My New Westlakes

[boputnam]

Very good point! I was simply basing my comment on the limitations of the 2122H... a slightly higher crossover could help it out, but you are spot on... every crossover between ~300Hz and 10KHz is a potential problem.

I admit to being affected by my SR experiences. So often, I am tweaking the vocal mic inputs right in-and-around 400Hz either for slightly more body/warmth or to impart less room resonance from those inputs (the old "cut it out at the source" mantra...). SR mains commonly go down to approx 100Hz, or lower, so there are no undue anomalies there from any crossover. But, as I posted that I postulated the difficulties in "picking" the optimum crossover point at the upper-end of the midrange band pass. That is not trivial, either. Having said that, using something like the TD-2001/2 for the HF largely alleviates the need for a UHF driver, although I know you have found adding one did augment the extreme upper end, nicely.

Like its smaller 8-inch cousin the 112/2108, the 10-inch 2122 can be used all the way down in its small subenclosure. JBL used the 112/2108 down to ~ 70 Hz in the L212 and ~ 400 Hz in the 4315. As previously pointed out by Bo JBL used the 2122 down to ~ 290 Hz in the 4344/4345.

The biggest limitations of the driver are its short voice coil resulting in a very small xMax based on distortion as opposed to mechanical constraints (xMech) and its foam surround. Under high drive levels the higher crossover frequencies would probably be preferred.

The 2122H is an incredibly important transducer, deployed properly, that's for sure. It covers a very important range, but must not be overdriven...

[speakerdave]

. . . . The 2122H is an incredibly important transducer, deployed properly, that's for sure. It covers a very important range, but must not be overdriven...

Yeah, nice driver. I do get curious from time to time how much lower it can be used, but 2 octaves is a good range and I would think using it lower would probably compromise the exquisite midrange for which it is valued.

David

[Ken Pachkowsky]

Hi all

Westlake notified me today that the 128H-1 will be used on my HR-7 system rather than the Focal's.

Any opinions on this change?

Ken

[4313B]

Yeah, nice driver. I do get curious from time to time how much lower it can be used, but 2 octaves is a good range and I would think using it lower would probably compromise the exquisite midrange for which it is valued.

Like I've mentioned many times before, it functions the same way as the 8-inch 112/2108. JBL used the 112/2108 down to ~ 70 Hz in the L212 and down to ~ 400 Hz in the 4315. Neither the 2121 or 2123 function the same way. They are both different from the 2122. The 2121 is most definitely an obsoleted design. The 2123 is nice.

Hi all

Westlake notified me today that the 128H-1 will be used on my HR-7 system rather than the Focal's.

Any opinions on this change?

Ken

I don't know what an HR-7 is. I do know that the 128H-1 is a 29 year old transducer design.

[Allanvh5150]

I don't know what an HR-7 is. I do know that the 128H-1 is a 29 year old transducer design.

It may be a 29 year old design, probably older if you take when JBL started drawing it up, but oh oh oh, what a design. I have 4 of them and I couldnt be happier. I am sure that JBL think that to by still supporting them. I like the white ones better.

[Ken Pachkowsky]

I don't know what an HR-7 is. I do know that the 128H-1 is a 29 year old transducer design.

My avitar is the HR-7

Ken

[4313B]

My avitar is the HR-7

Ken

So

JBL 128H-1's x2
JBL 2122H
TAD 2001
JBL 2403

It should be fun. I'm anxious to hear what you think about dual 128H-1's compared to your old 2245H's.

It may be a 29 year old design, probably older if you take when JBL started drawing it up, but oh oh oh, what a design. I have 4 of them and I couldnt be happier. I am sure that JBL think that to by still supporting them. I like the white ones better.

Yeah, they worked just fine in the 120Ti.

128H-1

120Ti

I am sure that JBL think that to by still supporting them.

Honestly? I suspect that if your life depended on you finding at least five people at JBL who even knew what a 128H-1 was you would perish. They seem hard pressed to keep up on current product.

[Allanvh5150]

Honestly? I suspect that if your life depended on you finding at least five people at JBL who even knew what a 128H-1 was you would perish. They seem hard pressed to keep up on current product.

It seems to be a sign of the time that we live in...

[Ken Pachkowsky]

So

JBL 128H-1's x2
JBL 2122H
TAD 2001
JBL 2403

It should be fun. I'm anxious to hear what you think about dual 128H-1's compared to your old 2245H's.

Yes, thats the driver compliment. I am definately excited to hear them.

Ken

[Ken Pachkowsky]

Ok, here we go......the new Westlakes are crated and ready for shipping

I will keep you posted. I plan on taking a series of photos from un-crating to setup.

I have only one Deqx at the moment.....need two for a 4-way......I may try a Xilica XD series.....uses FIR filters like the Deqx but is a 4-way. Anyone out there tried one?

I hear the DBX 4800T is pretty good as well?

Ken

[boputnam]

I hear the DBX 4800T is pretty good as well?

Yes, you can believe what you hear - it is very good.

However, don't confuse applications - you are seeking penultimate refinement in an audiophile setting. dbx is geared for SR stuff - it is really good for that and therefore also has capabilities you may not fully need. It would sound fine, surely, but there might be better offerings (at significantly higher cost) for your setting.

"If" you go the SR route, I'd suggest you also consider the xta DP448 line. The computer interface - and PEQ power - is phenomenal and they sound amazing, but again, I think this might also be beyond what you need, and is intended for a different application (FWIW, I have a host of xta's and none of them are in the home, yet...).

2¢

[Titanium Dome]

Since getting the Synthesis® equipment, I've been taking a crash course in BSS Audio gear. Of course, I'm no boputnam (and never will be experience-wise), but the Omnidrive FDS-366T looks like it's worth a gander, Ken. It's *only* about $3200.

(Compared to the $11k+ of the SDEC4000 combo, it seems reasonable, and it's in the DBX 4800T pricing ballpark.)

[Ken Pachkowsky]

Yes, you can believe what you hear - it is very good.

However, don't confuse applications - you are seeking penultimate refinement in an audiophile setting. dbx is geared for SR stuff
"If" you go the SR route, I'd suggest you also consider the xta DP448 line. The computer interface - and PEQ power - is phenomenal and they sound amazing, but again, I think this might also be beyond what you need, and is intended for a different application (FWIW, I have a host of xta's and none of them are in the home, yet...).

2¢

Point taken Bo

I have another option........A Westlake HRX....if I can get the values sorted out for the filters. I have a pretty good selection of Polycarbonate 1% tol caps which are required for that crossover.

Sure would be nice not to have to buy another Deqx......although Duh!, I am half way there. and its a great solution after you learn how to tweek it all.

I am pretty excited to hear these.....hope I am not dissapointed.

PS: Me and a partner are opening a Home Theater store here in San Jose del Cabo. We will be using some Westlake products. Going to start off with only one demo room because of the times.....but hope to expand that when things turn around. Widget, you can expect a call for some product advice.

Ken

[Ken Pachkowsky]

Since getting the Synthesis® equipment, I've been taking a crash course in BSS Audio gear. Of course, I'm no boputnam (and never will be experience-wise), but the Omnidrive FDS-366T looks like it's worth a gander, Ken. It's *only* about $3200.

(Compared to the $11k+ of the SDEC4000 combo, it seems reasonable, and it's in the DBX 4800T pricing ballpark.)

Yo Domester

Yes, and the KT products are prolly worth a look as well.

Ken

[boputnam]

...the Omnidrive FDS-366T looks like it's worth a gander, Ken.

Yup - they're mighty fine. They lack the number of I/O filters of their peers, but still very good. The BSS offerings have an odd topology - they offer a maximum number of filters, so if you use a bunch on the outputs (say, to tune a specific box) you will have only a few remaining to use on the inputs to tune to the room. Kinda weird (to me)...

Yes, and the KT products are prolly worth a look as well.

+1. I've had the DN9848 for many years. It is uber powerful, and very, very good sounding - right on-par with the xta stuff (same design team, from what I understand). I never have been able to get the 9848 to link with my laptop - the xta did it right away. FWIW.

Of course, I'm no boputnam (and never will be experience-wise)...

Aw, shucks, Doug - that's just means I've made plenty more mistakes than you!