128H woofer in a 4410 Cabinet?

[Doctor_Electron]

Hello, does anyone happen to know if a 128H driver from the 4412 can be shoehorned into a 4410 cab? Thanks.

[4343]

Hello, does anyone happen to know if a 128H driver from the 4412 can be shoehorned into a 4410 cab? Thanks.

But it will be a too small for a 128H anyway. The 4412 has a tubby sound compared to an L150A, due mostly to the smaller box IMO.

Now if you were trying to fit an LE-10 or other 10", I'd say that has a better chance of sounding good.

[SEAWOLF97]

Hello, does anyone happen to know if a 128H driver from the 4412 can be shoehorned into a 4410 cab? Thanks.

I had 4410's and wondered the same thing. Later on I bought 4412's and found them TUBBY , just as 4343 has , and also came with the same conclusion that the box for the 4412 was too small and stuffing that 12 into the 4410 cab (tight fit) would worsen the problem.


But it will be a too small for a 128H anyway. The 4412 has a tubby sound compared to an L150A, due mostly to the smaller box IMO

[BMWCCA]

Probably wouldn't make it worse:

According to JBL
4412 cabinet is 23.5 x 14.25 x 11.25 ins.
4410 cabinet is 23.5 x 14.25 x 11.25 ins. (2.18 cu.ft.)

I don't think a shoe horn will be as necessary as will a router.
I don't find my 4412As "tubby" but I do find the L80T/3s a bit thin in comparison.

No one ever complains of "tubbiness" in the L112, and I love mine:
L112 cabinet is 24.5 x 14.25 x 13 ins. (2.63 cu.ft.)

What a difference a couple of inches make!

[pos]

I had both 4410 and 4412 and compared them side by side, and I found the balance was very similar at low levels, making them hard to distinguish.
I do not find the 4412 "tubby" at all, and the 12" clearly shows an advantage over the 10" when reaching higher levels...

[Doctor_Electron]

I have a pair each of 4410, 4412. The 4410s' 127 drivers had a less than ideal refoam and did not regain their former low-end performance.

The 4412s' 128 drivers were reconed by JBL 5 years ago.

The real issue to me is imaging, IMO superior in the 4410's. The listening area is about 14' wide x 7 1/2'deep, with the cabs 2' in from the side walls & ~1' out from the front wall. I believe the tight area requires the best imaging I can conjure up, using what I have.

Getting the 12" inchers in the 4410 cabs would render the superior bass performance and the superior imaging. Porting should prove to be just a swap of the port/l-pad panels.

From what I can see the only problem might be hitting the bottom of the midrange subenclosure.

I will try laying out the opening dimensions & locations on a piece of doorskin to further explore feasibility.

Thanks for replying. I made the inquiry in search of proven experience as well as the somewhat lazy way out.

[pos]

I think the port/lpad/xover panels are identical between the two models.
The superior imaging of the 4410 in nearfield application is probably due to the vertical alignment of the drivers, but integrating the 12" within this baffle configuration might be difficult indeed...

[SEAWOLF97]

The 4410s' 127 drivers had a less than ideal refoam and did not regain their former low-end performance.

why not just strip the bad re-foam and do a correct re-re-foam ?

or

add a sub ?

the more I think abt it, the refoam might not be the problem. Were they reinstalled
with correct polarity ?

[Doctor_Electron]

why not just strip the bad re-foam and do a correct re-re-foam ?

or

add a sub ?

the more I think abt it, the refoam might not be the problem. Were they reinstalled
with correct polarity ?

Driver polarities are correct. Oddly, or not so oddly, the owner of the JBL Pro Service Center lectured me extensively about how inferior re-foaming is vs, re-coning, Later when I worked there and he owed me in pay, materials, re-coning etc., being a Diamond Maker*, he cheaped out on me and re-foamed them. They were never the same. So much for all his didactic drivel.

Over the time of several years in & out if there I never saw him do any post-refoam or post-recone break-in procedures. Could be a factor. And I'm sure the foam kits were the cheapest available to him.

He eventually lost his JBL service authorization, the last straw was his being too cheap to purchase a required set of gap gauges needed for working on some new driver types. That was around 1998 or so. Cost was about $200 or so, I think.

He had too many irons in the fire at the time, none glowing very brightly, and all fading out before long.

I'll be exploring this issue until I come up with a yea or nay on its feasibility.

But ya'll keep the awnsers coming, they are all interesting.

Seawolf, I'm PMing the *Diamond Maker explanation, in case you're not alreadt aware of its meaning.

"dOc"