+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 137

Thread: Is newer better : 4430 vs 1400 Array

  1. #61
    Senior Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by 4313B View Post
    Yes.
    This is not the woofer network of the K2-S9900
    Is there another speaker where it is implemented
    BLS Reference on Passlabs XA 30.5 + Everest DD66000 clone on Pass XA 100.5

  2. #62
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,409
    It's part of the 4365 network. I took a quick screen grab from the Engineering Design Specification. It was all I had handy at the moment.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator yggdrasil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Bodø, Norway
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by 4313B View Post
    They nickel and dime every system. Would you believe the 1501FE has nickel binding posts instead of the gold binding posts of the 1501AL? Yep, they're that tightly controlled... A price point is a price point, today now more than ever.

    And the 1400 Array really isn't all that expensive. Now, a $40 million dollar CEO, that's expensive.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vW54lAtldI
    Luckily there's only one CEO, what if they came in thousands....

    Quote Originally Posted by 4313B View Post
    It's part of the 4365 network. I took a quick screen grab from the Engineering Design Specification. It was all I had handy at the moment.
    The (A) connection is that to one of the input terminals?
    Johnny Haugen Sørgård

  4. #64
    Senior Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by 4313B View Post
    It's part of the 4365 network. I took a quick screen grab from the Engineering Design Specification. It was all I had handy at the moment.
    I see, do we have that document here?
    BLS Reference on Passlabs XA 30.5 + Everest DD66000 clone on Pass XA 100.5

  5. #65
    Senior Member Odd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    300

    4365

    Quote Originally Posted by Guido View Post
    I see, do we have that document here?
    4365 schematics. Post 25

  6. #66
    Senior Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Odd View Post
    Oops, I missed this. Thank you!
    BLS Reference on Passlabs XA 30.5 + Everest DD66000 clone on Pass XA 100.5

  7. #67
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    China
    Posts
    1,060
    Quote Originally Posted by 4313B View Post
    Yep, everyone knows all this shit sounds the same, we just pretend there are differences in loudspeakers, amps, cables, source material, damping, biasing, etc. and bullshit each other all day long about it.
    I'd use Greg's battery-free diode method if starting from scratch.
    which method is better?battery diode CC or battery-free diode CC?
    46 lover

  8. #68
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,409
    Diodes are cheaper.

    And to answer your other question, the L212 system probably takes the cake for extended low frequency response.

  9. #69
    Super Moderator jblnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Mass
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by 4313B View Post
    Diodes are cheaper.

    And to answer your other question, the L212 system probably takes the cake for extended low frequency response.
    Over 250TI plus B380 (or even without the B380) ? And what about the big boys with the dual 15's like 4435 or 4355 ? And what of the 18's like 4345 ?

    Was the L212 really the be-all end-all bass monster of the JBL family tree ?

    jblnut

  10. #70
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,409
    Quote Originally Posted by jblnut View Post
    Over 250TI plus B380 (or even without the B380) ? And what about the big boys with the dual 15's like 4435 or 4355 ? And what of the 18's like 4345 ?

    Was the L212 really the be-all end-all bass monster of the JBL family tree ?

    jblnut
    The L212 used the B212 which was a sealed box system (second order roll-off below 25 Hz).

    All the other systems you mention are quasi-third order (without the active EQ) or quasi-fifth order (with the active EQ) so they all roll off much faster below 25 Hz.

    Room gain is typically a second order rise below a certain frequency determined by room dimensions. It's easy to see why sealed box systems can potentially yield the lowest response. Unfortunately for the B212, it blows up fairly easily when driven real hard. Given this information Jerry seriously reinforced the 1500SUB and W1500H drivers so they could withstand severe abuse in small sealed enclosures. These particular drivers may go deeper in sealed boxes but alot of people prefer the greater efficiency a vented box affords and are willing to give up a bit of bottom end to get it.

  11. #71
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Destiny
    Posts
    7,510
    Was the L212 really the be-all end-all bass monster of the JBL family tree ?
    No I have a pair of the 121A drivers in sealed 2 cubic Ft boxes. The quality is great the issue is output. They have limited X-Max and sealed you are depending on room gain to fill in the last octave.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  12. #72
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    8,475

    We are way off topic here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    No I have a pair of the 121A drivers in sealed 2 cubic Ft boxes. The quality is great the issue is output. They have limited X-Max and sealed you are depending on room gain to fill in the last octave.

    Rob
    But that is the driver... the L212 had an eq built in so it did dig down deep. Same is true of the Sub1500... in it's initial guise as the original Revel Ultima sub with equalized ML electronics, it was a formidable sub. Though like it's vintage counterpart, it too blew up under high SPL demands. Using multiples helps a lot in both cases.


    Widget

  13. #73
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Destiny
    Posts
    7,510
    But that is the driver... the L212 had an eq built in so it did dig down deep. Same is true of the Sub1500... in it's initial guise as the original Revel Ultima sub with equalized ML electronics, it was a formidable sub. Though like it's vintage counterpart, it too blew up under high SPL demands. Using multiples helps a lot in both cases.
    Well Yes and No about being way off topic. I had not considered that they had EQ in the bass module. That doesn't change the limited X-Max and power handling. The EQ steals gobs of headroom from them so in some ways it actually makes matters worse. If you drop them into 1.5ft sealed box you need about 10db of EQ to get them flat at 32Hz. Unless I am missing something that gives them what about 10db headroom based on the amps power output?? If that assumption is correct that's not too much to work with and clearly why you needed more than 1.

    Not saying they were not great in their day just that it has past.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  14. #74
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,409
    The B212 was -3 dB at 25 Hz and 60 Hz. Below 25 Hz it rolled off at ~ 12 dB per octave. Vented subwoofers roll off at anywhere from 18 dB/octave (quasi-third order which low Q JBL transducers excel at) to 36 dB/octave (6th order assisted as per Keele). There was no EQ bump with the B212, it was done via bandwidth limiting, aka low pass cut filter. And yes, that is pretty inefficient. It is more fun to do it with something like a 99 dB SPL 2242H that is really hard to blow up under any kind of home hi-fi conditions.

    JBL has never made a sub capable of its extended low frequency performance, quite frankly, they couldn't afford the warranty claims against such a subwoofer. Modern source material (the digital compact disc) revealed the shortcomings of a transducer having such limited xMech.

    The 121 wasn't the only one to blow up under pressure. The 124/2203, LE14, 136/2231 and 2235 did as well. All of them had the exact same limited xMech. The coil formers would rip away from the cone assembly. The slightly more robust 2245 did better but even that 4645 system had to be tuned back up from 25 Hz to 30 Hz when people started putting them in IMAX theaters and they'd go poof. When JBL dreamt up the 2242H, the 4645 could be tuned back down to the traditional 25 Hz without fear.

    What really floors me is some people were actually able to blow up B460's in their homes even with the extra protection of the BX63. I find that truly staggering. But you know what they say, you can take the <> out of the trailer park but you can't take the trailer park out of the <>.

    That's where a sub such as the S2S comes in. Clamp the crap out of the fifteen with a spider so stiff the free air is back up in the thirties and tune it so it yields a ton of thump. Don't even let the thing get down into the twenties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    Not saying they were not great in their day just that it has past.
    Well that indeed is the short story.


  15. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    193
    Before I got a sub for the home theater, I ran a 5.0 4430 system that did not have any subsonic protection/filtering.

    I ran that system pretty loud at times, on the edge of uncomfortable for my hearing, and I don't recall hearing mass rings smash into things or other signs of stress. At the time, I wasn't running any room correction so I had a massive room contribution to the bass. This was a fairly small room < 1500cu.ft room.

    At least for me asking for more volume would have been system/auditory abuse to see "what it could do".


    Quote Originally Posted by 4313B View Post
    The B212 was -3 dB at 25 Hz and 60 Hz. Below 25 Hz it rolled off at ~ 12 dB per octave. There was no EQ bump, it was done via bandwidth limiting, aka low pass cut filter.

    JBL has never made a sub capable of its extended low frequency performance, quite frankly, they couldn't afford the warranty claims against such a subwoofer. Modern source material (the digital compact disc) revealed the shortcomings of a transducer having such limited xMech.

    The 121 wasn't the only one to blow up under pressure. The 124/2203, LE14, 136/2231 and 2235 did as well. All of them had the exact same limited xMech. The coil formers would rip away from the cone assembly. The slightly more robust 2245 did better but even that 4645 system had to be tuned back up from 25 Hz to 30 Hz when people started putting them in iMax theaters and they'd go poof.

    What really floors me is some people were actually able to blow up B460's in their homes even with the extra protection of the BX63. I find that truly staggering. But you know what they say, you can take the <> out of the trailer park but you can't take the trailer park out of the <>.

    Thats where a sub such as the S2S comes in. Clamp the crap out of the fifteen with a spider so stiff the free air is back up in the thirties and tune it so it yields a ton of thump. Don't even let the thing get down into the twenties.

    Well that indeed is the short story.


+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Array 1400 help
    By jasonyeo in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-29-2010, 08:00 AM
  2. JBL 1400 Array - Top ten?
    By tom1040 in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-17-2010, 09:55 AM
  3. Array 1400
    By tom1040 in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 09:56 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