records will have different sound depending on who's doing the mixing, but it makes you wonder if the mixer is influenced differently by different monitors in diff studios. I mean if one studio is running jbl, and another running ADS, would the same mixerman create different sounding recordings based on what he's hearing?

Short answer - yes. Longer answer, most any competent engineer will use several sets of speakers for comparison, and will also know the strong/weak points of the monitors he/she is using.

That said, I'm the long-time owner of a pair of stock L100A's. I'm well aware of their shortcomings, but I've always liked them a lot. Not surprisingly, they tend to sound best when they're playing back recordings of their era - many of which were likely mixed on similar monitors.