PDA

View Full Version : 2202A verse 2202H



jbl4ever
02-22-2006, 07:45 PM
Both seem to be the same except Alnico verse Ceramic magnets. Same moving mass and gauss but different sensitivities. 96db then 99db.
Also what about a 2231A which is rated at 100 WCP and you recone it with a C8R2235 recone kit rated for 300 WCP will there be a problem with saturation of the magnet under long term power with the Alnico magnet or a heat issue. Been pondering for awhile. Thanks

speakerdave
02-22-2006, 07:58 PM
The published response curves of the 2202A and H don't look the same to me, but I suppose there could have been changes in ideas about how those graphs should be done. Look to the T and S parameters. Are they the same?

As for the woofers, that seems to be a judgement call. No one knows how hard you plan on driving them except maybe you.

David

jbl4ever
02-22-2006, 08:20 PM
David the T/S are the same

4313B
02-22-2006, 08:29 PM
The TS parameters say both are 99 dB SPL, 1W, 1m.

The alnico magnets will loose their juice. The issue was fixed in the 1500AL.

The 300 W power rating of the 2235H is not only a product of the newer coil, former and adhesive - it also includes the larger heat sink of the SFG ferrite magnetic assembly.

Mr. Widget
02-22-2006, 08:36 PM
Sensitivity ratings are a bit like impedance ratings... with the exception of some ribbon drivers that are purely resistive there is no such thing as an 8 ohm or 16 ohm driver and no two 93dB/watt/meter woofers will really have the same sensitivity...

Power ratings... now that is really arbitrary! I think of them as only vague guidelines. They should never be taken too seriously.

In the case of the 2202A vs. 2202H in practice they have essentially the same sensitivity... I'd suggest it is closer to 96dB/watt... when used below 1500Hz.


Widget

jbl4ever
02-22-2006, 09:07 PM
The 300 W power rating of the 2235H is not only a product of the newer coil, former and adhesive - it also includes the larger heat sink of the SFG ferrite magnetic assembly
Giskard, would you feel a 136A or 2231A should be rated at 150W after a 2235 recone. I know that putting more juice to them slowly demagnetizes
the magnets, but at what point. This is for the new recones in old Alnicos
Thank you Giskard:spin:

4313B
02-22-2006, 09:50 PM
I'd get the alnicos recharged and recone them with 2235H kits. I really wouldn't worry about their power handling for home use. I know the old 2231A's could handle strapped 19's all day long and those things could dump the current.

Abrupt changes to the alnicos have the greatest effect. Turn your amp all the way up and then drop a needle onto a record. That'll change the Q for you. I doubt you will notice the gradual loss over a long period of time due to normal use. It's pretty subtle and one usually acclimates.

jbl4ever
02-22-2006, 10:19 PM
Thank Giskard and Widgit for your very knowledgeable answers
Giskard were you talking citation 19 amps You both put some issues at rest:applaud:

Rolf
02-23-2006, 01:23 AM
I have listening experience regarding the loss of magnet power over time with the 2231A.

The trouble started when the woofers could not handle certain bass on levels I use to play. They made a kind of "cracking" sound, and by looking at the woofers they made slow and uncontrolled large movements not related to the music.

After reading a lot about this here on the forum, I got the re-magnetized, and the problem was gone.

Giskard: One time after playing quite loud for some time just a little under the volume where the "crack" appeared (experimenting to find out what could be wrong) I put my hand inside the cabinet and the magnet was quite warm. Is that a result of magnet loss?

Rolf

4313B
02-23-2006, 04:41 AM
No. It's a result of playing them quite loud for some time. The magnetic assemblies act as heat sinks.

Rolf
02-23-2006, 03:24 PM
Thanks for clearing that out Giskard.:)

Rolf

ivica
10-13-2011, 01:51 AM
The published response curves of the 2202A and H don't look the same to me, but I suppose there could have been changes in ideas about how those graphs should be done. Look to the T and S parameters. Are they the same?

As for the woofers, that seems to be a judgement call. No one knows how hard you plan on driving them except maybe you.

David

Sorry for so late reply, but from published data the F/R responses are different 2202A vs 2202H, as seen from figures (neglecting the influence of the box) in the region over, say, 2.5kHz. But from my experience on such high frequency both drivers are extremely directive, so in the real useful frequency range ( less then 2kHz) they have almost equal responses, even in my modest experience 2202H is about 1 dB more efficient then 2202A, but the measurements were done after re-coning both type of drivers, with AF market re-cone kits.

subwoof
10-13-2011, 08:41 AM
Yet *another* 5+ year old thread bumped by this member.

Should there be a rule on this??

Mr. Widget
10-13-2011, 09:36 AM
Yet *another* 5+ year old thread bumped by this member.

Should there be a rule on this??We could lock them, but I don't see a problem with a new member popping in down the road and asking questions of the original posters or if he has additional data to post it to add to the conversation.

In this particular case the usefulness of the additional data might be in question, but who knows, it could start a fresh conversation on this old topic.


Widget

1audiohack
10-13-2011, 09:42 AM
Yet *another* 5+ year old thread bumped by this member.

Should there be a rule on this??

No. Here we have a member who is acquiring and expanding his knowledge, has used the search function, gleaned what information he could from the information that has already been submitted and then asked for more. I think this is a textbook example of how it should work.

What's the other senario and inevitable answer? "This has been gone over and over in the past, use the search function!" Nope, that's not the one I like.

Eaulive
10-13-2011, 07:19 PM
Yet *another* 5+ year old thread bumped by this member.

Should there be a rule on this??

I have to agree with 1audioshack and Widget on this matter.

ivica
10-14-2011, 06:57 AM
Yet *another* 5+ year old thread bumped by this member.

Should there be a rule on this??
I am sorry if my post made you any trouble, but have put some data mainly for the members who would may be have dilemma about 2202 driver.
Unfortunately I have no F/R responses of original JBL 2202 A/H drivers (meaning real measurements). It would be nice if any member can put such.
It would be interesting (for me) if such data can be presented under some angles (not only 0 deg). My experience with AF re-coned drivers is that the they are very "directive"

Mr. Widget
10-14-2011, 10:01 AM
My experience with AF re-coned drivers is that the they are very "directive"The issue I have with your post is the idea of comparing 2202A and 2202H drivers that are not actual JBLs. I appreciate that you made the distinction that these have been reconed with aftermarket kits, and that may be useful to others who go this route, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions about how the actual JBL drivers perform based on loudspeakers that no longer have JBL cones, coils, and spiders in them. Even if the TS parameters are very similar, the sonic performance can be quite different.

As for the comparison you made in post #12 between the two JBL plots, I tend to agree with Speakerdave's assessment about them that he made in post #2.


Widget

Maron Horonzakz
10-15-2011, 07:05 AM
Perhaps its now time to have a special "Lansing" after market forum site,,Since JBL has dropped the ball in supporting its own products (Truextent as an example)I would like to see a good after market cone assemby made for the JBL 154-c ,,,,The automotive collector has a after market parts industry behind its classic cars..

ivica
10-18-2011, 05:03 AM
The issue I have with your post is the idea of comparing 2202A and 2202H drivers that are not actual JBLs. I appreciate that you made the distinction that these have been reconed with aftermarket kits, and that may be useful to others who go this route, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions about how the actual JBL drivers perform based on loudspeakers that no longer have JBL cones, coils, and spiders in them. Even if the TS parameters are very similar, the sonic performance can be quite different.

As for the comparison you made in post #12 between the two JBL plots, I tend to agree with Speakerdave's assessment about them that he made in post #2.
Widget

Interesting (for me) that about other JBL drivers it is possible to find some "real" measurement data, but for 2202 A/H I could not find anything about.
I have find about "similar" Altec 414: http://sites.google.com/site/drivervault/driver-measurements/tang-band-75-1558se/gpa-altec-414/frequency-response
but that one is 3" VC.....and the internal construction may be different.

ivica
10-25-2011, 04:13 AM
Interesting (for me) that about other JBL drivers it is possible to find some "real" measurement data, but for 2202 A/H I could not find anything about.
I have find about "similar" Altec 414: http://sites.google.com/site/drivervault/driver-measurements/tang-band-75-1558se/gpa-altec-414/frequency-response
but that one is 3" VC.....and the internal construction may be different.

Look nice work about 2202H frequency response at:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?31943-K120-re-coned-with-McKenzie-kits&p=322185&viewfull=1#post322185