|
|
Post by dsjr on Feb 16, 2019 13:27:29 GMT
These are the Legacy Arden design not the old one so they use the HPD drivers. I know. The HPD's are pepperpot types. I've owned many of the tulip waveguide and pepperpot Tannoys. The tulip waveguide units are smoother and cleaner. But lack the superb transient response and mid depth of the pepperpot's. Sensible equipment matching keeps the pepperpot types under control. I would't consider any other type of Tannoy. Ok and personal opinion no doubt. The pepperpots to me were spiky (better transients?) and measure terribly, with lumps and bumps from 9K upwards - or at least they used to. Add this to the thicker boxy mid tones often in production speakers and it made for an 'interesting' and 'different' sound presentation. The first thing I used to do was use the roll-off and tweeter level controls to bring things into some kind of line. Ardens just sounded like VERY LOUD 'wardrobes' I distantly remember - it was Cheviots and Devons that sold more where I worked. I did hear some Westminster Royals once and didn't much like these either, sorry.....
Why didn't the domestic market get the blue-fronted 80's JBL models back then. I'd love to hear a pair (can't pick out a particular model 4345?, but they had a large bass driver, a cone mid and lens assisted tweeter - The Who hada number of these in their studios driven by Dc300A's I read and they were LOUD).
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Feb 16, 2019 13:31:45 GMT
I know. The HPD's are pepperpot types. I've owned many of the tulip waveguide and pepperpot Tannoys. The tulip waveguide units are smoother and cleaner. But lack the superb transient response and mid depth of the pepperpot's. Sensible equipment matching keeps the pepperpot types under control. I would't consider any other type of Tannoy.
Why didn't the domestic market get the blue-fronted 80's JBL models back then. I'd love to hear a pair (can't pick out a particular model 4345?, but they had a large bass driver, a cone mid and lens assisted tweeter - The Who hada number of these in their studios driven by Dc300A's I read and they were LOUD).
JBL were always rubbish at marketing. The looks were not a good match with typical British wealthy man's home. British was considered best. JBLs PA/Professional reputation put people off. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Feb 16, 2019 17:45:06 GMT
The L100's squawked and screeched, both at the same time (no mean feat), but the 200's and age related Jubal L65's didn't!!!! The larger one (L300?) again must have been awesome and you and I both know how good the 4367 is today.. the six grand 4429 were a bit 'raw' but I suspect a more sympathetic amp would sort it  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 18:02:39 GMT
The L100's squawked and screeched, both at the same time (no mean feat), but the 200's and age related Jubal L65's didn't!!!! The larger one (L300?) again must have been awesome and you and I both know how good the 4367 is today.. the six grand 4429 were a bit 'raw' but I suspect a more sympathetic amp would sort it I'll go along with most of that. The L65 is a favourite of mine. It has a great vitality to the sound. Needs using on plinths though, it's just too low and squat otherwise. I thought the L300 was horribly coloured to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Feb 16, 2019 18:55:55 GMT
I only heard the L200 at KJ Watford in '74 (I think they were on loan as they were only there for a couple of months) and also at Lion House (Totty Ct Road) a little later when I was of a mind to take the train to London and visit many of the larger audio stores in the West End (this was before KJ opened up in Wigmore St in '75 or so). Totally agree on the L65's needing to be lifted up. You just don't see this stuff over here sadly.
|
|
