Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Jbl 4350a 2231a vs 2235 recone sound quality

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Geelong, Australia
    Posts
    138

    Jbl 4350a 2231a vs 2235 recone sound quality

    Hi all

    Does anyone have experience in a listening session with regards to JBL 2231a drivers in a pair of 4350's original compared to a new 2235 recone in 2231a baskets' in jbl 4350.:

    I have bought some 4350's for a project and as the original recone kits for 2231a are no longer available. I have read some threads here, but just want as much info before I decide to go ahead...... Thanx !!!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    wirral UK
    Posts
    673
    Not in those monitors but TMA1's, in all honesty the difference is minimal to the point of being able to put it down to 'new'. The likelihood the 2231a's were optimal before recone is moot.The 2235 cone employs an improved 'progressive spider' so...
    Same or better sound.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Geelong, Australia
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by cooky1257 View Post
    Not in those monitors but TMA1's, in all honesty the difference is minimal to the point of being able to put it down to 'new'. The likelihood the 2231a's were optimal before recone is moot.The 2235 cone employs an improved 'progressive spider' so...
    Same or better sound.
    Thanx for your thoughts, I was thinking along the same lines. I know the 2235 can handle more power, but I have read on the forum that the spiders are rated on stiffness and then can change the sound...my thoughts are I maybe will refoam them and then do a listening session with 2231a in and then I have 4 2235h with new recone kits. I will post the outcome in the coming months

  4. #4
    Dang. Amateur speakerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,602
    Not in that speaker, but I did try some 2235H's in my 4333a's when I had them just to see what would happen. The improvement in bass was not subtle and was immediately apparent. However, in that speaker my opinion was that the 2235 did not tie in well with the crossover(at 800 Hz) and midrange horn and because of that was a no go. Since the 4350 is biamp only and crossed over at 300 I would not see any problem at all, and you will be the beneficiary of the improved bass. Note, though, I was using the actual 2235H,
    not a 2235-loaded Alnico frame.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Geelong, Australia
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by speakerdave View Post
    Not in that speaker, but I did try some 2235H's in my 4333a's when I had them just to see what would happen. The improvement in bass was not subtle and was immediately apparent. However, in that speaker my opinion was that the 2235 did not tie in well with the crossover(at 800 Hz) and midrange horn and because of that was a no go. Since the 4350 is biamp only and crossed over at 300 I would not see any problem at all, and you will be the beneficiary of the improved bass. Note, though, I was using the actual 2235H,
    not a 2235-loaded Alnico frame.
    Thanx for the advice, sounds wise. I have four 2235h with full recones that I will try
    Am looking forward to the listening session. Thanx again !!!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Land of Sunshine
    Posts
    409
    Hi Joe, what was the outcome of using 2235 in 4350?

    thanks.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Geelong, Australia
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by ngccglp View Post
    Hi Joe, what was the outcome of using 2235 in 4350?

    thanks.
    Hi never got around to trying them in the 4350ís. I just used the 2231a drivers, it seemed to work well with the 50ís. To me the Alnico magnet drivers sound a slight warm romantic sound which I liked in the 50ís.

    joe.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    490
    I would definitely change to 2235ís. And an upgrade xover would optimize all!

    The 2235ís is the best 15Ē! In my own opinion....

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Land of Sunshine
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeNelis View Post
    Hi never got around to trying them in the 4350ís. I just used the 2231a drivers, it seemed to work well with the 50ís. To me the Alnico magnet drivers sound a slight warm romantic sound which I liked in the 50ís.

    joe.
    Thanks Joe. I do agree the 2231A sounds great. Recently I went to listen to some of the modern speakers and begin wondering if the 2235s would tighten up the bass presentation and give me some of that modern bass sound.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Land of Sunshine
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Challenger604 View Post
    I would definitely change to 2235ís. And an upgrade xover would optimize all!

    The 2235ís is the best 15Ē! In my own opinion....
    I used to have 2235s in 4508 enclosure. While it does not seemed to go as Low as the 2231As in the 4350 enclosure, the bass articulation sounded clearer and I could hear more details in the bass.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by ngccglp View Post
    I used to have 2235s in 4508 enclosure. While it does not seemed to go as Low as the 2231As in the 4350 enclosure, the bass articulation sounded clearer and I could hear more details in the bass.
    Could be that you donít use it properly. You need a Frequency divider cutting at 290 Hz with 18DB per octave. If you donít do that, you will not have what the 2235 can give you.
    I recommend the 5234A. Not the 5235. Was not designed for the 43 series...

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Europa Union
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Challenger604 View Post
    Could be that you donít use it properly. You need a Frequency divider cutting at 290 Hz with 18DB per octave. If you donít do that, you will not have what the 2235 can give you.
    I recommend the 5234A. Not the 5235. Was not designed for the 43 series...
    5235 is just a 5234A with a better output stage and symetrical input. From the two I'd chose the 5235.
    Furthermore I had the opportunity to listen to a pair of 4355! They were crossovered with LR 24dB/oct (a m552) and were very good in sound.
    18dB/oct filter card can be built from FFBREQ and CCBREQ cards that are easy to find (the ones used in theatre systems).

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Europa Union
    Posts
    110
    Does someone knows the exact volume and port tuning of 4350 and 4355 ?
    Is the port tuning the same amongst 4350, 4350A and 4350B ?
    Before thinking changing directly 2231H to 2235H these are the right questions.

    Edit: some information there: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...php?10614-4355
    Port tuning of 4355 is 28Hz from the impedance curve
    from JBL 4355 documentation volume is 9.5 cubic feet (269L), and Port tuning is mentionned being at 32Hz, which isn't what the impedance curve shows.
    From http://www.jblpro.com/pub/obsolete/4350b.pdf, JBL 4350B port tuning is at 25Hz, with the same volume.
    This is meaning if changing 2231H for 2235H port tuning will be a bit low.
    Accordingly to http://audio-database.com/JBL/speaker/4350a-e.html ,in 4350A, using two 2231A, volume is still 9.5 Cubic feet.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,325
    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post361033

    A quick simulation based on the actual ports dimensions should confirm the real system tuning

    Based on the 4350/4355 drawings the tuning is around 28 hertz using the port dimensions as a guide. However the actual tuning in the real enclosure could vary due to mural coupling if the 3 closely spaced ports in the 4350 and the curvature of the port in the 4355 makes it difficult to determine the volume of air in the port.. Ie. lt could be a bit lower

    With such a wide baffle and mutual coupling of the woofers a slightly lower tuning may have found favour empirically

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Ca
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by dn92 View Post
    5235 is just a 5234A with a better output stage and symetrical input. From the two I'd chose the 5235.
    Furthermore I had the opportunity to listen to a pair of 4355! They were crossovered with LR 24dB/oct (a m552) and were very good in sound.
    18dB/oct filter card can be built from FFBREQ and CCBREQ cards that are easy to find (the ones used in theatre systems).
    I triee the 5235 and went back right away to my 5234A. I didnít like the bass and highd with the 35...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. MD vs MP3 sound quality
    By SEAWOLF97 in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-29-2009, 03:37 PM

Posting Permissions

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