E-140 Vs. EVM 15B Lets get ready to rumble!

[God's element]

Tale of the Tape:

JBL E-140:15" 200W 8 99dB 32Hz 10.5 0.17 0.14"

EVM 15B:EVM-15B Pro-Line 15" 400W 8 102dB 43Hz 7.95 0.297 0.13"


Tonight these two old heavy weight staples of performance go head-to-head to see who ultimatly sounds better. ok,ok, I hear a lot about these two speakers how everyone is saying they are the best ever. I have the EVM 15B in a Leslie cab and it is loud and punchy. How will the E-140 sound in comparison? I am looking to buy one for my Leslie.

thanks everyone.

[toddalin]

Do you play the pedals? Low C is 32 Hz so should not be a problem for the JBL. At 43 Hz, the EVM would spec down to about Low F#.

Tale of the Tape:

JBL E-140:15" 200W 8 99dB 32Hz 10.5 0.17 0.14"

EVM 15B:EVM-15B Pro-Line 15" 400W 8 102dB 43Hz 7.95 0.297 0.13"


Tonight these two old heavy weight staples of performance go head-to-head to see who ultimatly sounds better. ok,ok, I hear a lot about these two speakers how everyone is saying they are the best ever. I have the EVM 15B in a Leslie cab and it is loud and punchy. How will the E-140 sound in comparison? I am looking to buy one for my Leslie.

thanks everyone.

[edgewound]

[QUOTE]

Tale of the Tape:

JBL E-140:15" 200W 8 99dB 32Hz 10.5 0.17 0.14"

EVM 15B:EVM-15B Pro-Line 15" 400W 8 102dB 43Hz 7.95 0.297 0.13"


Tonight these two old heavy weight staples of performance go head-to-head to see who ultimatly sounds better. ok,ok, I hear a lot about these two speakers how everyone is saying they are the best ever. I have the EVM 15B in a Leslie cab and it is loud and punchy. How will the E-140 sound in comparison? I am looking to buy one for my Leslie.

Actually the E140 is 200 watts sinewave, 400 watts pink noise 100 dB sensitivity.

EVM 15B Proline is 300 watts pink noise and 98-99 dB senitivity.

The E140 will be a little louder and cleaner due to the 4" voice coil .

The EVM will be a little warmer due to cone breakup and the 2.4" voice coil.

I'd say the one that wins is the you like better....they are both formidable speakers...but in this app, I like the JBL for the presence.

[edgewound]

I rechecked the EVM 15B PL spec sheet and it is listed as 400 watts cont, pink noise, RS-426A and 102dB 1 W 1 M....sorry for the error....it just doesn't seem as loud with sweep tones...probably the JBL's aluminum dome.

[GordonW]

Even though the resonance of the EVM15B is higher, it's Qts is also higher, by a significant amount. When you plug that into calculations for an "infinite baffle" (which the Leslie is probably more similar to, than any other type of box design), it comes out pretty much a wash. No significant difference in low-end extension...

I would agree with the assessment, that the E140 will be louder in the upper regions (and will go higher), but the EVM15B will have more "whomp" in the midbass and upper bass, and will sound "warmer". It's entirely dependent on the sound desired... since we're talking about music PRODUCERS here, instead of REPRODUCERS.

My guess, is that the EVM15B will probably work better in the Leslie, given that it's spec set is more similar to the original Jensen woofers that were in those originally (and which the Leslie was designed around). But, it's all in the ears of the beholder, in the end...

Regards,
Gordon.

[toddalin]

Even though the resonance of the EVM15B is higher, it's Qts is also higher, by a significant amount. When you plug that into calculations for an "infinite baffle" (which the Leslie is probably more similar to, than any other type of box design), it comes out pretty much a wash. No significant difference in low-end extension...

I would agree with the assessment, that the E140 will be louder in the upper regions (and will go higher), but the EVM15B will have more "whomp" in the midbass and upper bass, and will sound "warmer". It's entirely dependent on the sound desired... since we're talking about music PRODUCERS here, instead of REPRODUCERS.

My guess, is that the EVM15B will probably work better in the Leslie, given that it's spec set is more similar to the original Jensen woofers that were in those originally (and which the Leslie was designed around). But, it's all in the ears of the beholder, in the end...

Regards,
Gordon.

If we're talking about a typical 122 or 147, a Leslie is anything but an infinite baffle. Consider that the baffle board has a triangular cut-out at the corner and the back of the cabinet has a rather large rectangular port. Couple this with all the air leaks around the motors and mechanisms and the fact that no real effort was made to seal the cabinets.

[edgewound]

If we're talking about a typical 122 or 147, a Leslie is anything but an infinite baffle. Consider that the baffle board has a triangular cut-out at the corner and the back of the cabinet has a rather large rectangular port. Couple this with all the air leaks around the motors and mechanisms and the fact that no real effort was made to seal the cabinets.

Hi Todd...

Infinite baffle would be more akin to ceiling or a wall that would seemingly go on infinitely and just separate the front and back waves of the speaker. A sealed box is really inappropriatley referred to as "infinite baffle" because in effect, in might seem to "fold that infinite baffle into a box" surrounding the driver. True infinite baffle has no sealed airspace to load the woofer cone. A sealed box should more appropriately be referred to as "air suspension" or "acoustic suspension".

But if the Qts is higher on the EVM, with the lack of acoustic loading in the Leslie, then the JBL should work better due to the increased damping and lower Qts.

If that's the case, both drivers power handling should be de-rated to half....more like an open back cabinet.

[toddalin]

Hi Todd...

Infinite baffle would be more akin to ceiling or a wall that would seemingly go on infinitely and just separate the front and back waves of the speaker. A sealed box is really inappropriatley referred to as "infinite baffle" because in effect, in might seem to "fold that infinite baffle into a box" surrounding the driver. True infinite baffle has no sealed airspace to load the woofer cone. A sealed box should more appropriately be referred to as "air suspension" or "acoustic suspension".

Doesn't really matter how you define it..., the Leslie ain't it.

[edgewound]

Doesn't really matter how you define it..., the Leslie ain't it.

I will agree ...you got that right....wholeheartedly

[God's element]

thanks for the info guys. I am tracking E140s on bay now. Also, my Leslie is not stock. I know, that sounds sacreligious, but I think it sounds better now. I have a 150watt 8ohm sub amp mounted on the back. The XO is at 800Mhz which is the stock Mhz for the leslie. http://www.mcminone.com/product.asp?...Fid=50%2D6281A
This is the amp we installed. Only the fins protrude out of the back of the leslie as the amp has been cut in half and the crucitboard is mounted on the inside. AC power and line in feed is derived from the stock 122 amp. The solid state amp gives a nice boost to the lows and amplifies the tube driven signal. What is hard to believe is that the doopler effect is still present (Lower drum directing the sound in a circle which gives off the sound which can be described as hearing a train coming and going, over and over ). As soon as i get a digital camara i will put up a pic of the mod if anyone is interested in seeing what it looks like. This mod sounds awsome when compared to a stock Leslie 122.

[GordonW]

Apparently, we have a mis-understanding of the physics behind an infinite baffle OR open baffle (and as far as the SPEAKER ITSELF, and its power handling, there IS NO EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE in terms of the change in Q of the driver in an IB and an OB).

To have anywhere near optimum power handling and to avoid transient delay errors, a speaker should either a) be loaded, to where its resultant Q (speaker and enclosure) is ABOVE .500, or b) NOT be used down to below about 1.5 octaves ABOVE its own resonance.

In this case, the Qts of the driver will, effectively, be the resultant Qtc of the entire system, due to the LACK of any loading on the back of the driver. So, with the JBL 140 having a Q of less than .3 and the EV a Q of .43... it's easy to see that the EV will "behave itself" MUCH better, in a Leslie, where it's routinely used to around or below its resonant frequency (ie, the 30-40 Hz range is not unusual for one of these, when driven by an organ).

OTOH, if the application was a guitar cabinet (ie, Fender, etc), condition b) from above is met... a guitar amp is infrequently used anywhere below 100 Hz. So, either driver would be OK. But, in an organ, there is LOTS MORE bottom end... which will cause loading and power handling issues...

Rather than pontificate about the superficial differences between an IB and an OB, it's much more helpful to address the actual issue here... and speaking as someone who has actually SEEN the above woofers used in similar applications, I can say that practice DOES INDEED bear out the rules stated above...

Regards,
Gordon.

[edgewound]

OTOH, if the application was a guitar cabinet (ie, Fender, etc), condition b) from above is met... a guitar amp is infrequently used anywhere below 100 Hz. So, either driver would be OK. But, in an organ, there is LOTS MORE bottom end... which will cause loading and power handling issues...

Rather than pontificate about the superficial differences between an IB and an OB, it's much more helpful to address the actual issue here... and speaking as someone who has actually SEEN the above woofers used in similar applications, I can say that practice DOES INDEED bear out the rules stated above...

Regards,
Gordon.

Well, Gordon....JBL states in their literature to derate power handling in an open back cabinet by half due to the lack of acoustic loading on the cone...that's to compensate for mechanical unloaded excursion limits. Maybe you should set JBL straight on their physics.

If you actually used this stuff...like I do...you'd know first hand that percussive signals from a guitar pickup actually go below 100hz quite frequently...that's called experience....and it's not superficial....and I'm done debating with you on this.

You're welcome, God's Element...JBL loaded Leslies ROCK!!!

[GordonW]

Are you seriously claiming that a guitar will have ANYTHING NEAR the bottom end excursion requirements of a speaker, to a Hammond organ?

There's a difference between a "pop" and some midrange, and a sustained 40-50 Hz tone, WITH percussive pops. Listened to any B3s lately? They'll move air like NO guitar...

In regards to the derating: Why not use a speaker SUITED for open baffle, so you DON'T HAVE to "derate" the power to that extent?

Regards,
Gordon.

[edgewound]

Are you seriously claiming that a guitar will have ANYTHING NEAR the bottom end excursion requirements of a speaker, to a Hammond organ?

There's a difference between a "pop" and some midrange, and a sustained 40-50 Hz tone, WITH percussive pops. Listened to any B3s lately? They'll move air like NO guitar...

In regards to the derating: Why not use a speaker SUITED for open baffle, so you DON'T HAVE to "derate" the power to that extent?

Regards,
Gordon.

Your contempt for all of this really amazes me. I use a JBL E120 in an open back cabinet. I also use an EVM 12L. Have you ever seen a cone move in an open back cabinet with percussive transients that musicians use on occasion?...like during an actual song? I have and I do. Since you are suggesting that the D/K/E120 is not suitable for guitar in an open back cabinet, all those thousands of Fender amp users must be crazy. I suggest you read JBL literature on open back cabinets and power handling.

My regular amps are a Rivera Knucklehead 55 and a Marshall JMP 50 watt 2x12 combo, and a 1964 Fender Bandmaster fitted to a 1x12 combo. The E120 is rated at 300 watts continuous pink noise in a sealed or vented enclosure tuned to about 60 Hz. Sine wave power handling is 150 watts. The JBL Enclosure Design Reference Manual recommends derating the power handling of musical instrument speakers by half when used in open back cabinets...due to open air type excursions. Why are car stereo "free air" subs of such a low Q with such stiff suspensions? Physics maybe?

So...the E120 is suitable for an open back cabinet, particularly because it has a huge magnet...isn't it? Your insistence on the opposite view runs counter to JBL practices. You need to set them straight.

Of course a guitar on it's own won't produce the low notes of a Hammond B3...In the 1980's we carried around a C3 and two Leslies..one loaded with a JBL E140, one with a Gauss 4580 which was their answer to the E140. So yeah...I stood next to one on stage sometimes 7 nights a week for several years....nothing like experience , huh?

A guitar with an octaver or some other kinds of delay effects can indeed go way lower that 100hz. It's the unloaded transients that can happen with an open back cabinet that requires the derating. Put 300 watts into that E120/E130 or 400 watts into that E140 in an open back cab and pretty quickly you'll drive the coil out of the gap...

Aside from all this, the Leslies don't have near that much power anyway...that's the whole reason behind putting a much more efficient speaker in there to begin with....close to a 10dB increase.

That is the real world usage realities.

[God's element]

I can't wait to get an E140 so i can get in this good debate.