• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

JBL L300/136a Help

:whip:That’s another reason why I only use tube amps 50 watt max
On my vintage Jbl or Altec’s
Although I did burn the VC’s on some Alnico Altec 418’s
In my K-Horns ‘ but that was with 110 watt custom hotrodded
RCA theatre Tube amps
 
SaturationPt said:
What would someone pay for an original (blue) D8R077 today? Probably a lot more than when it was new/available and for those of us who only want original, ... it makes or breaks a pair of L300s.
Click to expand...

For sure. BTW... what makes the blue diaphragm so desirable in the 077? My old 300 has them. :)

077_tweeter-horn_blue_diaphragm.jpg
 
Last edited:
They have been out of production for quite a bit longer than the D16R2405, and were not as widely produced in the first place.
 
What he said ^^

They are apparently sonically and electrically identical to the D16R2405, but the 2405s are not blue so looking through that plastic prism will show gold and silver instead of blue.

And aftermarket is what's available today, surely not exact matches, so you'd need a pair to have any possibility of your tweeters being sonically matched again, ... plus cheaper offshore production without the knowledge that JBL had of the original design and production, ... original is best. If you're looking at a pair of $3,500-up Summits for your collection you want the right diaphragms. I considered keeping the tweeters out of my L65As and selling them with aftermarket diaphragms just to have spares.
 
So as to diaphragm replacements on the LE85, I had a little accident a few years ago when I had one of the LE85's out. Bonehead move, was being so careful with not letting the screws get away from me, I didn't pay attention to the terminal and that being ferrous, put a little dent in the diaphragm.. :rant:

Anyway, while I couldn't hear any difference I tried to get a new one. The original JBL's were like gold, so I went with the Radian replacements for both. I installed the first one that replaced the dinged one, and then played them like that for a few weeks. Did some listening comparisons, switched to mono and used the balance to go back and forth. I couldn't tell any difference. Now both have the Radian's and they sound quite good. Since my L200's are not really collectables like the L300, I see no problem with this so long as they sound good. In many ways, I'm glad I have the 200's as I don't feel compelled to scrounge and spend big bucks to keep them original. And with those 2216Nd1's I'm sure the sq has not suffered a bit either..

I was unaware of the blue diaphragms on the 077's. I checked mine, yep blue. Hopefully I never have to mess with those!
thumbnail (4).jpg
 
Last edited:
tarior said:
JBL never made cones, they bought them from pressing plants like Hawley and RDM, which last I looked, are still in business, and still run those cones from time to time. Which is good. What is bad is that JBL no longer produces cone kits for most of their legacy products, which kinda sucks. However, some of us are willing to put in the necessary work to recone old JBL woofers as close to original spec (and look) as original. Sounds like the guy you were dealing with was ripping you off.
Click to expand...

Please remember that there was a 10 yr span between new purchase of the B460 and the first recone which was done in NYC at a facility that specialized in JBL repairs.
But never having purchased a raw driver or repairing a raw driver i was in sticker shock at the price of for the repair. Ignorance maybe, but when at the hands of the "Specialists" they are the the Gods of knowledge. They quote you a price and you pay it.
When it came time for the next repair, 9yrs later, my home location has now changed and not being a metropolitan area, again you find yourself at the hands of specialists, who are supposed to know their craft and how to locate supplies, when and where necessary.
Still not having the acuity to recone myself, i paid the price asked.
By the time the third repair came, i sold the unit. The foam surrounds dont last. Just my experience!!!!

JBL B460 w/ 2245h woofer
Jbl b460.jpg
 
Last edited:
tarior said:
JBL never made cones, they bought them from pressing plants like Hawley and RDM, which last I looked, are still in business, and still run those cones from time to time. Which is good. What is bad is that JBL no longer produces cone kits for most of their legacy products, which kinda sucks. However, some of us are willing to put in the necessary work to recone old JBL woofers as close to original spec (and look) as original. Sounds like the guy you were dealing with was ripping you off.
Click to expand...

Tarior, if i knew then, what i know now, the outcome would have been different. Always looking for exact replacement parts and not knock offs i wasnt ready to settle. After working in a recording studio as chief engineer ive learned how to refoam, and recone JBL woofers etc. My major complaint of the 2245h was the materials used for the surround for such a massive cone whose excursion is half of most woofers made today. Even the 30" Electro Voice woofer used the cloth surround and the Cadence 34inch uses a cloth accordian surround.
 
I do agree somewhat about the surround on the 2245. It's too narrow, and IMO, the cone itself is a little too shallow. They should have gone with a deeper basket, deepoer cone, and a wider roll on the surround if they were going to go with foam, but it is what it is.
Foam is acoustically superior to all other surround materials, but it is a maintenance item.
 
tarior said:
I do agree somewhat about the surround on the 2245. It's too narrow, and IMO, the cone itself is a little too shallow. They should have gone with a deeper basket, deepoer cone, and a wider roll on the surround if they were going to go with foam, but it is what it is.
Foam is acoustically superior to all other surround materials, but it is a maintenance item.
Click to expand...

Why is the surround too narrow? The cone is too shallow? Greg Timbers designed the 2245H for a particular purpose. Maybe you should ask him questions about his inferior design. The frame is also shared with multiple drivers, of which, the 2245H was the first, and later models share the same basic profile.
 
edgewound said:
Why is the surround too narrow? The cone is too shallow? Greg Timbers designed the 2245H for a particular purpose. Maybe you should ask him questions about his inferior design. The frame is also shared with multiple drivers, of which, the 2245H was the first, and later models share the same basic profile.
Click to expand...
I never said it was inferior, it's a great woofer, I own a few of them. However, the surrounds on the 2245 are pretty failure prone, whether they are JBL or aftermarket. For the amount of excursion that it is capable of, they are too narrow. If they had a little wider roll, they would last longer. You know it as well as I do, or at least you should for as long as you have been in the business. One of my major complaints with JBL is that they use the same basic baskets (with some differences in the motors, before anyone splits that hair) for everything, which requires some design compromises.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge JBL fan, but I can still recognize the shortcomings where they exist. I know about GT, and highly respect him, but even he isn't perfect. I doubt he has time in his retirement to talk about 40 year old woofers.
 
tarior said:
I never said it was inferior, it's a great woofer, I own a few of them. However, the surrounds on the 2245 are pretty failure prone, whether they are JBL or aftermarket. For the amount of excursion that it is capable of, they are too narrow. If they had a little wider roll, they would last longer. You know it as well as I do, or at least you should for as long as you have been in the business. One of my major complaints with JBL is that they use the same basic baskets (with some differences in the motors, before anyone splits that hair) for everything, which requires some design compromises.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge JBL fan, but I can still recognize the shortcomings where they exist. I know about GT, and highly respect him, but even he isn't perfect. I doubt he has time in his retirement to talk about 40 year old woofers.
Click to expand...

Tarior, I have to agree with you, but it has been my standing all along. The foam surround was not the best way to go, especially from a maintenance point of view. IMO, I don't think anyone here thinks about having to re-cone or refoam a woofer at the time of purchase. And I too, am a JBL enthusiast, have worked around them and with them on a professional level. But no one can say it doesn't hit in the pocket, when you have to repair a driver no matter how low the cost.
 
I don't necessarily think that foam is totally the wrong way to go with a PA woofer like the 2245, but it certainly could have been implemented a little better. IMCO.
 
tarior said:
I don't necessarily think that foam is totally the wrong way to go with a PA woofer like the 2245, but it certainly could have been implemented a little better. IMCO.
Click to expand...


Thank you again, kind sir! The sub was a joy to use, especially with its crossover the BX63a. My problem however was foam rot, not misuse even tho it was hooked up to a Carver 4.0t bridged to create a 1000 watt mono amp.
There are many conversations on various websites ( the JBL website and the DIY Audio website about the foam surround breakdown). To those who have the experience and the knowledge of reconing and refoaming a speaker, I salute you! To the Proficient collector of vintage equipment this is supposed to be a forum where every one can voice ideas and opinions. I'm sure everyone here has that much.
 
Kinda like how tires never last forever on your car - some things wear out and need replaced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom