2226H with heavy cone

[Hoerninger]

Some TSP can easily be recalculated:
http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/...TS%20Paras.pdf ,page 17.
(RE, Bxl, CMS, RMS, QMS, VAS unchanged.)

Given speaker (2226):
MMS = 98 g
FS = 40 Hz
QES = 0,33
QTS = 0,31

new speaker (2226Guido)
MMSn = 139 g
FSn = 33,7 Hz
QESn = 0,39
QTSn = 0,36
____________
Peter

[4313B]

Which probably isn't what you really want. You probably want to keep that Q low ( If not then just use a W15GTi They're all over the place. )

I assume you aren't satisfied with the low end of the ME150H, 1500FE or 1500AL? The only transducer I know of that JBL has left which exhibits the bottom end of days gone by is the LE14H-3.

[Guido]

I assume you aren't satisfied with the low end of the ME150H, 1500FE or 1500AL?

No No

it's not that.

I just still looking for a 2235 substitude made with easily available JBL components.
Those 2225 cores start to get rare here as I already converted them all to 2235/2234

[GordonW]

If the driver needs to go up to 800 Hz, you may find that a mass ring may work better than aquaplas, since it will affect the high-frequency behavior of the cone less.

IIRC, this is why JBL went to mass rings on the 2235 instead of heavy cones... better HF behavior...

And, IME, I wouldn't be too concerned with a Qts of .36. That's not too high... especially considering that the Qes is still under .4, also. If it was over .4, I'd be starting to get a bit concerned. A lot of very good speakers have had Qts and Qes figures in the .3 to .4 range...

Regards,
Gordon.

[4313B]

If the driver needs to go up to 800 Hz, you may find that a mass ring may work better than aquaplas, since it will affect the high-frequency behavior of the cone less.

Plus it takes a ton of the stuff to get any kind of decent mass on large cones. I'm on my third coat now on a 2235H and I'm still 10 grams shy. The cone stiffens up real nice though.

IIRC, this is why JBL went to mass rings on the 2235 instead of heavy cones... better HF behavior...

The aquaplas tends to flatten out the response curve which may or may not be what someone desires in the design.

[GordonW]

The aquaplas tends to flatten out the response curve which may or may not be what someone desires in the design.

From what I've seen, the aquaplas flattens out the response, but the decay time (as indicated by the waterfall plot) gets a little longer, before things totally settle down. More stored energy in the extra cone mass (with more opportunity to move in "random" directions, compared to a pretty-much-rigidly-fixed mass ring). The decay drops faster at the beginning, but the "tail" is longer before it completely goes away (it's more "squished" downward right after the impulse, and outward from t=0, on the plot)

Plus, extra stiffness can result in "ringing" modes, where there weren't any before. Fortunately, the extra damping of the aquaplas tends to absorb a lot of these, so it's not as much of a problem as it would be, say, if you used something like epoxy coating... but with any stiffening agent, you get some effect like this.

So yes... it's a trade-off... bandwidth and rise/fall time vs. damping and response flatness...

Regards,
Gordon.