Newbie question about the JBL l65a air port and tube amp suggestion.

[BMWCCA]

I live in Thailand, not so far from Japan. We import stuff from Japan here all the time, vintage ceramics, electronics, furniture, etc. So I'm not that skeptical.

Well, then that would certainly explain your frame of reference as to the value of vintage JBLs!

I truly hope you enjoy them. Maybe you can replace the woofer in the L65 with an LE128H-1 and put them on stands. Then you may have something worthwhile.

By-the-way, the L112 and L65 were actually contemporaries. The L112 just started a couple of years later and stayed around longer.

 

[Mr Boochie]

I've tried the L112 really like them as well but it's sounds a little too modern I guess lol. I like the design of L65 also, feel like it would fit well with my room. Might pick them up and listen to them for a while and might sell them later to explore more JBL. Thank you for your advice

I think that you'll like the Jubals. A friend bought a pair in the 1980s. He sold them (and deeply regretted it).

Now, he's looking for another pair. Good ones are not that easy to find. Many have damaged glass tops and wood surfacing needing TLC.

At least there are capable techs who know how to bring the electronics and speaker components up to speed.

 

[Mr Boochie]

Well, then that would certainly explain your frame of reference as to the value of vintage JBLs!

I truly hope you enjoy them. Maybe you can replace the woofer in the L65 with an LE128H-1 and put them on stands. Then you may have something worthwhile.

By-the-way, the L112 and L65 were actually contemporaries. The L112 just started a couple of years later and stayed around longer.

I have always liked the "alnico-era" JBLs. In guitar amps and hi-fis.

 

[SaturationPt]

Being an owner of many JBL models through the years, I can agree with much that has been said. My L65As were very enjoyable to listen to, and a great piece of furniture. SQ-wise I feel that JBL did better in cabinets, crossovers, midrange, and LF drivers in the L112. The L65's tweeters outclassed the rest of the L65 IMO, shared with the L300 series as well as several professional models (the main difference being cosmetics in the pro vs consumer tweeter) and the Jubals were unique to look at / easy to integrate into a room without having it look like a stereo system, which is why I liked mine initially.

They are pretty expensive for what you get back in sound, especially compared to some of the less unique-looking JBLs, but still well worth owning especially for the unique style. Their big brothers the L300/L300A are significantly more speaker, and still have the smoked glass top, which brings up the biggest problem with L65s is not that they're bad speakers for their era and purpose, but that JBL made better ones.

These days a lot of them have a damaged rim around the top where it is supposed to hold the glass in place, have replacement glass instead of the nicely edge-ground brown/smoked glass top, and grille frames are sometimes damaged (pretty fragile) as well as replacement / non-original drivers, LF/woofer drivers with foam replaced (incorrectly) on the front surface of the cone, non-original (not the blue) tweeter / HF diaphragms, other things that reduce value. Vintage JBL speakers are a pleasure to own, but be a bit careful.

 

[malden]

View attachment 3116702

when I compare just the baffle layout on these later JBL's to the L65 or "JUBAL", I see purposeful design rather than the hobbled together baffle of the L65 which shares the same enclosure as the earlier L55, another example of JBL recycling enclosures as kind of a one-size-fits-all.

I have a pair of JUBAL enclosures that the "flipper" who sold them to me had gutted and sold the drivers so he could make a few bucks without too much work. I view these enclosures as a blank slate and will at some point modify the baffles, getting rid of the foilcal which takes up too much space and add risers as @BMWCCA suggested for my own version of the L65

 

[markd51]

Being an owner of many JBL models through the years, I can agree with much that has been said. My L65As were very enjoyable to listen to, and a great piece of furniture. SQ-wise I feel that JBL did better in cabinets, crossovers, midrange, and LF drivers in the L112. The L65's tweeters outclassed the rest of the L65 IMO, shared with the L300 series as well as several professional models (the main difference being cosmetics in the pro vs consumer tweeter) and the Jubals were unique to look at / easy to integrate into a room without having it look like a stereo system, which is why I liked mine initially.

They are pretty expensive for what you get back in sound, especially compared to some of the less unique-looking JBLs, but still well worth owning especially for the unique style. Their big brothers the L300/L300A are significantly more speaker, and still have the smoked glass top, which brings up the biggest problem with L65s is not that they're bad speakers for their era and purpose, but that JBL made better ones.

These days a lot of them have a damaged rim around the top where it is supposed to hold the glass in place, have replacement glass instead of the nicely edge-ground brown/smoked glass top, and grille frames are sometimes damaged (pretty fragile) as well as replacement / non-original drivers, LF/woofer drivers with foam replaced (incorrectly) on the front surface of the cone, non-original (not the blue) tweeter / HF diaphragms, other things that reduce value. Vintage JBL speakers are a pleasure to own, but be a bit careful.

Sure, the L-200/L300 were both as you call it significantly more speaker. But, I walked away from purchasing brand new L300's one day, actually preferring the sound of my Jubals. I believe the pair I auditioned were the original Summit with the 136A Drivers. To me they sounded flabby in the bass. The Jubal seemed tighter, cleaner in the lower registers, and perhaps mid-bass area.

The L300's were brand spanking new out of the box, often thought that was maybe why I wasn't as impressed as I thought I would be, possibly needed some break in? Was the L300 (A&B Versions) better with the 2235H? Maybe.

My Jubals (4) at the time were less that a year old, and would've received full trade in value towards the L300's. The L300's out the door that day were $1050/ea. I paid $396/ea for the Jubals.

Does the L200/L300 go deeper-lower in hz than the Jubal-L65? Probably not, just more bass presence-authority with a 15" Bass Driver. And in either case you'd likely need a good subwoofer to compliment.

The L65/Jubal was sort of odd in its size, and as many say, a pair of appropriate height stands would help.

 

[markd51]

Well, then that would certainly explain your frame of reference as to the value of vintage JBLs!

I truly hope you enjoy them. Maybe you can replace the woofer in the L65 with an LE128H-1 and put them on stands. Then you may have something worthwhile.

By-the-way, the L112 and L65 were actually contemporaries. The L112 just started a couple of years later and stayed around longer.

I'd say if the original poster purchases these "Jubals" he has interest in, I would check things out first and then go from there if there was a need.

The Crossovers and Bass Drivers would have to be identified, They may have the 128H, and the correct Crossover Network for the 128H and the later A or B Versions.

Thus nothing is then actually wrong, except like mentioned earlier in the thread, a possible swap was done on the Foilcal was all.

 

[SaturationPt]

<<snip>> Does the L200/L300 go deeper-lower in hz than the Jubal-L65? Probably not, just more bass presence-authority with a 15" Bass Driver. And in either case you'd likely need a good subwoofer to compliment.<<snip>>

Actually, yes. My stock L300As were down 3dB @26Hz, which I think is better than my L65As (which I never measured, just living-room speakers) and for most music (and almost all recorded music and systems available at the time they were produced) would not benefit from a subwoofer.

Regarding whether you preferred the sound of your Jubals over the Summits as you've stated before? There is no right or wrong speaker for any of us as music is in how you like to hear it, it is best to audition for oneself. The synergy between the listener and the system becomes the most important measurement.

 

[Mr Boochie]

I guess it's okay to like both the Jubal and the Summit?

 

[malden]

One of the things that bug me about the Jubals is the same thing that people love about them, the 077 tweeter. It's too much tweeter for the that speaker in my opinion. The 077 is more at home with the components of the L300.

Since the L65 was basically the next generation of the L55, the addition of the LE5 midrange and better crossover should have been good enough.

 

[BMWCCA]

I'd say if the original poster purchases these "Jubals" he has interest in, I would check things out first and then go from there if there was a need.

The Crossovers and Bass Drivers would have to be identified, They may have the 128H, and the correct Crossover Network for the 128H and the later A or B Versions.

Thus nothing is then actually wrong, except like mentioned earlier in the thread, a possible swap was done on the Foilcal was all.

The 128H-1 was never fitted to any of the L65 versions but is the recommended replacement if you cannot get the correct one. Since you really can't get anything anymore, it becomes sort of a hollow suggestion. I just feel the 128H-1 is the better woofer of all the choice here and suggested it as an improvement. We just won't know what the OP thinks of them until he has tried them for a while. Our ears and brain take time to adjust to new "standards". Something new may sound "better" simply because it's louder, or your ears may have compensated for the poor midrange performance in one speaker over a new one. What you're used to in your living room has a decided advantage over something you listen to for the first time and briefly, if everything else like volume and room are controlled for.

 

[markd51]

The 128H-1 was never fitted to any of the L65 versions but is the recommended replacement if you cannot get the correct one. Since you really can't get anything anymore, it becomes sort of a hollow suggestion. I just feel the 128H-1 is the better woofer of all the choice here and suggested it as an improvement. We just won't know what the OP thinks of them until he has tried them for a while. Our ears and brain take time to adjust to new "standards". Something new may sound "better" simply because it's louder, or your ears may have compensated for the poor midrange performance in one speaker over a new one. What you're used to in your living room has a decided advantage over something you listen to for the first time and briefly, if everything else like volume and room are controlled for

Thanks for the correction. It was what later, the 122A? Memory is getting fuzzy, and for sure don't wish to put any wrong info out there

I remember once, a fella gave me a pair of JBL 12" pro drivers to try in the Jubal for kicks. Might've been the 2206? It didn't fit, the basket and magnet interfered with the Port Tube on the Jubal which angles towards the bass driver, so it was a no go.

 

[SaturationPt]

Thanks for the correction. It was what later, the 122A? Memory is getting fuzzy, and for sure don't wish to put any wrong info out there

I remember once, a fella gave me a pair of JBL 12" pro drivers to try in the Jubal for kicks. Might've been the 2206? It didn't fit, the basket and magnet interfered with the Port Tube on the Jubal which angles towards the bass driver, so it was a no go.

Post #6.

 

[Mr Boochie]

Post #6.

The 122A was a pretty good woofer. No?

 

[BMWCCA]

Yeah, if you're okay with "pretty good".
On the third try in the L65B, JBL used the 129H which is described as an acoustic equivalent to the 128H, which most feel is the better choice. If there was no problem with the earlier 122A and 126A, why would they have made three changes to the woofer in such a short time?

 

[malden]

The 122A was a pretty good woofer. No?

I'm wondering if the 122A/126A were built on the 123A frame, the former having foam surrounds, the latter, cloth accordion. Cone, voice coil, etc. similarities, differences?

 

[SaturationPt]

Yeah, if you're okay with "pretty good".
On the third try in the L65B, JBL used the 129H which is described as an acoustic equivalent to the 128H, which most feel is the better choice. If there was no problem with the earlier 122A and 126A, why would they have made three changes to the woofer in such a short time?

I’m not that knowledgeable on the specifics of these three drivers. However in specs, I was happy that the A had a much higher (rated) power handling, which whether for specs or real performance might have been the reason for the change when the re-designed the baffle to move the driver up, and of course the L65B change I would point to the AlNiCo supply problems moving them to a ferrite magnet driver.

But I’ve been wrong before and this is just my guess.

 

[BMWCCA]

I’m not that knowledgeable on the specifics of these three drivers. However in specs, I was happy that the A had a much higher (rated) power handling, which whether for specs or real performance might have been the reason for the change when the re-designed the baffle to move the driver up, and of course the L65B change I would point to the AlNiCo supply problems moving them to a ferrite magnet driver.

But I’ve been wrong before and this is just my guess.

We're all "guessing" or rather, speculating. The driver changes are just circumstantial evidence that JBL was trying to improve a product that had problems.

As for the AlNiCo change to ferrite being an issue, I'm sure it was. But has anyone found a ferrite driver in a JBL that was actually inferior to the previously used AlNiCo? I've never heard that complaint. The romantic view of the AlNiCo drivers and the blue frames and motors seems to be just that—blinded by the romance of vintage. Now those "new' ferrite drivers are vintage.

 

[Mr Boochie]

I'm wondering if the 122A/126A were built on the 123A frame, the former having foam surrounds, the latter, cloth accordion. Cone, voice coil, etc. similarities, differences?

Could be. I think the magnet assembly may be different between the 123A and the 122A. I have heard both. I own old-school L100s and L166s.

The woofer in the L166 seems a lot better to me.

 

[C Hart]

replace the woofer in the L65 with an LE128H-1

Bite your tongue! I've had both 122A-1 and 128H-1 woofers in my L166s and the 122A has superior side-by-side performance IMO. It will not handle as much power but it goes lower and clearer to my ears. Both are outstanding drivers though.

It is said that JBL went to ferrite magnets (128H) due a shortage of cobalt for alnico (122A) and it was not a performance issue. Either way, I like those 122As a lot.