2245 sounds better than 2231?

[rich carnese]

I dont have alot of experience with the 2245's in other than pro applications i.e. sound reinforcement and club systems. I do have alot of experience with the 2231. I find it to be one of the finest woofers JBL made.
I know the 2245 is capable of higher output, when used in a home situation I imagine its relatively high stray magnetic field would be a problem for TV picture distortion. I also think the 2231 is alittle more linear over its range.....Id like to hear from those of you who use them for home theater etc. Thanks! Rich

[speakerdave]

Non of the large-magnet ferrite woofers and midranges can be used near a CRT TV. My guess is that the minimum distance is about 2 feet. However, as soon as you or I get caught up with the times, the point will be moot.

I like the 2231A too, and I think that in the systems it is used, the 2235 is not truly a drop-in replacement. I dropped some ferrite 2235H's into my 4333A's. The improvement in the bass was obvious, but the woofer did not match up well with the stock crossover/midrange.

I recently saw a post to the effect that someone is experimenting with Alnico frames loaded with 2235 kits. That's an interesting idea; I've done the same thing myself. However, the raw facts are that the second generation ferrite frames with the same kit give lower distortion. An Alnico frame with the 2235 kit would be in between the 2231A and the 2235H for total performance, and, of course, could be used near a CRT.

Comparing an Alnico 2231A or 2235 kitted Alnico frame with the 2245 is difficult because you are trying to compare woofers of different size and differently engineered motors. You should rather compare the 2235H and the 2245H. That being said, however, my personal hit is that the 2235H is better in the upper bass/midrange margin area than the 2245, but the 2245 is better for LF and VLF. The sound is big and coherent. A lone 2235,2231A covers almost the same freqency range but not with the same ease. At low volumes, though, I think there would be nothing wrong with that choice.

I have not tried two 2235's on each channel, but I am told by someone who has that it is not as good as the 2245 covering the same 30-290 frequency range that you find the woofer serving in the 43xx monitors.

David

[rich carnese]

Thanks for the reply, Dave. As a cynic, though I learned many years ago that sometimes when things measure better they don't neccessarily sound better. I know the ferrites measure with lower harmonic distortion, but they just dont sound as good(to my ears). When I play back audio that I have recorded myself in my studio I feel the most realism is with the 2231A.
I always felt that JBL always strived to get the ferrites to sound like their alnico counterpart, and did so to a great degree.But...and it could be that my ears have aclimated to the sound of these wonderful old alnico drivers so that some other things dont sound as musical.
Another question is...how loud are we playing? I find that 2 2231's will give pretty room shaking performance in an average living room.
The 2245 also requires a much larger box for the same freq. range. I dunno....maybe I have to go back and lisyen again(lol) Rich

[speakerdave]

Thanks for the reply, Dave. As a cynic, though I learned many years ago that sometimes when things measure better they don't neccessarily sound better.

You don't need to be a cynic to say this; JBL said the same thing when developing the 1400nd. They said that an overhung version (voice coil extends beyond the gap in both directions) measured better, but an underhumg design (voice coil shorter than the gap and always entirely within the gap) sounded better.

David

[Robh3606]

Another question is...how loud are we playing? I find that 2 2231's will give pretty room shaking performance in an average living room.

I have a pair 2235's in one system and they are plenty. I don't go that loud average around mid 80's-90 or so. Had the pleasure of hearing a pair of 4350's that had 2231's with 2235 recone kits installed. They were in a normal sized Long Island house in the livingroom. Needless to say the lowend was impressive.

Rob

[Chas]

Based on previously using two pairs of 2235 cone kitted 2231's versus two single 2245's they are really all super. Someone (maybe it was Bo?) once posted here that the 2245 "couples LF with the room like nothing else" or words to that effect, - I would wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment .

However, the four fifteens had some unique qualities too. Bear in mind that box tuning, damping material in the box, location in the room, etc. were all different.

[boputnam]

I know the ferrites measure with lower harmonic distortion, but they just dont sound as good(to my ears).

I can't speak to that, but...

I've got 2245H's in the 4345. These 2245H's are only about two-years old. They continue to impress me, exhibiting all the characteristics lauded on them by both their designers and by informed members, here.

Being new, these 2245H's did take a long time to "break in". Sure, they worked fine at the start, but their responsiveness and tonality have only improved with time. I haven't measured/quantified the change (RTA or Smaart, for instance) but there is less resonance now, and the cabinets are not moved over the period.

Every single time I listen, I am impressed with their ability to faithfully reproduce sound over their operating range, low or high power, and never lack for "impact" or ability to handle transients. Reminder: these are operating in the 4345 cabinet, unaltered, as tuned by JBL.