Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: 2245 sounds better than 2231?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    long beach, new york
    Posts
    32

    2245 sounds better than 2231?

    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

  2. #2
    Dang. Amateur speakerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,610
    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

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    long beach, new york
    Posts
    32
    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

  4. #4
    Dang. Amateur speakerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,610
    Quote Originally Posted by rich carnese View Post
    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

  5. #5
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,193
    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

  6. #6
    Senior Señor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    7,009
    Quote Originally Posted by rich carnese View Post
    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.
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,128
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member soundboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    211
    I have two 2245H's in different systems with upgraded BX63A crossovers. I have owned 2235H's as well....both in home situations. The 2245H is untouchable below 60-80hz....period. The 2235H is a nice driver, it covers the same exact range in a correct box....but it just doesn't have the ease and naturalness in the "shake the floor" region. It blends perfectly with 10" woofers, as well....it is not "slow" by any means...It also takes at least an 8 foot box compared to the 5 foot of the 2235. I have a white backed version from the early 1980's, and a newer version from the mid 90's....can't really tell any difference...but they are in different rooms/systems.

  9. #9
    On Holidays Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,379
    You may also want to compare and discuss the 2235H without the mass ring (2234H)...an option that some JBL engineers prefer. Either eq the low end you use (2) like in the 4435 for superb low end. In several respects this is a better arrangement than the 2245H.

    If you plan to use the 2235H above 300hz this variation is definately a consideration. ie 4435.

    A WMHMW arrangement using 2234H as an MTM tower version of the 4345 would be very interesting. Westlake as I recall had some designs like this.

    The 2245 appears problematic for some who are attempting to marry it with a midrange driver. I think a lot of that comes down to having fresh recones, the correct box tuning and biamping with the exact voltage drives. The 2245 is also more critical of placement with wall boundary effects and this makes subjective comparisons difficult.

    Ian

  10. #10
    J.A.F.S.
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Back in the audio lab.
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    You may also want to compare and discuss the 2235H without the mass ring (2234H)...an option that some JBL engineers prefer. Either eq the low end you use (2) like in the 4435 for superb low end. In several respects this is a better arrangement than the 2245H.

    If you plan to use the 2235H above 300hz this variation is definately a consideration. ie 4435.

    A WMHMW arrangement using 2234H as an MTM tower version of the 4345 would be very interesting. Westlake as I recall had some designs like this.

    The 2245 appears problematic for some who are attempting to marry it with a midrange driver. I think a lot of that comes down to having fresh recones, the correct box tuning and biamping with the exact voltage drives. The 2245 is also more critical of placement with wall boundary effects and this makes subjective comparisons difficult.

    Ian
    Ian - is it a real pain to remove the mass ring from the 2235H? Would its removal give any extra response on the top end of its spectrum?
    Amazed I'm still alive!
    Tim

  11. #11
    On Holidays Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,379
    My suggestion was more towards getting a pair or 4 spare baskets and reconing as 2234's

    I would not attempt to remove the rings on the 2235H.

    Ian

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    long beach, new york
    Posts
    32
    My "project" speaker is actually a relatively slim profile with a Urei 803 coaxial driver(in seperate sub enclosure)used from 90hz up(an LE85 is mounted on the 803).
    I have 2231A's mounted side firing but front ported. The 803 will be in about 1 cu ft internal vol. Does anyone think I should port the 803, since I'm only using it down to 90hz?
    R

  13. #13
    JBL 4645
    Guest
    My JBL 4645 is parked near very close to my new Toshiba CRT 4:3 and I’m very surprised its not buggering the colour up seeing the magnet is very large and none shielded unlike the one of the JBL Control 5 that is setting right on top of the CRT.

    Low frequencies around the 80Hz to 160Hz tend to send visible waving lines travailing down the screen this clearly shows up on the CRT, but only at high sound pressure levels.

    Ideally the loudspeaker shouldn’t even be touching the TV enclosure at all. Instead it should have its own platform that is raised above it to reduce buzzing rattling of the TV enclosure where it tends to sound like audible distortion that is coming from the loudspeaker, when in fact it enclosure s coming directly from the TV enclosure.

  14. #14
    On Holidays Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,379
    I played around with cabinet positioning over the weekend.

    Medium to small rooms are going to be problematic for these larger system.

    You definately need the horn at ear height and for best bass clarity the woofer needs to be off the floor (6 inches) otherwise resort to EQ.(2245 woofer )

    Similarly I have had good and bad results with the 300 hz "crossover thing" and it depends more on where the box relative to a theoretical or idealised model of the crossover point. Unfortunately 300 hz is a troublesome wavelength when it comes to typical home listening rooms. The resulting peaks or dips can vary all over the place.

    As mentioned above the best and cleanest results are with the system off the floor in my mid sized room (6 inches). This clears the mid fog many blame on the balance of the mid / wofoer and crossover point.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lund, Sweden
    Posts
    450
    I have 4 2245h to my Ht and i´m very pleased with them.

    mats

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2245 in B460 enclosure
    By opimax in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-26-2007, 06:50 AM
  2. Replacing 2231 in 4333 with 2235
    By speakerdave in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-08-2006, 09:05 AM
  3. 2245 cone questions
    By Phil Jeffery in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-09-2003, 07:02 AM
  4. 2235 and 2245
    By Niklas Nord in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-24-2003, 01:22 PM
  5. JBL 2245 and Passive Radiator
    By Niklas Nord in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-29-2003, 05:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •