The 70’s are back

What was that line from Moonstruck? "I’m confused" Yes, I was thinking the new L100, my mistake.

Anybody else here think that $4K for the L100's is TOO much? The dealer margin is probably 30% ($1200). Still expensive for an old (and flawed) design! I'm keeping my 4312's and 166's which together cost me used less than half of the new ones!

You can always get better value used - so I don’t think the comparison is fair. A fair comparison would be other brand new speakers with professional quality drivers.

Large ATC, PMC, Westlake, Tannoy etc. are going to set you back even more - so the JBL L100 looks quite affordable when compared to alternatives. It continues JBL tradition - perhaps not the last word in audiophile quality but superb value for a speaker that can play at realistic volumes for rock/pop. I use a pair JBL PRX615 and XLF sub for my band practice and love ‘em - fantastic neodymium 15” drivers that make the cabs extremely light weight!

Before you condemn the $4,000 price tag of the new L100's you should think about what a pair of L100's (or L100a's) cost in the mid-1970's and see what that works out to in today's dollars.

spotcheckbilly12345 wrote:

Before you condemn the $4,000 price tag of the new L100's you should think about what a pair of L100's (or L100a's) cost in the mid-1970's and see what that works out to in today's dollars.

Absolutely true. The strange thing is, last night I posted the inflation adjustment but my post has gone "Poof!"

So, to reiterate:
I worked for a JBL dealer in the '70s, and JBL L100s retailed at $560 a pair as introduced in 1970.

$560 in 1970 adjusts to $3639.22 in 2018.

The $361 difference *might* be accounted for in costs of resurrecting an old design, procuring or remanufacturing essential parts, improvements on the old design, etc.

Here's the inflation calculator I used:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com