JBL L300/136a Help

[Alobar]

While I agree with the experiences many have had with the 2216nd, where can you get them and at reasonable prices? Here’s one pair for $1500 obo now on eBay:

I paid $650 each from Speaker Exchange for my factory new Nd1's a few years back. Not cheap, but considering the alternatives, trying to track down vintage drivers, then sending them off to be worked over, then getting them shipped back to me, I think considering the amazing transformation they did to my system, I think "reasonable prices", especially in this hobby is a relative term. But sure, at the time I was really struggling as to whether to get rid of my L200's that I bought in 1974 at age 19 and buy some 590's or something. Beings I live in a very backwater Alaskan town, I maybe could have sold the 200's for dog houses, but the large speaker market here is non-existent! But what I did instead, was to keep these speakers, one of the very few items I still own after nearly a half century, and in the process put together a package that I believe would best many speakers costing more than I have invested, and that includes the amps, DSP etc.. I have no regrets!

 

[Kazanski]

thanks for all the feedback on this - I did see those out on Ebay and was considering, my main question goes back to - if I am not planning to b-amp or update crossovers, will these be a viable drop in replacement that will be either same or better than the stock? I looked around and there are some references on LH that the L300 is tuned properly to support this driver, but I didn't see anything definitive.

Also - I did get a response from Speaker Exchange and she said they do stock the C8R2235 but they order them in and take reservations, $230 and they will have more in 2-3 weeks. At that price, plus install, plus shipping, plus destroying a perfectly good 136A, I will probably stick with my original plan to find a set online that is in good shape and sell what I have. I found these on the Bay yesterday, any reasons (other than price) I should avoid these? The owner says they are original cones and they were reformed by an authorized dealer, but is not the original owner and purchased them from "audio mania" which I have no clue what that means. Looks like he is west coast so thought someone here may know.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/373483469937?ul_noapp=true

 

[Jeffery]

I wouldn't consider reconing a 136A with a C8R2235 to be destroying it.

Those original cone eBay drivers may have new surrounds, but what about the spider? Was the magnet recharged?

Despite what the seller believes he is selling, he is still going off second hand info - without a set of measurements of the drivers, you are still buying a pig in the poke.


Nostalgia is sometimes worthwhile, but progress marches forth.

From the LH site:


"The 2235 cone is an evolutionary improvement over the 136/2231 cone. JBL did away with the 136/2231 cone after the 2235 cone became available. I cannot think of a single reason to seek out genuine 136/2231 cones unless someone just has to hear the difference between a 136H or 2231H and a 2235H.

Gordon W should be able to tell you all about the spider differences. Don MRitchie has also posted about the 2235H spider."

I remember one of the guys running a 2216 where the 2235 used to reside mentioning using the Pass L300 crossover and liking it. But that crossover didn't change anything on the woofer response - it was just getting the mid horn to play nicer.

https://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_l300.pdf

 

[SaturationPt]

FWIW 50320 is the correct cone, that cone was used in several 15" JBL models, but as @Jeffery mentioned that does not tell you what coil/former or spider is used, which is very important and will tell you if it is an original type or not. Odd that the grease-pencil assembly number is not on the back of the cone.

I do understand what you're saying about the one 136A that is in excellent condition, I would have a hard time reconing it just so that it will match the recone in the other 136A. I'm on the same page as you, would buy another to recone (or a pair) so that this one stays original. Probably no real logic or value to having it sit in a closet as-is, just emotional.

The 136A w/ C8R2235 vs 136H w/ C8R2235 quandry is why I kept a pair of 2235Hs around when I was looking for L300s, and why I was looking more specifically for L300As. There is no exact replacement for the 136A, the C8R2235 is all that you can get (and still available from JBL). My preference is to have the ferrite woofer in there with the 2235H cone/coil/suspension/mass-ring, because I wanted the power handling and deeper bass extension of that driver/version. You have a choice and will need to decide what you want your speakers to be when you have them complete, but I feel strongly that the L300A was a significant upgrade, which you can do if you wish. I am not sure of the C8R2235 in the 136A basket, when I was looking at L300s I read several things that people over at LH were saying about the coil being longer on the 2235, extending out of the magnet gap differently during longer excursions, and not actually reaching the performance that it does in the 136H motor / 2235H motor, ... so I decided that I would not run 136As with 2235 cones (coils). You might read the same, might not, and I believe that the only way around this is to have 136A cones in 136A speakers, which still puts you in Alnico magnets that might have been overdriven at some point and need remagnetizing, ... and at very best don't have the LF extension nor power handling of the later 136H, which actually do fit the 2235/2235H coil.

But, replacement (OE) cone kits for the 136A haven't been available for a long time, which is why the C8R2235 is the accepted service part.

Anyway, that is my opinion and why I chose the L300A/136H.

Last of note: The term is "refoamed" not "reformed". Not sure why so many people use the latter, but you are not changing/restoring the form of the speaker, just replacing the foam surround/suspension. This and rogue apostrophies drive me nuts, ... or maybe I started out nuts, not yet certifiable though.

 

[Kazanski]

all good points... yeah very skeptical to buy anything from the bay unless it is priced right and has clean pictures, documentation, etc...

So back to my original conundrum, replace or recone... if I am going to end up spending ~$1000+ on replacements anyway (which is what it looks like), do I just recone/refoam these and know what I am getting, or test the waters of the open market. For now, they work (maybe not optimally), so going to finish cleaning them up, put on an album later, have a few drinks and think about it... I guess that is my other issue is if I send them off to be worked on, I have speakers that I can't listen to for the foreseeable future - I know most of the people that do good work can take a while because they do good work. My impatience may get the best of me...

 

[Kazanski]

Last of note: The term is "refoamed" not "reformed". Not sure why so many people use the latter, but you are not changing/restoring the form of the speaker, just replacing the foam surround/suspension. This and rogue apostrophies drive me nuts, ... or maybe I started out nuts, not yet certifiable though.

Yeah the asked him specifically about the grease pencil too...

Anyway the reformed v. refoamed I believe is an autocorrect issue that my technology seems to be causing

 

[SaturationPt]

all good points... yeah very skeptical to buy anything from the bay unless it is priced right and has clean pictures, documentation, etc...

So back to my original conundrum, replace or recone... if I am going to end up spending ~$1000+ on replacements anyway (which is what it looks like), do I just recone/refoam these and know what I am getting, or test the waters of the open market. For now, they work (maybe not optimally), so going to finish cleaning them up, put on an album later, have a few drinks and think about it... I guess that is my other issue is if I send them off to be worked on, I have speakers that I can't listen to for the foreseeable future - I know most of the people that do good work can take a while because they do good work. My impatience may get the best of me...

Maybe you need to schedule a trip to the far corner of Indiana and listen to a pair of L300As (with original crossovers and "2235Hs)? Feel free to PM me if you feel like scheduling something, a warning being that I'm kind of impulsive with my weekends. If you're strong enough to carry your Summits up/down stairs, you could even bring them and we could swap in a pair of 2235Hs to see if you can hear the difference, might drive my wife a bit nuts as we run them loud to break them in, ... could even use REW to do a couple of sine-sweeps to compare.

 

[Nyjblbob]

Yea it’s a spell check thing
Refoamed is changed to reformed

 

[SaturationPt]

Spelchek nevr seemz tu uhfekt wut eye tipe intu thuh foruhm on mi cumputr. Ahr u shr?

 

[toddalin]

thanks for all the feedback on this - I did see those out on Ebay and was considering, my main question goes back to - if I am not planning to b-amp or update crossovers, will these be a viable drop in replacement that will be either same or better than the stock? I looked around and there are some references on LH that the L300 is tuned properly to support this driver, but I didn't see anything definitive.

Also - I did get a response from Speaker Exchange and she said they do stock the C8R2235 but they order them in and take reservations, $230 and they will have more in 2-3 weeks. At that price, plus install, plus shipping, plus destroying a perfectly good 136A, I will probably stick with my original plan to find a set online that is in good shape and sell what I have. I found these on the Bay yesterday, any reasons (other than price) I should avoid these? The owner says they are original cones and they were reformed by an authorized dealer, but is not the original owner and purchased them from "audio mania" which I have no clue what that means. Looks like he is west coast so thought someone here may know.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/373483469937?ul_noapp=true

I would avoid them. They appear to have the "fat rolls" that Bart was referring too. And, who ever applied them was "ham-fisted."

 

[SaturationPt]

This is what you get with L300s, original crossovers and C8R2235/136H woofers (sorry about the 50Hz suck-out from a reflection):


I think that there are gains to be had with the 2216ND-1, but the cost of $1,500 in woofers and the inability to use the existing crossover is significant.

If you're talking about L200s as many posters here are, or even stock L300s with aging 136As there will be improvements certainly, but there is a diminishing return as you get to the newer and better woofers including the 2235H.

 

[Kazanski]

I would avoid them. They appear to have the "fat rolls" that Bart was referring too. And, who ever applied them was "ham-fisted."

Thanks! I was thinking it looked quite sloppy

 

[Jeffery]

the inability to use the existing crossover is significant.

I'm not so sure the original crossover wouldn't work, at least using vanilla 2216s.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulle...area-for-4333A&p=434972&highlight=#post434972

From LH:

"Not quite having stock 4333B's, I replaced the 2235H's with 2216Nd's. Crossovers were replaced with the Pass charge coupled units. I did not A/B non-modified verses modified directly, but I did note a significant clarity increase in the lower midrange. I also think the bass is flatter and much clearer. New woofers needed suspension brake in. The lower bass was down from the 2235's for the first few months. My opinion is, the 2216Nd is a much better match for the 2420 compression driver and horn/lens assembly. The midrange is very very good. Both mid and hf attenuators are set to zero. Hence, my thought is, the 2216Nd is not only a direct replacement, but a considerable improvement."

Now he was using 4333Bs that's the studio monitor looking L300. He changed to the L300 Pass crossover, but as mentioned previously the woofer section of that crossover is the same as the stock crossover. Noted "a considerable improvement".

 

[SaturationPt]

I have been following that also, but noted that it he made a clear point that it was a match subjectively, and didn't have measured data.

If I remember the Nelson Pass crossover article correctly, Nelson struggled with phasing of the mid and tweeter more than anything and I believe that he switched both to reach his preferred arrangement.

 

[SaturationPt]

The first thing I'd want to look at between the ND-1 and existing woofer is efficiency, but also I see a very high impedance swing from 55 Ohms @ 37Hz to below 6 Ohms from 150Hz to above 300Hz, which would certainly affect shaping and the dB/Volt output. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to replacing a woofer with completely different design than just popping it in place and hearing "tighter bass".

 

[Jeffery]

I have been following that also, but noted that it he made a clear point that it was a match subjectively, and didn't have measured data.

If I remember the Nelson Pass crossover article correctly, Nelson struggled with phasing of the mid and tweeter more than anything and I believe that he switched both to reach his preferred arrangement.

Yeah, but I guess my obtuse point was that even though the guy in that post was using a Pass L300 crossover with a 2216, Pass made no changes to the woofer section of the crossover from the stock crossover. Ergo, if the 2216 works with the Pass crossover, it should work with the stock crossover. Sure, measurements would be nice, but of all the accounts I've seen of guys replacing 2235s with 2216s, none have indicated regret.

The first thing I'd want to look at between the ND-1 and existing woofer is efficiency, but also I see a very high impedance swing from 55 Ohms @ 37Hz to below 6 Ohms from 150Hz to above 300Hz, which would certainly affect shaping and the dB/Volt output. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to replacing a woofer with completely different design than just popping it in place and hearing "tighter bass".

Good point- the only example I've seen so far of a swap from 2235 to 2216 and passive crossover didn't use the 2216Nd-1, just the vanilla 2216Nd.

Where are you finding any impedance sweeps of the 2216Nd-1?

 

[Alobar]

Any opinions on the potential for better outcomes from moving the crossover upstream from the amplifiers instead of at the speakers themselves? That seems to be one of the benefits claimed for active monitors, and it makes a case for separate amps having easier to drive loads, with more precise cutoff slopes etc. I really don't have the xover experience to answer definitively, but one thing I did notice when I shifted to active xovers and bi/triamping was what I have heard described as a lifted veil (and greatly improved image), especially from the LE85 as that is the only original driver in my 200's.

I guess I am wondering about the origins of the rather drastic improvements I have experienced. I say positively most of it were from the Nd1's, they didn't have exactly a hard act to follow however. But the active crossovers and triamplification has also been an improvement IME.

 

[SaturationPt]

The L200s’ LE15B to the 2216ND-1? That’s about a three generation jump, I sure hope you hear a big improvement.

Biamping and triamping? I would say that yes, a passive network which has to use band-pass filters with the inherent delay and phase-shift, along with the overlap and slope limitations, and of course the parallel driver impedance dips and power losses certainly presents a challenge to an amplifier and is far from the perfect theoretical audio system. However, it is far cheaper than building separate amplifiers for each driver and using an active crossover and/or DSP.

For those of us who have biamped/triamped with active crossovers and DSPs however, there’s really no turning back. A good DSP however is able to correct the sins of a passive crossover, to take phase shifts and add delay, to add +/- shaping through the frequency range and the only real penalty remaining is the power loss, if the amplifier is stable and powerful enough I think it can be just as good as the biamped/triamped version.

I do both. At this point the graph above was straight through the original crossovers on my 1981 JBL L300As, driven from the 8Ohm taps on an autoformer McIntosh solid-state amplifier. Move it to another amplifier, perhaps one with high-current “direct-coupled” outputs and I would expect something slightly different. With my 2-way speakers I almost exclusively biamp and completely bypass the original crossovers.

When you have separate amplifiers for each driver, the current necessary to drive a woofer doesn’t cause any rail depression, the collapse of the field and kinetic motion of the cone doesn’t cause any spikes on the line that can affect other drivers, all of the capacity of the amplifier is directed to one driver. Perfect. The only real downside is cost & complexity. It also can take a good deal of time to take all of the necessary measurements and create proper crossovers and levels.

Yes, I like the upstream crossover method @Alobar.

 

[Mr Boochie]

I would avoid them. They appear to have the "fat rolls" that Bart was referring too. And, who ever applied them was "ham-fisted."

For that price, he could have taken better photos.

 

[Alobar]

The L200s’ LE15B to the 2216ND-1? That’s about a three generation jump, I sure hope you hear a big improvement.

Oh yeah! The LE15B's were pretty much a 60's level, so definitely the Nd1's were incredible, even with the LX16 crossovers!

The only real downside is cost & complexity. It also can take a good deal of time to take all of the necessary measurements and create proper crossovers and levels.

I think there are no right answers. If I had L300's in near pristine condition I would probably NOT be in favor of putting Nd1's in them and triamping. I would want to keep them as original as I could, to keep their resale value high for one. But another, is that the later variants of woofers, the 136's are a force to be reckoned with, and all without all the fuss of extra amplifiers, DSP units, or other active crossovers.

But, for me, with my old L200's, they don't have the same value, not anywhere near the 300. 200's were never the "rock stars" that the Summits were. Mine have sentimental value for ME, but thats really about it. And they gave me headaches listening to. Ear fatigue mainly, but I really wanted to try to make them into, if not great, at least much improved. And they are one of the more heavily modded JBL home speakers out there. People have done damn near everything to them! Moving the baffles out, extending the back to accommodate H92 horns, you name it, they have tried it!

So when a fellow member and now friend, @nedseg approached me with his L200's that he also had since new, we started batting around different upgrade paths we could take. He came up with the idea of using a modern driver like the 2216Nd1 as a potential, and the more we talked about it the more we talked each other into it.

It really appealed to me because I am just no fan of Ebay. I've had bad luck, and also have a tendency to get screwed there on shipping costs to Alaska. Even had someone flame me over "what part of CONTIG don't you understand!".. So the idea of trying to find a vintage pair of JBL woofers that would work in my 200's wasn't appealing even if they would ship them to me. Would the magnets need recharging? What sort of botched attempts were made to "restore" them, would parts be available?, etc etc.. Ordering the Nd1's were easy, New drivers, right from Speaker Exchange, and that alone would probably last me the rest of my life. But JBL might still stand behind them for the foreseeable future after that..
The crossover was easy. I started out with a MiniDSP 2x4HD for a couple hundred bucks and a Yamaha AS-301 amp for the LE85/077's to compliment my Kenwood 700M for the LF and I was in business. Say what they want about the cheap little AS Yammies, they have pretty good specs, and they are a good economical choice in their role because they can be ran with all tone controls bypassed. Essentially a little 60 WPC power amp.. I know, not high end McIntosh but probably plenty for their driver load.. I always had planned on replacing them with something better if this Nd experiment was a success. Now I'm just not sure I really need to.