E145 help needed

[NickH]

I'm doing some research on 150-4c and the e145. I've been able to find lots of info on it but I've run up short in one spot. I was under the impression that it uses an extension ring on the frame mounting flange. I've been trying to find how much length does it add from the frames flange to the extension flange?


I know on the outside edge of the extension ring is 1 inch wide. But the flange on the frame goes inside of the ring doesn't it?

Also, how is the ring secured to the basket frame? I'm assuming it has a couple screws doing the job. The surround is glued to the front of the extension ring like a normal driver?

I'd really appreciate any info anyone can help me with. Or point me in a direction of were I could find some. And maybe a picture of one taken apart.


Thanks,
Nick

[frank23]

I have the e145-8, but they are mounted, so I cannot look at the rear how the flange is mounted. I don't remember any screws, but maybe they were below the seal.

Maybe this can help you: http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Discrete%20Sales%20Models/E145-8-16.pdf

[NickH]

Thanks for the info. I've seen that drawing. If the back of the mounting flange was flush with the back of the ring, then I could figure it out. But I'm not sure and I don't want yo assume.


does any one know the distance from the spider to the surround?


Thanks,
Nick

[Robh3606]

The frame and the extension ring are flush

Rob:)

[NickH]

The frame and the extension ring are flush

Rob:)


COOL. That I can now figure out. And all jbl baskets are the same if I'm not correct, at least the 15" ones.


Im considering a completely insane project. I'd love to have 150-4c's in my diy c550/4520's. But since I'm not loaded I'll have to settle for something else. I know the 145's are ancestors of the 150. But there is definitely a difference in the excursion of the 150 compared 145. The magnet assembly looks identical to a d130, even the top plate thickness. Which really makes me wish they used ts parameters back then.

I have to think the efficiency of a 150 would be higher then the 145 variants. But this is just a guess.

Nick

[intercity125]

COOL. That I can now figure out. And all jbl baskets are the same if I'm not correct, at least the 15" ones.


Im considering a completely insane project. I'd love to have 150-4c's in my diy c550/4520's. But since I'm not loaded I'll have to settle for something else. I know the 145's are ancestors of the 150. But there is definitely a difference in the excursion of the 150 compared 145. The magnet assembly looks identical to a d130, even the top plate thickness. Which really makes me wish they used ts parameters back then.

I have to think the efficiency of a 150 would be higher then the 145 variants. But this is just a guess.

Nick

Hey Nick,

I read at a guy's Paragon website that the 150-4C has a sensitivity of 95db. Not sure where he got the info from, but here's the link...

http://www.mcsmk8.com/Paragon236/paragon150.htm

Willy

[NickH]

Thanks Willy.

I actually read that before. But I forgot about it, lol. 95db just seems so low for a driver made in the 50s.

But they did have amps that produced around 100 watts for theater use. I'm not certain but it looks like the 150-4c might have been over hung. Top plate looks like its only around 1/4" thick.


The search continues

[intercity125]

That, and a lot of components were rated very "conservatively" back in those days. For example, I had a little Eico AF-4 single-ended triode integrated amp that was rated at 4wpc, but the speakers it could drive were amazing. One would never have believed that they were listening to just 4 watts. Eico's, like many vintage components of that era, including the JBL 150-4C's were simply overbuilt to very high standards.

[NickH]

Ya then did know how to make things to last back then. I can see ratings like power handling being set conservatively. But sensitivity is a little different. Its a quantified number found by analysis. But I guess they could average it.

Who knows.




That, and a lot of components were rated very "conservatively" back in those days. For example, I had a little Eico AF-4 single-ended triode integrated amp that was rated at 4wpc, but the speakers it could drive were amazing. One would never have believed that they were listening to just 4 watts. Eico's, like many vintage components of that era, including the JBL 150-4C's were simply overbuilt to very high standards.

[HCSGuy]

Here's a side shot of a C16R1504C recone kit from google - note the short winding height for an underhung alignment, though I admit the pics are not perfect. I suspect you can't get much excursion out of a doped, folded paper surround either. Thiele-Small lists the somewhat similar D130's excursion as .76mm, So I suspect the 150-4C's excursion is the same as it uses the same magnet and basket, but adds an extension ring for a deeper, straight sided cone suitable for horn loading.5875658757

[subwoof]

both the 150-4C and the 145 have the extension ring - they are made differently but add the same amount of height to the mounting surface from the top plate.. the 150H is really a re-badged E145.

And all have the same underhung coil and REAL deep gap...essentially interchangeable in the performance arena BUT newer glues and assembly methods allow much greater power diss than the old 50's stuff..

The later version of the 145 uses the familiar 2-roll cloth surround and if you're going to use these baskets, you REALLY should chamfer the inside edge on the ring so when the cone hits it it won't cut/crease. this was a very common failure on the 145.

sub

[NickH]

Thanks HCS,

That clears a few things up. That coil looks pretty much the exact same as a d130 coil except for the copper. It makes me wonder though. The top plate is .28 inches so is it really underhung or overhung. Isn't there an alignment where the top plate and voicecoil are the same height? I remember reading something about it in a pro notes.

I wonder what the weight was on that cone. I also wonder what methods were used to stiffen the cone up.

Nick


Here's a side shot of a C16R1504C recone kit from google - note the short winding height for an underhung alignment, though I admit the pics are not perfect. I suspect you can't get much excursion out of a doped, folded paper surround either. Thiele-Small lists the somewhat similar D130's excursion as .76mm, So I suspect the 150-4C's excursion is the same as it uses the same magnet and basket, but adds an extension ring for a deeper, straight sided cone suitable for horn loading.5875658757

[NickH]

Hey Sub,

Thanks for chiming in.
. If the gap is real deep on the old 150, where is the difference in depth? From pictures I've seen it just looks like a d130.

I'm not actually going to try and diy some 150's. I just find this really interesting though.

I know the 145s have a much thicker top plate on the magnets. A bit over half and inch I think.


Is the frame used on the k145 a le15 frame?


Thanks,
Nick


both the 150-4C and the 145 have the extension ring - they are made differently but add the same amount of height to the mounting surface from the top plate.. the 150H is really a re-badged E145.

And all have the same underhung coil and REAL deep gap...essentially interchangeable in the performance arena BUT newer glues and assembly methods allow much greater power diss than the old 50's stuff..

The later version of the 145 uses the familiar 2-roll cloth surround and if you're going to use these baskets, you REALLY should chamfer the inside edge on the ring so when the cone hits it it won't cut/crease. this was a very common failure on the 145.

sub

[Robh3606]

Top plate is 5/8 on the one I have.

Rob:)

[NickH]

Top plate is 5/8 on the one I have.

Rob:)

That's a 145, correct?

[HCSGuy]

That's a 145, correct?

Yes, that would be a 145.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/hartsfield.htm

Read this on the Hartsfield - it will shed some light on the woofer - the backend of the 150-4C is the same as a D130, but the extension ring was added for the deeper cone. The profile of the cone in a 150-4C is straight edged, while the D130 was curvilinear - it was angled towards the voice coil pretty steeply in the center, but the cone is almost flat at the outer edge. Since the 150-4C was designed for horn loading, the stiffer cone was needed, but an increase in excursion was not. I do not know when overhung voicecoils came into vogue, but I would assume early sixties and sealed (Acoustic Suspension) alignments, though JBL stuck with underhung later than that. I don't know when the first overhung JBL came out (2231A, maybe?), but it might be a fun exercise to find.

[NickH]

I'll read it.

Thanks,
Nick



Yes, that would be a 145.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/hartsfield.htm

Read this on the Hartsfield - it will shed some light on the woofer - the backend of the 150-4C is the same as a D130, but the extension ring was added for the deeper cone. The profile of the cone in a 150-4C is straight edged, while the D130 was curvilinear - it was angled towards the voice coil pretty steeply in the center, but the cone is almost flat at the outer edge. Since the 150-4C was designed for horn loading, the stiffer cone was needed, but an increase in excursion was not. I do not know when overhung voicecoils came into vogue, but I would assume early sixties and sealed (Acoustic Suspension) alignments, though JBL stuck with underhung later than that. I don't know when the first overhung JBL came out (2231A, maybe?), but it might be a fun exercise to find.

[subwoof]

speakers baskets are like women - to compare correctly you have to have one in each hand..:)

I don't have any of the old deep alnico's here ( I think ) but that part of the storage room is not visited often.

I do have a pair of recone kits C32R2220 from an organ repair center - I believe that IS the replacement cone for the very old D130A variant used in the first gen horn load statement cabs but need to find a 20yr+ old "goes into list" that has it listed.

Back in the day the "130" number was used a LOT - and there were top plate and gap width variations so beware..:)

[NickH]

LOL. I bet. I figured Id focus on one driver at a time for now. But it does seem that in the begining lansing one use 1 15" basket for all the 15" drivers they made. Im talking about in the late 40's.

As far as I know they only made 3 15" driver back then. And they are were made with pretty much the same parts just switch around. Excpet for the cone on the 150 that is. I wouldnt be surprise if they voice coil on the 150 was the same coil on the 130a/b. But its just a hunch.


Is the frame on the k145 a frame from a 2215/ le15? Minus the extension ring of course.

Thanks,
Nick

[57BELAIRE]

[QUOTE=subwoof;347246]speakers baskets are like women - to compare correctly you have to have one in each hand..:)

LOL. I like your thinking subwoof.

Here's a pic of a 150-4C and E145 side by side. The frame edges ARE different. I found out the hard way
I was going to swap out the 150s with the 145s in my Paragon (just for grins) and discovered the 145
didn't fit. It's slightly wider than the 150 which fits snugly against an interior wall of the cab.

Anyway, I hope this helps a little

[NickH]

[QUOTE=subwoof;347246]speakers baskets are like women - to compare correctly you have to have one in each hand..:)

LOL. I like your thinking subwoof.

Here's a pic of a 150-4C and E145 side by side. The frame edges ARE different. I found out the hard way
I was going to swap out the 150s with the 145s in my Paragon (just for grins) and discovered the 145
didn't fit. It's slightly wider than the 150 which fits snugly against an interior wall of the cab.

Anyway, I hope this helps a little

Hey 57, thanks. That surprises me. But not too much. Thats a good picture though. How does a 150 compare to an e145, as far as bass produced? Are they pretty comparably?

Wow, look at the difference in the top plate. Its double the size of the 150. That sure puts things into perspective. I wonder if the actual cones are similar or completely different.


Don't really know why I'm finding this interesting. But I do, LOL.

Thanks for humoring me yall.

Nick