JBL Performance Series

[JBLnsince1959]

I agree with Widget except on the looks of the PS series. They were at best modular speakers ( function over form) and are not too bad in looks. They tried to make one set of speakers do everything and it almost worked..

As far as the bass he's dead on...I got a nice PM from Techbot answering my question above and he addressed other issues also...

JBLnsince1959 - Giskard once mentioned the LE14H-3 should be in a box about 30% larger...I've been wondering what the true size of that should be, the port dim's and tuning..

3.4 to 4.0 cu ft tuned to 28 to 30 Hz. I use 4.0 cu ft tuned to 28 Hz myself (basically L150/L150A sized/styled boxes). They still don't go as "deep" as my sealed box 121H's or SUB1500's but who cares? They are strong and accurate transducers over their bandwidth.

Just depends on what you want to with the PS. If you are doing HT ( and have the 800's separate) then a "better" sub could come into play...if you are using it as a 2 channel then I feel it would be a mistake to NOT use the LE14...In listening to music I've never felt the need for more bass and their ability to play musical bass is excellant....

As I've mentioned before the over all design is very clever and for HT is a homerun...for 2 channel listening however the modular design starts to hurt the sound...Now understand I'm speaking from an audiophile perspective here. One thing I noticed right off the bat with these puppies ( and I only do 2 channel right now ) was a weakness in the mid-bass..I tried everything to bring it in( wires etc), then one day I was listening and thinking of the 2 box design and wondered about what the bottom of the 800 was doing to the sound as far as refraction ( and bouncing off the 1400) was concerned so I rolled up a throw rug ( rubber side in) and stuff it in between the 800 and the 1400...instantly the mid-bass fill out, BUT, also a considerable amount of "glare" was gone...kind of like when we connected with wires and not the connectors. It even seemed to smooth out the mids and highs (?) so I draped the 800 too.

Russ heard the difference when he was here and it's very noticable....

So from a HT perspective the PS series is great..from a 2 channel audiophile perspective they are somewhat lacking as the modular design is the antithesis of good audiophile box design.

BUT here's what blows my mind....the 2 channel PS series has everything going against it as far as audiophile box design is concerned but even then they blow away amost everything else( they stomped the shit out of the JM Labs stuff). Those Ti Domes working together are unbelievable, so musical and are matched well with the 1400.

the only thing left for me to do with them is to build a 250 style box with extra heavy baffle, angled for the Ti Domes for time-alignment, active cross over for the 1400 and CC crossovers for the TI Domes.....

Speaking of baffles, does anyone know where a person can buy 2 sheets of the carbon fiber composite stuff they used on the LSR 32 baffle...and how to cut it?

[Mr. Widget]

They were at best modular speakers ( function over form) and are not too bad in looks.

I guess I believe that a speaker system that costs a few thousand dollars should be inspiring and add beauty to your environment instead of simply not being too bad.

They tried to make one set of speakers do everything and it almost worked..

Actually your points about the modularity make sense... I really hadn't thought about it too much, but I imagine that there are sonic compromises due to that design. I know with my own system once I integrated the subwoofer into the system proper, the sound became much more cohesive. I also agree that at the mid bass frequencies the baffle is important... having the modular baffle that the PS has will likely negatively affect this region.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Speaking of baffles, does anyone know where a person can buy 2 sheets of the carbon fiber composite stuff they used on the LSR 32 baffle...and how to cut it?

The LSR baffles were molded and cast. Carbon fiber is essentially fiberglass... you typically make a mold and lay the carbon fiber fabric into it and pour in or brush on epoxy resin... when it is cured you can cut it with a router, bandsaw, jigsaw etc... I suppose you can probably buy carbon fiber sheeting that is pre cast, but dealing with the edges would be tough if you didn't frame it with something.


Widget

[JBLnsince1959]

I guess I believe that a speaker system that costs a few thousand dollars should be inspiring and add beauty to your environment instead of simply not being too bad.


Widget

I understand what you are saying and a part of me agrees, but then I can be a little forgiving to them for that. I quess they had to cut corners somewhere...

Yes, for the money they are lacking in visual some...

[JBLnsince1959]

The LSR baffles were molded and cast. Carbon fiber is essentially fiberglass... you typically make a mold and lay the carbon fiber fabric into it and pour in or brush on epoxy resin... when it is cured you can cut it with a router, bandsaw, jigsaw etc... I suppose you can probably buy carbon fiber sheeting that is pre cast, but dealing with the edges would be tough if you didn't frame it with something.


Widget

Thanks for the info...looks like I have more to learn here.

[MJC]

I hope you're not correct, but you probably are. The Performance Series has had six or so years in the marketplace. For many reasons, including poor marketing and availability, it's not the success it deserves.

I think its been only 4.5 years. It was in Spring '02 that I first read a review of the PS in SGHT.
JBL Performance surround speaker system
J. Gordon Holt, Vol.8No.5, June, 2002

It'd be great to have that 1000W amp with an LE14H-3, eh?

I doubt the LE14 could handle 1000w

The Performance Series are really very good speakers and while they were well engineered, they deserve to die. Their aesthetic design was an underachiever from the start. A speaker of it's caliber and price point has to be furniture too... it cannot be the vinyl clad junk that JBL foisted onto their dealers. Most of the dealers said no F***ing way! They know their market.

Yes, I totally agree, its one thing for speakers like the Studio L to be vinyl clad @ $1400'pr(890s). But a speaker system like the PS, where the retail price for ONE PT800 is $1700 and you still have to add a sub to make it a full range speaker, well it should be wood veneer. I've always thought that even though the L212 bases were veneer, for the price($2000) so should have been the boxes, instead of black paint PB.

I agree with Widget except on the looks of the PS series. They were at best modular speakers ( function over form) and are not too bad in looks. They tried to make one set of speakers do everything and it almost worked..

They should be able to do everything. According to Giskard, the PS is way ahead of the L212(the PS is of coarse the latest generation of the L212). And I can say, through experience, that the L212 can do both music and HT, and do it better than most, of what I've heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techbot
JBLnsince1959 - Giskard once mentioned the LE14H-3 should be in a box about 30% larger...I've been wondering what the true size of that should be, the port dim's and tuning..

3.4 to 4.0 cu ft tuned to 28 to 30 Hz. I use 4.0 cu ft tuned to 28 Hz myself (basically L150/L150A sized/styled boxes). They still don't go as "deep" as my sealed box 121H's or SUB1500's but who cares? They are strong and accurate transducers over their bandwidth.

The 121s and the Sub1500s can really get DOWN.

As I've mentioned before the over all design is very clever and for HT is a homerun...for 2 channel listening however the modular design starts to hurt the sound...Now understand I'm speaking from an audiophile perspective here. One thing I noticed right off the bat with these puppies ( and I only do 2 channel right now ) was a weakness in the mid-bass..

What about separating the subs from the towers? After all that's how the L212s are, and they only had one 75w sub, originally.
Why not try this; build or buy bases for the PT800s, so they stand as high as when docked to the subs. Set the subs to either the inside or outside of the PT800s. Then connect the towers and subs with speaker wire, as you have now, I think, and then run the speaker wires from the amp to the subs, and let the internal crossover do its thing. That's how I have my main L212s/12"subs setup.

[JBLnsince1959]

I What about separating the subs from the towers? After all that's how the L212s are, and they only had one 75w sub, originally.
Why not try this; build or buy bases for the PT800s, so they stand as high as when docked to the subs. Set the subs to either the inside or outside of the PT800s. Then connect the towers and subs with speaker wire, as you have now, I think, and then run the speaker wires from the amp to the subs, and let the internal crossover do its thing. That's how I have my main L212s/12"subs setup.

personally I wouldn't for 2 channel because the crossover points are different between the two systems. The PS when docked are crossed over at 130 whereas the 212 crossover is much lower( 80 or lower I believe).

Once you get around 80 or lower it gets harder for the ear to tell directions of the bass notes, which it why the 212 works so well ( and others also). over a hundred it would really be noticeable to me and my ears.

with the crossover at 130 on the PS if I were to place the 1400 off center from the 800 it would drive me crazy..but that's just me..I would perfer them as they are...

I've gone thru about 8 different major design considerations and the 250 box style appears to be the best for what i want.....it will be improved upon tho....

Now, it looks like I have to learn more about building molds and creating a carbon fiber composite baffle..

Once I'm done with the PS then it's back to HORNS

[MJC]

Ya, the L212s xover is at 70. I wouldn't have thought the 130 xover would have been a problem if the sub is right next to the tower.
I only suggested trying it, because it sounded as if you weren't happy with the baffle alignment when docked.

[JBLnsince1959]

Ya, the L212s xover is at 70. I wouldn't have thought the 130 xover would have been a problem if the sub is right next to the tower.
I only suggested trying it, because it sounded as if you weren't happy with the baffle alignment when docked.

I considered it and it's a good idea, just not for me....

It's not that I'm unhappy with them as they are ( in fact I love them)..it's the perfectionist in me that wants to redesign everything I have. the transducers are really great and I'll just like to put them into a box that is just as great and see what I get...Everything I do to the puppies just makes them better so I want to take them to the limit

Understand I'm wanting to take the HT design and make an audiophile design....it's crazy, but hey why not..

[MJC]

Understand I'm wanting to take the HT design and make an audiophile design....it's crazy, but hey why not..

I understand that totally. When I thought I could get my hands on a "full" pair, @ basement bargain prices, that was my exact thought. And I've never had the pleasure of hearing the PS, I was only going off what Giskard told me in a pm. He had first hand knowledge in comparing the PS to the L212, and the PS won hands down. And I like my L212s, need it say more.

[Titanium Dome]

I think its been only 4.5 years. It was in Spring '02 that I first read a review of the PS in SGHT.
JBL Performance surround speaker system
J. Gordon Holt, Vol.8No.5, June, 2002

Dude, how could you doubt me?

JBL news release 6 January 2000: JBL INTRODUCES NEW HIGH-END PERFORMANCE SERIES LOUDSPEAKERS AT CES 2000 (http://www.dba-pr.com/clients/jbl/re...erformance.htm)

[MJC]

Well, anyone can be wrong, this time its me. But I never saw that Jan 00 release info. Like I said, the first time I saw anything about the PS was in that June '02 review.
And it was Dec 2000 that my son and I went down to San Jose to check out the Infinity Preludes, had I know about the PS then, I would have looked around for those too. And its only been a few days ago that I found out that the PS are Vinyl clad, I just assumed they were wood veneer, considering their price.

[Titanium Dome]

I picked up a sub off ebay. It's the old HT Series cum new Performance Series cum Synthesis Four subwoofer, the HTPS400.

It has a 12" anodized metal alloy woofer with a 1000W amp. The enclosure is surprisingly small, and it's sealed. The enclosure is also a cube, 14.6" to a side. The cabinet has real wood veneer on it.

It's got some serious output, which in some respects seems to be better than the PS1400 (when used exclusively as a sub). The HTPS400 seems diminutive next to a PS1400.

In the next few days, I'll see if I have time to do a dissection and post some pictures.

[Titanium Dome]

In the meantime, anyone interested can get a quick look at the HTPS400 here:

http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Qu...cs/HTPS400.pdf

Take a look at that response graph. No wonder that woofer is a $700+ driver.

[MJC]

I picked up a sub off ebay. It's the old HT Series cum new Performance Series cum Synthesis Four subwoofer, the HTPS400.

It a 12" anodized metal alloy woofer with a 1000W amp. The enclosure is surprisingly small, and it's sealed. The enclosure is also a cube, 14.6" to a side. The cabinet has real wood veneer on it.

It's got some serious output, which in some respects seems to be better than the PS1400 (when used exclusively as a sub). The HTPS400 seems diminutive next to a PS1400.

In the next few days, I'll see if I have time to do a dissection and post some pictures.

All those points are exactly what the local Synthesis dealer told me, when he told me about using the HTPS400, in place of the PS1400.
And as Giskard always said, a sealed sub will always be better than a ported, of equal quality.
It would seem that the LE14H-3 has been dedicated to do the Project Array and pulled off the PS.