PDA

View Full Version : Why did JBL make a 4355 with two 15"s rather than an 18" like in the smaller 4345?



Champster
05-17-2014, 05:46 PM
Anyone have a guess as to why? The 4345 has an 18" 2245 and a smaller (1") compression driver/(10") midrange combo, and the 4355 has two 15" (2235, I believe) and a larger (2") compression driver/12" midrange combo.

Why would they diverge from the 18" to two 15's?

My guess is that the 4345 is more of a home speaker and the 4355 was designed for a much larger venue where subwoofer output isn't nearly as important as in the home. But that is just a guess...

If I'm right, would the 4345 be the largest home speaker JBL made?

What is your opinion?

Lee in Montreal
05-17-2014, 05:53 PM
Smaller 15" woofers can reach higher to meet the horn.
The 18" 2245 peaks at 200Hz (thick and heavy cone).

speakerdave
05-17-2014, 06:10 PM
The original version--4350A--pre-existed the 18" woofer, yes?

Champster
05-17-2014, 06:11 PM
Smaller 15" woofers can reach higher to meet the horn.
The 18" 2245 peaks at 200Hz (thick and heavy cone).

Maybe I'm missing your point, Lee. In the 4355, the 15"s don't need to go as high to match up with a 12" midrange versus the 4345's 18" matching up with the 10". In both speakers, JBL used the 15's and 18" up to 290hz.

Champster
05-17-2014, 06:13 PM
The original version--4350A--pre-existed the 18" woofer.

Ah ha. Now we're on to something Dave. Is there a later version of the 4350 with a 2" compression driver, a 12" midrange and an 18" woofer?

BMWCCA
05-17-2014, 06:18 PM
The 4345 makes a great home speaker. Ask me how I know!

But the design and component choices for the 4355 allow it to play louder and take more power. The 2245 18-inch woofer has the similar motor as its 15-inch brothers, it just pushes more air. Some will tell you a single eighteen can push more air than two fifteens but the 4355 will play louder (6dB according to the literature) and handle 50% more power. According to the specs they will also reach to 28Hz versus the 4345s 32Hz.

Champster
05-17-2014, 06:22 PM
The 4345 makes a great home speaker. Ask me how I know!

But the design and component choices for the 4355 allow it to play louder and take more power. The 2245 18-inch woofer has the similar motor as its 15-inch brothers, it just pushes more air. Some will tell you a single eighteen can push more air than two fifteens but the 4355 will play louder (6dB according to the literature) and handle 50% more power. According to the specs they will also reach to 28Hz versus the 4345s 32Hz.

Excellent points! Did you buy your 4345's or did you DIY them?

JeffW
05-17-2014, 06:33 PM
Wasn't the 4345 a studio monitor rather than a home speaker? I know folks use them in homes, but I thought the literature suggested studio monitor.

Champster
05-17-2014, 11:57 PM
Wasn't the 4345 a studio monitor rather than a home speaker? I know folks use them in homes, but I thought the literature suggested studio monitor.

Yes, Jeff. Both the 4345 and 4355 were billed as Studio Monitors.

ivica
05-18-2014, 01:23 AM
The 4345 makes a great home speaker. Ask me how I know!

But the design and component choices for the 4355 allow it to play louder and take more power. The 2245 18-inch woofer has the similar motor as its 15-inch brothers, it just pushes more air. Some will tell you a single eighteen can push more air than two fifteens but the 4355 will play louder (6dB according to the literature) and handle 50% more power. According to the specs they will also reach to 28Hz versus the 4345s 32Hz.

Hi,

I "only" wonder why JBL did not use 4" compression driver (2441) and not used 2202 in the 4345 box. I think that would be a good combination too.

Regards
Ivica

Ian Mackenzie
05-18-2014, 04:49 AM
In most studios, the monitors were installed over head and the driver layout works with dual 15s.

You cant do that with a 18 inch system and that box is really awkward.

Only a few hundred 4345s were made, it was the back sheep in the family and not a commercial success.

I have compared the 4345 to the 4350 and both have certain advantages.

The 4345 has more linearity in the bass but requires careful setting up due to the huge woofer coupling to the floor.

The 4350/4355 will scream louder and take more abuse but does not image as well as the 4345.

The Widget made a really nice 4355 I heard in SF some 10 years ago and I think he even tired a Westlake horn atop of it.

To my ears it was quite impressive.

BMWCCA
05-18-2014, 06:44 AM
Excellent points! Did you buy your 4345's or did you DIY them?

Mine were Kenrick cabinets built by Rick, populated with new-stock and fresh re-cone drivers by Dave (norealtalent here) of KatzAss audio who built the bi-amp-only CC crossovers from the schematics posted here, and purchased from NewZenith of this site maybe five-years ago now. I supplied only the amps and active crossover—and just listen! That's my only DIY talent. ;)

ngccglp
05-18-2014, 02:50 PM
Hi Champster,

may I know the reason for your question? I had 4350A and now own 4345. Perhaps I could be of service.

cheers.

Lee in Montreal
05-18-2014, 03:17 PM
Maybe I'm missing your point, Lee. In the 4355, the 15"s don't need to go as high to match up with a 12" midrange versus the 4345's 18" matching up with the 10". In both speakers, JBL used the 15's and 18" up to 290hz.

Sorry. I misread the initial post and saw "4430" (my dyslexic moment of the week) and got confused ;-)

Champster
05-18-2014, 05:10 PM
Hi Champster,

may I know the reason for your question? I had 4350A and now own 4345. Perhaps I could be of service.

cheers.

I'm building a system the will look a lot like a K2 S9900 when done, but the DSP driven drivers will be a 2245, 2206, 2446 (TruExtent) & 2405. I have reasons for these choices, but to stick to the point I'll omit that unless someone is interested in the logic. So obviously, this driver compliment more resembles the older boxes but I can't find a JBL production box that resembles my choice of drivers. My choice seems to meld the 4345 and 4355 with the best of both boxes and of course the active crossover will be lightyears ahead of the old passive versions.

Frankly I was looking for a name for my speakers, but it appears that they are a unique combination...

richluvsound
05-19-2014, 05:24 AM
Champster,

its gonna be huge . You might want to consider the horn you're using ? No to conical if you really want to leave the past behind . The only thing better than 2245 is 1500al IMHO . 2245 is a very special thing indeed . Always copied and never bettered …. smooth as silk with a kick like a mule !
Best of luck with your project .

Rich

ngccglp
05-19-2014, 09:05 AM
I agree with some of the observations here, indeed I too found the 2212 struggling to keep up with the 2245 in the 4345, something that is not evident in, say 4343 or 4344 or 4350 ( I had them all one time or another) I tried the Ashly but could not get satisfactory result, and ended up getting the 5235 with original 4345 cards, only then I am satisfied. But it still does not have the same mid bass tightness of the 4343/4344. So I guess matching the 2245 to a 12" mid bass might be the right solution. But the 2245 excelled in low frequency extension and weight and scale, very addictive.

speakerdave
05-19-2014, 11:47 AM
Champster,

its gonna be huge . You might want to consider the horn you're using ? No to conical if you really want to leave the past behind . The only thing better than 2245 is 1500al IMHO . 2245 is a very special thing indeed . . . .

Rich

I would add to that short list a pair of 1400nd's on each side.

ngccglp
05-19-2014, 04:21 PM
Hi SpeakerDave,

are the 1400nd still available? I would be interested in getting it.

Thanks.

L.H. Nick
05-19-2014, 11:43 PM
Shouldn't two fifteen inch drivers be able to move more air than one eighteen inch driver?

All else being equal, the power of a driver is based on the amount of air it can move. The bigger the driver, the more powerful it is. However, we must only count the actual part of the driver that moves, that is, the diaphragm or piston.

As a first approximation, let's assume our hypothetical drivers include a one half inch frame and a one half inch suspension, resulting in a "circle" around the actual diaphragm that is one inch wide. Since this circle surrounds the diaphragm we have to count it twice in calculating the net area of the diaphragm as opposed to the gross area given by the nominal diameter of the driver. Accordingly, our 18 inch driver will have a 16 inch piston and our 15 inch driver will have a 13 inch piston.

The area of a circle is calculated as the radius of the circle times the radius of the circle times pi. Therefore, our 18 inch driver with its 16 inch piston has an effective piston area of 8 inches times 8 inches times pi or 64pi square inches. Our 15 inch driver with its 13 inch piston has an effective piston area of 6.5 inches times 6.5 inches times pi or 42.25pi square inches. However, since our hypothetical posits TWO 15 inch drivers, their combined area will be 2 times 42.25pi square inches or 84.5pi square inches, which is considerably larger than the area of the single 18 inch driver.

My guess is that JBL made the dual 15 inch speaker because they wanted something more powerful than the single 18 inch speaker.

Allanvh5150
05-19-2014, 11:52 PM
I think, more to the point as someone else mentioned, the 4350 predates the 2245.

Allan

L.H. Nick
05-20-2014, 12:00 AM
I think, more to the point as someone else mentioned, the 4350 predates the 2245.

Allan

Fair enough. Then let's take the corollary of my discussion: if the twin 15 inch speaker came first, perhaps JBL wanted something a bit smaller when it introduced the single 18 inch speaker.

I still have to admit that, even after all these years of exposure to the internet, I still trip on the fact that I can engage in discussion with someone on the opposite side of the world.

ivica
05-20-2014, 02:53 AM
Fair enough. Then let's take the corollary of my discussion: if the twin 15 inch speaker came first, perhaps JBL wanted something a bit smaller when it introduced the single 18 inch speaker.

I still have to admit that, even after all these years of exposure to the internet, I still trip on the fact that I can engage in discussion with someone on the opposite side of the world.


Hi Nick,

In MY opinion (neglecting the efficiency) the character of the sound produce by single 2245 and (dual) 2235/2234 is not the same,
so I believe that would be the most important aspect. I prefer 2245.
Comparing 2122 (in 4345) with 2202 (in 4350/55) I prefer 2202, but I am sure that would differ from the others opinions.

regards
Ivica

Allanvh5150
05-20-2014, 04:09 AM
Also, the 4350/55 was made for high level playback. I have only heard one in action in a studio here and I was totally blown away. That was 30 years ago. The 4345 never had enough cabinet volume to let the 18 get its legs. Actually, I have all the drivers assembled to build a 4355, a pair of 4345's and a pair of 4344's. I am about to start on the woodwork so if I pull finger I can get them done before christmas :D

Allan.

Ian Mackenzie
05-20-2014, 04:25 AM
The 4350 was introduced in the early 1970's.

The 4345 in the early 80's.

There was also the DMS1 which had dual 14 inch woofers.

It was not a commercial success and this points to the risks of introducing products that just don't capture the eye of the market at the time.

On the contrary, the Urei 813 series with dual 15 inch woofers was a very successful design and JBL eventually purchased Urei

Interestingly the Urei do not go down far below 40 hertz but has high output.

Don wrote a great article on the history of the Urei monitors.

It worth exploring the Main Page JBL Library for some insights and perspectives on JBLs market conquests.

The information you seek is all there.

That was the purpose and whole reason for the inception of the Lansing Heritage Site by two great historians! (Don and Steve)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0egU46lL9QY

ivica
05-20-2014, 05:12 AM
Also, the 4350/55 was made for high level playback. I have only heard one in action in a studio here and I was totally blown away. That was 30 years ago. The 4345 never had enough cabinet volume to let the 18 get its legs. Actually, I have all the drivers assembled to build a 4355, a pair of 4345's and a pair of 4344's. I am about to start on the woodwork so if I pull finger I can get them done before christmas :D

Allan.
Hi Allan,

As the box volume for either single 2245 or dual 2234/35 is almost the same if baffle can be exchangeable, You can try 4345 and 4355 and compare them.
The size of the "Dogy box" for 2202 (in 4355) would be acceptable for 2122 (4345),
and using 2441 (4355) instead of ( 2421 as in 4345) I think would be OK to be used in both configuration,
and 2405 too.

regards
ivica

martin_wu99
05-20-2014, 09:48 AM
Anyone have a guess as to why? The 4345 has an 18" 2245 and a smaller (1") compression driver/(10") midrange combo, and the 4355 has two 15" (2235, I believe) and a larger (2") compression driver/12" midrange combo.

Why would they diverge from the 18" to two 15's?

My guess is that the 4345 is more of a home speaker and the 4355 was designed for a much larger venue where subwoofer output isn't nearly as important as in the home. But that is just a guess...

If I'm right, would the 4345 be the largest home speaker JBL made?

What is your opinion?
They are all studio speakers,JBL think 4345 is not a susscessful products,so they turned to 4355(G.T said):D

BMWCCA
05-20-2014, 08:34 PM
They are all studio speakers,JBL think 4345 is not a susscessful products,so they turned to 4355(G.T said):D

Can you cite a reference to that opinion?

I must have my blinders on. All I see is the good stuff, with the lack of commercial "success" being attributed to the system's size: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?10613-4345-Includes-Designer-s-Post&p=110349&viewfull=1#post110349

My answer is that size does matter, if you want big sound! And that's what the 4355 probably has over the 4345. Don't know. Never heard one. Can't really imagine anything more dynamic and pleasing than my 4345, either!

martin_wu99
05-20-2014, 09:03 PM
Can you cite a reference to that opinion?

I must have my blinders on. All I see is the good stuff, with the lack of commercial "success" being attributed to the system's size: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?10613-4345-Includes-Designer-s-Post&p=110349&viewfull=1#post110349

My answer is that size does matter, if you want big sound! And that's what the 4355 probably has over the 4345. Don't know. Never heard one. Can't really imagine anything more dynamic and pleasing than my 4345, either!
Yes,size never matters,only the sound!but i can't remember exatly that seems 4313B said G.T told him 4345 lack of some details in bottom.that's why JBL stop producing 18'' studio and home products any more.

ivica
05-21-2014, 03:19 AM
Can you cite a reference to that opinion?

I must have my blinders on. All I see is the good stuff, with the lack of commercial "success" being attributed to the system's size: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?10613-4345-Includes-Designer-s-Post&p=110349&viewfull=1#post110349

My answer is that size does matter, if you want big sound! And that's what the 4355 probably has over the 4345. Don't know. Never heard one. Can't really imagine anything more dynamic and pleasing than my 4345, either!

Hi

It seems to me that putting single 2245 in 4355/50 box (exactly re-tuned),
and using other 4350/55 drivers ( 2202, 2441,2405) would be possible acceptable solution.

Adjusting efficiency seems not to be so problematic, especially if bi-amp would be applied.

regards
ivica

Champster
05-21-2014, 08:23 AM
Hi

It seems to me that putting single 2245 in 4355/50 box (exactly re-tuned),
and using other 4350/55 drivers ( 2202, 2441,2405) would be possible acceptable solution.

Adjusting efficiency seems not to be so problematic, especially if bi-amp would be applied.

regards
ivica

Thank you Ivaca. That is the essence of the 4 way system I'm planning and appreciate the link (BMWCCA) to the post from GT discussing the 4345 and what he would do to make it a better system 30 years later.

Paul

ivica
05-21-2014, 08:43 AM
Thank you Ivaca. That is the essence of the 4 way system I'm planning and appreciate the link (BMWCCA) to the post from GT discussing the 4345 and what he would do to make it a better system 30 years later.

Paul
Hi Champster,

Using bi-amp (with active crossover) would overcome two GT-discussing problems, high damping drive for 2245 and 2202 would be much better
so most of the problems would be overcome.

Regards
ivica

Champster
05-21-2014, 09:00 AM
Yes, actually I am using a miniDSP 4x10hd and 4 way active amplification.

Ian Mackenzie
05-21-2014, 01:51 PM
I would not conclude the best design option for your situation based on prior commercial history.

It really comes down to how well you can get your proposed system to work on the home front.

If you want big stick to a proven formula like the 4345 or the 4355 or the 4435 you are far more likely to succeed.

Earlier on the 4310 went to market and to this day it was the most successful monitor ever for the recording industry and the 4312 in its latest incarnation is still made.

If you every listened to the 4310 you would ask why?

Its comes down to filling a real need and market acceptance . See Dons article.

Until then Altec Lansing really had the market cornered.

One famous studio I visited in Memphis recently is using the Altec 604 duplex.

The look at the 4343. JBL made thousands of 4343s.

However, most went to Japan for consumer use and you will see them in Jazz Bars throughout Japan today.

While I like the 4343 in its stock form is a fun system to listen to its not anywhere near as smooth as the offerings out there today largely due to the drivers and choice of horn.

For example the DMS 1 was technically an evolution much like the M2, it had superior woofers, a superior compression driver and so on to prior systems.

However it did not win the hearts and minds of the recording industry at the time (it may have been ahead of its time).

Historically JBL's marketing team tend to go out with guns blazing when anything new is going to market.

That is their marketing style and how they want the market to see them.

But that does not mean it was any good or that any were sold much like any other manufacturer.

This is a fact, not an opinion.

As to the 2245 it comes down to execution and set up. I have heard the 4345 in a members home professionally Eq'd with a Meyer parametric equalizer and you would not pick the bass from a 12 inch driver except when the recording calls for it.

martin2395
05-21-2014, 03:26 PM
Funny that even though JBL built thousands of 4343's I guess that the aren't more than 300-500 pairs around in Europe. I wonder where are the remaining thousands, did they all go to Japan? :blink:

Ian Mackenzie
05-22-2014, 02:11 AM
Funny that even though JBL built thousands of 4343's I guess that the aren't more than 300-500 pairs around in Europe. I wonder where are the remaining thousands, did they all go to Japan? :blink:

When I think of Europe I think of Quadral and Grundig, Dynaudio and stuff like that.

Its a totally different sound to the Japanese market.

I mean they came up with imaginary equivalent tuning just for Japan (9500), a stroke of genuis in my book LOL.

The population density of Japan, the mecca of all things hifi and ground zero for all things JBL.

This is why Harmon a made his daughter the head of Harman Japan before things went pear shaped and they dismantled Northridge.

There are stores with whole floors dedicated to JBL, at least there was when I was there in 2008.

The Japanese market have a cult following of JBL.

They have their own JBL web site and product range.

The DD66000 was launched in Japan .

ivica
05-22-2014, 02:54 AM
Yes, actually I am using a miniDSP 4x10hd and 4 way active amplification.

Hi Champster,

So 2245 + 2202 + 2441 (+2311+2308) + 2405 would be ( I think) nice Hi-end system (especially using large box as 4350/55)

Regardas
Ivica

martin2395
05-22-2014, 09:20 AM
@Ian

I always wondered what the "japanese tuning" of speakers actually is. Some say it means faster LF rolloff due to the construction of most japanese buildings and extended highs "because asians like a lot of highs".

martin_wu99
05-22-2014, 10:06 AM
@Ian

I always wondered what the "japanese tuning" of speakers actually is. Some say it means faster LF rolloff due to the construction of most japanese buildings and extended highs "because asians like a lot of highs".
I don't like many highs myself:D

martin_wu99
05-22-2014, 10:20 AM
Hi Champster,

So 2245 + 2202 + 2441 (+2311+2308) + 2405 would be ( I think) nice Hi-end system (especially using large box as 4350/55)

Regardas
Ivica
Hi Ivica
I like my 4698B so much for its lower bottom and more softer,but why JBL stop making 18" cab for any more?
Because of 18" cab is not as fast as two 15"?

martin_wu99
05-22-2014, 10:29 AM
When I think of Europe I think of Quadral and Grundig, Dynaudio and stuff like that.

Its a totally different sound to the Japanese market.

I mean they came up with imaginary equivalent tuning just for Japan (9500), a stroke of genuis in my book LOL.

The population density of Japan, the mecca of all things hifi and ground zero for all things JBL.

This is why Harmon a made his daughter the head of Harman Japan before things went pear shaped and they dismantled Northridge.

There are stores with whole floors dedicated to JBL, at least there was when I was there in 2008.

The Japanese market have a cult following of JBL.

They have their own JBL web site and product range.

The DD66000 was launched in Japan .
Japanese like JBL to death,they have many many experiences about playing JBL,so American make JBL,Japanese play JBL:D