PDA

View Full Version : LE14H-1 versus LE14H-3 versus LE14H-4



sguttag
06-20-2018, 12:58 PM
I've done some searching but haven't really come up with good answers yet. I have a pair of L250s that I really like. I've had them since they were new. The foam rotted on the woofers (old story, I know) and I reconed them as LE14H-1 (could get the cone kits and I'm a JBL reconer...I've never much liked refoaming drivers from a labor standpoint though I've done it).

So, on a recent JBL parts order, I decided to get some LE14H-3 recone kits to put on the shelf for the day that the foam rots away again so I could put in the rubber version and be done with it. By all reports, the LE14H-3 sounds near identical to the LE14H-1 save 1dB of sensitivity, which I can live with (and correct for). I would appear that JBL just discontinued the kits because though they took the order with an 8-week lead time, the canceled that line item and pulled the C8RLE14-3 part number.

The C8RLE14-4 still shows as active. So my questions are:

1) what are the big differences between the LE14H-3 and LE14H-4? I hear it is mostly the mass of the cone that probably will make it more efficient but probably also more prone to break up (can't beat a good stiff cone, it was a flaw of the Altec 515-8G over its predecessors, yeah, it was more efficient but the cone was flimsy and it didn't necessarily sound as good as earlier 515s or GPA's 515-LFs).

Is there any general feeling on the LE14H-4? Is it a worthy successor to the prior models? When the time comes, should I just refoam them with whatever foam kits are available at the time? Is there a rubber kit, I wonder for the LE14H series? Or would my plan of just reconing them as a later version still be a good plan.

Though I don't know how JBL is nowadays...in the past I did see cone kits go and come back (the LE14H-1, as an example...that one went away but came back for a brief period). The 2245H went away and it is gone for good, I'm sure. We did a mess of them, back in the day.

If this ground has been covered before, please send me a link. Thus far, my searches haven't turned up anything though.

Robh3606
06-20-2018, 01:45 PM
Info on the -4

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?21501-Le14h-4


-3

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?11317-LE14H-3


Rob:)

sguttag
06-20-2018, 02:23 PM
Thanks. The EDS sheets I did see. It isn't that the LE14H-4 is a complete mystery. But I'm curious as to what peoples opinions are on the LE14H-4, in particular, since I've found discussions on the LE14H-3, when used in place of an LE14H-1 or if anyone has reconed a 1 to a 4.

As stated, my application would be in L250s and it would be down the road. I don't plan to do anything to them until the foam rots again (it has been some years now since I last reconed them).

Earl K
06-20-2018, 02:45 PM
I believe that it's quite wrong to assume the Le14-3 and Le14-4 cone kits would properly fit into the older baskets.

:)

sguttag
06-20-2018, 05:27 PM
I'd be VERY surprised if they didn't. JBL doesn't change their frames all that often, at least not within a driver category. One could often cross populate cone kits in drivers. In fact, JBL has, traditionally, published a "Goes Into" sheet that lists what a particular cone (or diaphragm) will physically go into and what potential ramifications of it are. I'm on the Pro side of things so the LE14 series doesn't show up on my sheets.

Looking over the EDS sheets on the LE14 line, I'd be VERY surprised if one couldn't drop in any cone kit into the 1, 3 or 4. The 1 would be the most different where I see a flux of 1.25T version 1.2T and the V.C. height of .75" versus .78". From what I can tell on the EDS, the 3 and 4 use the same frame, magnet and everything else...just the cone changes with a 124g cone on the 4 while the 3 is a 137g (the 1 had a 145g).

I absolutely expect there to be differences, sonically though they are bound to be more subtle with actual program material.

I'm looking towards the long-term of having a solution down the road other than refoam...which may well be the solution I use since that will have the best chance of keeping the same sound. Then again, if the LE14H-3 cone kit comes around again, reports are that sonically it was essentially the same as the 1 but with 1dB less sensitivity.

Ian Mackenzie
06-20-2018, 06:29 PM
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?21522-Le14H-4

Earl K
06-21-2018, 01:37 PM
The frames are different in the newer le14H-3/4 series ;

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=55759&stc=1&d=1336853352 (http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?32934-LE14H-1-and-LE14H-3-pics)

I see the spider ( on the newer Le14H-3 ) sitting/glued about an extra 1/3" higher ( relative to the top-plate//gap area ) .

:)

Robh3606
06-21-2018, 01:55 PM
I think that new frame started with the 2217 using an SFG Vented gap magnet


http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Discrete%20Sales%20Models/2217HPL.pdf


Rob:)

Earl K
06-21-2018, 02:08 PM
I think that new frame started with the 2217 using an SFG Vented gap magnet


http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Discrete%20Sales%20Models/2217HPL.pdf


Rob:)

I believe you are right Rob.

This frame has seen at least 3 different magnetic systems attached to it.

Here's the ultra-rare Le1400H ( same frame attached to the "deep-gap" 2242H magnetic system )

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23038&stc=1&d=1171958648 (http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?14738-Info-Le-1400h-HELP)

:)

sguttag
06-21-2018, 02:12 PM
If the LE14H-3 (or 4) are SFG drivers, then yes, likely their cones wouldn't fit a 1 (or vice-versa).

My guess is that I'll have only 1 refoaming session to do, may be two before I'll just be drooling and not worry about it anymore. Thanks for the photos.

Is the LE14H-4 still in use in any current speaker?

-Steve