JBL 2245H vs 2241H vs 2242H vs 2235H vs TAD 1601 Performance over the 30hz - 200Hz

[JeffW]

I have NOS 2245s and reconed in the last couple of years 2245s. I can't see the voice coils, but the cones look pretty much the same.

[Lee in Montreal]

I can't argue with a "feeling", but I doubt you are right. There have been a few iterations of the cone design, but I do believe they are all of the same quality. That particular driver has been built in the same plant in Mexico for a very long time now.

Eaulive had a few problems with his Mexican 2225 cone kits about 18 months ago. I think he had two bad units out of four. JBL replaced them. Perhaps "Hecho in Mexico" happened earlier with the 2245 kits and now they have smoothened the production on them.

[frank23]

My 2 cents. I have used a pair of 2235 for years. I had them reconed by JBL, so have had them since "new". A few months ago I discovered the E145-8 and as far as music goes, I find them nicer than the 2235. The 2235 goes lower, but the E145 sounds faster (and yes I have read the articles that say that a bass can not sound fast) and times better with the 2123 I use.

[Mr. Widget]

A few months ago I discovered the E145-8 and as far as music goes, I find them nicer than the 2235. The 2235 goes lower, but the E145 sounds faster (and yes I have read the articles that say that a bass can not sound fast) and times better with the 2123 I use.

Agreed 100%!!!!


Widget

[ivica]

I can't argue with a "feeling", but I doubt you are right. There have been a few iterations of the cone design, but I do believe they are all of the same quality. That particular driver has been built in the same plant in Mexico for a very long time now.


Widget

Hi Mr.Widget,

When I say " a have a feeling", it is real, in the several points.

1. "Touch feeling"
I have an opportunity to to see (and touch by MY fingers) two 2445H drivers (taken out from some JBL old original boxes) and the cone seems very strong and thick. On the relatively new, (made in Mexico) "original" JBL recone kits ( C8R2245 ), the cone (touched by my fingers) seems fare less thick.

2. "Eyes feeling"
From the front side the cone ribs are almost near to the dust cap. On the recone kits the cone ribs are not so near the dust cap..
look at the:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post236343

Not to mention that the dust cap (on the recone kit) was dark almost black, while on the original is gray ("JBL gray")
(and seems much stronger and thicker if you 'knock on it' ).

3. "Listening feeling"
Listening a pair of 4345 ( 12 ft3) of boxes equipped with the original drivers vs re-coned (2245) , drivers have sounded different, what can be recognized instantly while playing some "drum" section of music. I can say may be the re-coned were deeper but more 'muddy', while with the original I could "see" (imagine) the size of the drum that was playing.

Interesting, almost the same results while comparing original 2231A and re-coned 2235H drivers (with JBL C8R2235 kits).

It would be interesting to compare some AF possibilities such as: MWA 2235 cone with their 1860 voice coils and Rick Cobb ( ebay: "looneytune2001") foam..........

Best Reagrads
ivica

[4313B]

JBL cones were made by Hawley back when it all mattered. Hawley died and JBL went on a safari to find a new vendor. After several fails they decided that Mogami could approximate the originals well enough and that is where we stand today.

With respect to the C8R2245H recone kit specifically, I have yet to run across a bad one from Mexico.

Nothing performs quite like a 2245H.

Interesting, almost the same results while comparing original 2231A and re-coned 2235H drivers (with JBL C8R2235 kits).

The 2231A/H was seriously overdamped. It could handle a bit more DCR in the low pass coil(s) than the 2235H could. The 2235H sounded really nice hooked directly up to the driving amplifier (4355).

G.T. never cared for either of them. He speculated that "The fifteens were geometrically challenged." He said that he preferred the (aquaplased) LE14H and 2245H.

A few months ago I discovered the E145-8 and as far as music goes, I find them nicer than the 2235. The 2235 goes lower, but the E145 sounds faster (and yes I have read the articles that say that a bass can not sound fast) and times better with the 2123 I use.

Well that's what makes DIY fun and JBL had a nice variety of fifteens available back then. Obviously an E145 wouldn't do in a Studio Monitor, hence the requirement for a 2231A/H or 2235H. And now a 2216Nd with EQ.

[dkalsi]

- Nothing performs quite like a 2245H.

- G.T. said that he preferred the (aquaplased) LE14H and 2245H.

I'm so glad to read the comments above. It seems to agree with the findings of fellow forum members here (per review of older posts).

Just to give a little more background on what it is I am trying to accomplish:

I will be using an Auzahorn (very similar to the one below but much larger) and matting it to Tang-Band 1808 driver. The Tang-Band has a reported sensitivity of 93db. It is my understanding that the horn will further increase the sensitivity (not of the driver itself but the combo together will have higher sensitivity).

Below the horn, I want to build a similar cabinet utilizing a what members here believe may be the most suitable driver.

My intentions are to use the bass bin from 30hz - 200hz. Many here agree that the 2245H may be a suitable driver for that application. I could use a 15" - 2235H, but I love/want more bass authority. I know the 2235H will go way above an beyond 200hz (and is often used up to 800hz), but the 200hz - 800hz holds no benefit for me.

I have another really dumb question.

It is my understanding that an 9 cuft enclosure may suffice for 30hz tuning - but in the event I have the real estate for 120 cubit foot enclosure, would tuning the 2245H for 25hz have any adverse impact its ability to play upto to 200hz.

In other words, with the exception of digging in deeper, would the sound from 50hz - 200hz change at all?

[Ear4life]

Hey guys..

I don´t know if it´s the auqaplas it self, that does the difference. Or is it what it does to the cone...(weight and stiffens) that creates that extreme balanced speaker? Just keep in mind that many aftermarket kits for the 2245h is without aquaplas!! In other words you have to apply it your self. Other ways you will end up with a 2240 with foam suspension... Or what the 2234 is to the 2235. You will need to add the weight to bring fs down from about 30-32Hz to the desired 20Hz. I have seen many other examples of material to gain weight on a cone than aquaplas, but don´t know if the aquaplas it self has a sonic signature?

Regards
Martin

[Lee in Montreal]

@ Dkalsi - if you like bass with authority, definitely get the 2245h. It's musical, has grunt, and can shake the house. The 2235 is a small home woofer. I have both and feel it would take four 2235 to perform like a 2245. I myslef leaning toward a two-way 2245-based system too. I love my current 15" 2226 set-up, but definitely lack the bottom octave. And I am a bass addict. I have one single 2245 and therefore on the hunt for another before I build 12cft cabinets.

12cft tuned to 27Hz gets you a flat liner down to 30Hz and F3 at 27Hz. That'S without any boost or correction. On top it is almost flat up to 200Hz with an easy slop going up. you are down 3db at 300Hz.

The increase of volume will not impede response on top.

GO 2245 DaMn IT !!! ;-)

[IWC Doppel]

I have pretty much decided to use tow 4645c's with my horns from 22-100 Hz, these use 2242's, interested in any comparisons to 2245's of old, they seem a better option to the 2241's ?

[Lee in Montreal]

I have pretty much decided to use tow 4645c's with my horns from 22-100 Hz, these use 2242's, interested in any comparisons to 2245's of old, they seem a better option to the 2241's ?

2245 has Fs20Hz while the 2242 has Fs35Hz. They serve two different purposes. The 2242 is a great driver though. I would use them for parties. I am partial to the 2245 for music at home.

[spkrman57]

I preferred the 2242 which goes down almost as low as the 2245 but the 2242 has snap I don't get from the 2245.

Do you want deeper or more dynamic?

Ron

[Kalle]

I preferred the 2242 which goes down almost as low as the 2245 but the 2242 has snap I don't get from the 2245.

Do you want deeper or more dynamic?

Ron

What boxes did you use for your 2242`s?

Regards
Karl

[spkrman57]

What boxes did you use for your 2242`s?

Regards
Karl

9 cubic ft tuned to 28 Hz.

Boxes were built for Mike Baker(by 4313B) for his 2245's and then I got them and put 2242's in them.

Killer subs!!!

Ron

[Hans Bleeker]

I used to have 2 2245's in my living room, wel they lasted a week, to many neighbours started complaining, but they realy MADE low frequentie Im still with the 2235's , connected to an amp that DOESNT kill them, I use an QSC EX4000. is same as JBL MPX1200 but seems a Crown MA3500VZ or 5000VZ would do the trick also , hmmm better watch the volume The issue what I noticed with the 2235 is if connected to the wrong amp, power doesnt say a thing. the will sound VERY constrained. I used several high end amps on them, wel medium Hgh end , but they realy came to live when I connected them to a plain pro amp.
W15Gti, I love that speaker, its by no means as musical as a 2235, but it has brutal lows.
Im concider trying to run them nex to the 2235's and let them ony do to 100 Hz , same as in the 4435. Wonder how that would sound