JBL 4311 Monitors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter panax_27
  • Start date Start date
P

panax_27

Member
Just found out one of my favorite studios used these...

interesting how they sound and compared to the tannoys, l3As, altecs used during those days

Also curious what were some notable studios that used these same monitors?

thanks i love learning about history
 
Last edited:
panax_27 said:
Just found out one of my favorite studios used these...

interesting how they sound and compared to the tannoys, l3As, altecs used during those days

Also curious what were some notable studios that used these same monitors?

thanks i love learning about history
Click to expand...
The L-100 was the consumer version of the 4310 broadcast monitor. Fancier box to fit with home decor, same drivers, BUT a different crossover network to appeal to consumer tastes. LA engineers called it, "tizz-boom disease" because of the exaggerated low & top end. The 4310 wasn't all that accurate either probably because it was designed for radio air checks rather than recording studio use. This info was garnered from folks I knew at JBL when the 2 models were still current. Will they sound good? Yes, most people like them. Will mixes done on either translate well through other systems? Probably not unless one learns to 2nd guess their respective inaccuracies.
 
RRuskin said:
The L-100 was the consumer version of the 4310 broadcast monitor. Fancier box to fit with home decor, same drivers, BUT a different crossover network to appeal to consumer tastes. LA engineers called it, "tizz-boom disease" because of the exaggerated low & top end. The 4310 wasn't all that accurate either probably because it was designed for radio air checks rather than recording studio use. This info was garnered from folks I knew at JBL when the 2 models were still current. Will they sound good? Yes, most people like them. Will mixes done on either translate well through other systems? Probably not unless one learns to 2nd guess their respective inaccuracies.
Click to expand...
hey rick sorry i must have edited the title right after you responded i got mixed up im actually curious about the 4311
 
I haven't heard the 4311, but I know the 4312 pretty well. They seem a bit hard edged to me, but pretty revealing.
 
panax_27 said:
hey rick sorry i must have edited the title right after you responded i got mixed up im actually curious about the 4311
Click to expand...
The 4311 was an update to the 4310. I think that the tweeter is different but am not certain. I would still say that accuracy wasn't part of the design because as I recall, mixes done through them wouldn't translate all that well to other systems. 2nd guessing was the order of the day.
 
RRuskin said:
The 4311 was an update to the 4310. I think that the tweeter is different but am not certain. I would still say that accuracy wasn't part of the design because as I recall, mixes done through them wouldn't translate all that well to other systems. 2nd guessing was the order of the day.
Click to expand...
in what way would they not translate?
 
They had a kind of sound of their own, like the tannoys I like to be fair. Translation to other systems is more vital now as we have an audience who listen on so many products like phones, home cinema, Hifis of varying quality and us lot in our own studios. Something that sounds excellent on one and horrible on another is tagged bad while something that sounds just ok on all of them is somehow good. When I was first at work I spent a year selling hifi in the 70s. Practically all the Japanese speakers at all prices were lightweight. The big JBLs very different. Plenty of bass and hihats that took your head off. Compared to the Sony, Technics, Panasonic and Yamahas we’d easily sell JBL to well heeled customers because the start of Money for Nothing knocked their wigs off. The Celestions, Tannoys, and specialist British makes were much more refined, but didn’t do well on the Dire Straits test. Cinemas here often had very big JBLs behind the screen. Massive three way beasts with the slatted diffusers on the horns.

I’ve often wondered if the old studios got their clients by the sound of their speakers.
 
rob aylestone said:
They had a kind of sound of their own, like the tannoys I like to be fair. Translation to other systems is more vital now as we have an audience who listen on so many products like phones, home cinema, Hifis of v 4315 arying quality and us lot in our own studios. Something that sounds excellent on one and horrible on another is tagged bad while something that sounds just ok on all of them is somehow good. When I was first at work I spent a year selling hifi in the 70s. Practically all the Japanese speakers at all prices were lightweight. The big JBLs very different. Plenty of bass and hihats that took your head off. Compared to the Sony, Technics, Panasonic and Yamahas we’d easily sell JBL to well heeled customers because the start of Money for Nothing knocked their wigs off. The Celestions, Tannoys, and specialist British makes were much more refined, but didn’t do well on the Dire Straits test. Cinemas here often had very big JBLs behind the screen. Massive three way beasts with the slatted diffusers on the horns.

I’ve often wondered if the old studios got their clients by the sound of their speakers.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, no JBL engineer/designer had been to a recording session until the early 1970's when one was invited to one at Drew Recording on Lexington Ave. in Hollywood. I cannot remember his name but he shortly later designed the 4315 4-way monitors which is still considered among the most accurate systems.
 
In the JBL's defense, they pumped out plenty of bass, which people generally love, and a lot of records and cassettes could be subdued in the upper frequencies, especially compared to today's digital, so they pumped up the high end. I knew quite a few people who really loved the L100s. I think one buddy still has a pair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top