Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53

Thread: DIY 2235h, 2206h, 2446J Be or TAD 4001 and 2405H Build Thread

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Champster View Post
    Thanks Jeff. That is a very interesting thread and it was helpful in my selection of the 2206, but didn't I read that 4313 replaced that system with another more current model.
    He may have, I can't keep track of his builds, but the point was that some still consider the 2206 to be a pretty decent midbass driver. Another thing to consider is the availability of "more current" drivers to the average consumer. There was a time when normal guys were buying drivers like 1200FEs, not sure that's an option anymore.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    255
    Thanks Jeff. I won't overlook the 2206. I'm very excited by everything I read about it actually and hoping it will work great. I'm planning on building individual cabinets for the 2206 and the 2123 to compare them, head to head, in their ability to blend with the 2446Be. I'm not out for max SPL. Quality and integration are far more important considerations for me. Making them sound like a single driver without a crossover is the goal. I'm thinking that Drew Daniel's picked the 2123 for a reason but like a lot of us, I'm looking forward to doing my own research.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    255

    2245 Cabinets with Pictures

    I've finally built the subwoofer cabinets. I'm not completely done yet, but wanted to post some pictures of my progress. I want to add more ribs to further reduce any possible resonance in the cabinet, add the fiberglas and the wood veneer, driver, cable and connector. The cabinet is 10.25cf gross, less the 6" x12" vent tube, bracing and the .3cf for the rear of the 2245. Net, net I expect to be about ~9cf. This should give me some flexibility to adjust the ultimate tuning.

    For those that haven't followed my thread, I am building a 5 way, miniDSP 4x10Hd system using the 2245 (<70hz) in this cabinet. In the main cabinets, I'll use a 2206 sealed (~70 to ~300), a 2123 (~300 to ~1000), a 2446 with TruExtent Be phram with a 2386 narrow dispersion horn (~1000 to ~12000) and a 2405 (~12000+).

    As always, comments are welcome.

    Thanks,
    Paul

    Name:  2014-09-07 07.21.17.jpg
Views: 738
Size:  93.3 KBName:  2014-09-07 07.21.29.jpg
Views: 736
Size:  105.2 KBName:  2014-09-07 07.21.43.jpg
Views: 714
Size:  86.1 KBName:  2014-09-07 07.21.55.jpg
Views: 717
Size:  118.8 KBName:  2014-09-07 07.22.09.jpg
Views: 733
Size:  88.4 KB

  4. #34
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    255
    a few more pictures...
    Name:  2014-09-07 07.22.30.jpg
Views: 766
Size:  95.0 KBName:  2014-09-07 07.22.41.jpg
Views: 719
Size:  128.5 KBName:  2014-09-07 07.23.11.jpg
Views: 768
Size:  55.1 KBName:  2014-09-07 07.23.22.jpg
Views: 735
Size:  42.3 KB

  5. #35
    Senior Member Lee in Montreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    2,494
    Nice work ;-)

  6. #36
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal View Post
    Nice work ;-)
    thanks Lee. I your experience do you have any suggested methods for fiberglass? I see some just apply a thin layer over all internal surfaces, others utilize bulk amounts to fill pockets inside the cabinet. To me, the bulk method seems to offer the acoustic energy more fiberglass material to deal with, thus making it "seem" like a larger cabinet.

    Thank,
    Paul

  7. #37
    Senior Member Lee in Montreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    2,494
    I would suggest applying some Dynamat tar panels to make them more innert. Fiberglass? I would advise against it but some like it. I suggest using medium density foam.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    255
    Yeah I love dynamat. It works so well. I've never used foam. It probably works fine too.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,732
    Makes you wonder what JBL, with all their design and engineering expertise, use.

    1400 Array, See p2

    K2 9900, Scroll to Post #9

    4348, p2

    Food for thought.

  10. #40
    Senior Member 1audiohack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas Nevada
    Posts
    2,705
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffW View Post
    Makes you wonder what JBL, with all their design and engineering expertise, use.

    1400 Array, See p2

    K2 9900, Scroll to Post #9

    4348, p2

    Food for thought.

    Right?
    If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.

  11. #41
    Senior Member Lee in Montreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    2,494
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffW View Post
    Makes you wonder what JBL, with all their design and engineering expertise, use.
    Corporations don't always want what is best for consumers. They much prefer taking care of their benefit margins. That you probably know.

    Fiberglass wool costs perhaps 1/20th what medium density foam costs. Therefore, fiberglass is not necessarely better, it is just way cheaper and probably the reason it ends up in JBL cabinets. And in my case, I don't want fiberglass particles on my skin and in my lungs.

    Many companies have been using more expensive foam for decades. B&W and Kef are two of them. And most likely almost everyone else now.



    I buy my foam from flight case makers.


  12. #42
    Senior Member grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    5,338
    Also, fiberglass does not deteriorate the way foam can. That said, I was quite happy to find the foam inside my recently acquired KEF systems had retained their suppleness, while the same can not be said for the surrounds). Material science gets funny when decades are involved Speculation (mine) that fiberglass is often used as it does the job -and- is cheap seems like a reasonable trade off/choice, with a number of alternatives available to designers and DIYers.
    Last edited by grumpy; 09-08-2014 at 08:53 AM. Reason: (weird "post icon" deleted)... was not intentional.

  13. #43
    Senior Member Lee in Montreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    2,494
    I still have three sets of mid-1970s Kef speakers on daily use here. The foam in the cabinets has barely dried out. The woofers and mid drivers still have perfect butyl rubber surround. That's 40 years of duty. Nonetheless, some speakers like the 107/2 had a different type of foam suspension (not rubber) that was in the same material as the one found on 2235 and 2245. Two small woofers opposing each other on a vertical configuration. Sadly, their suspension is known to deteriorate over time.


  14. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal View Post
    Corporations don't always want what is best for consumers. They much prefer taking care of their benefit margins. That you probably know.

    Fiberglass wool costs perhaps 1/20th what medium density foam costs. Therefore, fiberglass is not necessarely better, it is just way cheaper and probably the reason it ends up in JBL cabinets. And in my case, I don't want fiberglass particles on my skin and in my lungs.
    There was a paper here once, I can't find it any more, that went into the thermodynamic properties of different materials for lining speaker enclosures. Fiberglass was much better at converting sound energy to heat than the usual suspects like polyfill. Polyester fibers just didn't have what it takes. Yet polyester fiber fill is cheaper than fiberglass. If cheap was the driving force, seems like polyfill would be in JBL cabinets.

    I don't recall if any foam products were tested in the paper, but the type of foam is pertinent in sound absorption. The wrong type of foam, even if it looks good, can act as a reflector.

    I didn't find the product sheet on the 66000/67000 series, but pretty sure they have fiberglass lining, too. Did JBL really go all out on these systems only to save a few bucks on the lining of the enclosures, or is fiberglass the correct material after all?

  15. #45
    Senior Member Champster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    255
    Thanks for your comments here everyone. There are certainly no shortage of opinions on this topic. Just for kicks, I'm going to remove the drivers from my B&W HTM1 tonight to see what they use. I'll post pictures.

    Does anyone other than Lee and me use Dynamat or something more like Black Hole?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 2446J and a 'Bonus'
    By Don Mascali in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 10:27 PM
  2. Paragon build Epic question thread. guidance most appericated...
    By professor plum in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-07-2010, 03:46 PM
  3. difference JBL2445J and 2446J
    By leifchristensen in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-12-2010, 06:52 AM
  4. 2446J vs. 2451H/J - What's the difference?
    By BigT in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-07-2007, 05:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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