Question about the 2225H

[pangea]

The other day I replaced one of my 2225's and I immediately noticed the severe stiffness of the cone.

Is that normal with the 2225?
The suspensions on my newly reconed 2220A's are softer, so I'm thinking if it's possible that the fabric surrounds can dry up and stiffen that much?
If so, is it possible to soften up the surrounds again somehow, or do I have to have them replaced?

BR
Roland

[GordonW]

A new 2225 should be pretty stiff. They will loosen up upon use.

The 2225 has a heavier cone and a stiffer surround in general, than the 2220. So, it's normal for it to be stiffer, by a moderate amount.

Regards,
Gordon.

[pangea]

OK, thanks for the info!

Well, they have been at work for some time now, but they have never been driven hard. So, perhaps I shoud give them a bit more than the mW's they usually have to take.

Perhaps I should let them perform at a few parties now and then, at least feeding them with a few watts or more.:D
You think that'll soften them up a bit and perhaps lower the fs?

BR
Roland

[jbl]

My 2225's took quite a while to break in. Are your cones original or after market? They should be paper not material.

Ron

[pangea]

My 2225's took quite a while to break in. Are your cones original or after market? They should be paper not material.

Ron

Hmmm...The surrounds are definitely made of some sort of very stiff and almost rigid fabric, that looks somewhat like the surrounds of the 2123's, but are much stiffer though.

Does this mean they have been reconed?

If so, is there anything available out there, which could soften up the surrounds somewhat?

BR
Roland

[jbl]

They should have a somewhat wet look to the outside of the driver. Almost a tacky feel. Could you post some pictures?

Ron

[pangea]

They should have a somewhat wet look to the outside of the driver. Almost a tacky feel. Could you post some pictures?

Ron

There is no "wet" look and the surface is absolutely dry and quite hard.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/pangea2012/20050204c.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/pangea2012/2225H.jpg


BR
Roland

[Mr. Widget]

That looks about right... how stiff? Is it noticeably stiffer than your other 2225? I would assume the surround should be identical to your 2220 surrounds.

By stiff do you mean the entire suspension, i.e. the surround and spider together, or are you pushing in on just the surround?


Widget

[pangea]

That looks about right... how stiff? Is it noticeably stiffer than your other 2225? I would assume the surround should be identical to your 2220 surrounds.

By stiff do you mean the entire suspension, i.e. the surround and spider together, or are you pushing in on just the surround?


Widget

The surround on both 2225's are equally stiff, but they are both significantly stiffer than the surrounds of the 2220's, which both are newly reconed by an authorized reconer.

Unfortunately I don't know anything about the history of the 2225's.

I would say however that most of the the stiffness comes from the surrounds, though I can't exclude that the spider is also adding to the stiffness of the entire (2225) cone, to some extent.

BR
Roland

[Mr. Widget]

I just looked up the TS parameters... the 2225H has a free air resonance of 40 Hz! (I assumed it was like the 2205A at 30Hz) with a cone weighing 105g, the 2220A/H has a free air resonance of 37Hz with only 70g. Based on that I would expect the 2225H to be significantly stiffer.

Do you have an audio oscillator and ohm meter to measure the free air resonance?


Widget

[pangea]

I just looked up the TS parameters... the 2225H has a free air resonance of 40 Hz! (I assumed it was like the 2205A at 30Hz) with a cone weighing 105g, the 2220A/H has a free air resonance of 37Hz with only 70g. Based on that I would expect the 2225H to be significantly stiffer.

Do you have an audio oscillator and ohm meter to measure the free air resonance?


Widget

I've got the Ohm-meter and I probably have a tone generator in the computer, but I'm still not sure how to measure.
Would it be OK to have the woofer mounted in the baffle if the back of the box is open, or does the woofer have to be suspended in mid air, hanging in a thread?
If so, then what do I do?

BR
Roland

[Mr. Widget]

You must hold the woofer out of the cabinet in free air.

Here is a site that describes the process. It is really straightforward.

http://sound.westhost.com/tsp.htm


Widget

[pangea]

You must hold the woofer out of the cabinet in free air.

Here is a site that describes the process. It is really straightforward.

http://sound.westhost.com/tsp.htm


Widget

Many thanks, I'll check it out tomorrow, it's a bit too late for that right now.

BR
Roland

[Earl K]

Hi Roland

I must own around 20-30 odd 2225 woofs and a hand-full of 2226(s).

It's a stiff-ribbed cone with a very stiff compliance which can make it seem almost "stuck" or "seized" ( compared to anything with an Fs of around 20 hz ) . That 2220 has such a "flimsy" cone in comparison - that it'll give you a misleading reference point ( even though it's Fs is similar at around 37hz ).

It is hard to believe that a 2225 has a 40hz Fs, when you first feel it .

I happen to have a couple at home. I'll post some pics tomorrow. One is a recone that's 21 years old. I've recently measured its' Fs at @ 40.5 hz .

FWIW: The surrounds are not a simple extension of the paper-cone / they are a double-roll of treated fabric ( assumed by me to be glued on ). I think this surround type was first introduced around 1972-3 - see "PRO-NOTE" Volume 1, Issue 3 -7 ( for some time references ).

:blink: Ooops - those "PRO-NOTES" are not yet in the "Library" . :blink:

:cheers:

[Mr. Widget]

Ooops - those "PRO-NOTES" are not yet in the "Library" . :blink:



:rotfl:


Widget

[Earl K]

:blink: YEP I'm larfing with you ! :blink:

:rotfl:

[pangea]

Hi Roland

I must own around 20-30 odd 2225 woofs and a hand-full of 2226(s).

It's a stiff-ribbed cone with a very stiff compliance which can make it seem almost "stuck" or "seized" ( compared to anything with an Fs of around 20 hz ) . That 2220 has such a "flimsy" cone in comparison - that it'll give you a misleading reference point ( even though it's Fs is similar at around 37hz ).

It is hard to believe that a 2225 has a 40hz Fs, when you first feel it .

I happen to have a couple at home. I'll post some pics tomorrow. One is a recone that's 21 years old. I've recently measured its' Fs at @ 40.5 hz .

FWIW: The surrounds are not a simple extension of the paper-cone / they are a double-roll of treated fabric ( assumed by me to be glued on ). I think this surround type was first introduced around 1972-3 - see "PRO-NOTE" Volume 1, Issue 3 -7 ( for some time references ).

:blink: Ooops - those "PRO-NOTES" are not yet in the "Library" . :blink:

:cheers:
Thanks Earl! That's most reassuring, I was almost beginning to believe there was something wrong with my 2225's.
But how on earth is it possible that they can be/feel so very different and still almost measure the same?

Btw, I'm not going to use the 2225's for the MTM project, I only put them in the MTM box for now, because the 2215's are so much heavier to handle.:D

I think the 2225's will go in to a pair of sturdy 140L/5cu.ft. (party)boxes I have, for my son and daughter.

BR
Roland

[GordonW]

The 2225s should work great in 5 cubic feet, tuned to 40 Hz. Try two 4" diameter, 4 3/8" long vent tubes per box, should get you just about right on. F3 of about 43 Hz, should have plenty of "slam".

If you want to extend the bottom end a bit (at a small expense of midbass "slam"), you can try 6" long 4" diameter vents (still 2 per box)... this will give more of an "EBS-like" alignment, which will run the "ultimate rolloff" point to somewhere like 35 Hz, but at a slightly reduced overall bass output level.

Anywhere between those two points, should be very good tunings, especially if you get any "room gain" from putting the boxes near a wall...

Regards,
Gordon.

[Earl K]

Hi Roland

Here are pictures of 2 speakers that use the double roll fabric surround, as well as 2 more that incorporate the same 12 ribbed cone.

Pic #1 ; late 1980s' 2225H
Pic #2 ; 1977, 2220a reconed with a 2225H kit in 1984
Pic #3 ; a recone kit for a 2234/5H
Pic #4 ; a close look at the cone of the ME150H

All these cones have two things in common:
(1) They have the same "12 count" of ribs built into the paper ( with the same spacing )
(2) The actual paper portion of the cone ( not including the surround ) is @ 12 - 5/8" ( 320.675 mm ). They actually look closer to 322 mm .

More about this later . :cheers:

[pangea]

Hi Roland

Here are pictures of 2 speakers that use the double roll fabric surround, as well as 2 more that incorporate the same 12 ribbed cone.

Pic #1 ; late 1980s' 2225H
Pic #2 ; 1977, 2220a reconed with a 2225H kit in 1984
Pic #3 ; a recone kit for a 2234/5H
Pic #4 ; a close look at the cone of the ME150H

All these cones have two things in common:
(1) They have the same "12 count" of ribs built into the paper ( with the same spacing )
(2) The actual paper portion of the cone ( not including the surround ) is @ 12 - 5/8" ( 320.675 mm ). They actually look closer to 322 mm .

More about this later . :cheers:

Is the variation in surrounds, the only major difference in these woofers?
Does that mean the 2225 with a rubber surround, would become a 2235?:bouncy:

BR
Roland

[Mr. Widget]

Is the variation in surrounds, the only major difference in these woofers?
Does that mean the 2225 with a rubber surround, would become a 2235?:bouncy:

BR
Roland

I am only guessing, but I doubt it. I bet the spiders are different. While the paper cones look the same it is quite possible that the cones are actually slightly different. If the cone and spider were the same, there is also the possibility that the VCs are different, and then there is also the need to add the mass ring.

The 2235 recone kits are very affordable. If you want more 2235s you certainly can plop them into the 2225 as the basket and motor are identical.

Widget

[pangea]

I am only guessing, but I doubt it. I bet the spiders are different. While the paper cones look the same it is quite possible that the cones are actually slightly different. If the cone and spider were the same, there is also the possibility that the VCs are different, and then there is also the need to add the mass ring.

The 2235 recone kits are very affordable. If you want more 2235s you certainly can plop them into the 2225 as the basket and motor are identical.

Widget

OK, thanks. When the day comes for major "surgery" on the 2225's, I will probably replace the cones with 2235s, but there is no reason to kill a pair of perfectly working woofwers for that purpose now.
It's better to let the kids have some fun first.:D

BR
Roland

[GordonW]

Is the variation in surrounds, the only major difference in these woofers?
Does that mean the 2225 with a rubber surround, would become a 2235?:bouncy:

BR
Roland

In a word, no.

Not only is the spider stiffer in the 2225 (D stiffness rating rather than C, in the "reconers scale"), the voice coil winding length (which is 5/8" on the 2225 and 3/4" on the 2235) is also different.

Regards,
Gordon.

[Earl K]

Originally Posted by pangea
Is the variation in surrounds, the only major difference in these woofers?
Does that mean the 2225 with a rubber surround, would become a 2235?

BR
Roland
Like they said - No, you won't get a 2235 .


Originally Posted by GordonW
In a word, no.

Not only is the spider stiffer in the 2225 (D stiffness rating rather than C, in the "reconers scale"), the voice coil winding length (which is 5/8" on the 2225 and 3/4" on the 2235) is also different.


- Just how much are 2235h recones worth in your part of the world ?

- Roland, I would never destroy a functional 2225H to create a 2235H ( my 2225 speakers have been very, very good to me, so they deserve better ). But I would replace the surround on a 2225h with a foam type to lower its' Fs into a more usable HiFi range. Now, if a person can't measure Fs , then they shouldn't mess with this type of stuff . A "Franken-Woofer" will result from this exercise - but I believe still quite a useful woofer. I'll be trying this surgery out later this year on a pair of retired 2225(s) - so you might just to file this info for later.

- As Gordon pointed out the 2225h has a shorter voice-coil . Foaming the surround / adding a 35 gram mass-ring / and changing the spider to a "C" stiffness will result in a woofer that is essentially a 136H ( or 2231H ). These predecessors to the 2235H have a slightly different voicing ( a little more mid and a bit less deep bass ) and also have less Xmax because of the shorter coil .

- I believe the result of leaving in the "D" spider ( on a foamed up 2225 ) will result in a higher Fs of around 5hz, versus if the "C" flex spider is used. Leaving out the "Mass-Ring" will also result in an Fs that is higher than that of the 136H ( which was 16hz ). My target Fs is around 27hz which I think is achievable through this sort of surgery .

Here's another useful Giskard chart that implies a bunch of things to the Dr. Frankensteins of the woofer world.

:cheers:

[pangea]

Like they said - No, you won't get a 2235 .



- Just how much are 2235h recones worth in your part of the world ?

- Roland, I would never destroy a functional 2225H to create a 2235H ( my 2225 speakers have been very, very good to me, so they deserve better ). But I would replace the surround on a 2225h with a foam type to lower its' Fs into a more usable HiFi range. Now, if a person can't measure Fs , then they shouldn't mess with this type of stuff . A "Franken-Woofer" will result from this exercise - but I believe still quite a useful woofer. I'll be trying this surgery out later this year on a pair of retired 2225(s) - so you might just to file this info for later.

- As Gordon pointed out the 2225h has a shorter voice-coil . Foaming the surround / adding a 35 gram mass-ring / and changing the spider to a "C" stiffness will result in a woofer that is essentially a 136H ( or 2231H ). These predecessors to the 2235H have a slightly different voicing ( a little more mid and a bit less deep bass ) and also have less Xmax because of the shorter coil .

- I believe the result of leaving in the "D" spider ( on a foamed up 2225 ) will result in a higher Fs of around 5hz, versus if the "C" flex spider is used. Leaving out the "Mass-Ring" will also result in an Fs that is higher than that of the 136H ( which was 16hz ). My target Fs is around 27hz which I think is achievable through this sort of surgery .

Here's another useful Giskard chart that implies a bunch of things to the Dr. Frankensteins of the woofer world.

:cheers:

Thank you all för the info!!! I will absolutely save it for later.

The 2225 and the 2235 are roughly worth the same here, but the 2225 are easier to find and now I know it would be possible to convert my 2225 to better fit in a HiFi configuration, by replacing the surround with a softer one and "almost" making it a 2234.
A 27Hz fs, would be more than adequate for me as well.:D

Once again, many thanks for all your help!

BR
Roland

[johnaec]

Here's another useful Giskard chart that implies a bunch of things to the Dr. Frankensteins of the woofer world.Earl - do you know why so many specs vary between columns of the same speaker, and why some of these are red and others not? Giskard?

Thanks - John

[4313B]

Two different cores, stock 2225/2235 1.2 T*m core and E130/E140 1.35 T*m core.

Red signifies changes from stock 2235H.

[korgroenewoud]

Pic #4 ; a close look at the cone of the ME150H


All these cones have two things in common:
(1) They have the same "12 count" of ribs built into the paper ( with the same spacing )
(2) The actual paper portion of the cone ( not including the surround ) is @ 12 - 5/8" ( 320.675 mm ). They actually look closer to 322 mm .


Hi,

The surround of the ME 150 is total different than that from the 2235 H.
It seems that it has a longer lifetime.
Does anyone know the material?

Kor

[Earl K]

Hi Kor

- Sharp eyes or do own some ME150h woofers ?

- It is a different foam type by the feel & look of it.

- Some days I think it's merely the same old foam with its' own thin layer of Aquaplas paint over it / and other days I figure it's a completely different foam.

- As to if it'll out last the standard 2235 foam ( 15 yrs ? ) - Who knows ? I don't think that these speaker models have been around long enough to make that sort of determination.

<. Earl K

[pangea]

Two different cores, stock 2225/2235 1.2 T*m core and E130/E140 1.35 T*m core.

So, a 2234/5 based on an old E130, would/could be even better/stronger (higher SPL) than the original 2234/5?

BR
Roland

[Earl K]

So, a 2234/5 based on an old E130, would/could be even better/stronger (higher SPL) than the original 2234/5?

- No, it wouldn't be a woofer with better performance - it would just be different with a different voicing .

- The SPL gain is in the upper midrange ( & is likely more ragged )

- There is apparently also a little less deep bass .

- Think of the changes occuring as those that happen from the tilting of a kids "teeter-totter", with maybe a 150 hz pivot point . ie a 1 db upwards gain in the mid will promote a 1 db downwards loss ( or tilt ) in the bass. These slight variations are enough to be "sensed" by most people if not outright heard . The result is a speaker that does not have the original 2235 " voicing" ( as sonically balanced by the 2235s' designers ).

[korgroenewoud]

Hi Kor

- Sharp eyes or do own some ME150h woofers ?

- It is a different foam type by the feel & look of it.

- Some days I think it's merely the same old foam with its' own thin layer of Aquaplas paint over it / and other days I figure it's a completely different foam.

- As to if it'll out last the standard 2235 foam ( 15 yrs ? ) - Who knows ? I don't think that these speaker models have been around long enough to make that sort of determination.

<. Earl K



Hi Earl,

I have sharp eyes, though i do own the S3100MKII. (with ME150H)
I think its a different foam type, maybe with a sort of aquaplas paint, like you said.
In my life i have i spent a lot of money just for reconing several JBL speakers.
I hope these have a longer lifetime.


Kor

[pangea]

- No, it wouldn't be a woofer with better performance - it would just be different with a different voicing .

- The SPL gain is in the upper midrange ( & is likely more ragged )

- There is apparently also a little less deep bass .

- Think of the changes occuring as those that happen from the tilting of a kids "teeter-totter", with maybe a 150 hz pivot point . ie a 1 db upwards gain in the mid will promote a 1 db downwards loss ( or tilt ) in the bass. These slight variations are enough to be "sensed" by most people if not outright heard . The result is a speaker that does not have the original 2235 " voicing" ( as sonically balanced by the 2235s' designers ).

Why can’t you just humor me for once?;) As soon as I think I've found a smart shortcut, you're emmediately there, killing the fun, by telling me there is no such thing as a shortcut.:D :banghead:

No seriously, which other baskets are there if any, that could be reconed to make a 2234 or a 2235 without the sonic losses?

BR
Roland

[Earl K]

Why can’t you just humor me for once? ;)

- I already have ,,, :D ,,, three or four times at least . :applaud:

For example ; Your new project doesn't seem to have those "flippable top-boxes" for the 43xx configuration, and you didn't build "test boxes", and these final constructors don't have "removable baffles" to mitigate the first two omissions . :blink: But,,, I understand, it is your project . :bouncy:


,,, killing the fun, by telling me there is no such thing as a shortcut. :

- Yes, now you've got my profile :nanana:

- Seriousy, there is a certain amount of the ; "Do as I Say and Not as I Do" element at work here.

- I've had a 2235h cone kit installed into a E130 basket for quite some time now & I don't think any less of myself ( heh , who knew until this newer info came to light ). Shame on me :bs:

- I'm just helping along the illumination process . :p


No seriously, which other baskets are there if any, that could be reconed to make a 2234 or a 2235 without the sonic losses?

That question has been extensively covered in the last couple of years. A comprehensive answer lies through that "looking-glass" called the "search" engine.

Simplistically; any 4" wide gap with a 15" Ferrite Magnet Assembly that has a 7mm thick top-plate and an overall flux level of 12000 gauss ( 1.2 Telsa ) - will equate to a 2235H once a C8R2235 conekit is installed . Therefore, the 2225(h/j) & the 2205(h/j) magnet assemblies are on the list.

:cheers:

[pangea]

- I already have ,,, :D ,,, three or four times at least . :applaud:

For example ; Your new project doesn't seem to have those "flippable top-boxes" for the 43xx configuration, and you didn't build "test boxes", and these final constructors don't have "removable baffles" to mitigate the first two omissions . :blink: But,,, I understand, it is your project . :bouncy:

:

- Yes, now you've got my profile :nanana:

- Seriousy, there is a certain amount of the ; "Do as I Say and Not as I Do" element at work here.

- I've had a 2235h cone kit installed into a E130 basket for quite some time now & I don't think any less of myself ( heh , who knew until this newer info came to light ). Shame on me :bs:

- I'm just helping along the illumination process . :p



That question has been extensively covered in the last couple of years. A comprehensive answer lies through that "looking-glass" called the "search" engine.

Simplistically; any 4" wide gap with a 15" Ferrite Magnet Assembly that has a 7mm thick top-plate and an overall flux level of 12000 gauss ( 1.2 Telsa ) - will equate to a 2235H once a C8R2235 conekit is installed . Therefore, the 2225(h/j) & the 2205(h/j) magnet assemblies are on the list.

:cheers:

As you might have seen, I'm building the boxes in my kitchen and I'm afraid that if it takes too long to build a double set of boxes, my nabors will probably complain to the landlord. So, I decided to go for the most likely driver positions, right from the start and keeping my fingers crossed it'll work as intended. :homer:
Besides, the top-boxes look very silly when placed upside down, so I figured that IF the MTM thing doesn't work, I'll have to find a place where I can build a new pair of very simple top-boxes WITH removable baffles.
Btw, the boxes will soon be ready for the first test run, perhaps in a week or two depending on how much spare time I can muster up.

Finding the previous threads on what cones goes where and why, requires the knowledge of the right keywords though.
Any sugestions there?

Using E130's would have been nice though, since they are easy to find here for a good price and there are plenty of dead ones and those are even cheaper.

BR
Roland

[Earl K]

Hi Roland, :)

- I'm just funning with you. I know that because of your living situation you want to minimize the amount of building actually going on in your kitchen.

- Regarding the Search engine. You are right. If a person hasn't been around here for a long time, the useful code words aren't very obvious .

(a) You'll always get lots of useful HiFi information using one of these "code words" entered into the box called "Search By Key Word" :

2235H
C8R2235
le10a
le10H
le10h-1
C8Rle10h
le14h-1
C8Rle14h-1
044ti
066
044

(b) Narrow the search by adding "Giskard" into the box called "Search by User Name", select "Find Posts By User" and you'll get lots of good accurate information .

(c) If you can get blown E130 ( cores ) cheap enough - buy a pair - they'll eventually be useful .


:cheers:

[jkc]

I have included a JBL tech note about reconing.

An E130 & E140 basket is the same as far as I can see and they recone as a 2225 see note.


If you start looking at a 2225 it is a mid base driver, try using it in a 1.5 cubic foot enclosure tuned to 54 Hz, crossover to some subs at 80Hz. The 2225 will work to 1K but starts to beam, this may or may not matter depending.
I never liked the sound of 2225 when they are in ELF (4 Cubic feet) boxes but try some EQ at the botton

[4313B]

An E130 & E140 basket is the same as far as I can see and they recone as a 2225 see note.The E130/E140 donut is 7/8" thick (1.35 Tesla) while the 2225/2235 donut is 3/4" thick (1.2 Tesla). That 1/8" difference makes them indeed different.

Thanks for the graphic! :)

[spkrman57]

I am still confused. I have read where some posters say it will not work, while others say it will, but not be the same driver as a 2225.

So my question is: If a 2225 recone is done on a E-130 basket, what are the results?

Sorry is I don't seem to get the answers that were already posted, I just seem to get confused with all the info that was given here.

Ron

[pangea]

I am still confused. I have read where some posters say it will not work, while others say it will, but not be the same driver as a 2225.

So my question is: If a 2225 recone is done on a E-130 basket, what are the results?

Sorry is I don't seem to get the answers that were already posted, I just seem to get confused with all the info that was given here.

Ron

From what I think I have learned, is that the driver will produce a different sound, where some of the (low-bass) energy is pushed up towards the midbass section, giving the driver a more pronounced midbass.

I'm not sure but perhaps this can be somewhat corrected with some EQ'ing.

Please correct me if I've got it all wrong.

/Roland

[Earl K]

So my question is: If a 2225 recone is done on a E-130 basket, what are the results?

Because of the approx. 10% extra flux in the magnets' gap; the speaker will have @ 1db more midband info & 1db less bass information. This change in FR balance on a woofer such as a 2225 is not very likely to be noticed as a detriment to useful perforamnce . ( I have a bunch of these hybrids - they offer essentially the same performance characteristics as a stock 2225h ).

- If this wasn't a topic of discussion here - it's unlikely you'd ever notice the response difference in a hybrid . ( I am talking about the 2225h / not a 2235h hybrid )

:)

[spkrman57]

Basically there is slightly more response in the upper midbass/mirdrange region compared to the LF section.

So other than the altered response, the driver should work well with no detrimental effects.

Thanks for the explanation Earl!!!

Ron

[Mr. Widget]

With the 2225 I doubt you will notice the difference. I had some 2235 cones "accidentally" put into E130 baskets and while the curve was different even those were very similar in performance to actual 2235s I had. As mentioned a slight amount of EQ and the difference vanishes.

Widget

[mikebake]

This graphic above now is more illuminating than not. Read the note at the bottom. A 2225 paper in an E-130, which I have a pair of, is not quite the same as a 2225. In other words, it will work, but will not be quite the same. Damn efficient, the E-130, eh Ron? 1db more mid, 1db less bass. Like has been said, many may not have noticed it. subwoof is the one who originally told me 6-7 years ago that 2225 paper could be used in E130, which is why I did it. I still like the drivers, but no longer need them. I prefer the abilities of the 2226 at this point, tho less efficient. I know what you are thinking, Ron; tube amp!

I am still confused. I have read where some posters say it will not work, while others say it will, but not be the same driver as a 2225.

So my question is: If a 2225 recone is done on a E-130 basket, what are the results?

Sorry is I don't seem to get the answers that were already posted, I just seem to get confused with all the info that was given here.

Ron

[Earl K]

So other than the altered response, the driver should work well with no detrimental effects.

Yes, that's correct. Mechanically there's no problem and Acoustically - I maintain you're not likely to notice the difference even in a comparison .

FWIW; fresh , new, "out of the box" 2225h(s) varied enough because of the manufacturers' own tolerances , that a hybrid like this would slip into the pack quite unnoticed .

- The same can also be said for the 2235 hybrid - though some people value deep-bass response so much more that getting "short-changed" ( by a hybrid ) 1 db of deep bass is significant. ( I'm not one of those people ).

( - see what Widget said )

:)

[4313B]

I am still confused. I have read where some posters say it will not work, while others say it will, but not be the same driver as a 2225.

So my question is: If a 2225 recone is done on a E-130 basket, what are the results?

Bl factor wil increase from 23 T*m to 25.875 T*m
Qes will decrease from 0.31 to 0.248
Qts will decrease from 0.28 to 0.226
SPL will increase from 97.4 dB W m to 98.4 dB W m

For a given enclosure/tuning, F3 will shift. For example, the recommended 4.0 cu ft volume tuned to 40 Hz for the 2225H. 2225H cone kit in 2225H basket should yield an F3 of ~ 84 Hz, F6 of ~ 43 Hz and F10 of ~ 34 Hz. 2225H cone kit in E140 basket should yield an F3 of ~ 121 Hz, F6 of ~ 58 Hz, and an F10 of ~ 35 Hz.

Here's a picture:
As you can see, the overall balance is changed. And therein lies the key.

p.s.

Acoustically - I maintain you're not likely to notice the difference even in a comparison .Folks like Margolis and Eargle routinely tweeked systems to within 1 dB by ear. One can definitely hear the difference between a 2225H kit in a 2225H frame and a 2225H kit in a E130/E140 frame. If one couldn't, JBL sure as hell wouldn't have made the 1.35 T basket! :p Some care, some don't.

[mikebake]

Thanks, Earl and Giskard. This finally sheds light/puts to rest some long-standing questions.:)
I like how the graphic stated that it's up to the customer to decide if the changes are important or not!!

My E-130/2225's are another item on the chopping block! Now Ron will know if he wants them! I figured someone might want them for a recone, if not.

[spkrman57]

Mike,
You're right, I love my JBL drivers with my little single-ended tube amps, less than 10 watts per chnl will not blow out the windows, but they sure sound nice.
My 2426J compression drivers are due to be at my house when I get home from work today. I have used Altec 802/806/807/808/902 drivers with my different horns, now I can compare the the JBL compression drivers to see the extra HF response many claim they are capable of over the Altecs.
Either way I will be adding to my inventory. My reconer just put his order in for the glues/misc parts to do the 2245 to 2240 recone. He has had the drivers and recone kits for 3 yrs now. He knows the pressure is on to do the recone now that I have the cabinets waiting in my house. I think he is afraid to answer his phone knowing I will prompt him to not delay in this venture.
Only other thing that will take time will be the break-in of the newly reconed drivers. Good thing i have the Sansui Au-7900 that was just rebuilt/modded at 75 watts chnl since all my high powered solid state equipment has been sold off. Low powered tubes have taken over my house(with the exception of my MC-240 which I keep for concert listening on occasion).
How long a time frame have most of you all figured it takes to break in a 18" JBL without using a amp over 100watts/chnl????????? My 2226's took almost 3 to 6 months on a Carver TFM-35(250watts/chnl).
Sorry to run on a long time here, but getting excited on this upsoming project. And I will post my evaluations of the 2240 recone results!!!
Ron

[mikebake]

Maybe you should sell me your Mac!:applaud:

[4313B]

I guess i will have to see for myself...

That really is the only way. Like I said, some people care and some people don't.

[spkrman57]

Besides, you don't want hot running tube equipment in your house, you want new "Hi-tec" solid state amps. LOL

All kidding aside, the MC-240 is my last amp with balls left in the stable. i used to have Carvers/Adcoms/Haflers/NAD and others. I sold them when I got hooked on high-efficiency speakers.

The Sansui Au-7900 was a project to keep one decent solid state amp around that I knew would last for sometime to come since i had it fixed and modded(echowars).

Ron

[jkc]

Hi spkrman57 (member.php?u=1457)


The reason I brought up re-conning E140’s & E130’s as 2225’s as it makes a very cheap speaker and was a follow on from your observation that the baskets can be had cheaply.

I have 7 of these in my lounge and the reason I use them is it is a budget thing, as my listening position is 10 to 12 meters from the speakers and I like it loud and so drive the L + R with a 1Kw amp per 15" driver.

For Hi Fi use I would make the following observations

They are a Mid base driver forget using them below 80 Hz. They beam at 1Khz, this doesn’t worry me as my room is narrow and you cant really get of axis, if I could I would crossover at 300 Hz to a smaller driver say a 2020 from 300 to 1Khz.



All jolly good fun really, perhaps some of the senior members have better ideas.

[Guido]

p.s.
Folks like Margolis and Eargle routinely tweeked systems to within 1 dB by ear.

As I'm constantly searching substitute components for given JBL designs I can second that.
Most of the time I notice differences in sound that I can't even measure. At least not with my equipment.

[spkrman57]

Yes, I agree with that. The 2226 is also considered a midbass drivar also and I have found the reponse works down low enough for at least 85% of my music(blues/classical/jazz/classic rock).

Another option I saw after looking at the Qts of the reconed driver is that it would work well in a "horn loaded" application. I know I have a 2205A in my Edgar 80hz midbass horn, I can see the reconed 2225 might work even better for that application.

Another scenario is I have a pair of Peavey FH-1 horns(60hz bottom end if flare is matched to room boundry). I had been running Altec 418's in them for outdoor use(non hifi use that is).

One advantage I have is that I have a large supply of cabinets and horn cabinets to try out my different drivers with, even if they don't work, it makes for fun experiments.

Ron

[jbl]

Try the 2225H in a 5ft3 cabinet tuned to 40Hz. The bass extends to 35Hz or lower. I have been using them with the 2425J & 2370 in a 4507 cabinet for the past 20 years. The bass is solid and deep. They are in an "average size" living room. There is bass gain on the left side and loss on the right due to placement. For that size room, they are good for Hi-Fi use. If they were't, they would have been out of my system a long time ago.

Ron

[spkrman57]

I might be able to scrounge up a pair of cabinets in the garage that will fit the bill on that size. I might use a 6" round port. Any ideas on the length to use with 5 cu ft cab????
Ron

[Mr. Widget]

With typical damping (1" of fiberglass on all surfaces except for braces and baffel) a 6" port should be ~4" long in a 5 cu ft box tuned to 40Hz.

Widget

[mikebake]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
I might be able to scrounge up a pair of cabinets in the garage that will fit the bill on that size. I might use a 6" round port. Any ideas on the length to use with 5 cu ft cab????
Ron

"Might be able to scrounge"...thats a good one, Ron.

[spkrman57]

I think I have a couple of Bozak (302/502??) cabinets in the garage. They originally held a 12" in adapter to fit 15" cutout. Had 2 tweets in metal frame(adapter) woofer mounted to so that they sat in front of the woofer. There was a 6" sealed back midrange above that.

So I just will have to "scrounge" up a port tube or 2 and see what happens.

Ron

[spkrman57]

To all, I have installed them in a JBL 3677 cabinet. I find while the bottom end drops off around 60hz that it integrates well to my JBL 2242 in Giskard 9 cubic ft cabinet tuned to 30hz(another great thread). I use a subwoofer plate amp and the frequency is set to minimum (40hz) as any higher my room is too small and loads too quickly.

I had a Great Plains 399 driver crossed over at 800hz (1.4" similiar to Altec 288-8K) and found the E130/2225 to sound very nuetral and not draw any attention to itself.

I will be trying a E-140 in similiar cabinet and see how it works for me. I think I would like to put a hard dustcap over the chrome dustcap as I don't need anything over 1khz response wise. I might try it in a horn-loaded enclosure.

I have been searching like crazy through the forum trying to find the difference between the E130/E140 drivers. Only thing I can come up with is the cone/dustcap is different. The motor/frame/voice coil/spider seem identical from my searching.

Anyone who can elaborate here, feel free to educate me!

Thanks, Ron

[Zilch]

130 is aluminum, 140 is copper.

Why do I know this stuff? :banghead:

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/components/eseries.pdf

[edgewound]

130 is aluminum, 140 is copper.

Why do I know this stuff? :banghead:

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/components/eseries.pdf

...not only that, the aluminum wire E130 coil is .302" +/- a few thousandths, edgewound on aluminum former, equal coil/gap depth for maximum efficiency,the E140 coil is .457" +/- a few thousanths, edgewound on kapton former, slightly over-hung coil/gap depth for increased excursion. I just measured both coils with a caliper.

[speakerdave]

While we're on the topic of dropping kits into 2225 cores, I have a couple and in one of them the voice coil gap shows clearly that something is off center. Is it salvagable?

David

[edgewound]

While we're on the topic of dropping kits into 2225 cores, I have a couple and in one of them the voice coil gap shows clearly that something is off center. Is it salvagable?

David

Yes....but it's a PITA....and best left to the pros...especially with charged magnets...finger tips can get smashed easily if you're not careful...but yes, can be done.

[speakerdave]

Yeah, I wouldn't attempt it myself. I'm confused. I didn't know ferrite magnets could be discharged--reason I asked about the wonky frame. They are able to demagnetize ferrite?

David

[edgewound]

Yeah, I wouldn't attempt it myself. I'm confused. I didn't know ferrite magnets could be discharged--reason I asked about the wonky frame. They are able to demagnetize ferrite?

David

Absolutely....but I've done it numerous times with live ferrite magnets. If there's no screws visible through the magnet assembly, they're glued together...and with time and a sudden drop the magnet can shift.

[speakerdave]

OK. I shall let the pros keep the pinched fingers to themselves and collect their well-earned fee.

Thanks,

David