2008 Poject - 4435's?

[Nordwall]

Happy Holidays to everyone,

I have been planning a speaker project for quite some time now and I think I have a good portion of the needed effects . I would like to build a "quasi-set" of 4435's, but build the low frequency box separately because of limited space. I suppose a 4430 + B380 idea? I'll list all that I have at my disposal and let you wisemen guide me.

(2) 2425H- no horns however(2344?)
(2) 2404H- new
(6) 2235H- 15"
(2) 2405 slot tweeters
(2) 2204H 12"

I do not have any crossover networks.
Thanks
CJN

[Nordwall]

I will try and be more specific as to what I am after.

For those of you who had or have experience with these particular horns which would you prefer to use in a custom setup? (2404 or 2425h w/2344)

What are the benefits of one over the other?

Thanks

[Zilch]

Build 4430s, they're a proven design and a slam dunk.

Then, build something else and compare the result....

[readswift]

Thats the question I'm after . So the larger moving mass of the 2235 isnt really a problem ? The sensitivity isnt that much more... I also want to use the P.audio knock off horn , which comp driver to choose ? 2452 or 2431 ?
Thanks , and all the best!!

Edit: I just remember , the listed THD spec of the 4435 is an order of magnitude better than the 4430's in the sub bass region. Is that an euphonic distortion ? :P

[Zilch]

We've studied the P-Audio horn. Use "Search" to find the info here. It's a cosmetic knockoff only, not an acoustic one. Use PT waveguides if you want to move up to the 3" or 4" diaphragm drivers, and it's the "-SL version of the 2452H driver that works for HF extension. That info's posted here also.

You'll have to remove the mass rings from 2235Hs to make 2234Hs out of them to do the dual-woof thing.

That's why I said build 4430s as baseline. You'll still have enough 2235Hs to modify and make the comparison.

[readswift]

thanks for the detailed response , I already read all related posts in the quick & dirty thread . I saw the highest octave response of the p.audio is jagged off axis . So there isn't really a way around the 2344's ...

[readswift]

http://www.prodigy-pro.com/forum/vie...r=asc&start=15

really i don know anymore if i want those 35's ...

[Nordwall]

I haven't checked in a couple of days and appreciate your response (Zilch). However, as I do not own the horn lenses for the 2425 drivers, are the 2404's a suitable swap in this case? Other than EBAY is there a place anybody could recommend in finding 2344 lenses?

[Zilch]

However, as I do not own the horn lenses for the 2425 drivers, are the 2404's a suitable swap in this case?

No, not if you're building 4430s. 2404 is a small UHF driver.

2342 will make a nice two-way with the same dispersion characteristics, but it's not 4430, either.

Other than EBAY is there a place anybody could recommend in finding 2344 lenses?

Post a want ad in the Marketplace forum here. You may get lucky like another member did recently....

[remusr]

readswift - I find my 4435's bass far superior to that of my 4430's, which are pretty capable on their own right. The 4435's are pretty exceptional in fact. I can't say I followed your pre-distortion etc link very well though!

My problem with my 443x's is their inability to clearly distinguish individual instruments - they sound very pleasant in the upper ranges but kind of smeared, if you know what I mean. Totally different than the articulation of my 4345's or even L300's. I have not figured the problem out but they do have a moderately complex crossover that electronically augments mid-hi & hi range response but that is limited to about 16kHz. Maybe it introduces some phase problems or maybe the loss of the highest frequency overtones may be the cause of the smearing. Or it may be due to using a relatively large driver as the 1.75" 2425H above the typical 8000Hz crossover. Don't know. All (4) 2425H's seem to be working ok although I have not disassembled them, only checked DCR's in the 6-6.3 range. LPads are fine too.
A side note - some owners on this site have commented on setup being a challenge in order to get good imaging due to the very wide 100x100 dispersion of the 2344's. I did not find that an issue but don't think one could realistically expect imaging to be the equal of the better modern speakers with all the work that has gone into that aspect since these were designed.

[readswift]

thank you very much, I ve been thinking about specifically the THD distortion numbers , and that link seems to confirm that the 4 times lower number on the 4435 might be not that "euphonically" pleasing versus the higher output, as far I get it . I think this is somewhat related to that story when Harman wanted to market their slew rate numbers on new line of amplifiers , and the test group cannot really distinguish inbetween crapola and high slew amplifiers. It turns out that only asymetric slew rate limitation is obviously audible , our ear is calibrated that way. I ran both the 4430 and 35 enclosures since in winISD the 4435 exhibits at least a better group delay, and the 2235h has a frequency transfer - one easily falls in love with So it looks to me, the real difference is effectively - cone area and the resulting higher output . What is not a problem , I have THICK walls
Talkin about the upper frequencies, I plan to try out new sort of transducers, I hope a 96 dB / 1w ribbon-like AMT ( air motion transformer, Oskar Heil fame) hits the market , that can go down to 4-500 Hz, not impossible, there are at least 2 of those on market already, without the high sensitivity number tho. Sadly neither sold seperately. One can look at Beyma TPL - 150 , if they use the foam suspension trick inside, the 1khz crossover can be trustworthy.

[Zilch]

The 2344(A)'s wide dispersion with uniform power response generates "ambience," and the reflections must be controlled if you don't want it.

The major difference appears to be in the vertical; I can't guess how to deal with that, actually, other than a high ceiling and carpeted floor:

http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/2405.pdf

[readswift]

somewhat related I think, Earl Geddes had this comment:
"A quick thought will show that the narrower the directivity the more the particular influence of early refelctions from the room is minimized and the greater the later reflected energy is maximized by proper choice of room absorption (i.e. almost nothing behind the listener, but dead behind the speakers - Yea, I know that this is the exact opposit of many peoples recomendations)."

I think the wide dispersion helps in studio enviroment where a wide mixing desk is there with 60+ channels.