Why did JBL make a 4355 with two 15"s rather than an 18" like in the smaller 4345?

[richluvsound]

Champster,

its gonna be huge . You might want to consider the horn you're using ? No to conical if you really want to leave the past behind . The only thing better than 2245 is 1500al IMHO . 2245 is a very special thing indeed . Always copied and never bettered …. smooth as silk with a kick like a mule !
Best of luck with your project .

Rich

[ngccglp]

I agree with some of the observations here, indeed I too found the 2212 struggling to keep up with the 2245 in the 4345, something that is not evident in, say 4343 or 4344 or 4350 ( I had them all one time or another) I tried the Ashly but could not get satisfactory result, and ended up getting the 5235 with original 4345 cards, only then I am satisfied. But it still does not have the same mid bass tightness of the 4343/4344. So I guess matching the 2245 to a 12" mid bass might be the right solution. But the 2245 excelled in low frequency extension and weight and scale, very addictive.

[speakerdave]

Champster,

its gonna be huge . You might want to consider the horn you're using ? No to conical if you really want to leave the past behind . The only thing better than 2245 is 1500al IMHO . 2245 is a very special thing indeed . . . .

Rich

I would add to that short list a pair of 1400nd's on each side.

[ngccglp]

Hi SpeakerDave,

are the 1400nd still available? I would be interested in getting it.

Thanks.

[L.H. Nick]

Shouldn't two fifteen inch drivers be able to move more air than one eighteen inch driver?

All else being equal, the power of a driver is based on the amount of air it can move. The bigger the driver, the more powerful it is. However, we must only count the actual part of the driver that moves, that is, the diaphragm or piston.

As a first approximation, let's assume our hypothetical drivers include a one half inch frame and a one half inch suspension, resulting in a "circle" around the actual diaphragm that is one inch wide. Since this circle surrounds the diaphragm we have to count it twice in calculating the net area of the diaphragm as opposed to the gross area given by the nominal diameter of the driver. Accordingly, our 18 inch driver will have a 16 inch piston and our 15 inch driver will have a 13 inch piston.

The area of a circle is calculated as the radius of the circle times the radius of the circle times pi. Therefore, our 18 inch driver with its 16 inch piston has an effective piston area of 8 inches times 8 inches times pi or 64pi square inches. Our 15 inch driver with its 13 inch piston has an effective piston area of 6.5 inches times 6.5 inches times pi or 42.25pi square inches. However, since our hypothetical posits TWO 15 inch drivers, their combined area will be 2 times 42.25pi square inches or 84.5pi square inches, which is considerably larger than the area of the single 18 inch driver.

My guess is that JBL made the dual 15 inch speaker because they wanted something more powerful than the single 18 inch speaker.

[Allanvh5150]

I think, more to the point as someone else mentioned, the 4350 predates the 2245.

Allan

[L.H. Nick]

I think, more to the point as someone else mentioned, the 4350 predates the 2245.

Allan

Fair enough. Then let's take the corollary of my discussion: if the twin 15 inch speaker came first, perhaps JBL wanted something a bit smaller when it introduced the single 18 inch speaker.

I still have to admit that, even after all these years of exposure to the internet, I still trip on the fact that I can engage in discussion with someone on the opposite side of the world.

[ivica]

Fair enough. Then let's take the corollary of my discussion: if the twin 15 inch speaker came first, perhaps JBL wanted something a bit smaller when it introduced the single 18 inch speaker.

I still have to admit that, even after all these years of exposure to the internet, I still trip on the fact that I can engage in discussion with someone on the opposite side of the world.

Hi Nick,

In MY opinion (neglecting the efficiency) the character of the sound produce by single 2245 and (dual) 2235/2234 is not the same,
so I believe that would be the most important aspect. I prefer 2245.
Comparing 2122 (in 4345) with 2202 (in 4350/55) I prefer 2202, but I am sure that would differ from the others opinions.

regards
Ivica

[Allanvh5150]

Also, the 4350/55 was made for high level playback. I have only heard one in action in a studio here and I was totally blown away. That was 30 years ago. The 4345 never had enough cabinet volume to let the 18 get its legs. Actually, I have all the drivers assembled to build a 4355, a pair of 4345's and a pair of 4344's. I am about to start on the woodwork so if I pull finger I can get them done before christmas

Allan.

[Ian Mackenzie]

The 4350 was introduced in the early 1970's.

The 4345 in the early 80's.

There was also the DMS1 which had dual 14 inch woofers.

It was not a commercial success and this points to the risks of introducing products that just don't capture the eye of the market at the time.

On the contrary, the Urei 813 series with dual 15 inch woofers was a very successful design and JBL eventually purchased Urei

Interestingly the Urei do not go down far below 40 hertz but has high output.

Don wrote a great article on the history of the Urei monitors.

It worth exploring the Main Page JBL Library for some insights and perspectives on JBLs market conquests.

The information you seek is all there.

That was the purpose and whole reason for the inception of the Lansing Heritage Site by two great historians! (Don and Steve)

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/profiles.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0egU46lL9QY

[ivica]

Also, the 4350/55 was made for high level playback. I have only heard one in action in a studio here and I was totally blown away. That was 30 years ago. The 4345 never had enough cabinet volume to let the 18 get its legs. Actually, I have all the drivers assembled to build a 4355, a pair of 4345's and a pair of 4344's. I am about to start on the woodwork so if I pull finger I can get them done before christmas

Allan.

Hi Allan,

As the box volume for either single 2245 or dual 2234/35 is almost the same if baffle can be exchangeable, You can try 4345 and 4355 and compare them.
The size of the "Dogy box" for 2202 (in 4355) would be acceptable for 2122 (4345),
and using 2441 (4355) instead of ( 2421 as in 4345) I think would be OK to be used in both configuration,
and 2405 too.

regards
ivica

[martin_wu99]

Anyone have a guess as to why? The 4345 has an 18" 2245 and a smaller (1") compression driver/(10") midrange combo, and the 4355 has two 15" (2235, I believe) and a larger (2") compression driver/12" midrange combo.

Why would they diverge from the 18" to two 15's?

My guess is that the 4345 is more of a home speaker and the 4355 was designed for a much larger venue where subwoofer output isn't nearly as important as in the home. But that is just a guess...

If I'm right, would the 4345 be the largest home speaker JBL made?

What is your opinion?

They are all studio speakers,JBL think 4345 is not a susscessful products,so they turned to 4355(G.T said)

[BMWCCA]

They are all studio speakers,JBL think 4345 is not a susscessful products,so they turned to 4355(G.T said)

Can you cite a reference to that opinion?

I must have my blinders on. All I see is the good stuff, with the lack of commercial "success" being attributed to the system's size: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post110349

My answer is that size does matter, if you want big sound! And that's what the 4355 probably has over the 4345. Don't know. Never heard one. Can't really imagine anything more dynamic and pleasing than my 4345, either!

[martin_wu99]

Can you cite a reference to that opinion?

I must have my blinders on. All I see is the good stuff, with the lack of commercial "success" being attributed to the system's size: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post110349

My answer is that size does matter, if you want big sound! And that's what the 4355 probably has over the 4345. Don't know. Never heard one. Can't really imagine anything more dynamic and pleasing than my 4345, either!

Yes,size never matters,only the sound!but i can't remember exatly that seems 4313B said G.T told him 4345 lack of some details in bottom.that's why JBL stop producing 18'' studio and home products any more.

[ivica]

Can you cite a reference to that opinion?

I must have my blinders on. All I see is the good stuff, with the lack of commercial "success" being attributed to the system's size: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post110349

My answer is that size does matter, if you want big sound! And that's what the 4355 probably has over the 4345. Don't know. Never heard one. Can't really imagine anything more dynamic and pleasing than my 4345, either!

Hi

It seems to me that putting single 2245 in 4355/50 box (exactly re-tuned),
and using other 4350/55 drivers ( 2202, 2441,2405) would be possible acceptable solution.

Adjusting efficiency seems not to be so problematic, especially if bi-amp would be applied.

regards
ivica