same or different ?

[midlife]

Are the crossovers for 4301s and L19/L19a the same power handling and frequency xover? thanks

[midlife]

Are the crossovers for 4301s and L19/L19a the same power handling and frequency xover? thanks

Help! I looked it up on the matrix & searached the library and could only find the L19 & A specs

[4313B]

I posted them years ago. I don't have time to look them up again right now.

[louped garouv]

Help! I looked it up on the matrix & searached the library and could only find the L19 & A specs

discussion and links to 4301 network...
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...ad.php?t=15529



and a more generalized 'google' search based on "4301 network" on www.audioheritage.org

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&a...es&safe=active


good luck, and happy reading.

[midlife]

Thanks! I have noticed according to the specs each of the three (L19, L19a, 4301) have different power handling capabilities. Is this due to the drivers or the xovers? I have a diy project that i would be using one of the above listed xovers and do not quite understand if its electronics or drivers that determine the power handling.

[midlife]

Thanks! I have noticed according to the specs each of the three (L19, L19a, 4301) have different power handling capabilities. Is this due to the drivers or the xovers? I have a diy project that i would be using one of the above listed xovers and do not quite understand if its electronics or drivers that determine the power handling.

One more question please ^^^

[louped garouv]

patience is your friend....

sometimes it takes folks (with the right skill set) awhile to get online

[midlife]

4301 and 4301 were intended for professional use and rated in conservative
terms at 15w continuous -sine wave-.

L19 Tech Sheet shows 35w continuous -program-, which is intentionally a
different measure ... inviting comparison of this consumer product with
seemingly similarly rated competition.

L19A Tech Sheet shows 100w, with no further information about what that
spec might mean or how it was determined... perhaps indicating that it
would be reasonable to use amplifiers capable of up to 100w output with
this product, not that it could absorb this level of power long-term (a
-guess- on my part).

As confusing as that might be, the power handling -spec- definition is what
changed..., not the ability of the constituent parts to handle more or less
power.

I want to use one of the three above xovers for a diy two way spkr project. I would like to have that xover which has the higher wattage capacity. Was the JBL specs a marketing issue or do the xovers actually have different watt capacities or is it the drivers of those models that determines the wattage rating?

[grumpy]

I concede defeat. Please delete the post containing my reply.

[midlife]

I concede defeat. Please delete the post containing my reply.

Grumpy, don't be so grumpy, thought you might want to render just a little bit more info...at any rate I get your point

[4313B]

The power ratings of these particular loudspeakers are based on the drivers. The newer SFG ferrite woofers handled a bit more power due to the larger heat sink as well as improved adhesives.

Upon inspection of the networks one can see that the conjugate resistor has a power rating of 10 W. The high pass 10285 L-Pad is the smallest version and has a nominal power rating of 15 W. It is available here from Parts Express - http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=260-250

I personally use the "better" JBL 58450 L-Pad available here http://www.parts-express.com/pe/show...number=260-255

The 3101 used a slightly smaller 16.5 uF capacitor in the conjugate. This will affect the knee of the curve of the low pass filter. One would probably be hard pressed to hear the difference between it and the 18 uF. If I remember correctly this was simply because JBL moved from using the wax can 16.5 uF capacitor to an electrolytic 18 uF capacitor.