Stacked 4312s

[ndtrnc]

Since not so long ago, I have been wondering if stacking 2 pairs of 4312s would give me the imaging similar to a 4343s or 4435.

Have anyone tried it? I read that the mid and highs would have to be disabled from a pair to start with.

Thanks!

[BMWCCA]

Since not so long ago, I have been wondering if stacking 2 pairs of 4312s would give me the imaging similar to a 4343s or 4435.

Have anyone tried it? I read that the mid and highs would have to be disabled from a pair to start with.
Most likely wouldn't even perform better than an L150A. I think the horns in the larger 43xx systems and certainly the bi-radials in the big 44xx account for much of the magic.

[martin2395]

Doesn't sound like a particulary good idea to me, having owned 4311,4312, 4312MkII and now hot rodded 4343 I have to admit that they sound quite different and I don't really see any way to make the litt 431x's to sound like the 434x's :o:

Stacking the 4312 would certainly give you more output but not more quality ;)

Maybe sometihing like this could work - use the 2213H only and add a 2344 + 2421B/2425J on top.

[rusty jefferson]

There is something you can try if you already have 2 pairs. Stack each bookmatched pair with the woofer of the lower one on the bottom, and the woofer of the upper one (upside down) at the top. Thus, you will have the tweeters and midrange drivers in the middle, and aligned with one another. Both tweeters on one side, and both midrange on the other side, and a woofer at the top, and a woofer at the bottom. Then, wire them in "series", rather than in "parallel". You can Google how to do that if you don't know. It will raise the impedance of the speakers, but causes them to "work" together (for lack of a better term) better than parallel wiring.

I did this once with 2 pairs of small monitors, and it was an impressive improvement.

[dezmond]

Yes and if you were to acquire 2 more pair, you could run 4 on each side in series parallel and keep the original impedance .

[hjames]

Since not so long ago, I have been wondering if stacking 2 pairs of 4312s would give me the imaging similar to a 4343s or 4435.

Have anyone tried it? I read that the mid and highs would have to be disabled from a pair to start with.

Thanks!

Nah - you'd never get the power of a 15 inch woofer, or the finesse of the longhorn midrange ...

Tho smaller systems have their own charm and a well designed (44xx series or later) can punch faster,
with stacked 43xx 3 ways, you'll just get a bigger stack of paper cones ... probably fun and all that,
comb effect not-with-standing, but there is a point to having a bigger system.
if you want one of those, get one of those.

[martin2395]

The 431x's are extremely fast systems with a distinctive, dry punch from the "12 2213H (I say it's faster and punchier than the "15) but of course they miss the slam of the big 'uns.

[BMWCCA]

The 431x's are extremely fast systems with a distinctive, dry punch from the "12 2213H (I say it's faster and punchier than the "15) but of course they miss the slam of the big 'uns.
If a 15" (or an 18") with a foam suspension doesn't have to move anywhere as much as an accordion-edged 12" to produce much more bass, does it really have to be as "fast"? I've been pushing 15" JBLs for over 50-years and often can't even see any cone movement. My current eighteens are so effortless on bass even at low volume I have to wonder what all this talk about "fast" is even referring to?

When I'm walking with my daughter she moves her legs a lot faster than I do but we both cover the distance at the same time. :dont-know:

[SEAWOLF97]

If a 15" (or an 18") with a foam suspension doesn't have to move anywhere as much as an accordion-edged 12" to produce much more bass, does it really have to be as "fast"? I've been pushing 15" JBLs for over 50-years and often can't even see any cone movement. My current eighteens are so effortless on bass even at low volume I have to wonder what all this talk about "fast" is even referring to?

and yet, the trend is to smaller & smaller LF drivers. They don't seem to move much either.

When I first saw JBL 10's , the reaction was WTF ?? that won't replace a 12. But then the 8's started phasing in.

Then the 6.5's . They do make fun bass , at least until they are replaced with new 3 inch LF's.

It appears to me that LHF members , despite the "smaller is better" trend , prefer 14's & up. :dont-know:

[martin2395]

If a 15" (or an 18") with a foam suspension doesn't have to move anywhere as much as an accordion-edged 12" to produce much more bass, does it really have to be as "fast"? I've been pushing 15" JBLs for over 50-years and often can't even see any cone movement. My current eighteens are so effortless on bass even at low volume I have to wonder what all this talk about "fast" is even referring to?

When I'm walking with my daughter she moves her legs a lot faster than I do but we both cover the distance at the same time. :dont-know:

It's in the impulse response, to me the 2235H still has a minor lag behind it because it has to move that big, heavy cone, running it passive makes the response even slower.
Don't forget that the 4311 (i guess the 4312 too) run the 2213H full range, so no loss of response because of that fat coil. ;)

[johnlcnm]

Nah - you'd never get the power of a 15 inch woofer, or the finesse of the longhorn midrange ...

Tho smaller systems have their own charm and a well designed (44xx series or later) can punch faster,
with stacked 43xx 3 ways, you'll just get a bigger stack of paper cones ... probably fun and all that,
comb effect not-with-standing, but there is a point to having a bigger system.
if you want one of those, get one of those.

The Bose 901 with nine five inch drivers reproduced down to 30 Hertz with pretty good authority. Off course it needed 29 dB of EQ boost to do that. Plus, when the wavelength approaches the driver diameter, standing waves have a tendency to cause cone breakup. In the larger drivers where crossovers approach the mid range the cones are corrugated to control that breakup. i.e. cause a controlled decoupling of the cone?

[hjames]

The Bose 901 with nine five inch drivers reproduced down to 30 Hertz with pretty good authority. Off course it needed 29 dB of EQ boost to do that. Plus, when the wavelength approaches the driver diameter, standing waves have a tendency to cause cone breakup. In the larger drivers where crossovers approach the mid range the cones are corrugated to control that breakup. i.e. cause a controlled decoupling of the cone?

And in this forum, not many folks are fans of the sound of Bose 901 systems.
I'm not dinging you, just stating that its not a model system to most JBL fans.

A local, long-since-gone night club I used to go to had suspended 901s for room fill -
you might have heard of the place - The Cellar Door?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cellar_Door

[johnlcnm]

And in this forum, not many folks are fans of the sound of Bose 901 systems.
I'm not dinging you, just stating that its not a model system to most JBL fans.

A local, long-since-gone night club I used to go to had suspended 901s for room fill -
you might have heard of the place - The Cellar Door?

No. I am not a fan of Bose. My stack all has the JBL orange or silver tags. I'm not familiar with The Cellar Door, but a place down the road in El Paso was a Bose dealer. His standard demo was one of the early Mannheim Steamroller albums. The floors were elevated wood. He liked to make the dust fall from the rafters and the floors rattle with the Bose. They were hung from the ceiling and would be swinging back and forth like Satin had invaded the room. It sold a number of pairs. I think the name of the place was Audio Consultants. I believe they were a Walsh dealer also.

[SEAWOLF97]

I believe they were a Walsh dealer also.

My big Walsh's will rattle things around the whole house. They even make the door of my
Grandfather clock rattle against the frame ...even when it's locked.

Their LF can interfere with my well damped turntable in the room.

[BMWCCA]

It's in the impulse response, to me the 2235H still has a minor lag behind it because it has to move that big, heavy cone, running it passive makes the response even slower.

Common sense would indicate that the larger magnet structure/motor used in the larger woofers would provide more than enough power to overcome any lag due to cone-mass inertia. Isn't that why they did it?

I have at least four pair of JBLs with 12's in them (L112, 4412A, L150A, L7) and none of them can hold a candle to a 4345. I'd even guess that the cone of a D130 weighs less than that of a 2213H.

[martin2395]

The D130 is extremely fast, faster than a 2213H or 2235/2245H (at least, to my ears) but of course lacks the low extension due to stiff surround.