I am about to purchase a pair, of the three models mentionned, to be used with 2350 and 2397 horns for home duty (no pea). Which one sounds the best and has the lowest extension?
Printable View
I am about to purchase a pair, of the three models mentionned, to be used with 2350 and 2397 horns for home duty (no pea). Which one sounds the best and has the lowest extension?
Were it me, diaphragm materials aside, it would be 2446, 2441 then 2445. I don't have any conclusive evidence to display to support that as yet. I don't know if there is any difference at low frequency, none that I've noticed anyway but I don't stretch mine to either extreme.
If they are all stock and running up to spec, I would go for the 2441 due to the aluminum diaphragm, if you would consider going with a Be diaphragm then all things considered, I would go with the 2446 because of it's more advanced phase plug... that said, I am not sure if the newer phase plug will mate well with the 2328 throats that those two horns use. It very well may be a great match, but since they are different generations they may not be ideal. If that proved to be the case then I would go with either a 2441 or a 2445 with Be over a stock 2441.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal
Widget
agree with you,and 2440 for another choise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
why pay such attention to low extend?they are high drivers:confused:
"Low" is a relative notion in this case. "Low" could be 300Hz.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin_wu99
Lee
300Hz is extremely low for a compression driver. To go that low you should consider the phenolic diaphragmed large format JBLs like the 2482 or 2485. Unfortunately you lose the benefits of the extremely low mass and very high frequency break up mode of Be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal
But then again, why are we discussing 300Hz and the two horns you mentioned above?
Widget
So, 2446 with original Beryllium diaphragm sounds the best?
Lee
The Be diaphragms aren't JBL products, they are aftermarket and over twice as expensive as even the aluminum JBL diaphragms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal
Because if the driver has "something" happening at 300Hz, it means I will be fully operational at 500Hz with a 2350 at 12db cut-off. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
Along those lines, I have found that "derating" horns is the easiest way to improving their sound... say using an Altec 511 as an 800Hz horn instead of it's rated 500Hz, an 811 as a 1200Hz horn etc... I just picked the Altecs as they are logically named and an easy choice, but the same is true of the two horns you are looking at... increasing the crossover frequency will make them sound better. By better, I mean less "horn like". There are certain qualities that we associate with horns... moving the crossover frequency up a full octave or two from it's cut off frequency makes the horn sound less constrained and squawky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal
Widget
A pair of pretty nasty horns. The original Swedish thread is fed through google translate, hilarious result :-).
That horn with a 248x will sound fantastic I believe.
Wow. Impressive 250Hz. And in term of size, we are approaching this. :eek:
So, I guess that size really matters. ;)
Attachment 51259
Size and shape. I believe one should use Tractrix or LeCleach for midrange.
Ok... now I know you guys are ill...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal
I didn't alt-tab out of this website fast enough and a co-worker asked "What the hell was that!?" I showed her and she said "OMG! That's atrocious!" :rotfl: Then we got into this protracted conversation about this illness. She still doesn't understand but at least she gave it a go.
I know -you- guys are ill? :rotfl: Nice try there Missy.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4313B