Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 166 to 172 of 172

Thread: Anything bad to say against Mackenzie recone kits?

  1. #166
    Senior Member ivica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    serbia
    Posts
    1,633
    Quote Originally Posted by edgewound View Post
    I totally understand the concept of saving money to make a speaker "work". The part that really angers and frustrates the hell out of me is when the seller claims that the recone kit is "just as good as" or "the same as" the factory version or a faithful reproduction and sells the item to an unsuspecting buyer who thinks he/she is buying the OEM equivalent...when they clearly are being lied to. I think this practice is actually illegal without a disclaimer. A 2245H kit...or any other kit, for that matter...cannot possibly perform the same as or even close to OEM JBL without having Aquaplas applied to the cone in an amount that closely matches the engineering standard. Of course, this is for models that were originally produced with Aquaplas.

    What you have is an 18" woofer with a 4" edgewound, 8 ohm voice coil, and a cast aluminum frame. What you cannot call it is a JBL 2245H...because it is incomplete. Making it complete takes time and effort.

    That said...I'm glad you're satisfied with the results for the amount spent. That's an objective "value" call.
    Hi edgewound,

    I have to agree with You. especially with 2245. I have experience that even the latest JBL 2245 recone kit is fare to be 'sounding' as the original JBL 2245, from the 'golden years 2245'.
    I think that 2242 or 2226 recone kits non JBL would be more JBL "look a like".

    If talking about the drivers parts I have very good experience with MWA parts, but some of their cones has to be 'aquaplas-ed' in order to come near the old JBL sound.

    regards
    ivica

  2. #167
    Senior Member edgewound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by ivica View Post
    Hi edgewound,

    I have to agree with You. especially with 2245. I have experience that even the latest JBL 2245 recone kit is fare to be 'sounding' as the original JBL 2245, from the 'golden years 2245'.
    I think that 2242 or 2226 recone kits non JBL would be more JBL "look a like".

    If talking about the drivers parts I have very good experience with MWA parts, but some of their cones has to be 'aquaplas-ed' in order to come near the old JBL sound.

    regards
    ivica
    Right ivica,

    Many of the base parts for JBL drivers are very good. It's what one does with those parts to closely replicate how it behaves when installed in a JBL core.
    Edgewound...JBL Pro Authorized...since 1988
    Upland Loudspeaker Service, Upland, CA

  3. #168
    Member ompdiburi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    43

    le15b recone kit from sound speaker repair

    For anyone interested, received two kits this week, first thing I noticed is the external cloth surround is glued on the front of the cone, took a couple of measurements on the dimension of voice coil and look similar. Once I will be back home next week I will compare to the original NOS C8RLE15B I have and give more details. Anyone have experience with sound speaker repair kits?

    Giuliano

  4. #169
    Senior Member Rudy Kleimann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    364

    Greater moving mass could be the culprit

    Quote Originally Posted by 1audiohack View Post
    Probably not an issue in a domestic setting but most of the failures I see with non JBL kits are 10-15 rounds of the bottom of the voice coil loose and in the bottom of the motor.

    Also that real high Z at resonance as compared to all the other drivers is odd. It would be intersting to observe the "geezer" test speaker with a strobe light. I can usually tell of a coil or spider or some part of the suspension is disconnected or a diaphragm is broken via a high impeadance peak. Something isn't peachy.

    Barry.
    It seems to me that a higher mms figure, such as what a copper coil substituted for the aluminum coil would undoubtedly contribute, would result in a higher mechanical resonance... which in turn would create greater back-emf that translates to a higher Zmax at resonance. It would also explain a lower output across the frequency range, as more energy would be lost pushing that heavier moving mass...

  5. #170
    Senior Member Rudy Kleimann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    364

    2245H cone assy weight/mms spec

    Quote Originally Posted by dprice View Post
    I used one of the 2245 kits from mackenzie for the sub I built for my brother about two years ago. It did not have the aquaplas on the cone and did not appear to weigh enough to meet the JBL moving-mass spec for the 2245. I expected this from what I had read in this thread so I simply painted duratex (hillbilly aquaplas?) on to the rear of the cone and kept weighing it until I got it in the ball park. Cosmetically it is a dead ringer for my JBL 2245 in the B460. I was using a blown 2240 driver so I didn't have an old 2245 cone to use as a reference for the weight. Obviously a real JBL kit is (was?) the way to go but it wasn't in the budget for this build. Two years later the low-budget recone is working fine.

    Don
    Don, your post prompted me to pull out my salvaged 2245 cone assemblies to weigh them. All three have the rotted foam removed, but the dust cap, tinsel leads, and spiders are intact but stretched out.

    The weights are 159g, 160g, and 160g
    JBL T/S parameters specify 185g Mms
    Considering mine are missing the foam surround, 25g seems appropriate to make up the difference between my weights and JBL T/S specs.

    Has anybody here bought re-foam kits that can weigh the foam surround?


    One of these days I'll surgically remove the sunken spider on one of these and re-spider, re-foam, and re-install it in the frame.
    One of these days... At least that's what I keep telling myself

  6. #171
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Richmond Hill, Ont.
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudy Kleimann View Post
    Don, your post prompted me to pull out my salvaged 2245 cone assemblies to weigh them. All three have the rotted foam removed, but the dust cap, tinsel leads, and spiders are intact but stretched out.

    The weights are 159g, 160g, and 160g
    JBL T/S parameters specify 185g Mms
    Considering mine are missing the foam surround, 25g seems appropriate to make up the difference between my weights and JBL T/S specs.

    Has anybody here bought re-foam kits that can weigh the foam surround?


    One of these days I'll surgically remove the sunken spider on one of these and re-spider, re-foam, and re-install it in the frame.
    One of these days... At least that's what I keep telling myself
    That's good info Rudy , Thanks !

    Those figures you've posted actually represent "MMD" in the TS world.

    "MMS" includes ( along with the MMD figure ) the weight of the air load ( as it gets compressed ).



  7. #172
    Senior Member Rudy Kleimann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by Earl K View Post
    That's good info Rudy , Thanks !

    Those figures you've posted actually represent "MMD" in the TS world.

    "MMS" includes ( along with the MMD figure ) the weight of the air load ( as it gets compressed ).


    Don wanted to know cone weight, etc. to compare to recone parts from McKenzie et.al.


    Oddly, both of my JBL C8R2226 kits complete with dust caps weigh 102.5g
    The official JBL T/S Parameters datasheet specifies the 2226H MMS:98g

    My C8R2012 kit complete with dust cap weighs 31g
    JBL T/S parameters datasheet specifies a MMS:25g

    It would be interesting to know what a correct new foam 2245H surround weighs, or what a vintage C8R2245 kit complete weighs.

    Considering that a portion of the surround mass is not considered to be moving, the MMD (sic) will be slightly lower, which jives with my weights.
    MMS and Vas are calculated figures determined only through physical testing of a complete woofer, after break-in. It can be measured by increasing the cone mass a precise amount, then re-testing and calculcating how much the known mass addition changed the other T/S parameters

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for recone kits
    By MR.T. in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 06:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •