JBL 4311 Condition Opinions

[JameWades]

I might have an opportunity to pick these up from a friend of a friend, and I wanted to get some thoughts from the well-versed folks around here. This is less of a "will I like them?" post (because I think those are a little silly), and more of a "will you check out these photos and give me your assessment as to the condition?"

I've never owned a pair of JBLs before but I've heard a few of vintage models over the years and have always been impressed. I'm just not an expert when it comes to the history/specs/appraisal.

Do these look like the original drivers to this model? Is the woofer repair job good/bad/ugly? (Seller is saying he picked them up from their 1st owner with the repair already done, and seller was told by 1st owner that it tested within 1/2db of the other post-repair. Grain of salt, taken.) He also mentioned that he had cleaned the veneer on the right speaker and the one on the left is how it was when he got it.

If you came across these in a "for sale" post, what would your thoughts be? Any red flags? Specific questions I need to be asking?

Thanks for your help in advance!

 

[edgewound]

Everything looks to be factory original.

If you ever have issues with the woofer, I reproduce a True Reproduction recone kit complete with the accurate amount of Aquaplas for the 2213/123A-3. My kit is accurate to within 5% of the Engineering Standard for moving mass.

 

[SaturationPt]

I agree, looks original, tweeter diffraction foam looks like the Simply Speakers version, which I like, a few ragged edges on the veneer but appears to have the sometimes missing grilles/frames.

I'd be looking for a replacement woofer, (OE for me or if you go with replacements just do a matched pair of recones), and deduct the price of a new woofer from the value of the speaker pair. They are not worth the same with one buggered and patched woofer.

 

[JameWades]

Everything looks to be factory original.

If you ever have issues with the woofer, I reproduce a True Reproduction recone kit complete with the accurate amount of Aquaplas for the 2213/123A-3. My kit is accurate to within 5% of the Engineering Standard for moving mass.

Cool, thank you. I'll keep that in mind!

 

[JameWades]

I agree, looks original, tweeter diffraction foam looks like the Simply Speakers version, which I like, a few ragged edges on the veneer but appears to have the sometimes missing grilles/frames.

I'd be looking for a replacement woofer, (OE for me or if you go with replacements just do a matched pair of recones), and deduct the price of a new woofer from the value of the speaker pair. They are not worth the same with one buggered and patched woofer.

Good stuff, I appreciate it. I'm not sure I've ever even heard a woofer with a patch done on it, but I can't imagine it doesn't impact performance. Whoa, sorry, that was like a quadruple negative.

 

[Chris Brown]

Is the woofer repair job good/bad/ugly?

It does look pretty sloppy. There is really no excuse for there to be so much adhesive (or whatever that is) slopped on the front of the cone, in some cases more than an inch away from the tear. There really should not be more than a bead of glue on the front at the site of the tear. If the cone needs more reinforcement than that, a patch (typically a piece of cloth soaked in watered-down wood glue) can be added to the rear of the cone. It looks like the person who did it probably just winged it.

I do sympathize though, having been in a similar situation not long ago. I had a small speaker fall off from on top of one of my L150s, hit the floor, and bounce right back into the cone of the passive radiator. Beyond a tear, it punched an entire hole in the cone. Obviously it will never look as good as a new cone again, but I think it came out pretty good considering the size of the hole. I tried to only use as much glue as was necessary and not just slop it on there.

 

[JameWades]

It does look pretty sloppy. There is really no excuse for there to be so much adhesive (or whatever that is) slopped on the front of the cone, in some cases more than an inch away from the tear. There really should not be more than a bead of glue on the front at the site of the tear. If the cone needs more reinforcement than that, a patch (typically a piece of cloth soaked in watered-down wood glue) can be added to the rear of the cone. It looks like the person who did it probably just winged it.

I do sympathize though, having been in a similar situation not long ago. I had a small speaker fall off from on top of one of my L150s, hit the floor, and bounce right back into the cone of the passive radiator. Beyond a tear, it punched an entire hole in the cone. Obviously it will never look as good as a new cone again, but I think it came out pretty good considering the size of the hole. I tried to only use as much glue as was necessary and not just slop it on there.

View attachment 2114352 View attachment 2114353

Good call. Looks like someone applied the glue with a putty knife.

How would you describe the change (if any) in the sound of your patched woofer?

 

[Chris Brown]

How would you describe the change (if any) in the sound of your patched woofer?

I did not notice any difference, but in my case it was actually a passive radiator (cone with no voice coil that performs a similar function as the port in a ported speaker). I don't think there is as much potential for a change in sound given the simple function that a passive radiator performs.

One thing to consider is that most or all L100/4310/4311/4312 speakers run the woofer full-range. That means the woofer isn't just reproducing the lower frequencies, but the midrange and treble frequencies also. It seems like that might increase the odds of there being some strange additional resonant frequency resulting from the cone repair. But really I'd guess a 99% chance that the woofer will perform just fine.