I've listened to both, but the 2344 only briefly. The 2370 is definitely a little rough, hence the desire for tweaking.Originally Posted by Robh3606
Maybe but I doubt it. Right out of the box the 2344 sounds better. Are you just looking at spec sheets or have you actually listened to both of them?? All of those early diffraction horns are a bit rough it goes with the territory. Geedes Suma is essentially a modernized 4430.
Rob
A dedicated mid driver like 2223H would probably sound better and allow a higher crossover point to the 2426.
Mike Scott in SJ, CA
Drive 'em to the Xmax!
Is it posible you mean: a 2123 - 10" driver?
Scotty.
ps. The SR4735 and other variants use a 2118/2119 or some other 8" driver, I recall.
One step above: "Two Tin Cans and a String!"
Longtime Alaskan Low-Fi Guy - E=MC² ±3db
I seriously doubt it too. I suspect he hasnt listened. 4430 is one of the most highly thought of monitors, nothing with 2370 ever came close from the factory. IMHE, anyway.Maybe but I doubt it. Right out of the box the 2344 sounds better. Are you just looking at spec sheets or have you actually listened to both of them?? All of those early diffraction horns are a bit rough it goes with the territory. Geedes Suma is essentially a modernized 4430.
Rob
2370 might be easier to impliment, 2344 requiring special compensation, from the 4430 crossover. I believe Zilch's old "4430 Help" thread has the BOM for a clone crossover.
Russellc
Well, I already said I had heard them only briefly. It seems as though people are focused on the 2370 here as it comes. I'm not saying that "as it comes" is acceptable. The small tweaking I've done around the mouth dramatically improved this horn. This was simply 1/4" F11 felt around the edges of the mouth.
Simplifying the complexities of horn design is a slippery slope, but one of the major differences in these horns (apart from the coverage pattern) is the smoother mouth termination on the 2344, which is likely a contributor to the smoother, more laid-back sound I noted with this horn. There's no reason that the 2370 can't be significantly improved in this regard. The diffraction throat is problematic in both horns, if you're going to put any weight in the geddes work.
Here is a thread where some very basic, Geddes-principled, tweaks were applied to a terrible set of horns, to the effect of fairly dramatic improvement.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...-fix-horn.html
One could apply the edge terminations to the straighter parts of the 2344 profile as well, or apply the throat damping, or both, however, it seems that the dramatically more consistent polars make the 2370 a better 'start' platform.
That would probabely defeat the whole constant directivity capabilities of the 2344, as it is based on diffraction on the horisontal plan.
The polars of the 2344 are extremely consistant, much more than oblate spheroidals waveguides for example! Diffraction might have sonic defaults, but it is a very powerfull tool to control directivity.
It's the vertical section I'm discussing, and the diffraction that largely drives the dispersion is mostly the throat slot
Not even close. Check the 2344 datasheet.
http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...2344/page3.jpg
Now compare to a 2370
http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...2370/page4.jpg
That's a dramatically better performer, in this respect, and a geddes style waveguide is better still
Look at the polar plots.
2344
http://lansingheritage.org/images/jb...2344/page2.jpg
2370
http://lansingheritage.org/images/jb...2370/page2.jpg
http://lansingheritage.org/images/jb...2370/page3.jpg
The horizontal directivity is the most critical one. The vertical will be messed up by the woofer/horn offset around the crossover anyway.
What we can certainly see is that the 2370 is *not* constant directivity in the horizontal plan and adding foam or rouding edges will do nothing about that.Not even close. Check the 2344 datasheet.
http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...2344/page3.jpg
Now compare to a 2370
http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...2370/page4.jpg
That's a dramatically better performer, in this respect, and a geddes style waveguide is better still
--
EDIT: they seem to have reversed horizontals and verticals here, compared to the polar plots. So the device actually is constant directivity on the horizontal plan, but not on the vertical one.
--
Tweaking these horns does little sense: They rely on diffraction to achieve their directivity control.
Thanks to diffraction the 2344 manages to control his directivity on a really impressive bandwidth given its size: down to 800Hz and up to 16khz, which is a performance a waveguide of this size will never approach (this would typically achieve good control over the 1200hz-12khz range)
If you dislike diffraction, which I can fully understand, why not use waveguides (Geddes or PT style) to start with?
The problem in the 2344 is not the bandwidth, but that the response is highly volatile across the polars, with the treble tending to remain largely constant while the mid is sucked out, and so you wind up with highs and lows that are not attenuated off-axis, and mids that are. This extremely wide treble dispersion also would tend to increase room reflections in these frequencies that are critical to timing and spatial cues. Part of the advantage of a controlled directivity speaker is to reduce room interaction.
The PT is an improvement (as is an XT1086, or other "modern" diffraction horns), and the geddes better still. I'm focused on the 2370 because I'm thinking of commonly available and inexpensive horns to work (this is available in a generic, and goes much lower than the inexpensive PT waveguide) with as a platform for simple modification to a higher level of performance. The diffraction slot in the throat will operate still with the foam in place, as a direct path will tend to see very little attenuation from the foam type recommended, where the "HOMs" (I'm inclined to think Earl's understanding is accurate about this poorly-documented phenomenon) would encounter the foam many times, increasing the loss. So my theory is that the diffraction would take place largely unfettered, while the byproducts of it would be attenuated.
The roundovers, on a horn used within proper loading bandwidth, won't have much effect within the intended coverage area. What they will tend to do is reduce anomalies far off-axis, and reduce the secondary source effect of the mouth termination.
So, indeed, my thought path is pretty specific here. The 2370 is nice in that it's well-controlled, goes low, is available and inexpensive.
I am, for what it's worth, working on a set of OS waveguides. I'm just still figuring out the driver mounting.
Exactly. Didn't get back in time to edit, thanks for correcting that!
Mike Scott in SJ, CA
Drive 'em to the Xmax!
Is it possible to recone the LE10H with 2121, 2122 or 2123 conekits?
Will match as a mid with 2226h + 2426 + 2405?
Should be a good four-way system?
Yes, I belive the basket is the same. A 2123 - 10" fits in a D110, E110, k110 basket.
But...
if you're going to this extent of a 2226 woof, 2123 lo-mid, 2426/2170 mid-hi, 2405 slot UHF...
Then dump the 2226 for a 2235 15" or 2245 18" foam surround woofer!!!
I am getting confused here on what your purpose for this speaker? Is it pro PA, or Home Hi-Fi? You started with a simple question of a two-way PA box, and now are talking about a potential 4-way project.
I am just sayin'
The 2235 15" woofer and 2425/2426 on the 2344 horn, (or maybe even the same 2344 horn and 2416 driver out of the SR4722) seems like a real solid combination when using the crossover of the 4430 studio monitor.
(edit: I am considering doing this exact same configuration with my 4722's, that is using the 2344 horn for a 4430 clone project>)
Good luck and tell us how this turns out.
Scotty.
One step above: "Two Tin Cans and a String!"
Longtime Alaskan Low-Fi Guy - E=MC² ±3db
Thanks for your help, Scotty.
I´m not sure what I want. I only know that I wish a definitive system for home Hi-Fi with PA or Hi-Fi drivers.
First, I thought about a simply two or three ways, but I realized that I have an extra pair of LE10H that I will have to recone for sure.
So, I would go for a 21xx conekits and to use them in the system.
It´s hard to find a good pair of 2235h so, I´m thinking the 2226h because they are pretty easy to find brand new.
Anyway, what is the sonical difference between them? why is 2235h better than 2226h?
B.R.
I have been doing the same as you decsribe for years, using pro audio drivers for hi-fi, but through the advice I have found here on LH, I have seen the "light" and now use the JBL monitor drivers the way they were intended, and use the PA pro drivers for the sound rigs I have built and installed.
I am not in business to install commercial sound systems in buildings, arenas or houses of worship. I have many different JBL drivers and assorted pieces and parts that I have cobbled together to make a pretty good sounding and behaving rig.
I am not sure what cone kits are still available for the 10" frame, except the 2123 which has been used in many boxes. When you start looking at the many options in home hi-fi configurations offered here, you may see the same recurring theme I did, which was a solid 5 cubic foot woofer cabinet such as the 4507 with a 2235 tuned at 27 hz. Then to a 10" as low-mid duty to cover the 250 - 1200 area, then into a 1" or 1.5" compression driver on the right horn that can go all of the way up to 20Khz, and if not, add a 2405 slot tweeter at 8-10Kz and let it run upto the wavelength of daylight. Oh wait, that is the 4345!
I also tryed a popular threeway approach using my L200b cabinet as the woofer with its "vintage" 136 drivers as the lows, then into a 2441/2309/2310 horn combo, and into a slot tweeter. I really like this configuration in my workshop space, and have a double 18" sub underneath it all, just in case.
I am currently looking for a pair of 2226's for a project here at the nightclub, and if somehow reasonable, would trade you a pair of fresh coned 2235's for your project. I see distance and import/export duties might be difficult to overcome, though.
Lastly, I believe the 2226 is a very good low frequency driver for pro audio, but don't see it as a viable woofer in home hi-fi. The compliance is stiff and made for a wallop of current applied. The 2235 is foam surrounded and highly compliant an goes lower, easier. It is the cornerstone for some of JBL's most popular designs, from what I can tell from the information offered here and by many.
If you choose to: Nail down the style of speaker you want. Home hi-fi or pro PA, they are two different animals. We'll still be here when you start putting it all together. Use the search tab at the top, read, read, and read some more. I have found allot of very useful info here.
Good luck!
Scotty.
One step above: "Two Tin Cans and a String!"
Longtime Alaskan Low-Fi Guy - E=MC² ±3db
The best thing you can do is pick one and go for it. I have cloned a couple of JBL speakers and if you are looking at a heritage large format 4 way I would go for either a 4344 or a 4345. I went with 4344's because size was an issue. Both represent the best and the last of their kind before the switch to the 4430/4435. If you want a CD horn system go with the 4430.I´m not sure what I want.
You don't need to find 2235's as long as you can get fresh recone kits. Use a 2225 frames as cores and drop in 2235 kits. That is the best route as you know up front you have essentally brand new drivers.It´s hard to find a good pair of 2235h
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
