Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: JBL 2450 with Truextent vs TAD 4001?

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Champster View Post
    This is an interesting thread, but it strikes me as odd that there seems to be a reluctance to accept Ivica's several posts that adding a 2405 resolves the breakup issues in all of these 'phrams. Especially when a pair of 2405's costs less than 1 Truextent 'phram.

    Can someone explain please explain this?

    It requires first further reading for best interpretation ..that of how a compression driver diaphragm functions.

    http://www.audioheritage.org/html/pr...logy/435be.htm

    "However, it was recognized that there were compromises with the new diaphragms. Titanium does not have the internal damping of aluminum and thus has marginally higher distortion levels. The diamond surrounds, while extending frequency response, do so at the expense of transient response. Further, due to its lower stiffness, titanium goes into breakup at a lower frequency.

    This issue of breakup is worth elaboration. Ideally, a dynamic loudspeaker diaphragm should act as a piston, with all points in uniform motion. However, since diaphragms are not infinitely rigid, there will be a condition at which the forces acting upon it cause oscillating deflections resulting in different points on the surface moving in different directions. Under this condition, the diaphragm is said to be in breakup, and there is an attendant increase in distortion. Both aluminum and titanium compression driver diaphragms are in breakup for much of their response. On a large format driver, the breakup modes for aluminum diaphragms occur as low as 7000hz, and for titanium diaphragms, as low as 4000hz."

    The short answer is that about a certain frequency the diaphragm no longer operates in piston mode. This in fact applies to any direct radiator.

    TI as a material was introduced following the aluminium for strength and at the time and the diamond surround was introduced to extend the response .

    The TI diaphragm were in break up mode in fact at a lower frequency than the aluminium explains why the Be alternative are so much superior with break up mode at 15khertz or higher.

    So with then Ti and diamond surround you have a relatively noisy diaphragm compared to Be that has a much higher break up frequency and no requirement for a diamond surround.

    The response graphs are of very limited value to expose the true operation of the diaphragm.

    Laser imaging and other approaches are far more resolving of the small movements (vibrations across) in the operation of the diaphragm.

    In relation to the addition of the 2405 there are a number of variables, the specific driver, the phase plug and horn geometry that ultimately determine the accuracy and extension of the system above 10000 hertz.

    JBL has adopted the diffraction of their bi radial horns to not only extend bandwidth, but also polar response at high frequencies. In vintage systems the horns that had neither extension nor a wide enough polar response at high frequencies to be useable.

    JBL maintains the UHF driver in the K2 systems was provided to satisfy the marketing department as in those systems it is introduced at over 15,000 hertz.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    319
    thank you Ian for such a thoughtful and complete overview. I'm leaning more toward breaking the bank and getting Be diaphragms or maybe just TAD CD's.... Don't they all use Be as their default material?

    Has there been any analysis over the breakup issues between 1" and 2" throat CD's?

    The reason I ask is that is makes some sense that smaller diaphragms (made from the same material) might compare more favorably in smaller sizes? Obviously there are output reductions to go along with the smaller size, but if minimizing breakup (i.e. cleaner sound) is the issue of this thread, then is smaller better???

    Thanks,
    Paul

  3. #33
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,200
    Look here for the comparison of different materials used for the diaphragms in a large format driver 4"


    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...351#post305351

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,956
    To be pragmatic it depends on whether you have the competency to deal with the additional complexity of a super tweeter which is not trivial.

    Some people use a Tad 2002 a upper HF on a conical horn and cut it over at 4000-6000 from a large format horn like the Living Voice system and then a Tad 703 UFH on a diagonal

    Have a look at some of the Radian Be equipped drivers before you leap too far.

    I would keep it real simple to start.

    Spend money to buy no compromise drivers that allow as simple a set up as possible, aka the two way Iconic principle.

    Don't try to over engineer or aim at theoretical perfection on paper.

    The intent of the Be material is resolution and neutrality, the simplicity buys you coherent imaging.

    Efficiency delivers spatial dynamics.

    See how that goes then augment either end of the spectrum as required.

    This is the cook book approach to the 66000.

    Given the physical scale of the drivers you will find the displacement of the point sources vertically or laterally a serious issue in terms of integration if you start of too complex

  5. #35
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    Look here for the comparison of different materials used for the diaphragms in a large format driver 4"


    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...351#post305351

    Rob
    Thank you Rob for posting that article. They make a good argument that Be is a superior material to the previous materials. However, the ribbed Ti driver does appear to be a worthy competitor from 1khz - 4khz. Which makes me now understand why, as Ian says in the previous post and I've read elsewhere, that some use the 2" CD for 3 octaves (from ~500-800hz to 4khz) and cross over to a 1" CD from 4khz - 20khz and avoid the UHF driver altogether.

    I find it interesting that JBL now appears to have chosen Magnesium diaphragms (476Mg CD and 045Be-1 UHF) in the K2 S9900. Mg instead of Be. Could it be that Be is yesterdays news in diaphragm technology? Read Christo's comments here about his side by side comparison of a 4344 (Be TAD CD) and the K2 S9900.

  6. #36
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Champster View Post
    Thank you Rob for posting that article. They make a good argument that Be is a superior material to the previous materials. However, the ribbed Ti driver does appear to be a worthy competitor from 1khz - 4khz. Which makes me now understand why, as Ian says in the previous post and I've read elsewhere, that some use the 2" CD for 3 octaves (from ~500-800hz to 4khz) and cross over to a 1" CD from 4khz - 20khz and avoid the UHF driver altogether.

    I find it interesting that JBL now appears to have chosen Magnesium diaphragms (476Mg CD and 045Be-1 UHF) in the K2 S9900. Mg instead of Be. Could it be that Be is yesterdays news in diaphragm technology? Read Christo's comments here about his side by side comparison of a 4344 (Be TAD CD) and the K2 S9900.
    Mg is considerably less expensive to manufacture and offers performance that approaches Be. For cost no object performance Be is the material of choice and TAD's vapor deposition technique while less durable than the Be foil used by TruExtent and JBL when over driven, is sonically the best example of Be.


    Widget

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,956
    I think its a marketing positioning thing that they want to keep the current TOL SOA drivers and materials exclusively for the TOL SOA models like the new 67000.

  8. #38
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    I think its a marketing positioning thing that they want to keep the current TOL SOA drivers and materials exclusively for the TOL SOA models like the new 67000.
    I imagine that is part of it, but as an example of the cost of the material, when I toured Materion, the manufacturers of the Be domes for JBL and manufacturers of the TruExtent diaphragms, they recycled the Be material to the gram... with aluminum and magnesium the raw material isn't so dear.


    Widget

  9. #39
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    Mg is considerably less expensive to manufacture and offers performance that approaches Be. For cost no object performance Be is the material of choice and TAD's vapor deposition technique while less durable than the Be foil used by TruExtent and JBL when over driven, is sonically the best example of Be.


    Widget
    Widget,
    Your website is really well done!

    Good point on the cost to manufacture. I suppose that has a lot to do with it. Silly question, but does TAD make a diaphragm that fits the JBL CD's or do you just have to buy the whole TAD CD to get there?

    Thanks,
    Paul

  10. #40
    Senior Member ivica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    serbia
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Champster View Post
    This is an interesting thread, but it strikes me as odd that there seems to be a reluctance to accept Ivica's several posts that adding a 2405 resolves the breakup issues in all of these 'phrams. Especially when a pair of 2405's costs less than 1 Truextent 'phram.

    Can someone explain please explain this?
    Hi,
    I want to emphasis here that I have done measurements with and Be ( truextent) diaphragm, not JBL Be (476) 'dusted' diaphragm. The main differences between that is in the diaphragms suspensions. In JBL Be model it is used Be-"diamond shaped" suspension, while on Be ( truextent) diaphragm a kind of "semi rolled" polymer material is used as a suspension. So may be diaphragm to suspension interaction can produce such driver behavior.

    I have done some measurements with 18-sound 2060A (3-inch -VC diaphragm) but over 12-13kHz a kind of "diaphragm shaking" has been visible.

    Regards
    Ivica

  11. #41
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    I think its a marketing positioning thing that they want to keep the current TOL SOA drivers and materials exclusively for the TOL SOA models like the new 67000.
    Is there a new 67000 being introduced with Mg? I just looked at their webpage and it shows the 67000 with Be diaphragms and the K2 S9900 has conflicting data on its information sheet. One place it says the tweeter is Be another place it says it is Mg.

    To further extent your marketing hypothesis Ian, I read somewhere that they Marketing and Engineering Depts argued over adding the tweeter. Marketing wanted it for the Japanese market, and Engineering didn't feel it added anything to the system acoustically and drove the cost to manufacture up. So they compromised and filtered it in above 20khz, which I would argue is above the frequency most of their customers (older folks) that can afford these can even hear.Name:  Screenshot 2014-04-27 07.32.54.png
Views: 2864
Size:  45.2 KB

    Paul

  12. #42
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,200
    Hello Paul

    I have a pair of 476Mg's that I measured on PTH1010 waveguides. Take a look at where they drop off. It's no wonder that they cut in at 20K. Also notice how clean they are up above 10K. The measuerments are 1/12 octave so minimal smoothing. Take a look at the CSD as well. Very clean where other drivers have noticeable break-up issues. Not your farthers large format compression driver to say the least.

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  13. #43
    Senior Member ivica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    serbia
    Posts
    1,703

    476Mg & PTH1010

    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    Hello Paul

    I have a pair of 476Mg's that I measured on PTH1010 waveguides. Take a look at where they drop off. It's no wonder that they cut in at 20K. Also notice how clean they are up above 10K. The measuerments are 1/12 octave so minimal smoothing. Take a look at the CSD as well. Very clean where other drivers have noticeable break-up issues. Not your farthers large format compression driver to say the least.

    Rob
    Hi Rob,

    With such measurements, it become clear why 476 drivers are so worthy. It seams that PTH1010 horn perfectly pairs with 476 driver.
    Have You tried it with PT-H90 ?

    Regards
    Ivics

  14. #44
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    319
    Agreed. Beautiful graphs!!!! Wish I could buy a pair but I suspect the woofer is equally advanced with its dual spiders mechanism....

  15. #45
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,200
    Hello Ivica

    Never tried them. Going way back I used to use 2344's with aquaplased 2426's. When the 2435 showed up on Ebay I grabbed a couple of pairs purchased the ferro recharge packs and had 4313B aguaplas them for me. I looked at what was available with a 1.5" throat and decided on PTH1010's. They were a drop in replacement for the 2344's in both radiation pattern and size.

    The 2344's worked really well in my room and as expected so did the PTH1010's. I have a tendency to stick what I think works and just take time to get it dialed in. I don't jump around all that much. My active main HT speakers have not changed in years and are not likely to as they are my original reference system. That's where my original pair of PT's reside. I purchased a second set for a latter project that got broken down taking out a pair of aquaplased 2435's to go into my Arrays. Fortunately I decided to keep the second set of PT's for a rainy day.

    The closest thing I have are the Array horns which the 2435/435Be's do really well on. I would expect the 476's to work there as well. Maybe some of the other guys can post some measurements. I know 4313B did some measurements on that waveguide with 476Be and they were impressive to say the least. Might be in the DIY 1200 Array thread.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Truextent diaphragms measurements
    By pos in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 01:36 PM
  2. Truextent Be diaphrams for 2426
    By jblbgw_man in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2011, 06:29 PM
  3. Got a email from Truextent
    By moparfan in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-02-2010, 08:13 PM
  4. Truextent 4" diaphragms available soon
    By Guido in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 03:22 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
  •