Jbl 2242

[jbl]

Hi all,
Anyone know if the 2242 was designed to "close" the gap between the lower sensitivity 2245 so that a 3 way system could have the same slam and similar or the same extended bass as the 4345? Anyone have experience with both the 4345 and a 3 way system that used the 2242?

Thanks

[4313B]

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/2242.pdf

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/technote/tn_v1n22.pdf

[jbl]

Thanks Giskard. Have you heard them yet?

jbl

[4313B]

Yes, I currently have a few 2242H's.

[maxwedge]

I've never owned any 2345's or 2245's but I tell you what....those 2242's really kick some serious butt!!
http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1458

One thing I notice about them is that they are very clear (or clean? Lack of distortion? ect).:)

[jbl]

Giskard has supplied all the information needed. It appears that JBL has decided to retire their dedicated extended low frequency 18" woofers in favor of a higher output design. They still list the 2242 as a sub woofer driver, but with it's higher midband output it might be suitable for two or three way systems as well.
jbl

[jbl]

Hello Maxwedge
You have exactly described my 2225 based system. The combination of low bass and dynamic range can't be beat for all types of music.
jbl

[4313B]

"They still list the 2242 as a sub woofer driver, but with it's higher midband output it might be suitable for two or three way systems as well."

Exactly. The 2242H is arguably the most versatile 18" transducer JBL has ever made. It's freedom from distortion and power compression are quite impressive. When bandwidth limited to below ~ 80 Hz they make for fantastic subwoofers providing one can accomodate the enclosure volume requirement.

Here's another tidbit starting on page 17.

Cinema Sound System Manual (http://www.jblpro.com/pub/cinema/cinedsgn.pdf)

[JuniorJBL]

I don't know if it matters but I have a 2242 as well in a 10 cu ft box tuned to 27 hz. even crossed over at 150hz it does sound GREAT. It really does not compress and it really does sound a bit better than a 2245 (my opinion). If you have the room for the box go for the gusto!! This is by far one of JBL's best woofers.
Shane:D

[spkrman57]

I have done some searching here on the forum about the 2240/2241/2242/2243/2245 and have come to the conclusion that the 2242 is a much better driver than I gave credit to.

I originally wanted to use it up to 500 hz with a 1st order crossover, but after much reading of the info already here am thinking that I could use it with my Edgarhorn system covering up to 80 hz(bottom end of my 80hz midbass horn).

I have not seen many references to running up to 500hz or even 800hz. Is the sound that bad or is the applications for going up that high better covered by other drivers???

I know I have run 2226's up to 1.6khz and they sound great(I run small tube amps, so compression is the last of my worries.

What thoughts does anyone have regarding use of the 2242 up to 500hz or 800hz. One other item of mention here, I would be using passive crossovers, and more than likely 1st order.

My Edgarhorn system is already set up for 1st oder everywhere, I just thought if I were to run 2242 up to 500hz, I could go without the midbass horn. Per Dr Bruce Edgar, horns are best used when the listener is at least 1 wavelength away from the horn. In my case of 80hz horn, that is approx 14 ft away. My rooms in my house don't allow that type of distance, hence the use of the 2242 for 500hz on down.

Ron

[Zilch]

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/technote/tn_v1n22.pdf

[spkrman57]

Some of it was known material, but I did glimpse some new info.

Also, the highest recommended crossover freq is 1khz, so 500hz or 800hz could be a viable option.

1st order of duty will be with sub plate amp until they break in. I would like to use a electronic x-over between the 2242 and the 350hz mid-horn, but all I have is a Rane AC-22, and I have a all tube system. So until i get a tubed crossover, I think I will stay with the passive 1st order crossover for now.

I am going to try the 2.5mh coil on the 2242 just to see how well it does(I already have them from my Edgarhorn setup). If things don't work out well using that, at least my experimental venture will let my ears know which direction to go with. I do much tuning by ear than with electronic equipment(I know that makes me a backyard technician, but oh well!).

Ron

[Earl K]

My 2 cents


One thing I notice about them is that they are very clear (or clean? Lack of distortion? ect).

- I'd say you're responding to the 2242s', 1" deep coil working within the 1/2" deep magnetic gap . ( JBL Legacy drivers with overhung coils are usually .275" to .35" / 7mm to 9mm ).

- A comparable hifi 15" woofer (with similar motor ) , is the ME150H ( not very well known ). A very, very articulate performer . No smudge, no bloat, no doubling - and of course, wait for it,,, no apparent, real VLF . :rotfl: ( But hey, that's the tradeoff )
- This 15" is my recommendation for those who don't have the necessary room for long LF horns ( based on Altec 515g woofs ) . It's @ $435.00 direct from Harman . Maybe less from independant sellers .

:cheers:

[spkrman57]

I am curious what value coil would work best for a 6db(1st order) @ 500hz for the 2242HPL?

I will use the 2242's down the road(after use as sub for break-in purposes) as part of my 3-way system with Edgarhorn 350hz round wooden tractix horn crossed over @ 500hz and JBL 075 bullet tweeters.

I will be replacing the Fane tweeters Dr Edgar recommended as I want a all JBL/Altec system. May not be as good, but I am using the 075's with D123's currently with N-2400 crossover in 1958 GE corner cabinet(distributed ports "about 10 - 1" holes in bottom of front baffle board"), and the sound of the HF driver sounds good to me. I know there are some who say there are better drivers out there instead of the 075's, but I think they are really neat vintage drivers and the sound is not bad depending on how you set them up and cross them over. Also, I run small wattage tube amps which help to smooth out the "peakiness" many claim to hear. Once again, I have the items on hand which is why I want to use it. (I will keep the D123 in cabinet run full range for alternate system).

Ron

[4313B]

Check this out :)

THE GOOD SOUNDING RANGE & WHY IT WORKS, by Ken Hatton

http://mixedbarbershop.com/pics/hatton1.sm.jpg
Kenny Ray Hatton (http://www.harmonize.com/bsu/biographies.htm#Ken)

The following appeared on the Harmonet in November of 1998, written by Ken Hatton, lead of the International Champion Quartet the BLUEGRASS STUDENT UNION, and currently co-director of the Louisville Thoroughbreds. This post was originally intended as a response to the question "Why is it more difficult for women's quartets to find (good paying) singing engagements than it is for their male counterparts, even if the women are an International Champion Quartet?" Most of the information Ken discusses applies equally well to those of us interested in mixed quartetting, about what works and why in our mixed quartet adventures. It is good information to consider when making decisions on choice of songs, arrangements, and voicing within the quartet. The factors he cites are the same factors which have an effect on mixed quartet audiences, and should be taken into consideration when forming a mixed quartet. Those factors are one reason we encourage quartets to sing men's barbershop arrangements as close to the men's range as possible, based on the natural ranges of the quartet members. Here in its un-edited entirety is Ken's "dissertation" on why audiences react more favorably to some sounds, thus influencing those who do the hiring.

THE GOOD SOUNDING RANGE

by Ken Hatton, lead of the Bluegrass Student Union (http://www.harmonize.com/bsu/)
1978 SPEBSQSA International Champion Quartet

(as posted on the Harmonet (http://arneberg.com/harmonet) in November of 1998)

On the subject of why womens' quartets have a more difficult time finding singing engagements than do their male counterparts, I am sure some will say it is a difference in locale, marketing or talent, and others will say it has to do with discrimination of gender. While I am sure such is the case on occasion, I believe there are only two main factors which create a perceived difference between the value of the male quartet and female quartet products.

First, as explained to me by the late Ed Gentry, a study headed by Dr. Appleman of Indiana University in the 1960's showed that human beings find certain sounds more pleasing than others. Aside from determining that the ear usually enjoys consonant chords more than dissonant chords, the study showed that people find certain frequencies to be more pleasant than others. Specifically, fundamental tones in the 500 cycle range, and the formants they produce, were found to be more pleasing than others.

This information seems to explain why the voices of most successful solo pop artists tend to create sounds in this range, which is usually called the "second tenor" for males, and "alto" for females. When you listen to the voices of Whitney Houston, Dionne Warwick, Bette Midler, Barbara Streisand, Patsy Cline, Karen Carpenter, Anne Murray, Linda Ronstadt, Gloria Estefan, Amy Grant, Aretha Franklin, etc., you will note that the vocal range is about the same as those of Paul McCartney, Elton John, Mike Love, Dan Fogelburg, Kenny Logins, Dan Seales, Glen Campbell, etc., and the lead singers of many pop vocal groups, both male and female.

There have been male exceptions, such as baritones Frank Sinatra, Ernie Ford, Elvis Presley, Lou Rawls, and Neil Diamond, but even these lower voices tended to post climactic notes in many of their songs which were at or above 500 hz. On the other hand, it is difficult to think of successful female pop artists who have sung consistently in the "first soprano" range. Celine Dionne and Maria Carey come to mind, but even the majority of the notes each sings are in the alto range. Ms. Carey demonstrates virtuosity with her soprano notes, but still relies on her alto range to communicate the emotional message of the song.

When this pattern is translated to the male quartet genre, it is natural for a singer in the 500 cycle range to have the predominant melody, because the related harmony notes in the chord are then attainable by other male voices. If an alto were to sing the melody in the 500 cycle range, the other parts would be too low for most other female singers to sing them, especially the bass part. When you listen to the more pleasant sounding ladies' quartets in history, you usually find that their leads have (or had) exceptional vocal quality in the lower register; notes which approached down to the 500 hz range. This usually means that these quartets had female basses whose lower registers complimented their low leads, or that their arrangements were voiced in such a way as to compensate for the lack of a strong low bass.

A second natural phenomenon which makes the female quartets' path more difficult is the width of the sine wave. The lower the note, the wider the vibration, and the higher the note, the narrower the vibration. This makes it more difficult for the human ear to detect differences in pitch between lower notes than differences in pitch between higher notes. This means that a male quartet with talent and effort which exactly matches those of a female quartet will sound better than the female quartet, even though it really isn't better at all. Flaws in chords with lower notes are harder to notice than the same flaws in the same chords with higher notes.

This understanding gives sophisticated listeners a greater appreciation for the [great Sweet Adelines Champion Quartets] "Sound of Music," "4th Edition," "High Society," and "Ambiance," since they overcame geat physical competitive disadvantages to have achieved their demand. In reality, they may have been the best quartets (male or female) of their eras, but due to the perception of their product by general audiences, they have never received the real credit they were due.

Remember, to the public, perception is reality, and perceived value is what counts to the decision-maker with money in his/her hand. I am not sure what the answer to this problem is, but female pop artists don't seem to be doing too badly. Perhaps some hot singing Queens of Harmony might experiment with arrangements where the bass voice has the melody and is predominant, to see if a new style can be created. Otherwise, I would suggest that women's quartets would be wise to choose their leads and basses carefully, and to voice their arrangements keeping the melody as low as possible.

[b]MHBQA EDITORIAL COMMENTARY:

How does this affect our mixed quartets? Those mixed quartets who sing arrangements in the original men's key will have a much easier time convincing an audience that they "sound great" than will a mixed quartet which has had to raise the arrangement four notes (such as from Bb to Eb or F) to fit their voice ranges! This applies especially to those lucky mixed quartets with a SPEBSQSA lead/bari-range male voice singing the mixed quartet lead and a Sweet Adelines/Harmony Inc bass-range voice singing the mixed quartet bari. Our higher-ranged mixed quartets can also achieve that same level of "sounds great" to an audience, but it will take a greater degree of pitch accuracy and tuning accuracy. At the same time, they will have to work harder to communicate to the audience the message of the song (both via the clarity of the words and via the emotional color put into the melody line.) As Ken has explained, higher-range quartets will constantly have to work harder, to achieve the same level of audience (and employer) satisfaction.

--Kim Orloff, MHBQA Newsletter Editor For more information on mixed quartetting, contact the Mixed Harmony Barbershop Quartet Association (MHBQA) c/o Kim Orloff, coordinator, P.O. Box 1209, Aptos CA 95001 U.S.A. e-mail:

[spkrman57]

I'm not sure of the message intended here. I understand some folks look at not crossing over at certain frequencies due to resultant output.

I run my 2226's full out(except a single coil .7 mh to trim rising midrange response) and they are 20db down at 2khz(per Pi speaker forum).

I run my 1" compression drivers with 3rd order (18db/oct @ 1.6khz) and use passive HF compensation(2 resistors and cap).

I have heard from some that the 2226 is horrible at reproducing music up to 1.6khz, but I have enjoyed the sound quality that system delivers.

No, it will not match that of a "High-end" JBL system, but very musical to listen to. By the way, that system is basically a "4 Pi-pro" system(Wayne Parham).

So are you telling me that 500hz 1st order on the 2242HPL is a bad thing???

Ron

[4313B]

I'm not sure of the message intended here.I'm looking for reactions to the article.

So are you telling me that 500hz 1st order on the 2242HPL is a bad thing???Let's see what everyone has to say.

[Earl K]

Ron;

So are you telling me that 500hz 1st order on the 2242HPL is a bad thing???

- That would seem to be the unstated suggestion .

- I'd try it anyways ( you've already got the significant parts ) - see if it does or doesn't sound correct / then try to do a forensic analysis over why ( one way or another ) .

Re; coil values . Here's a useful formula :

Coil Value = 159 x ( the AC impedance at desired xover point ) divided by desired Xover point ( in hertz - not Kilohertz )

NOTE: You need to obtain the AC impedances for the area you intend this coil to work in - or - you can just accept the empirical "trial & error method .

- so ;( 159 x 7 ) / 500 = 2.226 mh
- since your are most likely dealing with a rising midband response, you'll probably want a bigger coil value ( personally, I'd be thinking of doubling the value ) .

Giskard;

I'm looking for reactions to the article.

The article is well written and certainly underscores why attention to minimal dissruption in this frequency area is important ( especially for faithful reproduction of female voices ) - tyically male voices do get more inherent support from music and therefore get off a little easier when "dissrupted" .

- I still vividly remember crossing my 2482/2350 combo over at 500 hz Butterworth ( for a few months back in 1978 ) with my 5234 crossover. There was an obvious increase in "articulation" or "consonant content" with the Beatles "tribute" band that I was mixing .Those vocals were all over the "dissruption" range. I'm not going to bother doing the "Forensic" as to why it worked better - I'll leave that to others to suffer through and balance out all the seemingly endless list of pros & cons. Oh, horn-loaded mids ( 2220a in 4560s ).
- Still, ultimately, based on power handling concerns I moved the point back to 800 hz . :D

:cheers:

[Earl K]

- The above pic is of a studio monitor made by Meyers that uses a 500hz crossover point .

:cheers:

[4313B]

Don't they make hotdogs or something? ;)

[spkrman57]

I think mine will be used as subs(80hz cutoff) below the Edgarhorn midbass. I have 2 sub woofer plate amps that are sitting around collecting dust I can use.

I still will have a 500hz crossover for the Edgarhorns. The upper limit of the 80hz midbass horn is close to 500hz, and 1st order crossover will be used.


Ron