• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

1967 Ampeg B-15N JBL Speaker Upgrade

From Harvey Gerst, the speaker’s designer. See the last point.

I saw a lot of D130's come through with fried voice coils that were running off a 12 Watt Williamson amp during the 50's and 60's. Integrated music from HiFi systems caused one kind of problem - using the D130 as a musical instrument speaker created other problems.

That's why I suggested the D130F (which was a redesigned D130), made expressly for musical instrument amps, as were the D110F (a totally new design), the D120F (a redesign of the D131), and the D140F (a new design using existing parts).

Power specifications for the F series were nominally 35 to about 60 Watts. How did I arrive at these figures? Pretty simple, I played guitar and bass through them and kept increasing the power till they blew. Then I downrated them from the power that fried them. Pretty hi-tech, huh? It seemed to work pretty well (of course we didn't have synth players back then).

The major amp manufacturers back then were Fender, Sunn, Kustom, and Ampeg. Rickenbacher and Mosrite also bought some, but nowhere near the volume of the other amp makers. All had JBL speaker options.

And yes, the "F" stood for Fender, since they were the largest single buyer, and also distributed the F series to music stores. They had no part in the design or the idea for the new series, I am solely to blame
for that.

—————————

Q. Dick Dale seems to be the one claiming Fender went to JBL on behalf of him. In "Fender Sound Heard Around the World" he's quoted as saying the "F was invented as a result of melting voice coils & destroying surrounds". It's also stated that "the aluminum dust cover was Leo's idea". In his 9/96 GP interview he talks of the 'Dick Dale' kit available from JBL which includes a larger magnet, larger voice coil, thicker wires, aluminum dust cover, & rubberized front rim which brings the speaker (presumably a D130) up to Dick Dale & Fender specs! I'll be 'kind' and say that he comes off as 'a bit arrogant' in the interview!


A. I never had the honor of meeting or talking to Dick Dale, so I'd have to say that perhaps his memory has been clouded by the passing years. It's true that the JBL F series was partly about improving the current 2 models being used by Fender and others, namely the D130 and D131. It was my proposal to expand the line of speakers and at the same time, make some refinements to those speakers to make them more suitable to the guitar market. Here's what I did and why:

Opened the voice coil gap slightly on the D130F to allow more tolerance in mounting. Most people didn't realize that even though 8 mounting holes were available, only using four is the recommended mounting. And you don't screw them down tight to the board - that warps the frame. You use two fingers to do the final tightening - the casket will them complete the seal. When you warp the frame by overtightening, the voice coil can go out of round and eventually drag and short out. I opened the gap slightly to allow for this problem with just a very slight loss in efficiency - less than 1 dB.

Did the same thing on the D131 (and renamed as the D120F).

Using parts from the D130A and D150 woofers, I created a new woofer designed for bass guitar applications called the D140F. This had a copper voice coil and an aluminum dome.

Using the magnet assembly from the D123 and the basket from an LE-10, I added the D110F to complete the line of musical instrument speakers.

The surrounds were NOT "rubberized". JBL had developed a high viscosity coating to add to the existing hifi line of speakers that reduced ringing. I used it for a different reason. The hifi speaker surrounds dried out when exposed to excessive sunlight and heat, and I reasoned the viscose coating (we called it "goop" back then) would help prevent that.

Q. The other reference to Fender going to JBL was in conjunction with the development of the 1959 Vibrasonic. In Morrish's Fender amp book - Bill Carson recalls testing a protype JBL with a copper instead of aluminum voice coil & a thin paper cone? Can you shed some light on this obscure piece of JBL history?

A. Bill's probably refering to the D130A which was simply a standard JBL woofer at the time - all the woofers had copper voice coils. The 130A was basically a D130 with a copper voice coil and a paper dome and was used in the 001 system primarily (D130A, N1200 xover, and 175DLH driver/horm assembly). I felt the cone was too light for bass guitar and we wound up using the cone from the 150 woofer, a heavier unit. The duraluminum dome was added to the D140F, instead of the paper dome for cosmetic reasons at first, but later proved useful in adding a little more top end to the bass (not much though).

Q. regarding power ratings, I checked my official(3/70) JBL spec sheet for the F models and the 110F, 120F, & 130F are all rated at 100W continuous, the 140F @ 150W continuous. JBL defines 'continuous power' in my 4311B spec sheet as 3dB greater than RMS which would put the RMS rating of a D130F at 50W. On the other hand, D120Fs & D130Fs ran reliably in Showman 12s, Showman 15s, and early Boogies at considerably more power, so Mr. Gerst's & JBL's ratings are not marketing hype! It also appears that the 120F & 130F use identical magnet structures @ 11 pounds, 12,000 gauss flux density, and 275,000 maxwells total flux.

A. The D120F and the D130F, like their close cousins, the D130 and D131, all shared the same voice coil, dome, spider, and magnet assembies, except for the slightly wider gap on the top plate. I think the flux density was really around 11,700 gauss or so on the 120F & 130F because of the slightly enlarged gap, mentioned earlier.

Power handling was always a touchy subject and I just basically guessed at what I thought it could handle, based on normal playing. It was a little tricky since we were dealing with rock, country, jazz, and blues players and the power handling figures were just suggestions, regardless of how official the spec sheet looked.


The D130 and the D130F were essentially the SAME speaker. Exactly the same voice coil, cone, spider assembly, magnet, basket. The only things I did to the F are listed in a previous post, along with my reasons for doing them.

I revised the guitar ratings since those D130 ratings were for INTEGRATED music, like a symphony or a full band playing from the radio, tape or a record. The rating for a single live instrument like a guitar is much different, since there is nothing below 80 Hz or above 5 or 6 KHz coming out of a guitar (at least back then). A D130F (or a D130) could easily live with a higher power rating and we/JBL/I adjusted the rating accordingly. The new rating would also apply to a JBL D130 if used for that purpose.

If you had called JBL back then, you would have been transferred to me and that is what I would have told you. Since I was in charge of that division, I was responsible for creating those ratings and that was
our/my official position on the subject. As far as power handling, there was no difference - the rating was changed to more accurately reflect what the D130 or D130F could handle if used with a guitar as the source.

The lower rating also still applied if either speaker was used for full range music reproduction. These were my "babies" and if you want to disagree with me, that's fine. If you were at JBL at the time I was designing these, we could have had some rousing discussions about it. And besides, I think I also wrote those spec sheets for the D130 as well.


Q. A couple more Q's & I'll leave you alone - Didn't know the D140F has a copper voice coil - is it an edgewound ribbon like the aluminum coils? What were the reason(s) for using copper (vs. aluminum) in the D140F?

A. Yes, the D140F had an edgewound copper ribbon voice coil. Copper has better heat conductivity than aluminum (think pots and pans) but it's heavier and not as responsive to high frequencies, due to it's weight. For use in woofers, copper is the wire of choice.

Actually, had I thought about it some more, I should have probably made the D140F more of a full range speaker, but it was basically designed as a replacement for people using D130A woofers for live music.
 
The JBL speaker is high wattage relatively inefficient compared to the stock speaker. That is not to say it can't be made better with another speaker but efficiency is way more important that wattage power.
How do you come to this conclusion?
 
The JBL speaker is high wattage relatively inefficient compared to the stock speaker. That is not to say it can't be made better with another speaker but efficiency is way more important that wattage power.
D-130F's had a sensitivity of something like 103dB; IIRC, D-140's were at least 98dB. How much more efficiency can one expect?
 
mine came stock with a d140 and I loved it. Friend had one with a 421 in it and I dunno, it sounded muffled.
I had a 421A in a cabinet my brother designed and built. It sounded anything but muffled. Perhaps, the Ampeg was the culprit? I ran mine with a Furman PQ-3 (late '70s greenface) into a Crown D-150A.

My '67 cab is currently fitted with an Eminence Delta 15a. Great speaker...
I put a pair of those into a 1969 SUNN Sorado cabinet years ago. Sounded great.
 
I had a friend with a D130 in a mid 60s B15 (too long ago to recall the year of the amp, but i do recall the driver because there was talk about replacing it). It was a very, very sweet sounding rig at a moderate volume level, so for recording with a good mic it was perfect. I've never thought a B15 was big enough for gigging regardless of the speaker.
 
I had a friend with a D130 in a mid 60s B15 (too long ago to recall the year of the amp, but i do recall the driver because there was talk about replacing it). It was a very, very sweet sounding rig at a moderate volume level, so for recording with a good mic it was perfect. I've never thought a B15 was big enough for gigging regardless of the speaker.

I used one in lounge acts on the Holiday Inn and Ramada circuits, for over a year, with the CTS. Since we were backing a vocalist we didn't play super loud, the emphasis was on the singing, but I could keep up with the drums and a Hammond B-3, so take that

for what you will. Those lounges were relatively small perhaps 70-100 people. . It was fine for casuals and jazz gigs. At the time, P.A.'s weren't big, The Shure VocalMaster was @200 watts. Unfortunately, I don't have a "Way Back" machine to listen to how it sounded, so it
could have been awful, but I don't think so. Just my take however. My car stereo is way more powerful than the B-15N (C) that sits in my practice space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redbrangus
I used one in lounge acts on the Holiday Inn and Ramada circuits, for over a year, with the CTS. Since we were backing a vocalist we didn't play super loud, the emphasis was on the singing, but I could keep up with the drums and a Hammond B-3, so take that

for what you will. Those lounges were relatively small perhaps 70-100 people. . It was fine for casuals and jazz gigs. At the time, P.A.'s weren't big, The Shure VocalMaster was @200 watts. Unfortunately, I don't have a "Way Back" machine to listen to how it sounded, so it
could have been awful, but I don't think so. Just my take however. My car stereo is way more powerful than the B-15N (C) that sits in my practice space.
I agree that a B-15 was an adequate rig for many gigs of it's era. It was pretty much definitive for the sort of lounge acts and 'casuals' that were described, and ubiquitous in jazz big bands.

A Shure Vocal Master was 100-watts, period. That was the first device I ever put on a dummy load to see where it clipped and I remember it distinctly. And it was a big improvement over what most folks were using when it was introduced, in part because the column speakers were somewhat better than most. Of course, 100 watts was not nearly enough power to get the vocals heard over a guitarist with a Pro Reverb, a Kustom 200-watt 315 bass rig, and a thrashing drummer.

And if one is referring to the time-travel device employed by Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman on Rocky and Bullwinkle, I believe the correct spelling is "WABAC". The acronym had a meaning, IIRC, but I don't remember what it was. That was in an era when the "UNIVAC" and similar computer names were still in the popular vernacular. (The 'vac' in those old computer names stood for 'vacuum tube', BTW.) (Edit: Actual research tells me that this last thing is wrong -- it did not stand for 'vacuum tube'. The 'AC' on the end stood for Automatic Computer -- it was the UNIVersal Automatic Computer. Oops.)
 
Last edited:
I used one in lounge acts on the Holiday Inn and Ramada circuits...
I did those for a couple of years in '77-'79. Back in those days music didn't have to be played overly loud for people to enjoy it and get up onto the dance floor. :thumbsup:

At first, I had a 2nd gen. SUNN Concert Bass amp into a '60s sealed Traynor YT-15 with EVM15L drivers. For the other band I used my, above mentioned, Furman/Crown rig into an Acoustic 106 with the same EV drivers. The first band had a VocalMaster with the half-height columns; that got the job done just fine, as I recall. I don't remember the PA in the other band outside of the ubiquitous Yamaha 1-15/wide, thin silver horn cabinets.
 
Interesting! I'm going to grab the d140f because I'm getting it for a sweet price but in all honesty I think the d130f would be a better speaker for my application which is full range low volume recording. I mainly use my B15 for re-amping and very seldomly track with it ON.

You’re gonna love it. It took me several years to find a 8 ohm D-130F in good shape. D 140’s are easier to source and better for bass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turbocharbo
Interesting! I'm going to grab the d140f because I'm getting it for a sweet price but in all honesty I think the d130f would be a better speaker for my application which is full range low volume recording. I mainly use my B15 for re-amping and very seldomly track with it ON.
You might be right about the 130 being slightly preferable for your application, but I agree with @Ric Vice that you're gonna like it fine. He's also right that 140s are easier to find than 130s. As I said, K and E series JBLs sound the same and I still see E-140's on CL for $100-150 occasionally. I don't think I've ever seen an E-130 in my life. There must not have been much of a market for them -- I guess lead guitar players mostly wanted 12s, and they could only sell so many E-130s to steel players. :D Enjoy your speaker...maybe let us know how it goes after you've used it a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turbocharbo
You might be right about the 130 being slightly preferable for your application, but I agree with @Ric Vice that you're gonna like it fine. He's also right that 140s are easier to find than 130s. As I said, K and E series JBLs sound the same and I still see E-140's on CL for $100-150 occasionally. I don't think I've ever seen an E-130 in my life. There must not have been much of a market for them -- I guess lead guitar players mostly wanted 12s, and they could only sell so many E-130s to steel players. :D Enjoy your speaker...maybe let us know how it goes after you've used it a while.

E140 is rated at 300w. How could it sound the same as the d140f which is rated at 100w? I don’t have any real life experience with either so my logic may be completely flawed...
 
E140 is rated at 300w. How could it sound the same as the d140f which is rated at 100w? I don’t have any real life experience with either so my logic may be completely flawed...
Except that the E-140 is rated at 200 watts “RMS” and 400 watts program.

Iirc, the VC winding height is slightly (maybe 3/32”) larger in the E-140 than the D/K. The E went to a Kapton bobbin, the combination of these 2 changes are responsible for the increased thermal power handling.

Below ~45Hz, the mechanical power of the E becomes more limited to maybe 125Hz. The D/K is limited to maybe 75 watts.
 
I don't know about the change in VC height, but I think the shift to the Kapton former happened with the K-series. I know that JBL recommended E-series recones for D's and K's after they stopped making the actual replacements.

As far as the sound goes, I didn't notice much - if any - change as they evolved the MI series drivers -- first to the new former, and then, with the E-series, to ceramic magnets. I believe it was their intent for the sound of those drivers to not change with the changes in materials. I'm sure there are folks that claim to hear the difference between the Alnico and ceramic drivers, but if there are, the difference is subtle -- perhaps more perceivable to guitar players than bassists.
 
Folks this speaker is awesome! To my ears it's a better fit for this cab than the Eminence Delta 15a that I had previously installed. Sounds softer and warmer... more vintage for a lack of better words. I thought the Eminence had a bit of a hard edge to it compared to the JBL.
 

Attachments

  • E7116D56-6120-4CA8-82FB-AAB41F557EA3.jpg
    E7116D56-6120-4CA8-82FB-AAB41F557EA3.jpg
    526.1 KB · Views: 184
  • IMG_0269.JPG
    IMG_0269.JPG
    1,012.7 KB · Views: 106
  • IMG_0270.JPG
    IMG_0270.JPG
    855.9 KB · Views: 91
  • IMG_0275.JPG
    IMG_0275.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 93
  • IMG_0276.JPG
    IMG_0276.JPG
    634.4 KB · Views: 92