bowtie427ss
Lunatic Member
Guessing that the changes took place in the mid to 2nd half of the 70's, JBL was well established in the pro market, and i'm sure it was a matter of the JBL components being compatible, more easily and readily available, possibly less expensive, and maybe most of all more serviceable given the large network of JBL Pro dealers stocking service parts at that time.
The Gauss parts would have been available well into the 80's. But, never at the speed or convenience with which you could source JBL parts.
At least one great engineer in the field of loudspeakers, Bart Locanthi, worked for both Cetec-Gauss, and JBL at different times. It's no surprise that the products(components) of both companies from the same time period have far more similarities than differences. In the late 60's they were the only relevant companies building drivers with 4 inch voice coils.
The Gauss parts would have been available well into the 80's. But, never at the speed or convenience with which you could source JBL parts.
Lateral/subjective, IMO. JBL would prevail due to their superior service network, not a necessarily "better" performing product. But, in the pro sound world durability and serviceability is part of the performance. JBL saw the need for this in the evolving tour sound market, and it paid them back in spades.Are the JBL components an upgrade, downgrade, or so close it's subjective?
At least one great engineer in the field of loudspeakers, Bart Locanthi, worked for both Cetec-Gauss, and JBL at different times. It's no surprise that the products(components) of both companies from the same time period have far more similarities than differences. In the late 60's they were the only relevant companies building drivers with 4 inch voice coils.
Last edited: