• 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 free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Vintage 15" JBL comparisons w/soundclips

#141
edbass said:
It's settled alright! Just not the way you had intended... :D

I've never seen a "double magnet" or "extra heavy" D140F and I've seen a lot of AlNiCo 140's; have a couple dozen right now in fact.
That in and of itself means nothing. I know I'm not the utimate authority on the subject, I was just a kid in the 60's.
However I do try to expand my knowledge whenever an opportunity arises. Your original post piqued my curiosity which caused me to desperately desire some of these "special" drivers.

I really wanted them to exist so I could get some.

This pursuit caused me to contact the two most expert authorities of the subject that I know; the man who designed the F series drivers for JBL, and the man who owned Sunn; designed, part sourced, built and marketed the cabinets you say this "mystery" driver was OEM in.
IMO either source by themselves is pretty conclusive; but both?
As I posted, my conclusion is based on this;

"It would be pretty hard to imagine that a “double magnet” “F” speaker got past Harvey Gerst, or that Sunn had an OEM JBL available that Conrad wasn’t aware of."

With all due respect to Doc and the late Ted Weber, the "buck stops" with my sources, don't you think? :confused:
Click to expand...

dude, now you're starting to piss me off. this is turning into a " just gotta have the last word" type of thing that has all to do with your ego and nothing to do with the topic at hand. let it go. there are six of these drivers that are'nt supposed to exist in washington dc, that is an undeniable fact. get over yourself. i will not let you do some wacko revisionist history thing here just to satisfy your own ego. i just left the guy's house in fact and saw one of those cabs!
 
#142
IMO, rather than debate about whether this mystery version of a JBL D140 existed or not, all it would take is a good picture of one of them, and then someone to actually weigh one of them. IMO, Ed isn't trying to have the 'last word' about it, but is merely attempting to get to the truth about them. being a huge fan of vintage JBL's, i too would be interested, since i've never seen or heard of one of them, which of course has no bearing about whether they did or didn't exist.
 
#143
johnk_10 said:
IMO, rather than debate about whether this mystery version of a JBL D140 existed or not, all it would take is a good picture of one of them, and then someone to actually weigh one of them. IMO, Ed isn't trying to have the 'last word' about it, but is merely attempting to get to the truth about them. being a huge fan of vintage JBL's, i too would be interested, since i've never seen or heard of one of them, which of course has no bearing about whether they did or didn't exist.
Click to expand...

+1

pgk said:
this is turning into a " just gotta have the last word" type of thing that has all to do with your ego and nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle. Since you've both got your own impeachable sources, there's nowhere (good) for the conversation to go, absent the kind of new information that johnk_10 lists.

Wonder if this could be a manufacturing anomoly, where a batch of unusually heavy magnets was produced and used without knowledge of Messrs Sundholm and Gerst. Seems unlikely, but how else to reconcile these contradictory reports?
 
#144
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but since I'm no angel ;) I have to concur with JohnK's recommendation of getting the data: photos, weight, and if at all possible some sort of performance data compared to the garden variety D140Fs. Same cabs, same amps, SPL meters, T/S measurements, etc.

I have no horse in this race (other than a pair of D140Fs :D) and I respect what both posters are saying as they both did their homework and I sure as #%$!! am no expert. Please, gentlemen, peace, bring the data to the "court" and from there the jury can do its thing. This is important since obviously a lot of people are very interested in the subject, these speakers are a piece of music history and so deserve the best we can do to shed light on all this. IMHO, IME, my 0.02. :)
 
#145
So, not to beat a dead horse, but... I finally got a chance to get an accurate weight on a D140F, 15 lb 9 oz.
Any chance of ParaDoc or pgk getting a weight on one of the "special" D140Fs?
I still can't find anybody else who knows about these, and I want to be sure I'm not chasing a ghost. An accurate weight would be helpful!
 
#147
johnk_10 said:
and BTW, Suraci has played thru my own version of a 1212/6 cab and is pretty familiar with how it sounds.
Click to expand...

I realize this thread sidetrack was posted awhile back but I do want to clarify. The driver you used sound nothing like the better open back models in a 3 liter chamber with liberal polyfill or fiberglass stuffing.

Liken this to thinking a cheapie Em Alpha 15 sounds or operates much like a K140 ; }

So, John if that cab isn't getting much play, you might consider building a midrange chamber for it.
 
#149
greenboy said:
I realize this thread sidetrack was posted awhile back but I do want to clarify. The driver you used sound nothing like the better open back models in a 3 liter chamber with liberal polyfill or fiberglass stuffing.

Liken this to thinking a cheapie Em Alpha 15 sounds or operates much like a K140 ; }

So, John if that cab isn't getting much play, you might consider building a midrange chamber for it.
Click to expand...

thanks. i thought about that, but my version of a 1212/6 cab sounds almost just like my accugroove whappo jr (in both volume and freq response) and i'm actually happy with it the way it is.
 
#153
JimmyM said:
Back in the day, people assumed that players with good time actually had good time. Now they think they're playing with a click. HA!
Click to expand...

I blame Pro Tools. We used to be able to listen to a recorded track and tell the good players from the also-rans. Now, I hear good time and consistency of attack I wonder if its "talent" or "technology." In John's case, I kinda had a feeling it was talent. Just my inquisitive nature getting the best of me. No offense intended.
 
#154
Alex1984 said:
John, I asked this on another thread, but how do these JBLs compare to EVM 15B/Ls and Altecs? Specifically in a Thiele B15N cab.
Click to expand...

i 've never liked Altecs at all. to me, they have way too many mids from 800-1Kkz and sound like a megaphone. IMO, EV 15L's are great though. IMO, JBL's are clearer, smoother and more efficient, but 15L's have some nice midbass punch.
 
#155
johnk_10 said:
i 've never liked Altecs at all. to me, they have way too many mids from 800-1Kkz and sound like a megaphone. IMO, EV 15L's are great though. IMO, JBL's are clearer, smoother and more efficient, but 15L's have some nice midbass punch.
Click to expand...
Altec 15" drivers are quite variable in my experience.
Altec 421 are hard and bright but works good for the ampeg folded horn.
Altec 515 are bassy and far darker sounding, good for hi fi bass.
But the Altec alnico 418 series II is kind of half way between a K140 and a K130 tonally to my ear.
I would say the EV 15L is brilliant for smoothing high midbass tones from rickenbackers and basses like warwick that are quite tuba like tonally.
JBL K140 is the King of clanking bright clean to cut a mix but still just about warm enough for most people to enjoy solo.
I am very interested in your K140 driven Acoustic 408.
that must be utterly frickin awesome, how well do you think the speakers match the cab?, Have you measured any response graphs?.:hyper:
:bassist:
 
#156
Excellent thread! Many thanks for the sound clips!

:hyper:

By careful inspection of the pictures, I just noticed that the specific K140 used in the test has a different type of surround than the E130 and E140. The E:s have the usual dual-roll edge, but the K has the (for JBL) more unusual triple-roll edge found e.g. in early versions of the 2205 and the 2216. Since I've never seen a K140 IRL, this observation led me to the Lansing Heritage for factory pictures:

Invalid Link Removed (triple-roll)
Invalid Link Removed (triple-roll)
Invalid Link Removed (dual-roll)
Invalid Link Removed (dual-roll)

Actually in none of the factory pics I can dig up, the K140 has a surround such as yours, hence my question:

Do all your K:s look like the one depicted? If not, are you sure the unit used for the test has an original factory cone assembly? I'm not nitpicking here, but since I too like the sound of your K, I'd like to make sure that when I get one, it sounds like that and not like the E140 example. Possibly the surround design (and maybe other minor details not reflected in the TS parameters) changed during the production years, and to get the killer tone we must get the year XXXX units with stock cones? By that token I'd say that a K that has been reconed with the C8RE140 cone kit is not a K anymore -- it's in essence more an E than a K (but not exactly an E140, given the slight differences in motor properties).
 
#158
lfh said:
Excellent thread! Many thanks for the sound clips!

:hyper:

By careful inspection of the pictures, I just noticed that the specific K140 used in the test has a different type of surround than the E130 and E140. The E:s have the usual dual-roll edge, but the K has the (for JBL) more unusual triple-roll edge found e.g. in early versions of the 2205 and the 2216. Since I've never seen a K140 IRL, this observation led me to the Lansing Heritage for factory pictures:

Invalid Link Removed (triple-roll)
Invalid Link Removed (triple-roll)
Invalid Link Removed (dual-roll)
Invalid Link Removed (dual-roll)

Actually in none of the factory pics I can dig up, the K140 has a surround such as yours, hence my question:

Do all your K:s look like the one depicted? If not, are you sure the unit used for the test has an original factory cone assembly? I'm not nitpicking here, but since I too like the sound of your K, I'd like to make sure that when I get one, it sounds like that and not like the E140 example. Possibly the surround design (and maybe other minor details not reflected in the TS parameters) changed during the production years, and to get the killer tone we must get the year XXXX units with stock cones? By that token I'd say that a K that has been reconed with the C8RE140 cone kit is not a K anymore -- it's in essence more an E than a K (but not exactly an E140, given the slight differences in motor properties).
Click to expand...

IME, E kits on K baskets sound essentially the same, and that particular pair in this cab has not been reconed (they were NOS when i bought them) , and their speaker's white ink stamp has the same white ink stamp #'s as my other 8 of them. two of the 12 that i have been reconed with C8RK140 kits, and two others have th C8RE140 kits.
 
#159
johnk_10 said:
IME, E kits on K baskets sound essentially the same, and that particular pair in this cab has not been reconed (they were NOS when i bought them) , and their speaker's white ink stamp has the same white ink stamp #'s as my other 8 of them. two of the 12 that i have been reconed with C8RK140 kits, and two others have th C8RE140 kits.
Click to expand...

Excellent that your reference drivers are NOS! What about the surrounds, then: Are all your K:s of the depicted accordion type? If not, what type was used in the C8RK140 kits (unfortunately discontinued in the 80:s).
 
#160
i'll have to look at them again, but IIRC all of their surrounds look the same.

here's another set of them that were reconed with NOS C8RK140 kits and they have the triple folded surrounds.

190B-wcab-2.jpg
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back