Hi.
In the good old JBL days, there where systems like 250ti and verious 43XX 4ways systems.
Today JBL seams to "only" design 3ways.?
Why is that?
I remember the "old" 4 ways systems as very good systems.
Why is that design discontinued.?
Printable View
Hi.
In the good old JBL days, there where systems like 250ti and verious 43XX 4ways systems.
Today JBL seams to "only" design 3ways.?
Why is that?
I remember the "old" 4 ways systems as very good systems.
Why is that design discontinued.?
4367 and M2 are just 2-Way
My guess is that it's just a lot harder to design a really good 4-way.
I would also suggest that driver advancement has made four-ways redundant. Newer drivers are more capable of faithfully reproducing a broader frequency spectrum.
It's gone full circle if you look back at the very first systems.
But the new wave guides have opened the way for the jbl marketing to promote simple me too 2 ways after the M2.
I think if you had a committee of speaker designers, recording engineers, mastering engineers and marketing specialists you could come up with a pretty decent answer to this question in about fifteen minutes. Failing that we'll maybe get a few stabs in the dark. Here's mine. The JBL four-way genesis occured pre-digital, when most recordings only required 40 Hz and speaker capability down to 30 hz was exceptional and sometimes comically revealed the LF shortcomings of recording practice and studio monitors. Development of a specialist driver to recover the 300-1200hz range closely followed on the arrival of heavy-coned woofers that would make bass with solid state amps and smaller ducted port enclosures. The drive unit technology of the time was such that the advantages of bandwidth limiting were clearly discernible. Four-way development occurred within the monitor business where the budgets would accomodate the extra drivers and followed into premium-priced consumer products like the L212, the L250 series and the TOTL xl200. Meanwhile, subwoofers were increasingly part of the audio scene courtesy of the Greg Timbers article, the 2235 and 2245 and HT. Once that occurred MOR speakers were relieved of having to reach below 50 hz, and most of them didn't. At JBL a tremendous amount of world-class engineering went into making transducers that would do 2-way plus UHF better than the old drivers did four-way. And that's where we are. In these threads you could find someone from JBL being quoted as saying about the DD66000 two-way plus UHF to the effect that, 'This is the response. If you want lower, get a subwoofer.'
Of the drivers I've heard, the 1500AL family, the 1400nd, 1200fe, 476, 045Be, TAD 4003, 2002, 703, 1201, 1102, the TAD woofers very, very good, the new horns, and many I have not heard--these are fabulous components. But IM distortion still exists. To me the tantalizing question is this: Given the SOTA transducer technology of Jerry Moro (and whatever other players there may have been) and the systems engineering of Greg Timbers et al, what would a large format four-way be like? Wow! Say, where are those guys right now, and what are they doing?
Meanwhile, it should be noted that the premise of the OP's question is false. For example, in consumer products such as some of the Harman Revel division speakers, the four-way is very much alive, and I believe there are some four-way monitors by other companies. So my answer goes to his specific mention of the JBL four-ways.
It's true, GT did say a four-way was very difficult and that he felt he was lucky with some of his systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffW
Hi Brain,Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian DK
I think that physics low of sound dispersion is one important thing, Large driver become directive at the higher frequency.
Lower frequency, larger cone (diaphragm) excursion, so for compression type driver, great problem.
Large membrane does not like to reproduce high frequency.
reagrds
ivica
Just a few of the undoubtably many reasons why. I think demand and or the lack of it in a marketplace is a biggie.
Guess #1:
Cost. A four way with top notch drivers cost big bucks (as in the 4315, 4333, 4343, 4350 et al), were and are very expensive,
Guess #2:
Evolution of the two way system by way of its accepability in the professional marketplace. Accessibility of serious evaluation, design, and test software and the hardware engineering that has come out of it. Application of DSP technology.
Guess #3:
Changing recording studio practices, protocols, and disciplines and how these define the current tools of the trade (includes studio monitors). How
specifically they are tied to the demands and complexity of currenty in-demand media product.. Peruse most any blog and/or forum regarding professional media recording and you will likely see a great deal of Surround and HT banter. And I mean some very serious and highly complex stuff here.
Rather than two large, SOTA, awesome loudspeakers delivering the goods, the system output is spread out and divided among at very least, five speakers. While most of us here would very much like that spread to consist of killer four way speakers, how many home theater enthusts could even distantly approach shelling out the requisite coin? Hmmm...
Guess #4: How could marketing convince marketplace throngs of "listeners", spending much of their day blasting themselves with low, low, low-fi MP3 dreck-tech, via ear buds, of the desirability of TOTL, SOTA, over the top engineering-wise loudspeakers?
Even the practical demands of a good HT system are essentially pre-ordained by way of the sound tracks of films. A lot of Bim-bam-boom!, pow! zonk! content. The experiencer will be hearing/feeling exactly what the producers decide the content to be.
Guess #5: I guess I'll be running short on guesses soon if not contained. So I'll leave it to and await further interesting discourse. For now I guess that what would be guessing would all be guesswork. It's been a long day. I guess.
Regards, "D_E"
"....physics low...." it has to be: " physics law"Quote:
Originally Posted by ivica
ivica
Should the M2 really be considered a two-way speaker? It sure has two drivers, but one of them has two diaphragms and two voice-coils producing two frequency ranges, right?
Just like the Urei 809... Is that a one-way or two way speaker? ;-)
http://medias.audiofanzine.com/image...-809-42005.jpg
The D2 has two identical diaphragms producing the same frequencies.
My two bits on the four way topic are that it is not at all dead. Sure drivers are getting better, or, well, the technology to build better drivers exists both in power handling and distortion reduction and to some extent this may allow for say a two way design to do what in the past took three drivers.
Take the D2 for example, it was desgned as a very high power HF device for the Vertec Array series speakers and having very high power handling ability it has the headroom to be aggressively signal shaped and still play pretty loud wide range in a monitor application like the M2.
Still, if you want to play really loud, have it sound good ie truly wide range and not break, it takes a four way.
My example would be, the (2.5 way) 4435's sound great, in my office. But if you want it LOUD, (the 4 way) 4350's will beat them with ease, and if you want it louder and to still sound good, the Danley rig (4 way horn loaded, and a current product) will smoke them all. These are all about the same physical size.
If you want pin point image accuracy, the point source Danley SH 50's give me that too. :D
The M2 system is all around amazing, no doubt, as are the DD66/6700 series. The 1400 Array's sound nice and image like crazy, the 4365's sound great too.
Define the job, employ the right tool.
Barry.
Hi Lee,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal
No, M2 is two-way speaker, even that any of the drivers has two VCs. In bass driver 2 VCs are on the same voice coil former, but on the VHF driver there are two ring type diaphragms, but working together synchronously "pushing" sound into common phase-plug, and their equivalent surface is almost as 4-inch dome type diaphragm.
Some newer design (we have seen) would introduce different shape of the diaphragms, so would , may be , more similar to BMS 4595 drivers (roughly to say).
regards
ivica
Not exactly JBL, but close. They have their own room in the Harman flagship store near Times Square. 4-way is unusual, true, but hardly dead, the Revel Salon2 is a famous example: http://revelspeakers.com/productdetail/~/product/salon2.html
I´m aware of this thread being 3 years old, but I believe it´s still of interest nowadays.
Let´s compare the 4338 (3-way) with the 4348 (4-way).
Both use 1500FE 15"-woofers, 435al 3"-compression drivers and 045ti tweeters... And 4348 has an additional 2251 10"-midwoofer.
The 435al compressiondriver is crossed at 750hz in the 3-way and 1000hz in the 4-way.
I have never had the chance to compare these two speakers. But is the 4-way just the more expensive and "better" speaker or just for a different taste?
My guess is, that the higher crossover on the crompressiondriver in the 4-way leads to much less distortion. The lower mids should be more transparent due to the 10" midwoofer as well. But is there a downside?
Looking at the 4365 (3-way), it uses basically the same woofer (1501fe) again.
But this one uses a bigger 4"-compressiondriver (476) crossed over at 750hz.
For this 3-way speaker there is no contrary 4-way speaker.
Maybe because it can´t be improved?
Is this because the addition of a 10"-midwoofer doesn´t offer any benefit in a system with a big 4"-compressiondriver opposed to the 3"-compressiondriver in the 4338 and 4348?
Using 1000hz crossover rather than 750hz should still reduce distortion on the 4"-compressiondriver...
Same with the lower mids that are covered by the heavy 15"-cone...
Or does the big 4"-compressiondriver on a big horn simply sounds better between 700-1000hz than the 10"-midwoofer?
I would have thought these frequencies are marginal even for a 4"-compressiondriver and much easier for a midwoofer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.db
I really don´t know why JBL are not making any 4-way design anymore!
I am agree with you, for my taste I like the 4-way better than the 2-way or 3-way, the magic is in the 10" woofer, it just sound so much better than the heavy 15" cone woofer in the midrange
for me most of the 15" are good up to 300Hz
Ari
I don't think the goal was ever to have more "ways" but that was a means to achieve a desired frequency range. It is hard to match the timbre of drivers and for each "way" you increase that complexity and then add in a time factor as well as a displacement. If you could get a single motor to reproduce the entire audible spectrum with a flat response, that would be ideal, just not practical with current technology (and at the volume levels often desired, and without severe eq...sorry Amar).
The next best thing to a 1-way is a 2-way. You are only trying to match the two things and with them you can often cover a lot of ground that a single transducer really can't cover. The vast majority of my "favorite" speakers are 2-ways (i.e. M2, 604, A4, 4675). Conversely, I have almost zero favorite 3-ways. Most them, to my ears, have a nasally sound that I don't like. In Cinema (my specialty), The QSC 423 is good sounding as are the JBL 5674/5672 but most of the others sound notably worse than the 2-way alternatives (again, to my ears). There are a lot of factors in play though as there are different drivers, cabinent designs and such that play into that as well.
As for 4-ways, I like/love my L250s...always have. I like them better than the 250Ti (I never really liked that titanium sound of the 250Ti, but that is my preference). In Cinema, I like the QSC SC-424, a 4-way using a concentric ring-radiator. However, in cinema, we have the added challenge of playing through a sheet of vinyl. The extra "way" allows one to avoid excessive EQ and play frequencies above 7KHz much more effortlessly and keeps the harshness down. These are not problems most people have in a home environment.
At this point, the best speaker I've personally heard is the M2 and it is just a 2-way. Show me a 4-way that sounds better. That said, I'll put my L250s up against any 3-way speaker I've heard.
My living room system has sources & preamp running to 2 separate amps and speaker systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by sguttag
On the more powerful amp are connected the 250Ti's , on the less powerful are the Walsh F2's.
The JBL's are more imposing and much more attractive, but I can put on a source and switch it to either the 4 ways or the 1 way's, so there is no factor of different pre or source.
Having no issues with the JBL's (except I think the 044's need new foam, starting to get a bit shrill), when I demo & A/B them for people .... they almost completely agree that the 360 radiator crossoverless 1 ways are more natural sounding. Sure, they don't produce the bass of an LE14 or have the huge SPL capability, but for just normal level music enjoyment, the 1 ways are better. IMHO
go ahead and start up the flames. :flamer:
I have heard both the 4338 and the 4348 and imho the 4338 was superior. I also prefer the 4344 to the 4348.
Great, thanks for your input guys.
What did you prefer specifically with the 4338 that the 4348 could not do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Very good thread,today i think JBL only produces 2 ways system(exactly extended 2 ways system)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian DK
I agree with you too,i think with 10''(or 8''\12'') cone mid, the muti-way system will give more warm and detail sound than JBL today's 2 ways system,look at those world famous hi-end speakers,they are all muti-way systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by hlaari
I think JBL now only produces 2 ways speakers just in order to reduce the cost and to make the design simple. :blink:
I think 4348 is much better than 4338:crying:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
On the contrary,4348 is more warmer and fine and smoother than 4338:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr.db
I didn’t like the small horns in the 4348.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.db
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian DK
If you read the History of JBL article the reasons, the why’s and wherefore’s are spelt out.
The 4 way monitor thing was a marketing decision and started with the 4350. The design paved the way for bi amped systems and a new woofer the 2230 which could produce more extended bass in a more compact enclosure. The whole idea was restricted driver bandwidth, linearity and low distortion. When GT came on the scene he was employed according to the article to complete the 43xx range. This led to the 4315, the improved 4344 and the 4345.
The Jbl consumer systems have always been about the Japanese consumer. Case in point the 9500, the blue baffle 4338, 4348, S4800, S9800 and the DD66000. The later is actually an augmented 4 way.
I’ve heard nearly all these systems and recently spent time with the DD67000 in the USA and in Asia. The DD67000 is without question JBLs finest consumer loudspeaker. A lot of people still like their L300’s and GT’s other designs and l believe as time marches on these classics will become even more highly sort after.
Thanks for the input :)
I like big horns too:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
Have a look in the systems technical forum on the 4348.
On axis it was hot �� in the upper midrange but was smoother overall off axis.
In comparison the 4338 is way better behaved.
Had l have known that at the time l would have listened to the 4348 off axis.
The horn went almost full range. Where as the legacy 3 and 4 way systems were smooth on axis but had an in even power response off axis. The more recent top of the range 4367, S9900 and the DD67000 are much smoother both on and off axis.
Don't forget those mid cone 2251J in 4348,they sound amazing:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
I really like to hear what you did not like with the 4348?
Ari
As l said earlier check the system response data sheets.
In this instance l preferred the 4338. I don’t need to justify my preferences but l do trust my ears.
Just because the business put out a design does not mean it’s a winner. Jbl has had some technically superior system that were flops.
I think it’s a case by case preference. It would be ludicrous to suggest because the DD67000 is not multi way system with a 10 inch mid that it is inferior because it uses a 15 inch woofer and a horn.
Side by side my impressions of the 4348 and the 4338 were the 4338 was a better all round system of the two.
That view was as l found out later the opinion of a Jbl engineer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
that´s fine for me:)
I know a guy in US that have owned both S9800 and 4348 and he did like the 4-way design 4348 better in nearly every way
he said at 4348 have way better low end than S9800
Ari
An individuals opinion having listened to a product is what this hobby is largely about. Not an opinion based an another’s opinion.
From an industry perspective the problem we find with forums is that opinions and posting popularity of a product can turn into a lot of activity based purely reading another’s option rather than listening for your self and forming your own opinion. That doesn’t do the reader any favours or the product subjective appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
I am totally agree with you!
I have play with both 2-way and 4-way, I have my K2-s9900 and DIY 4348MkII project, for my taste I like the 4-way better
Ari
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlaari
Low frequency Linearity of a 4 way is always positive if thats what the markets wants.
in Japan there is a strong legacy following of the blue baffle systems that goes all the way back to the 43xx legacy systems. its the old monitor presentation that appeals and the way the drivers were built. People also hold the aspiration improving these systems without impacting on the integrity of the design.
The S9500 and all the newer S9800 ect are voiced differently and they appeal to a different taste in the Japanese market.
Its more hifi listening. When you think about it that is where the industry has gone as a movement and if the top influencer in Stereo Sound says its good they will buy it. That is how the business tends to work. But the individuals is always going to have a unique set of likes or preferences that make up their illusion of the artists or producers intent. So no one product will ever please everyone the same way. There are no absolutes and opinions are just opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
my DIY 4348 project:)
Ari
A diy project always sounds better ⛏😀
But why so many of us like vintage 4 way JBL,such as 4343/4344/4345/4350/250Ti than 2 way vintage JBL?do you really think that today JBL has no need for mid range cone at all?:blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
[QUOTE=Ian Mackenzie;423515]Your diy projects will be either better or worse than the Jbl factory product but not :D
they are going to be different from the original version, with different driver parts (W1500H, dual 251J, 476Be and 045Mg)
this system will be fully active
I think at I will call them 4348MKII;)
Ari's great 4348MKII system:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor_Electron
Might have to do/due with management
Attachment 84490
It's all about the music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian DK
IF you can get equivalent quality from a 2 or 3 way, why then build a more complex 4 way ? Keep it as simple as possible to still get the job done. Drivers are much improved since the 4 way era.
Personally I have 4 way 250ti's and on some programs prefer my 1 way Walsh's.
Hi,008,do you seriously think that 1.6T/2.0T engines can totally replace the position of those V8 5.7/V6 3.5 beast engines?Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97
whatcha smoking Martin :dont-know:Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
wrong forum.
Not an appropriate comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
I am wondering how you access these forums?
You know,just metaphor:o:Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAWOLF97
How i access these forums doesn't important,the most important is how do you think of these JBL mid range cone:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Back to the topic if you want understand the “why” on JBL’s path of contemporary 3 way system it boils down to the intended listeners. The Japanese audiophiles. These systems are designed and voiced for that market. Fast firm bass and coherent midrange with industrial design elements from earlier systems. The 4365 and 4367 are examples. These system have a response in the order of 35-38 hertz f3. They have superior magnetic systems, suspension and cone structures allowing crossover points of 800 hertz without concern. The 1501 series woofers used in the DD67000 are better again. Having listened to them extensively in LA and Asia l can attest to what those woofers do.
From a design perspective Greg Timbers didn’t compromise on the coherency of the DD67000 when he looked to bettering the bass performance for that system. See DD67000 brochure. What is perhaps lesser known is that that system goes up a whole new level when the two woofers and the horn-HF drivers are Tri amped according to Greg. Until now a hi end single chassis off the shelf Triamp active crossover configured for the DD67000 hasn’t been available.
The problem for this audience is the significant cost of these Jbl systems and Jbl aren’t officially interested making these woofers available as a spare part.
The notion of a 4 way system invokes extended bass and improved linearity. Back in the 70’s Jbl dealt with this by developing an extended bass woofer the 2231 and later iterations the 2231H and 2235H. While these drivers could be used up to 800-1000 hertz JBLs marketing boss at the time liked the idea of a 4 way system and jbl offered 2, 3 and 4 way systems using the 2231 woofers. What’s interesting is the 4 way systems drew popularity in Japan but were not commercially successful as envisaged in the studio segment due to the size of these systems. The initial 2120 and later iterations of a mid cone were able to produce mid range from 300-1300 hz without cone break up which was a limitation with the 2231woofers. These systems had a response to -32 hertz f3. The limitation of these systems is the restricted listening window due to the uneven polar response versus frequency. The extent of this limitation is s matter for the listener to determine. This later become a marketing claim for JBLs bi radial monitors in studio segment in the early 80’s.
What l can say is the Jbl 4343-4345 designs as a 4 way system using the 2123H for mid duties are quite impressive. When refurbished, modified and setup properly they a stellar performers and commanding the best active crossover and power amplifiers. Other Jbl mid drivers “may” perform appropriately with due attention to the crossover network. In this context the Jbl vintage drivers were under utilised in the original stock systems.
I have no doubt this post will draw some comments. Rather than quote the entire post can l suggest you reply with specific comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
I respect your opinion 100% and I am agree with you at this thread should be stick to the discussion of (Why is 4 way design dead)
I have play with all the new 15" woofer and also 476Mg and 476Be on few different horns
for me nothing can match the 10" 2251j/251j midrange mid bass woofers in the 300 - 1200 range, they are faster and more accurate in that range
and from the science, the much smaller and lighter cone in the 10" woofer fits better for that range
of course we have all different sound taste, and that make this hobby so interesting:)
Ari
Hi Ari,
I have provided an explanation on JBL’s prior 4 way offerings and the recent SOA systems.
We can speculate on why there are no “current” 4 way market offerings but we may never know the reasons.
Jbl appears to using the marketing buzz of the M2 wave-guide to create other offerings. The approach seems to be develop a technical feature then popularise that feature and franchise it across the business in other offerings. It’s a different approach to systems like the L250, XPL200, Array series, Project Everest that were conceived from the ground up.
With Greg Timbers and other notable engineers now gone from JBL the capability to design and implement a successful 4 way system may not be possible. There maybe driver manufacturing limitations with the changes that have occurred in the past 5-10 years.
I was reminded recently in a YouTube clip of a well know audio business manufacturer that it’s often the best ideas or technically correct products that don’t succeed in the market place.
The beauty of diy audio is you have the flexibility to evaluate and experiment with different approaches and settle on what you personally like 😀.
I am not sure about the relative health of the 4-Way, but last week I was able to spend some quality time with an augmented 12” 2-way. This system is quite costly, especially compared to vintage 4-Ways, but it totally kicks their butts in every way! Finesse, accuracy, SPL... this system was simply amazing. If I could afford them financially and real estate wise, I’d be waiting for delivery!
https://www.whathifi.com/us/features...luehorn-system
Widget
Hey, Widget!
Looks like a purposed three-way to me. Even the Berkeley install has all three drivers in L-C-R. Did you hear just the two drivers in the top cabinet, or were you listening to all three drivers in two cabinets per channel?
I drive those Widget-delivered K2 S9900s actively with subs using BSS electronics with curves provided by Greg, so I consider them 3.5-way units. The SDA-4600 amps here driving the M2s also incorporate 18” subs into the channels, so the M2 is a functional three-way.
The blue horn looks cool, and I assume the $80k price includes the subs and optimization electronics but not amplification? I’ve got maybe $12k into K2s, subs, electronics, and amplification, and it’s conceivable that the Meyer gear is more than six times the product that the K2 system is. I doubt it, but, still, I’d love to hear it. (I guess at full retail, it would be 4x as costly.)
Yet, continuing the thesis of this thread I’ve yet to hear a two-way that did not benefit from augmentation either at the top or bottom (or both), so my subjective opinion is that a three-way properly constructed and equalized will be better than a two-way, and a four-way with advanced drivers, cabinetry, wave guide, and electronic optimization could be the best of all.
Now, if someone would just make it...
Hi Widget,
Time for project May mk2😀.
Looks like a club system on steroids.
Hi Dome,
I heard a similar style of system in HK recently which was a bi amped pair of DD67000 flanked by dual Wilson subs. It was a cool setup and was likened to listening to giant headphones with the loudness button “in”.
On the 3 or 4 way thing it is about what works for your kind of illusion in your own situation. The limiting factor is $ and real either way. This assumes as you point out it’s been optimised otherwise its diyfair with endless adjustments and no distinct end point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
the former JBL engineers are gone, we all know that, but I am not going to assert that there might be other in the future that could make a great 4-way speaker
you can see at almost every other high-end manufacturers does not use big 15" woofer or even dual of them up to 800 - 1000Hz
Ari
Augmented 12" two-way: GT's diy.
Very reasonable:applaud:but for example,I am fully convinced that 1501AL-2 can work up to 850 Hz in DD67000 cabinet,but what its best performance range?:blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
What new 15'' woofers do you play?you think 10" 2251j/251j midrange mid bass woofers are better than 2123H in the 300 - 1200Hz range?why?Quote:
Originally Posted by hlaari
Maybe it is a very important factor that with GT's left,JBL now has no capability of designing complex muti way studio monitor speaker systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie
Beautiful,is it a hi-end system?but it is too expensive:crying:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Hi Doug,i totally agree with you,by master designer,best drivers working togather at each best ranges must be a best speaker system:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
I have play with 1500Al, 1500Al-1, 1501Al-1, 1501Al-2, 1500Fe, 1501Fe, 2216Nd woofers so I think at I know pretty well how they work
I did not say at 2251j/251j were better than 2123H, I have not play with 2123H yet, I own two 2123H baskets and C8R2122H recone kits that would be interested to try
Ari
Great!which one do you think is the best JBL mid range cone?Quote:
Originally Posted by hlaari
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
because I am sure 2216Nd-1 are not going to beat the 10" midrange woofers in the 300 - 1200Hz range
I am not 100% sure which of the 10" JBL midrange cone woofers is the best, but I have try both 2251J and 251J that are great midrange woofers
the only difference between 2251j and 251j is I can cross 251j lower so that allow me to use W1500H in my 4-way system
all the new 15" woofers are great, and I would use each and everyone with 2251j crossed between them around 300Hz
the goal to use W1500H is the can reach down to 20Hz easily
Ari
I´m actually really happy how this thread has turned out!!
Keep this great discussion going :hurray:
BTW, you guys have mentioned the 10" midcone´s sounding better in the 300-1200hz range than the modern 15" woofers.
I believe we should rather compare them in the range of 300-800hz, as all the 15" woofers are crossed over around 800hz... None of them has to operate up to 1200hz...
But then there is a different aspect we should take into consideration:
How does a 10" midcone compare to a modern compressiondriver in the 800-1200hz range?
Most people mention the muddiness of a heavy 15" woofer playing in the midrange, but maybe the biggest advantage of a 10"midcone is to relieve the compression-driver from operating down to 800hz. Crossing them at 1200hz should reduce diaphragm movement by about half and reduce distortion significantly.
And, come to think of it, Widget's Grand Master Ones, which may have been precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
GT's diy: 1500AL sub, 1200fe, horn plus supertweeter.
Widget's GMO's: sub1500, TAD 1102, horn plus supertweeter
The point being a long midrange.
My take on all this is that the JBL big 4-way monitor has been done. Great as it was, and still is, GT strongly advised us against the 10" at 300-1200 during the Project May affair. "That won't work," he said.
It's a retrograde step, unless, as Ari suggests, your ten can cross lower.
The hyper-engineered 14-15 from 30 to mid-high hundreds, from the 2235 and the TADs to the 2216 are terrific, but as the above two systems and Widget's link all show, there may be a next step.
The complicating factor is the specialist driver that can go sealed from <100 to >800 (1200fe?) is AWOL; the ones I'm aware of need a port or dedicated equalizing electronics.
There are several take outs at this point from this discussion;
1. Is the 4 way dead in the context of JBL? - original post
2. Is a 4 way system featuring a specialised 10 inch mid or mid bass driver superior to JBLs current 15 inch soa designs?
3. Does classic a JBL 2 way require augmented low and high frequencies to improve the performance?
1. Time will tell.
To answer no 2 there are numerous technical and practical reasons for arguing either configuration. Certainly for a manufacturer the options to implement either configuration for market acceptance are limited. If those limitations are removed and the user adopts the designers recommendations then either will deliver an acceptable performance. The issue then is controlling how those recommendations will be implemented.
Another key issue is the influence of the users listening environment and listening habits. This is largely un controlled and is perhaps the most influential variable in satisfying the expectations of the user.
Ultimately listening tastes do vary. There are a number of factors influencing taste and even the ultimate solution will not satisfy all.
The diy user has the freedom to try and adopt a configuration that works for his listening environment, listening habits and taste.
3 is tied to the users expectations, the end use and physical real estate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
I can cross my dual 251j at 70Hz over the W1500H
I would not recommend to cross 2251j and 2123H that low, I don´t know why GT strongly advised not to use the 10" in the range of 300 - 1200Hz?
Ari
He didn't explain (in my hearing), but I believe the answer would be in the literature around the introduction of the 4430 and 4435 monitors. For the Project May we had been given four woofers and the horn from the S9800. To put a ten between them would have undone the design work that went into making those two components work together as regards power dispersion into the room. The S9500, M9500, S9800 and all subsequent JBL statement speakers keep to the thinking behind the 4430; that is, equal power over frequency into the room, not just on-axis flat response.Quote:
Originally Posted by hlaari
As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to can disagree with that approach and prefer the JBL large format four-way, the coaxial UREI monitor, a column of direct drive domes, or some other idea. But in the context of a JBL sponsored project I believe GT did not want to see us take a retrograde step per se, and also, in my opinion, did not want us to be undermining then current JBL statement product.
Now that i think about it, I wonder why we were given four woofers. The DD66000 had not been released at that time, but surely was in development. I wonder if he was having fun with us, giving us the makings for and thus the chance to come up with a similar idea. We had the components and the 4435 to recognize as a model. I think the answer is we weren't smart enough. But that is strictly speculation.
I think at there have bin and are couple of smart guys on this forum;)Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
about the Everest later models, I don´t think at they were as good as the driver components that were used in them were
there have bin and are lot of them on the second hand market for only 1/3 of the retail price, that tells me a lot
I think at the 10" 251j is very underrated woofer, GT him self did design this woofer and it was only used in the SK2-1000 and SK2-3300
Ari
I wouldn't be surprised if there are a number of potentially interesting and exciting developments now abandoned at jBL under the present regime of axing away R and D, down selling brand names, accessing the cheapest labor, maximizing pay for upper echelons and generally screwing the pooch in the name of stockholder equity.
(On a similar note, Apple has announced moving Mac Pro production from Texas to China because of, their words, the "shortage of qualified labor at minimum wage. [my italics])
Hello Speakerdave
Don wanted an MTM design for Project May.Quote:
Now that i think about it, I wonder why we were given four woofers. The DD66000 had not been released at that time, but surely was in development.
They moved away for the 10 going all the way back to the original Everest. But I believe that had more to do with matching the 10"s polar response to the asymmetrical pattern from the horn. To difficult to properly integrate.Quote:
To put a ten between them would have undone the design work that went into making those two components work together as regards power dispersion into the room. The S9500, M9500, S9800 and all subsequent JBL statement speakers keep to the thinking behind the 4430; that is, equal power over frequency into the room, not just on-axis flat response.
I have E-145's crossed over to 2123's at 300 Hz then 435Be's at 1500Hz. The E-145/2123 combo is damn impressive as far as snap and speed. It is down right visceral and quick as hell!
Rob:)
Oh, yes. I remember now listening to those towering MTM's. The consensus was we didn't like it; as I remember it had a big hunk in the upper bass. After we reported back to the forum people began kicking around ideas; that's when the suggestion of the 10" came up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh3606
I still have a Drew Daniels fish to fry myself and will be using a 2220 and a 2123. The e145 (along with the 2227) is one of those drivers I should have looked at when they were available. At 55 grams moving mass, it is lighter than the 2220, underhangs the gap, and probably a better cone. I bet it is really terrific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh3606
But you have told me that 2267 is the best 15'' woofer and 2269 is the best 18'' woofer?Quote:
Originally Posted by hlaari
That was 15 years ago and the rest is history. Most of us have gotten old..LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
Yes,that's the point!by introducing 10'' midcone,the 15'' woofer do not need to work up to 800Hz and the compression driver do not need to work down to 800Hz too:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr.db
Really?why?GT prefered 12'' woofer ,not 10'' midrange cone?Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
The 1200fe is not a midcone; it's a woofer; using it enables a lower low entry frequency. I'm guessing the point of his diy experiment was to hear what that would sound like; that would be mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
As for GT's comment regarding a 10" in the Project May build, two explanations have been offered already in this thread, one by me, one by Rob.
Hi Martin,
I don't see the necessity to consider exotic driver (which are now NLA anyway)
Consider this relatively cost effective arrangement which would go some way to mitigating the concerns:
Simple two way crossover at 500-600 hertz
Woofer - JBL 2234 or 150C fast hi sensitivity under hung driver
Horn - 3732. https://reconingspeakers.com/product...aveguide-3732/
Augmented bass from diy sub 2245/ 2269, W1500
Augmented HF from 2405, 2202
This is an excellent horn but above all is diy friendly.
I have chosen this configuration because with a long vertical array of drivers it can be difficult to obtain a coherent listening window.
What are GT's diy and Widget's GMO's crossover points?Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
I agree. However the manner in which those soa drivers to sing together in JBLs systems calls for some ownership on the part of user as to how they set up and listen to these systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Zeppeli
I can personally draw on examples where I have auditioned these systems set up in inappropriate environments by the user(s) and listened to in contempt of the recommendations in the owner manuals. The user(s) end up blaming the design and the designer for getting it wrong and then attempts to re-configure the system in some way to improve the result. Whats's concerning is they think they are right. No joke. I won't repeat Greg's comments. We just let them continue to screw up the result so there are no arguments.
So when anyone says something contrary to the way Greg designed a system I take it with a grain of salt because they are "wrong" in one way or another.
If you are starting a diy-project do what ever pleases you.
As is often the case with diy they were experimentally adjusted. The best information I have is:Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
GT: 80, 750 or 800, and 10k
W's. GMO's: 60, 650 to 950, 10-12k.
Not 100% sure yet, but once I have power on them again and begin dialing them in,Quote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
W's will likely be 66Hz or 75Hz, 750Hz, 12KHz. :D
Widget
But 4344/4345/4350 are more favorable and much more expensive than 4435/4430 in the second hand market:dont-know:time and market gave the answerQuote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
How to explain the design of 4348?who design it?is it a totally failure JBL product?:crying:
Yes,even S9500/9800/9900 are not so sought after like 4344/4345/4350 by audiophiles all over the world:DQuote:
Originally Posted by hlaari
Great,have you ever tried any other 15'' wooofer and 10'' midrange cone combo?E145/2118 is combo in 4628BQuote:
Originally Posted by Robh3606
Hello MartinQuote:
Great,have you ever tried any other 15'' wooofer and 10'' midrange cone combo?
Yes 2235/2122 2035/2122/2123 The E-145 is my favorite.
Rob:)
I know 1200fe is a woofer,mabye 12'' woofer with horn is a better combo than 10'' midcone with horn combo:DQuote:
Originally Posted by speakerdave
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
2267 are sure a great woofer, 2269 is the first JBL 18" woofer I am interested in since 2245
if had use single 2251j in my project I have go for 2267 and cross between them at 300Hz
Ari
You think 2267 with 2251j is a good combo?Quote:
Originally Posted by hlaari
JBL seems began midcone with horn's combo from 4340,4340/4341/4343/4343B/4344/4344MKII/4345/4350/4350A/4350B/4355/4348,2121/2121/2121/2121H/2122H/2123H/2122H/2202A/2202A/2202H/2202H/2251J
any idea?
Now a days components are so much better, higher power, more linear and constant quality, even 2-way designs are superior now a days as long as designer remember to look out crossover area dispersion match in that frequency for both drivers and timing is corrected.... and add FIR filter (if latency is not an issue, like in videos / movies... you loose "lip sync") and that's it.
-jaska (1st time influenced by Altec professional loudspeakers 1979)