PDA

View Full Version : Westlake HR-1's are now home



Ken Pachkowsky
06-28-2003, 08:35 PM
Well, I picked them up day before yesterday.

Here are a couple of photo's.

I have stands that need to be cut down from 6 feet to 16 inches in height. They where used as mastering monitors at Bernie Beckers studio in LA.

The cables that came with them are like battery jumper cables I kid you not. All eight are only 6 feet long each, creating a nightmare for reaching the power amps. I called Westlake to enquire about 15 footers. They wanted 2500 for them. Think I will make the 6's work.

I spent yesterday hooking them up. I have a slight ground loop on the Crown D-150 I am using for the 2426 HF drivers. I have tried everything to get rid of it to no avail. Any advice would be appreciated.

The HRX-4 Active crossover is amazing. For 6,000 it should be.The tweakability of this crossover is outstanding. Each driver can be turned off and on without need of turning the volume down. Each of the 8 output sections (4 per side for quad applification) have gain adjustments. This xover is divded into 2 seperate channels with independant power supply's. There is an overall gain control for each channel as well. Each channel is designed and matched to the specific drivers in each enclosure.

The down side:

These are the industrial version with black cabinets and look odd in a living room situation. The horns have been damaged along the edges over the years and will take some TLC to get them looking good.

The grills just plain suc.

They weigh a %$#@ ton. 300lbs each.

My wife hates the way they look in our living room.

The price.

First impressions:

Unbelievable imaging and very tight bass. I have never heard a large format monitor that comes close to this in terms of imaging. The 2235H's are wonderfull on the bottom. I must admit the Gauss 3184's do a fine job on the mid bass. This system uses the 2446 on the large wood horn. I can see why so many love these horns as they are very smooth at high spl's. The 2426 seems to do a good job filling out the high's using the small wood horn.

These can be tweaked a great deal using the HRX xover. I will spend a good part of tomorrow doing that.


Will keep you posted.

Ken Pachkowsky
06-28-2003, 08:48 PM
Where toooo big

Ken Pachkowsky
06-28-2003, 08:49 PM
Another one.

Robh3606
06-28-2003, 09:52 PM
So what are you gonna use for a center channel with the 4345's as rears???:p

Wow!!! Ken those look just huge! Are you using the EQ's too?? So it uses a 2446 with a 2426 no ring radiators??? Do you know how they have the horns EQ? Especially the 2426. What are the crossover points??

Enjoy them!!

Rob:)

scott fitlin
06-29-2003, 01:38 AM
I love those wood horns. Those are nice speakers. ENJOY, Ken!

boputnam
06-29-2003, 01:54 AM
Yea, me too.

I get this eerie feeling I'm looking head-long into a 747 - and somehow it's ALL good...

Tom Loizeaux
06-29-2003, 10:50 AM
Ken, Congratulations on these Westlakes! I've watched your persuit of "the ulimate" speakers, and I think you may have gotten there!
The Westlake speakers, especially the larger ones, appear to be a refinement of JBL big studio monitors. Westlake seems to have taken up where JBL left off. I hear they auditioned a number of drivers and selected the best, regardless of cost, to use in building their ultimate systems. Not surprisingly, a number of the componants are JBL Pro.
I've had my eye on Westlakes for some time but only as wishfull thinking. I kept waiting for them to build a tower version of these monitors so I wouldn't have to put them up on stands. (I also wasn't ready to spend that kind of money on speakers). I decided to go after the JBL studio monitors because I found some that were not wanted or appreciated anymore.
I'm sure these Westlakes sound GREAT and that you'll be in audio heaven when you sit down in front of them.
Let us know how these play out for you in the weeks ahead.

Tom

Ian Mackenzie
06-30-2003, 09:18 AM
Ken,

Very impressive, no need to go to any more concert hey.

That will keep you busy for a while.

Do you still have the 4345's?

macka

MikeM
06-30-2003, 03:38 PM
Those look nice Enjoy. They will Demand Premium amplification I bet your finding this out Ha. Better have your furniture bolted down :)

Ken Pachkowsky
06-30-2003, 11:16 PM
Well, there have been some challenges for sure. These weigh in at 420 lbs each and sound marginal at best sitting on the floor (as Tom pointed out re stands) I spent 3 hours using a car jack to slowly raise the left one a bit at a time using cinder blocks to get it to ear level (don’t have anyone to help). Where’s Mr. Zero when you need him? After getting it to ear level I discovered the MHF driver cable won’t reach the barrier strip on the cab (4in short). Hmmm “what now”

Mike M pointed out I will need premium amps to drive these. I have purchased 3 more Hafler’s in the last couple of days. I am currently using 2 Musical Concepts Hafler’s now along with a stock Hafler P-500 and a Crown D-150. These are doing the job well but only after all the Haflers have been upgraded by Musical Concepts will I be happy. The final mix will be.

2x DH-200’s bridged for the 15’s 300+300 watts at 8ohm load
1x DH-500 for both Gauss 10’s
1x DH-500 for the 2446’s
1x DH-200 for the 2426’s

At this point that’s all I can afford.

Would love to get some Bryston’s but alas, divorce could be the end result.

Going to wait till tomorrow to hoist the right cab up to ear height. Will try and get the gardeners into the house to help.

On the advice of Westlake I tried some ground lifters to solve the mild loop problems with negative results.

I shall endeavor to persevere. The end results should be one awesome system. You guys that love to tweak would get woody’s from the flexibility of this HRX crossover.

Thanks to all for your enthusiasm about this acquisition. These where completely rebuilt 4 years ago and are the equivalent of the current production HR-1’s that per Westlake sell for 65,000 today. By the way, the SR-1’s sell for 80,000 in standard black cabs. The upgraded veneer versions are a mere 120,000. Can you believe that?

Alas, I had to part with my beloved 4345’s, but they went to a very good home where they will be enjoyed for years to come. They helped finance the above.

Later Guys.

Ken Pachkowsky
07-01-2003, 01:07 AM
What a difference getting these off the floor...

Now were talkin!!!

Later

Ian Mackenzie
07-01-2003, 03:58 AM
Ken,

I know its early days, but what are your first impressions of the big horn/ little horn relative to the 2307/2308 + slot.

Ian

Ken Pachkowsky
07-01-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Ian Mackenzie
Ken,

I know its early days, but what are your first impressions of the big horn/ little horn relative to the 2307/2308 + slot.

Ian

I would have to say what jumps out is the high spl's with very little if any harshness. Its going to take a while to set these up right and until then I won't be able to answer these questions with any hard facts. I will tell you this. The 4345's where tuned lower than these. Those 2245's are fantastic. I don't believe these 2235's will ever sound as good as they did on extreme lows. They don't sound bad, just different. Right now with the way they are setup and not rta'd the price difference is not being justified. This will be temporary I am sure. Work though is going to place this on the back burner till fall. I will continue to tweak as time permits.

As pointed out by Mike M., Amps are def an issue. I may have to go to a whole different level of quality. Perhaps Brystons. Will this ever stop?

Ken

4313B
07-01-2003, 04:24 PM
"I don't believe these 2235's will ever sound as good as they did on extreme lows."

Well something is definitely wrong then. I wonder if they are yet another set of 2235H's some genius thought to remove the mass rings from.

Ian Mackenzie
07-01-2003, 04:24 PM
Well,

How about some Hi end DIY X Aleph Class A Pass amps for the horns? They are the best of thebest

Can you solder?

I'll zip you an email later with the details

macka

boputnam
07-01-2003, 04:31 PM
"I wonder if they are yet another set of 2235H's some genius thought to remove the mass rings from"

Was Bernie Becker able to provide that listing of all the components and such from Westlake? Maybe that would answer Giskard's query (and a good one at that! ;) )

Otherwise, I wonder whether some of the lack of low-end response is room position / stand related? :confused:

It's hard to imagine the cabinets could be tuned "wrong". What can you post about the porting?

PSS AUDIO
07-02-2003, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
Well something is definitely wrong then. I wonder if they are yet another set of 2235H's some genius thought to remove the mass rings from.

What do you mean by removing the mass rings from the 2235?

Can you give me/us information about it?

Guido
07-02-2003, 04:46 AM
@ PSS Audio

If you remove the mass ring (50g ?) from a 2235H the cone weight only 105g instead of 155g.
This lift the Fs from 20 Hz to 23Hz and increase the sensitivity.
you will get somewhat of a 2234H

But I think Giskard will explain it more detailed;)

PSS AUDIO
07-02-2003, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Guido

If you remove the mass ring (50g ?) from a 2235H the cone weight only 105g instead of 155g.
This lift the Fs from 20 Hz to 23Hz and increase the sensitivity.
you will get somewhat of a 2234H



Thank you for your answer.

As I have a melting pot of 4350/55:

4350A boxes with:
1 x 2231H
1 x 2231H with a 2235 cone
1 x 2202H
1 x 2441+2308
1 x 2405

I was wondering what will happen if I remove the mass ring out of 2231H with 2235 cones?

4313B
07-02-2003, 06:18 AM
I'll start a new thread in Technical to address this hopefully once and for all :)

*****

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=414

Ken Pachkowsky
07-02-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
"I don't believe these 2235's will ever sound as good as they did on extreme lows."

Well something is definitely wrong then. I wonder if they are yet another set of 2235H's some genius thought to remove the mass rings from.

Ok Giskard, I will bite, Is there a way I can verify the above?

I hope this is not the case.

Ken

4313B
07-02-2003, 09:08 AM
The "easiest" way would be to measure their Fs.

It could just be that the tuning it different, in fact, I can't imagine it not being different. I think we would all be interested to know the Fb of those Westlakes :)

Were you running the 4345 biamped? Because if you weren't, that 5.4 mH coil was in the signal path and that would definitely cause a "fuller" bass response from the 2245H.

*****

Looking at your pictures it looks like those ports are longer than the 4350/4355 ports....... I can't remember at all what the length was on the 4350 and 4355 boxes.

Ken Pachkowsky
07-02-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
The "easiest" way would be to measure their Fs.

It could just be that the tuning it different, in fact, I can't imagine it not being different. I think we would all be interested to know the Fb of those Westlakes :)

Were you running the 4345 biamped? Because if you weren't, that 5.4 mH coil was in the signal path and that would definitely cause a "fuller" bass response from the 2245H.

*****

Looking at your pictures it looks like those ports are longer than the 4350/4355 ports....... I can't remember at all what the length was on the 4350 and 4355 boxes. [B]

The 4345 were biamped using 5234A with 5145 cards.

Have never done Fs measurements before and have no clue how.

Here are some measurements re cabs

Ports are 4in. by 11 1/2in.

Internal:

42in wide
28in high
18in deep

This does not take into account the internal bracing or the volume of the 10in. enclosure which I believe is 1.5 cubic feet (not confirmed). I suspect the internal bracing is substantial based on the weight of each cab.

One other thing.

The original HR1 cabs did not have a Grey Goop dampening material applied to the interior. When these where overhauled and all drivers replaced 4 years ago, this material was applied increasing the weight from 371lbs per cab to 417. Also the fiberglass type material inside the cabs is not fiberglass but something else that is much more dense.

Up until now all enquiries to Westlake have been met with great enthusiam. When asked about internal volumes, dampening materials and port tuning they become somewhat less forthcoming. They did confirm the Mass Control Rings had not been removed and in fact where shocked to hear that some would do such a thing.

28x42x18=21168 square inches x 0.0005787 = 12.24 cubic feet per cab - 1.5 internal enclosure for 10in and were left with 11.19. I suspect by the time you alow for bracing and drivers these are probably around 9 cubic feet each.

Ken

4313B
07-02-2003, 12:40 PM
"When asked about internal volumes, dampening materials and port tuning they become somewhat less forthcoming."

Not real surprising, they might not even know or remember.

"They did confirm the Mass Control Rings had not been removed and in fact where shocked to hear that some would do such a thing."

I was specifically thinking about how Cherokee Studios reconed a bunch of their 2231's and 2235's as 2234's because they thought 2234's sounded better. Also, other forum members have hinted at doing the same thing.


My guess is those Westlakes are tuned a bit lower than the 4345, 4350, or 4355 and if you're accustomed to the 4345 then you will notice a difference. There should be someone on this forum who can refresh our memories on the stock port configuration of the 4350 and 4355.

PSS AUDIO
07-02-2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
[iThere should be someone on this forum who can refresh our memories on the stock port configuration of the 4350 and 4355.
There are 6 ports on a 4350 each of them with a diameter of 3' and length of 12,2'.

Will this help?

Ken Pachkowsky
07-02-2003, 04:36 PM
I just got this via email from Westlake

The crossover points are as follows:

2235H 1db up at 40hz
Gauss 3184 1.9db up at xover point 520hz
2446 10db down at xover point 1240hz
2426 .8db down at xover point 10000hz

For those that asked.

Ken

Robh3606
07-02-2003, 06:32 PM
Thanks Ken

I went up on their web site and I was wondering how they get 10K to 20K out of a 2426??? Must use some kind of compensation unless its all in the horn which seams unlikely to me.

You lucky dog they are gonna be something once you get them mounted and dialed in. They have a high bench mark to surpass so don't be disappointed you haven't given them a chance yet.


Rob :)

4313B
07-02-2003, 06:54 PM
Well the spec sheet states the 4345 is tuned to 32 Hz but the JBL tuning formula puts it at 30 Hz. G.T. thinks he remembers it being in the high twenties but he's trying to remember back 20 years.

From PSS AUDIO's post, the six 4350 ports would tune that volume to roughly 26 Hz, and the spec sheet states 25 Hz.

Given the dimensions of the Westlake ports, I get roughly 22 Hz for a 9 cubic foot volume and roughly 19 Hz for a 12 cubic foot volume. I think it's safe to bet they're tuned to ~ 20 Hz ;)

Ken Pachkowsky
07-02-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
Well the spec sheet states the 4345 is tuned to 32 Hz but the JBL tuning formula puts it at 30 Hz. G.T. thinks he remembers it being in the high twenties but he's trying to remember back 20 years.

From PSS AUDIO's post, the six 4350 ports would tune that volume to roughly 26 Hz, and the spec sheet states 25 Hz.

Given the dimensions of the Westlake ports, I get roughly 22 Hz for a 9 cubic foot volume and roughly 19 Hz for a 12 cubic foot volume. I think it's safe to bet they're tuned to ~ 20 Hz ;)

Thanks Giskard

Appreciate the info. They say I should have a envelope full of technical info in the mail tomorrow.

Ken

Ian Mackenzie
07-03-2003, 03:32 AM
Ken,

This is my hypothesis:

Remember the 2245s are tuned empirically too taste b/n 28- 30 hz. Andby luck or good fortune they sound great for hi fi in most rooms.

The possibility of the 2235's in the Westlake system being tuned lower than you might expect is understandable for a studio application.

It avoids unloading the cones with a bum of a Mic or similar low frequency mishap, and they can easily arrange low frequency equalisation as is standard practise in the studio to achieve the desire flat response at the listener position behind the Desk..

Tuning low without boost will result in a somewhat over damped sound, with less apparent oomph as the port output has less impact on reinforcing the cones at more audible bass frequencies.
But when Eq'd, the effect will be massive extension and very high power handling and sub frequencies.

See how you go with the adjustments on the crossover.


Ian

PSS AUDIO
07-03-2003, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
From PSS AUDIO's post, the six 4350 ports would tune that volume to roughly 26 Hz, and the spec sheet states 25 Hz.

Given the dimensions of the Westlake ports, I get roughly 22 Hz for a 9 cubic foot volume and roughly 19 Hz for a 12 cubic foot volume. I think it's safe to bet they're tuned to ~ 20 Hz ;)

Out of the 4350B data sheet the enclosure volumes are:

Low Frequency: 9.5 cubic foot
High Frequency: 1.6 cibic foot

Once again if this can help...

Tom Loizeaux
07-03-2003, 06:20 AM
"Out of the 4350B data sheet the enclosure volumes are:

Low Frequency: 9.5 cubic foot"

...so how do they get two 2235s in a 9.5 cu. ft. cabinet and tune it properly when JBL suggests an 8 cu.ft. cabinet for a single 2235?

Tom

PSS AUDIO
07-03-2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Tom Loizeaux
[B...so how do they get two 2235s in a 9.5 cu. ft. cabinet and tune it properly when JBL suggests an 8 cu.ft. cabinet for a single 2235?

Tom [/B]

Well I guess that 2 x 8=9.5! :D

As tea for two and you for me ....

In fact they made a typo error I presume. The overall size of the 4350 is .89m x 1.21m x .51m = 549 liters.

The internal size is in fact .8m x 1.17m x .42m = 437 litres, less 45 litres for the 2202H and perhaps 10 litres more for the horn, driver, 2405 and xover.

There is in fact 390/400 litres for two 2231H, i.e. 14 cu.ft for both drivers.

In such a case we are quite close to the 16 cu. ft requested!

PSS AUDIO
07-03-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
Tom? Yuri? You guys are running 2235H's in 8.0 cubic foot enclosures?

... the 4350 but the six ports/ducts as specified by Yuri support an Fb = 26 Hz in a volume of 9.5 cubic feet. Of course, actually physically measuring the Fb of a 4350 and a 4355 will put the speculation to rest :)

I personally do not use the 2235H as I am just listening my 4350…

If you made the calculation out the 6 ports for a 9.5 cu. ft.; what will it be with a volume of 390 litres?

4313B
07-03-2003, 09:03 AM
~ 22 Hz

PSS AUDIO
07-03-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
~ 22 Hz
In such a case one can say that a 4350/55 is tuned at 22 Hz, quite close to the Westlake ...

Once again, what can eat, with or without, the bones a 4350/55?

That is the question, to be or not to … JBL 4350/55!

4313B
07-03-2003, 09:59 AM
At this point I would prefer to see the actual Fb measurements.
I get bored with speculation after awhile :p

boputnam
07-03-2003, 11:01 AM
"The 4345's where tuned lower than these. Those 2245's are fantastic. I don't believe these 2235's will ever sound as good as they did on extreme lows. "

Hey, Ken...

That 5234A crossover has DIP switches that enable adjusting the hi-pass filter (sub 40Hz). There is a setting for +6dB boost at 20, 30 and 40Hz (as well as others). Do you recall whether you had that hi-pass filter set for anything other than "factory" (flat)? If so, you might be making a "biased" comparison ;)

And if so, there may be a similar setting on that Westlake crossover to provide the slope you're accustomed to.

Just a thought...

Ken Pachkowsky
07-03-2003, 11:26 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by boputnam
[B]"The 4345's where tuned lower than these. Those 2245's are fantastic. I don't believe these 2235's will ever sound as good as they did on extreme lows. "

Hey, Ken...

That 5234A crossover has DIP switches that enable adjusting the hi-pass filter (sub 40Hz). There is a setting for +6dB boost at 20, 30 and 40Hz (as well as others). Do you recall whether you had that hi-pass filter set for anything other than "factory" (flat)? If so, you might be making a "biased" comparison ;)

Good point Bo.

I sent that 5234a away to have the cards custom made and installed. I never took the top off to see what he set them at. I suspect they are set flat. There was no need to check as I was very happy with the bass response.

4313B
07-03-2003, 11:39 AM
That's just complete bunk that dual 2235H's would fall short...

There is no way in hell a single properly loaded and tuned 2245H is going to spank dual properly loaded and tuned 2235H's in the VLF.

**************************************************
edited by Giskard on 07-03-2003 at 03:17 PM

Here's the measured response of the stock 4345 and the stock 4355:

4345
2245H in 9.0 cubic feet tuned to 32 Hz
(impedance curve trough at ~ 26 Hz, passive filter)
March 9th, 1981
4W @ 2m
half-space (2 Pi)
95 dB, 4W, 2m
-3 dB at 36 Hz
-6 dB at 32 Hz
-10 dB at 26 Hz

4355
two 2235H in 9.5 cubic feet tuned to 32 Hz
(impedance curve trough at ~ 28 Hz, active filter)
April 30th, 1981
4W @ 2m
half-space (2 Pi)
96 dB, 4W, 2m
-3 dB at 34 Hz
-6 dB at 28 Hz
-10 dB at 24 Hz

Ken Pachkowsky
07-03-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
That's just complete bunk that dual 2235H's would fall short...

There is no way in hell a single properly loaded and tuned 2245H is going to spank dual properly loaded and tuned 2235H's in the VLF.

After seeing all the above I have no doubt Giskard is correct. The problem is a combination of improper setup, low damping factor (200) on the Hafler 500's.

First, as time permits they need to be setup properly. Second, I and others believe these require a more advanced amplification system. Westlake did warn me of this. These issues will be addressed as time and $$$ permit. Once these are done I am sure the vlf will trip the earthquake recording equipment throughout southern California.

In retrospect, I wish I had not mentioned it until these were setup properly. I just wanted to share my excitement and initial impressions with the only people who can understand this madness.

Ken

4313B
07-03-2003, 01:25 PM
Understood :)

Imagine our vexation at not being able to be there with you to experience first hand :(

Ken Pachkowsky
07-03-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
Understood :)

Imagine our vexation at not being able to be there with you to experience first hand :(

Giskard

The spare room has clean sheets. When can you be here?

Would love your expertise in setting these up.

Ken

Bernard Wolf
07-03-2003, 03:15 PM
BTW Ken, whith regards the ground loop hum, have you tried plugging the amp(s) into another circuit from the rest of the equipment. I know from experience that really strange things can happen with hum - something only those with high sesitivity speakers really know about - and sometimes you have to try every possibility. I myself have to run my bass amp (citation 19) on a different circuit from everything else, including the dedicated line, to avoid hum...go figure !!

Bernard

MikeM
07-05-2003, 08:29 AM
What you are noticing now will pry end up being better in the long run. those pry sound less thick on the lows which is better. get a Fast High current power amp and trust me the lows will no longer be and issue. $$ Good Luck. Im out of money. In 30 years at this Ive owned about 40 power amps all large 250 and above a side. You know what might be intresting to try on those would be ADCOM 555II for the lows. its lean controlled and dam powerful amp. ive had that amp put mono blocks to shame on lowed control and heck its only around 300. Also the 565 monos Ive had side to side with a 7000.00$ power amp and the lows were very close into 8 ohms.

Ken Pachkowsky
07-05-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by MikeM
What you are noticing now will pry end up being better in the long run. those pry sound less thick on the lows which is better. get a Fast High current power amp and trust me the lows will no longer be and issue. $$ Good Luck. Im out of money. In 30 years at this Ive owned about 40 power amps all large 250 and above a side. You know what might be intresting to try on those would be ADCOM 555II for the lows. its lean controlled and dam powerful amp. ive had that amp put mono blocks to shame on lowed control and heck its only around 300. Also the 565 monos Ive had side to side with a 7000.00$ power amp and the lows were very close into 8 ohms.

Hmm, interesting, I have never tried an Adcom. In looking at the specs could be a great choice. 2 of them bridged would tickle the 2235's nicely. Damping factor of 800 would tighten them up very well.

Any other opinions out there?

Thanks Mike

boputnam
07-06-2003, 08:47 PM
"Out of the 4350B data sheet the enclosure volumes are:
Low Frequency: 9.5 cubic foot"

I posted on a similar typo on another Thread - but the typo I referred to was the descriptions in the 1982 Pro brochure (page 5), wrt the 4345 and 4355 - the "Enclosure Volumes" are swapped.

JBL note the 4355 as 35-1/2 x 48-1/8 x 20 inches which = 19.2 ft3, NOT the quoted 9.5 ft3!!

9.5 ft3 is the enclosure volume for the 4345, and of this I am certain! ;)

So, in the 4355, those paired 2235H's are given considerably more volume - appropriately so.

From the brochure - doh!

4313B
07-06-2003, 08:58 PM
The Engineering Standard for the 4355 states the net effective volume for the dual 2235H's as 9.5 cubic feet.

The Engineering Standard for the 4345 states the net effective volume for the single 2245H as 9.0 cubic feet.

PSS AUDIO
07-07-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by boputnam
[I... in the 1982 Pro brochure (page 5), wrt the 4345 and 4355 - the "Enclosure Volumes" are swapped.

JBL note the 4355 as 35-1/2 x 48-1/8 x 20 inches which = 19.2 ft3, NOT the quoted 9.5 ft3!!

So, in the 4355, those paired 2235H's are given considerably more volume - appropriately so.

In a previous post I realized their typo error and I gave the real internal size of the 4350B cabinet and Giskard calculated then that the 4350/55 were tuned at 22 Hz (about)!

4313B
07-07-2003, 06:13 AM
The 4350 and 4355 are tuned differently. The 22 Hz figure I came up with was mathematical and should not be used in place of actual measurement.

boputnam
07-07-2003, 09:33 AM
The Engineering Standard for the 4355 states the net effective volume for the dual 2235H's as 9.5 cubic feet.

The Engineering Standard for the 4345 states the net effective volume for the single 2245H as 9.0 cubic feet

That may be, but the Brochure still misquotes the two Enclosure Volumes, wrt to the exterior dimensions - see that the 4345 is credited with 19 ft3. So, something got switched there.

Is the Engineering Standard for the 4355 at 9.5 cubic feet intended to be per transducer? If so, that might make some sense (2 x 9.5 = 19 ft3).

4313B
07-07-2003, 10:26 AM
Engineering Standard = 9.5 cubic feet.
1976 Pro Catalog = 9.5 cubic feet.
1978 Pro Catalog = 9.5 cubic feet.
1980 Pro Catalog = 9.5 cubic feet.
1982 Pro Catalog = 9.5 cubic feet.

Without actually measuring the inside of the physical enclosure, the volume displacement of all the bracing, drivers, subenclosures, ports/ducts, networks, etc, the physical tuning and the physical port/duct configuration it's all just speculation.

"Is the Engineering Standard for the 4355 at 9.5 cubic feet intended to be per transducer? If so, that might make some sense (2 x 9.5 = 19 ft3)."

I can't imagine JBL ever placing these drivers in such enormous volumes. The actual measured frequency response curve doesn't support such a large volume either.

With the available data from 1981, BassBox 6 Pro speculates that the effective volume is ~ 13 cubic feet tuned to 28 Hz.

PSS AUDIO
07-07-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Giskard
Without actually measuring the inside of the physical enclosure, the volume displacement of all the bracing, drivers, subenclosures, ports/ducts, networks, etc, the physical tuning and the physical port/duct configuration it's all just speculation.


Please read my previous post I gave all the inside measures!

4313B
07-07-2003, 11:32 AM
Here:

http://www.danmarx.org/audioinnovation/impanalyzer.html

This is a great little way to measure your tuning frequency.

MikeM
07-07-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Giskard
The Engineering Standard for the 4355 states the net effective volume for the dual 2235H's as 9.5 cubic feet.

The Engineering Standard for the 4345 states the net effective volume for the single 2245H as 9.0 cubic feet.

If you have frequency responce graphs on both the 4350 and 4355 you will see that the 4350 is tuned lower and has more output at and below 30HZ !!

MikeM
07-07-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Ken Pachkowsky
Hmm, interesting, I have never tried an Adcom. In looking at the specs could be a great choice. 2 of them bridged would tickle the 2235's nicely. Damping factor of 800 would tighten them up very well.

Any other opinions out there?

Thanks Mike

I dont think the damping factor is all thats involved because Ive heard amps that are rated high that didnt sound like it. What I do is hunt buy low then use the amp and resell it. ive never taken a loss and have heard many amps. Anyway This amp moved the woofer cones like crazy without the thick mibass #$%^&&** of many. The 555II. The mids and highs are very FORWARD so biamping of whatever is in order. The 5500 is diffrent as the 5802 so dont expect the same from all. Heck im using a crown XLS602 that cranks fine. 244.00$ sounds 80% as good as my last mega buck amp. Im going biamping with tube highs again. Have fun.

4313B
07-07-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by MikeM
If you have frequency responce graphs on both the 4350 and 4355 you will see that the 4350 is tuned lower and has more output at and below 30HZ !!

Yes I do, thanks! :)

boputnam
07-07-2003, 07:37 PM
I sent that 5234a away to have the cards custom made and installed. I never took the top off to see what he set them at. I suspect they are set flat. There was no need to check as I was very happy with the bass response.

Hey, Ken...

Just returned from a weekend overwrought with bluegrass / country and Cuervo, and had a chance to open-up that 5234A - as you suspected, the DIP's were in the factory "Flat" position. So, there are no clues there. Sorry, bud... :(

I'm outa ideas, and outa typo's to post, too!! :confused:

Ian Mackenzie
07-08-2003, 12:40 AM
The issue would appear to be driving the 4 ohms load or lower presented by the two 2235s.

Why run both in parellel if you can use identical amps to feed each woofer individually? ie 4 x 300 watts

Not many hifi power amps are optimised for 4 ohms, either the output stage or the power supply, hence they can appear subjectively different. Some varieties are specified for peak voltage (on transients ) and may fold under 4 ohms.

Other amps with multiple stages lack stability in return for low distortion from gross negative feedback and can loose control of the woofer under certain conditions.

In the Pro area the Mackie amps and Crown will deliver into 4 ohms like crazy or even 2 ohms!! A good s/hand Crown would be useful with the Westlakes.

I have only used a Phase Linear 700B for a bass amp and it performs very well, the threashold of clipping is 450 watts per channel into 8 ohms and about 550 into 4 ohms. Damping factor is 1000 : 1 and is very stable, but fusing of woofers is recommended.

This model is verteran of the PA scene and is used widely by the most accomplished bass players macka

Ian Mackenzie
07-08-2003, 12:44 AM
Heres a close up

macka

MikeM
07-08-2003, 05:12 PM
Ya that 700 series 2 will clipp at about 650 a side into 8 ohms. Had them before.
Hey ken. May sound crazy but I think you will obtain better sound with the 400 lb westlake if you get them up there in height. If you notice in studios how many times do you see them on the floor.. Not many. My wife talked me into suspending my 4435 from the ceiling. The hooks are already there from the studio they came from. something to think about. By the position of the bass ports on your westlakes id say they were designed for high mounting. Im going to install cross members in the attic for mine.

MikeM
07-08-2003, 05:27 PM
These amps can be tuned to the load. you hook up a scope and signal generater to adjust for any irregularities in sqare wave. Or you can do it by ear at the listing position. these are 2K into 2 ohms. Delta Omega 2000. Would grab those westlakes by the boo boo.

rgrjit8
07-17-2003, 10:37 AM
Congratulations Ken, I saw the speakers on Ebay. I'm glad that one of "us" got them.
This sounds like shameless asskissing but I owe you for the tale of your barn party with the 4350s from the old board. Without that visual in my mind I might have missed my 4355s when the opportunity fell out of the blue one day. (I was actually looking for something else when a guy called and asked if I was interested.)

Now, what is that little thingy to the right of the high frequency horn on your Westlakes?

Ken Pachkowsky
07-21-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by rgrjit8
Congratulations Ken, I saw the speakers on Ebay. I'm glad that one of "us" got them.
This sounds like shameless asskissing but I owe you for the tale of your barn party with the 4350s from the old board. Without that visual in my mind I might have missed my 4355s when the opportunity fell out of the blue one day. (I was actually looking for something else when a guy called and asked if I was interested.)

Now, what is that little thingy to the right of the high frequency horn on your Westlakes?

Thanks for the congrats..

The thingy is a Westlake Logo plate.

I am away working these days and won't be able to play with or tweak these for some time.

Ken