18" woofer choices?

[LowPhreak]

I'm wondering what current 18" drivers in JBL's line would make for the best subwoofer for home audio. I'm not worried about video/surround sound.

I'm hoping to get this project started sometime before summer gets here. Also, where/how can I get cabinet plans for it?

Satellites will be my Olde Reliable 4412's, X-over 70Hz, Linkwitz. :applaud:

TIA, gents!


-LP

[4313B]

:hmm: I'm guessing maybe the S1S Synthesis?

[LowPhreak]

The Synthesis is mainly a system approach, is it not? I'm just looking for a very good single JBL 18" driver to build a decent box around.

I guess it comes down to just the 2241H or 2242H as far as new, easily obtainable units. (?)

Music program would be about 1/3 rock/blues, 1/3 jazz/acoustic, 1/3 classical. NO rap or rednek gets face time in THIS house!

[4313B]

The S1S is the Consumer version of the Pro 4645.
Both once used the 2245H and now use the 2242H.
The 2242H is a brutally fantastic transducer.

[JuniorJBL]

Giskard


Have you had a chance to compare the 2242 vs. 2258?

[4313B]

No, and I probably never will.

[pelly3s]

the 2258 has better control and is a more accurate woofer but doesnt seem to get as low or sound as musical as the 2242 thats just my personal opinion i never really had a chance to experiment side by side in the same style boxes but from my use of 2258 all the time thats the conclusion i came up with

[JuniorJBL]

It would seem that this would not quite be a comparison as much as a 2241H.


http://www.jblpro.com/pub/tour/4897a.pdf

I should have looked that up first.

[LowPhreak]

The S1S is the Consumer version of the Pro 4645.
Both once used the 2245H and now use the 2242H.

I did not know that, sir. Thanks.



The 2242H is a brutally fantastic transducer.

That's what I've been told before coming here. :nutz: I'd say it's also a brutally expensive driver as well: $559. + tax from a local pro audio shop I was just quoted.

But then, you get to blow the roof off the structure you're in and plow up the foundation that you're sitting upon, eh?

:smthsail:

[JuniorJBL]

That is not all that out-of-line. As retail is somewhere around $800

[JuniorJBL]

You could always look here: http://cgi.ebay.com/JBL-4645C-8-OHM-18-BASS-REFLEX-SUBWOOFER-SYSTEM_W0QQitemZ7387830054QQcategoryZ47095QQrdZ1QQ cmdZViewItem:applaud:

[4313B]

Those'll work. ;)

[4313B]

I'd say it's also a brutally expensive driver as well: $559. + tax from a local pro audio shop I was just quoted.Well... fortunately, at that price you get more than you pay for...

[LowPhreak]

Those'll work. ;)

Yes indeed, they will. Well, I think one in mono would be sufficient. Hey, I'm not greedy or anything.

;)

Thanks for the linky, Junior.

EDIT: is that perhaps an oak veneer or such I see on the end caps? Not bad!

[spkrman57]

There may be better ones, but I don't care!

I have never even got close to its potential and it can run me out of my living room with less than 100 watts. Not to mention everything not bolted down is rattling like crazy, and I don't mean the room with the sub, all of them!!!!

Ron:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

[Izzy Weird]

This topic is of great interest to me. I am shopping for subs too.

I especially enjoy reading discussions of the various JBL 18" drivers now offered, the 2241, 2242, 2258 (And comparisons to the 2245s I now use).

How about four of these 4645 single 18" cabinets in a line under the screen?

(In the past I have favored larger cabinets and an f3 0f 30 Hz. To me 8 cu. ft.
seems a tad small for an 18.)


http://izzyweird.com/images/eyes1.jpg

Izzy

[LowPhreak]

How about four of these 4645 single 18" cabinets in a line under the screen?


Why stop at only 4...why not 24? :rolleyes:

Unless you've got an actual movie theater or an airplane hanger to energize, what's the point? Two (one L ch., one R ch.) is plenty enough IMO. The money and space required would be put to better use otherwise.

[Titanium Dome]

Why stop at only 4...why not 24? :rolleyes:

Unless you've got an actual movie theater or an airplane hanger to energize, what's the point? Two (one L ch., one R ch.) is plenty enough IMO. The money and space required would be put to better use otherwise.

I feel like a harpie, but I'll point this out again:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf

LowPhreak, you've got one of the right numbers (two--the other is four) but not necessarily the right locations.

Please read the whole presentation, but the crux of the matter is in the slide and notes below. Sorry it's so wide, but I wanted it to be legible.

[4313B]

I feel like a harpie, but I'll point this out again:It doesn't do any good. We've been over this since 2000 on this forum. It's now 2006 and we're going over it yet again.

This topic is of great interest to me. I am shopping for subs too.

(And comparisons to the 2245s I now use).What is wrong with the 2245H's you now use? If they aren't doing it for you then you aren't using them right.

[Ken Andrew]

Many commercial subwoofers seem to work in the 50-100 hz range and they offer are no improvement to my stereo listening experience. I want something in 16-50 Hz range (even if it means lower efficiency or reduced output).

I recently went to a dealer in PA speakers and 'appraised' several dual and single 15" and 18" JBL woofer combinations in cabinets as bottom end support (ie. 50 Hz down) for my venerable 4315.

The first thing I noticed was the dealer used MP3 encoded CDs as demo material. The other customers were half my age so perhaps he was responding to the PA/disco market who want convenience before quality.

Using normal CDs I found that all of the PA subwoofers had the same problem - the sub-bass was either inaudible or full-on demolish the house. I guessed this is because of their fantastic efficiency, the inertia of large cones, and the need for extreme volume in normal use.

IMO in a theatre or concert this all or none output would not be an issue. But at home in my study where I might want to read a book or answer the phone while listening to music, the sound output has to be controllable from 'background level' to 'shouting level'.

Does your recommendations match well with existing full-range speakers ?

[4313B]

Many commercial subwoofers seem to work in the 50-100 hz range and they offer are no improvement to my stereo listening experience. I want something in 16-50 Hz range (even if it means lower efficiency or reduced output).Honestly? Get yourself a pair of W1500H's if you can. Maybe someone will sell you a pair of SUB1500's which would be a very decent second choice. That's what I would run with 4315's. Don't forget to try blocking the ports on the 4315's after adding in subs.




The 4645C is a really big box. It is a very good box. If one can fit a pair of 4645C's or S1S's into your environment and have a decent variable low pass one will find that they are quite nice. Read the 4645C product brief and understand it. One might find that crossing the 4345C over real low with a shallower filter than what is popular these days ends up giving them exactly what they are looking for.

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/cinema/4645c.pdf

Now, do I have to list ALL the JBL subs I've used incessantly over the years in order to make my point here? I've recently learned that there are other people on this forum more than willing to dispense information regardless of the fact that they've never actually touched some of these drivers coupled with the fact that they have no bassline (mispelling/pun intended) for comparison.

[LowPhreak]

LowPhreak, you've got one of the right numbers (two--the other is four) but not necessarily the right locations.


Well, I'd say sub placement is never really a hard & fast rule; it's very dependent on room size, shape, damping, wall materials, speaker response, listener preference, blah blah. One of Audio's 4 1/2 Basic(ally) Complex Food Groups. ;)

What I do if the room allows it is start placement with the Rule of Thirds, or other calculations to try to ameliorate standing waves as much as possible, unless the manufacturer recommends a specific placement. That's the 'science' part; the other is the 'art' of listening to get the ultimate placement position(s) in a given space. Sometimes an EQ doesn't hurt either, along with a few splashes of Snake Oil over my left shoulder. :blink: ;)

I think it was Legacy Audio speakers where I read once that they had done several measurements/experiments with any number of bass drivers employed at once in a system, where their conclusion was that to get any significant gain in efficiency/output (starting with a single woofer), you have to go to 2 woofers, then 4, then 8, 16, and so on...ie: doubling. Other words, going from 2 woofers to 3, or from 4 to 6 didn't produce great results. Sounded about right to me, knowing how audio demands doubling of output power to gain 3dB.

Which is why (simplistically stated) I've always noticed guys who've mounted a row of 3 woofers in their cars haven't sounded better or gotten higher SPL's than those mounting only 2 of the same drivers and similar power amps/X-over. Why waste your time with 3? Just buy the extra driver and do it right!

:banghead:

But this ain't a car audio forum...oops! :D


Now, do I have to list ALL the JBL subs I've used incessantly over the years in order to make my point here? I've recently learned that there are other people on this forum more than willing to dispense information regardless of the fact that they've never actually touched some of these drivers coupled with the fact that they have no bassline (mispelling/pun intended) for comparison.

It's good to see that at least someone here has had experience with the 2242H/4645C/S1S flavor, and can comment accordingly. :applaud:


Ken Andrew -

I'd have to say that of all the subs I've owned or heard in a domestic environment, for the low bass range - meaning 40Hz and down - the pair of the esteemed REL Stentor III's I once had was my fave - even more so than the Kinergetics SW-800 towers I owned previous to the REL's. They integrated perfectly, accuracy and timbre was stunning, and I couldn't believe what they did for the soundstage. Played plenty loud too.

You should give the Stentor III or Studio III a serious listen if you can find a dealer that has them, if that last 20+ Hz of the spectrum is your huckleberry.

[4313B]

It's good to see that at least someone here has had experience with the 2242H/4645C/S1S flavor, and can comment accordingly.Um, actually, I think there may be at least a baker's dozen who can now comment on the 2242 based on actual real live personal experience. And some of them are a wee bit more articulate than I am. ;)

I think it was Legacy Audio speakers where I read once that they had done several measurements/experiments with any number of bass drivers employed at once in a system, where their conclusion was that to get any significant gain in efficiency/output (starting with a single woofer), you have to go to 2 woofers, then 4, then 8, 16, and so on...ie: doubling. Other words, going from 2 woofers to 3, or from 4 to 6 didn't produce great results. Sounded about right to me, knowing how audio demands doubling of output power to gain 3dB.Sounds like they read John Eargle's papers just like the rest of us have. :thmbsup:

[JuniorJBL]

There are quite a few here on this fourm that use these drivers.

I for one use 2 2242's and the 4645c cab design is really good. I have built one other @14cu ft that doubles as a demolition tool :D , but it is a very BIG box. (it also weighs 310 lbs)

OTOH I also have 4 sub1500's in 2.2cu ft sealed boxes and they work very well too.

So it becomes a preference of what size box you want and what size your room/WAF will support.:blah:

[4313B]

:coolness: :thmbsup:


See, with guys like that who have actual real world experience and who can post without pissing anyone off all I have to do is sit back and post emoticons! :applaud:

Thanks JuniorJBL :)

[JuniorJBL]

Glad I could help:blink:


:p

[Don Mascali]

I use two 4645C cabinets in my Music/HT system and they are incredible. Room gain keeps them relativly flat in my 18'x22'x8' room. JBL says that the alignment will support equalization to bring up the bottom if needed. As long as a High Pass 20HZ filter is used. I personally use a 48db 20HZ cuttoff to 80HZ X-over.

The bass can be down right scary and in Videos like the StarWars series where things go boom the pressure waves tickle my beard . If a rational setting is used they seem to dissappear but make their presence known when the program material requires it.

I used two B380 clones I built in the 80's, for many years and it was a quantum leap up to these.

I have never heard the 1500's but I can recommend the 4645C with no reservations.

Too much is just right.http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/applaud.gif

[4313B]

Thanks Don! :cheers:

[Mr. Widget]

There are quite a few here on this fourm that use these drivers.

I for one use 2 2242's and the 4645c cab design is really good. I have built one other @14cu ft that doubles as a demolition tool :D , but it is a very BIG box. (it also weighs 310 lbs)

OTOH I also have 4 sub1500's in 2.2cu ft sealed boxes and they work very well too.

I use a pair of Sub1500s on a regular basis and find that they can put out deep tuneful bass beyond any reasonable need I may have in my fairly large listening room. I use a pair in ported 5 cu ft boxes tuned to 20Hz for HT use and recently started using a pair in 3 cu ft sealed boxes for music. In the sealed boxes I do give them a 3dB lift at 30Hz. In both cases I love these things.

I have also recently built 4 dual 8 cu ft ported cabs for 2242s that will be going to a forum member for a fixed installation. These things will crush the Sub1500 for maximum output and are absolutely necessary for a large commercial venue... that said in my residential setting I much preferred the sound of the Sub1500. They may be hard to find, but the W1500Hs should be available soon and are its new replacement. Don't get me wrong the 2242s are stunning... and mind numbingly powerful, but for quality tuneful bass, I have never heard better than the Sub1500.


Widget

[4313B]

Excellent! :applaud:

Thank you sir. :)

[LowPhreak]

Um, actually, I think there may be at least a baker's dozen who can now comment on the 2242 based on actual real live personal experience.

Yes, well...it's so nice that some of them have shown up for the party! Who'da thunk it!?

:band:


Where can I get a decent X-O? Would anyone here care to build one for me, or direct me to who can? (I've lost track of a guy in Boston that was really good with X-O's :( ) Something like Mr. Mascali is using, but the 48dB slope isn't necessary. I think a 24dB will do fine for me.

I also don't mind if it's passive, because I can afford to lose a few dB to the X-O with the 2242/4645's higher efficiency, or even the W1500H drivers that Mr. Widget spoke of.

Thanks for the info thus far, gents!

[JuniorJBL]

There may be better ones, but I don't care!

I have never even got close to its potential and it can run me out of my living room with less than 100 watts.
Ron:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

That is what 99db will do for you as well as being a very well rounded driver that at one minute can be under a stage doing PA sub duty and the next be in your house providing VERY musical sub duty!! ;)

Another very pleasing driver ( not of the 18" variety ) would be the le14h-x. This is a very well behaved driver with a fairly wide application base. But it would not do the Knock down drag out mind numbing bass that a 2242 will do!:)

[4313B]

Another very pleasing driver ( not of the 18" variety ) would be the le14h-x.Well now, I was wondering if anyone would bring it up. :)

[briang]

... the W1500Hs should be available soon and are its new replacement. Oh goodie:applaud:

[JuniorJBL]

Yes, well...it's so nice that some of them have shown up for the party! Who'da thunk it!?

:band:


Where can I get a decent X-O? Would anyone here care to build one for me, or direct me to who can? (I've lost track of a guy in Boston that was really good with X-O's :( ) Something like Mr. Mascali is using, but the 48dB slope isn't necessary. I think a 24dB will do fine for me.

I also don't mind if it's passive, because I can afford to lose a few dB to the X-O with the 2242/4645's higher efficiency, or even the W1500H drivers that Mr. Widget spoke of.

Thanks for the info thus far, gents!

I would go for electronic crossover. This way it is easier to tune for your room and mains.
If you use passive then you will have to change some components to get what you want. (unless of course you get it right the first time:blink: )

You can also use an eq to do some of the "other" stuff that might make it more to your liking.
This is just my opinion and what has worked for me.;)

[Don Mascali]

I hate to even mention the name BUT,
I use a Behringer DCX2496 active X-over. :slink:
There are many options out there, both Pro and Consumer types. Dollars are the limiting factor.
I don't believe a passive would be practical due to the large inductor values required.

[JuniorJBL]

I don't believe a passive would be practical due to the large inductor values required.


Hey thats quite the electro-magnet you got there:p

[Izzy Weird]

It doesn't do any good. We've been over this since 2000 on this forum. It's now 2006 and we're going over it yet again.

What is wrong with the 2245H's you now use? If they aren't doing it for you then you aren't using them right.

I have done forum searches looking for discussions about the merits of different JBL 18” drivers. I have read a few threads here.

These two B460 cabinets are nice, but I don't need veneer furniture, and they are worth more to others than to me. I have two other 2245H, but no cabinets for them. I want to upgrade to four 18" subs. I want to have a bit more headroom in the first octaves. I have always felt the B460 was a tad shy of internal volume, like many 18” sub enclosures.


I could have cabinets built, but unless someplace like the JBL custom shop builds them, they will lose value fast. For me a sound system is not static, anything I buy may someday be sold. I have used these B460s for about 20 years, time for something new.

Izzy

[LowPhreak]

Sure, an active X-O would be best, but I don't have balanced in/outs right now to accommodate pro gear, and most of the "audiophile" types are stupidly priced.

What about the JBL MPA- amps, are they OOP now? Didn't they have RCA ins and X-O's??

[4313B]

I have used these B460s for about 20 years, time for something new.Got it. :)

[LowPhreak]

Here's (http://www.jblpro.com/pub/electronics/mseries.pdf) something promising, (M552) but no specs on the low-cut filter.

"What's the frequency, Kenneth?!" :bash:

[Titanium Dome]

That is what 99db will do for you as well as being a very well rounded driver that at one minute can be under a stage doing PA sub duty and the next be in your house providing VERY musical sub duty!! ;)

Another very pleasing driver ( not of the 18" variety ) would be the le14h-x. This is a very well behaved driver with a fairly wide application base. But it would not do the Knock down drag out mind numbing bass that a 2242 will do!:)


Yes, I agree. The LE14H-x would be more civilized, realistic, and normal, if I had to pick three words. A pair of them in the right enclosures is quite effective at chest-thumping, butt-shaking, startling bass, but I'd never call them "knock down drag out mind numbing."

Sometimes I like "knock down drag out mind numbing," but most of the time I don't. I usually wouldn't bring them up in this context, because A) not 18" (duh!) and B) not gonna provide the beefed-up bass that lots of guys love.

[Zilch]

Here's (http://www.jblpro.com/pub/electronics/mseries.pdf) something promising, (M552) but no specs on the low-cut filter.

"What's the frequency, Kenneth?!" :bash:Subsonic Filter: 15 Hz high-pass filter, 24 dB/octave Butterworth, defeatable via internal DIP shunt....

[LowPhreak]

Subsonic Filter: 15 Hz high-pass filter, 24 dB/octave Butterworth, defeatable via internal DIP shunt....

Good. If that's the case, then it is actually useful.

[JBLnsince1959]

The only problem that I see is that from reading another thread, I've learned that JBL's can't take real power and therefore must be useless as subs... :blink:

[scott fitlin]

Sure, an active X-O would be best, but I don't have balanced in/outs right now to accommodate pro gear, and most of the "audiophile" types are stupidly priced.

What about the JBL MPA- amps, are they OOP now? Didn't they have RCA ins and X-O's??Well, heres reasonably priced crossovers, that the manufacturer will make to suit your needs, 6,12,18,24 DB slopes, you choose what you want. Balanced or Unbal, your choice.

And you can get assembled or kit, reasonable price! www.marchandelec.com (http://www.marchandelec.com/)

And Phil,s stuff sounds good!

[LowPhreak]

Thanks for the info, Scott! :cheers: I'll check 'em out.

[jbl4ever]

http://http://cgi.ebay.com/JBL-18-2240G-LOW-FREQUENCY-SPEAKER-NEW_W0QQitemZ7388915192QQcategoryZ47095QQrdZ1QQcmd ZViewItem
Yes indeed, they will. Well, I think one in mono would be sufficient. Hey, I'm not greedy or anything.

;)

Thanks for the linky, Junior.

EDIT: is that perhaps an oak veneer or such I see on the end caps? Not bad!

[JBL Dog]

The only problem that I see is that from reading another thread, I've learned that JBL's can't take real power and therefore must be useless as subs... :blink:

:banghead:

That's it! The truth has finally come out! I have an E155-4, 2245H, (6) 2241G and (4) 2242H that are sitting at the curb if anyone wants them!

[JBLnsince1959]

:banghead:

That's it! The truth has finally come out! I have an E155-4, 2245H, (6) 2241G and (4) 2242H that are sitting at the curb if anyone wants them!

Sigh, that's a shame you wasted your money on that trash...to help things I'll drive to St. Louis tonight just to clean up your curb, that's the least I can do.

[JBLnsince1959]

[QUOTE=LowPhreak]Sure, an active X-O would be best, but I don't have balanced in/outs right now to accommodate pro gear, and most of the "audiophile" types are stupidly priced.
QUOTE]

You can go to Radio Shack and buy gold-plated reducers, that's how you connect consumer to pro

[JBL Dog]

Sigh, that's a shame you wasted your money on that trash...to help things I'll drive to St. Louis tonight just to clean up your curb, that's the least I can do.

:applaud:

A JBL lover AND a volunteer public servant, what a guy!

[LowPhreak]

You can go to Radio Shack and buy gold-plated reducers, that's how you connect consumer to pro

Yeah, but I'd rather cables with RCA-to-XLR if I were going with pro gear.

[JuniorJBL]

Yeah, but I'd rather cables with RCA-to-XLR if I were going with pro gear.

Build them!!:applaud:

[JBLnsince1959]

Yeah, but I'd rather cables with RCA-to-XLR if I were going with pro gear.

True, we all would, BUT sometimes you got to do, what you got to do. I use them to TEST stuff, if I like it then I build what I want ( well, my friend does it for me), then again sometimes I get lazy and only use those.

Good luck..

[LowPhreak]

Build them!!:applaud:

Hey, I'm still trying to get into the Local 2242 Speaker Maker's Guild, and you want me to make cables? :spchless: I could get booted for this! :scold:

[4313B]

I'd just build my filters and get them connected. Modify something like a BX63 to your taste and run with it. Or get a 5234A/5235, rip the guts out, put jacks of your choice on the back and build a modified BX63-type network in the chassis.

I actually went back to the beginning of the thread and read where the satellites were 4412's. Block the ports, put a passive 6 dB high pass in just like the BX63. That'll get you a nice acoustic 18 dB high pass. Add the subs in to taste. Don't fixate on a specific frequency before you actually try the whole mess in your environment. You could very well end up with a crossover point around 40 Hz as opposed to 70 Hz.

Example:
4412 port open, no high pass filter - red
4412 port blocked, no high pass filter - grn
4645C with 50 Hz 18 dB / octave B3

[maxwedge]

There are quite a few here on this fourm that use these drivers.

I for one use 2 2242's and the 4645c cab design is really good. I have built one other @14cu ft that doubles as a demolition tool :D , but it is a very BIG box. (it also weighs 310 lbs)

OTOH I also have 4 sub1500's in 2.2cu ft sealed boxes and they work very well too.

So it becomes a preference of what size box you want and what size your room/WAF will support.:blah:
I wanna know how you weighed that thing??? :blink: Did you use a big fish scale?:D

[maxwedge]

Originally Posted by JBL Dog
:banghead:

That's it! The truth has finally come out! I have an E155-4, 2245H, (6) 2241G and (4) 2242H that are sitting at the curb if anyone wants them!

Sigh, that's a shame you wasted your money on that trash...to help things I'll drive to St. Louis tonight just to clean up your curb, that's the least I can do.
I'll drive from California to get them...... Got you beat.:p I'll even pay for my own diesel!!:(

[maxwedge]

The low end of my system uses 2242's in 9 cuft boxes tuned to 25hz on each side and a pair of sub 1500s in a 5 cu ft sealed box in the center. I could get away with not using the 1500s but the way my room is set up it sounds better with them. One 18 is 2' away from a couch and the other fires right towards a fireplace. With the 1500s in the center theres a straight path to my ears!!:D

I'm using an active crossover at 70-100 hz between the two.:)

PS: Thanks Giskard for the 18's:)
And I should tune the 18's higher in this set up.

[JuniorJBL]

I wanna know how you weighed that thing??? :blink: Did you use a big fish scale?:D

I am not sure if it is correct but I used 1.75 sheets of 1.25" HDF @180lbs each.
It took 2 people to move the sheets:D

[LowPhreak]

I'd just build my filters and get them connected. Modify something like a BX63 to your taste and run with it. Or get a 5234A/5235, rip the guts out, put jacks of your choice on the back and build a modified BX63-type network in the chassis.

I actually went back to the beginning of the thread and read where the satellites were 4412's. Block the ports, put a passive 6 dB high pass in just like the BX63. That'll get you a nice acoustic 18 dB high pass. Add the subs in to taste. Don't fixate on a specific frequency before you actually try the whole mess in your environment. You could very well end up with a crossover point around 40 Hz as opposed to 70 Hz.

Example:
4412 port open, no high pass filter - red
4412 port blocked, no high pass filter - grn
4645C with 50 Hz 18 dB / octave B3

Muey bueno for the graph and info. :) The main reason I figured 70Hz/24dB high-pass to the 4412s was that in my room, they have a large bump in the 40-50Hz area, so I wanted to cut that off close but still get as much from the 12" as I can before the sub comes it.

Now OTOH, I have played with plugging the ports, and have found that (don't laugh) about 95 straws cut to the same length as the port gives a pretty good response at the listening spot without having to stick an EQ in the front end.

They're orange straws, of course! :applaud:

BUT, the FR curves you showed are interesting, and I've always wanted to see the 4412's curve with the ports plugged. Excellent work, Giskard!

So, it looks like your scheme is a very workable one for me, IF I can get one of those 4645Cs on ePay, and find a suitable BX63, etc.


*LP kneels in prayer to the audio doGs*

[toddalin]

The use of straws is well documented and IG/COF on the S&V forum (their resident guru) swears that in some instances they reduce port turbulance and it's distortions (with measurements to back it up). He always notes that they must not be accordion pleat straws.

(Maybe something about polka music...:hmm: )



Muey bueno for the graph and info. :) The main reason I figured 70Hz/24dB high-pass to the 4412s was that in my room, they have a large bump in the 40-50Hz area, so I wanted to cut that off close but still get as much from the 12" as I can before the sub comes it.

Now OTOH, I have played with plugging the ports, and have found that (don't laugh) about 95 straws cut to the same length as the port gives a pretty good response at the listening spot without having to stick an EQ in the front end.

They're orange straws, of course! :applaud:

BUT, the FR curves you showed are interesting, and I've always wanted to see the 4412's curve with the ports plugged. Excellent work, Giskard!

So, it looks like your scheme is a very workable one for me, IF I can get one of those 4645Cs on ePay, and find a suitable BX63, etc.


*LP kneels in prayer to the audio doGs*

[edgewound]

Now OTOH, I have played with plugging the ports, and have found that (don't laugh) about 95 straws cut to the same length as the port gives a pretty good response at the listening spot without having to stick an EQ in the front end.

They're orange straws, of course! :applaud:

BUT, the FR curves you showed are interesting, and I've always wanted to see the 4412's curve with the ports plugged. Excellent work, Giskard!

So, it looks like your scheme is a very workable one for me, IF I can get one of those 4645Cs on ePay, and find a suitable BX63, etc.


*LP kneels in prayer to the audio doGs*

This is known as a "leakage damped" arrangement. A certain scandinavian mfg makes a device known as the "Variovent". You can also simulate this technique with open cell foam, rolled up dacron fiberfill or fiberglass(itchy mess) stuffed into the port...takes some trial and error to achieve what you're after.

[LowPhreak]

The use of straws is well documented and IG/COF on the S&V forum (their resident guru) swears that in some instances they reduce port turbulance and it's distortions (with measurements to back it up). He always notes that they must not be accordion pleat straws.

(Maybe something about polka music...:hmm: )

No accordion pleats here, just straight straws. (On the rocks, no water, thank you very much!)

I tell ya, it works well for these speakers. :idea:

[JuniorJBL]

No accordion pleats here, just straight straws. (On the rocks, no water, thank you very much!)

I tell ya, it works well for these speakers. :idea:

Whatever you do "DO NOT MIX COLORS OF STRAWS" this will have an adverse affect on your room modes and you will have to rebuild your room after that.:blink:

:rotfl:

[LowPhreak]

Giskard,

I thought the 4412 has 12dB/oct. X-Os, so isn't it best to use 12/24/48dB X-O's with that, instead of 18dB? 18dB/oct. is best with 6/18/36dB X-Os, right?


-LP

[4313B]

What?

If you seal the 4412 box, or any box, the LF transducer will attenuate at 12 dB/octave. If the satellites are attenuating starting at say 100 Hz, then it's pretty easy to add in a pair of subs to the bottom end. Often you won't need any kind of high pass on the satellite amp at all.

Some argue that one of the benefits of bi-amping is to bandwidth limit the amps so they sounds better. Moot point if you start with amps that sound good in the first place. Couple that with the fact that many high pass active filters just plain sound "questionable" and anything you gain by bandwidth limiting goes out the window with the HP active filter.

It boils down to money. If you throw enough cash at it you will eventually get it right but if you can simply go with a decent transducer/sealed box design or use a line level passive HP and it does everything you need it to then you're done.

[hapy._.face]

QUOTE: snip..."Some argue that one of the benefits of bi-amping is to bandwidth limit the amps so they sounds better. Moot point if you start with amps that sound good in the first place."



I agree with you Giskard (with regard to solid states). Except when it comes to valve state. Even when you consider the better ones- few can reach the bottom and articulate like a decent SS can. Reducing strain on the tubes so that they may focus on midrange/upper frequencies is a huge sonic improvement nearly every time.

[4313B]

Agreed. I often simply forget about the tubes, out of sight - out of mind, and you are correct. I'd like to get back into a tube top end for a certain project. Looks like I'll have to build something at some point.

[hapy._.face]

snip....'I'd like to get back into a tube top'...snip

No offense Mr. Giskard- (I really like you and all that) but I just don't think you'd look good in a tube top. Few people do... :p (no realtive of mine- just a google find)

http://www2.localaccess.com/rlalonde/Pictures/jeans03.jpg

[JBL Dog]

No offense Giskard- (I really like you and all that) but I just don't think you'd look good in a tube top. :p

http://www2.localaccess.com/rlalonde/Pictures/jeans03.jpg

Yikes! :barf:

[LowPhreak]

I thought my point was clear enough, but I wasn't talking about the high pass to the satellites. I was asking what the actual slope is between the 4412s woofer/mid and mid/tweeter.

Well aware of the bennies of higher end amps and/or tube amps, etc. - I've owned enough of them. I'm simply trying to figure out what would be the best dB/oct. slope to go with between the 4412 and 4645C.
Yes, I know it will come down to hearing the sub in-room and tweaking from there.

:)




What?

If you seal the 4412 box, or any box, the LF transducer will attenuate at 12 dB/octave. If the satellites are attenuating starting at say 100 Hz, then it's pretty easy to add in a pair of subs to the bottom end. Often you won't need any kind of high pass on the satellite amp at all.

Some argue that one of the benefits of bi-amping is to bandwidth limit the amps so they sounds better. Moot point if you start with amps that sound good in the first place. Couple that with the fact that many high pass active filters just plain sound "questionable" and anything you gain by bandwidth limiting goes out the window with the HP active filter.

It boils down to money. If you throw enough cash at it you will eventually get it right but if you can simply go with a decent transducer/sealed box design or use a line level passive HP and it does everything you need it to then you're done.

[scott fitlin]

No offense Giskard- (I really like you and all that) but I just don't think you'd look good in a tube top. Few people do... :p

http://www2.localaccess.com/rlalonde/Pictures/jeans03.jpg:no:

[Titanium Dome]

If I say anything about that picture, I'll get banned, but I got to tell you it's the exact same thing that came to my mind when reading Giskard's post.

Back to Giskard's point, though, tubes have been "out" for me for at least twenty years. I know some guys love 'em, and I certainly don't mind listening to a good set. Must just be my set-it-and-forget-it attitude about certain things.

I must admit the idea of building something is a intriguing, as a throwback to my days of Heathkit assembly. That's really semi-DIY, though.

[spkrman57]

Tubes have a nice smooth warmer sounding quality than solid state.

I will go with those who say it's the distortion that makes it sound that way, really don't matter as it sound good to me and I understand the SS lovers who don't care for the tube sound.

I'm in between projects right now and just threw a 2226J/2426J/2370A/2402 with 1st order(not a permanent setup) powered by 300B amp(7wpc) and let the bottom end requirements be filled with my 2242 and PE sub plate amp.

While I am doing this only to fill a temporary void while waiting for some other things in my life to take direction. It is a fun system and I really like what the 2402 does with .5 ufd cap and 20 ohm resistor in parallel with the 2402.

Who would think 16khz could still sound nice!!!

Biggest problem with tube amps is I prefer the SET amps which are generally low powered (under 10 watts) and going to push-pull is the same as using SS amps in some situations.

Ron:blink:

[LowPhreak]

If I say anything about that picture, I'll get banned,...

I think "eeeuww" would work. :uhmmmm:

So anyway, does anyone know the X-O dB/oct. slopes of the 4412s? The freq's are 800Hz and 4kHz, but that's all I'm able to find at this point.

[grumpy]

http://www.jblproservice.com/pdf/Studio%20Monitor%20Series/4412LR.pdf

[Earl K]

...( snip,snip )....but that's all I'm able to find at this point.

- Slopes can be determined by counting the appropriate LC elements in the passive crossovers.
- The earlier 4412 model used 12 db slopes exclusively while the 4412a model went to 18 db per octave on the tweeters' hipass .
- Don't make the mistake of trying to create a "linkage" between a "seamless" slope/transition of your sub to 4412 , & what the designer of the 4412 network felt was necessary to accomplish a best-fit acoustic transition for that speakers' 3 components .

- many ,,,,Network_Schematics from JBL PRO (http://www.jblproservice.com/navigation/Network%20Schematics.html) for the 4412A version .

- Read the 4412 network biasing thread (http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=92505) for another important link .

- Here's a thread with tons of links to tech sheets. (http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5784&highlight=pdf)
- Please bookmark now for future usage !

[LowPhreak]

Bookmark I shall...thankee sir!

No doubt 18dB/oct. HP was used since they went to a higher XO freq on the later model's (4500Hz). So then it's as I suspected: 12dB/oct. on my earlier version. :yes:

[w6df]

Well, after 40 years I finally blew up one of my D-140F's. I have a 6 1/2 cu ft bass reflex enclosure. How would the 2242H compair to the old D140? I have room to mount the 2242H.
Jim
[email protected]

[hificanada]

Tubes have a nice smooth warmer sounding quality than solid state.

I will go with those who say it's the distortion that makes it sound that way, really don't matter as it sound good to me and I understand the SS lovers who don't care for the tube sound.

I'm in between projects right now and just threw a 2226J/2426J/2370A/2402 with 1st order(not a permanent setup) powered by 300B amp(7wpc) and let the bottom end requirements be filled with my 2242 and PE sub plate amp.

While I am doing this only to fill a temporary void while waiting for some other things in my life to take direction. It is a fun system and I really like what the 2402 does with .5 ufd cap and 20 ohm resistor in parallel with the 2402.

Who would think 16khz could still sound nice!!!

Biggest problem with tube amps is I prefer the SET amps which are generally low powered (under 10 watts) and going to push-pull is the same as using SS amps in some situations.

Ron:blink:
I agree, I am using tubes on the higher frequency, [horns] and SS on the lows. Not as harsh, not tiring to listen to the complete system.

[hificanada]

What size cap would you recommend for the 2245H sub? I read that one member has a .5ufd across the terminals of a different driver. With my little knowlege of this, if I put one on that is recommended, what does a cap do to the sound ??