Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 2311 vs 2385

  1. #1
    Senior Member quindecima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NW, USA
    Posts
    521

    2311 vs 2385

    Whats the sonic difference between these horns in home use?

  2. #2
    Senior Member ivica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    serbia
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by quindecima View Post
    Whats the sonic difference between these horns in home use?
    HI
    I would expect that 2311 has to be applied with 2308 lemses.
    If used up tp 10kHz, I would not expect large sonic differences using from 800Hz and up.
    May be some CD network compensation would be needed with 2385 horn as can be seen from its data.
    Regards
    Ivica

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boulder Creek, CA
    Posts
    403
    Quote Originally Posted by ivica View Post
    HI
    I would expect that 2311 has to be applied with 2308 lemses.
    If used up tp 10kHz, I would not expect large sonic differences using from 800Hz and up.
    May be some CD network compensation would be needed with 2385 horn as can be seen from its data.
    Regards
    Ivica
    Technically, the 2311 as short as it is would be considered less a horn, than a discontinuity. An acoustic lens by it's very nature attenuates high frequency.
    It's why if one prefers to hear very high frequency using an acoustic lens, a super tweeter would be in order. When the acoustic lens was implemented the dynamic range of recorded music
    wasn't what it is today much less 40 years ago. Consider the 375 driver, which began to tank at 10K. If what I have read about the Hartsfield is correct, JBL introduced the 075 to give the
    Hartsfield a high frequency boost when the dynamic range of recorded music improved.


    BTW - The engineers at JBL did not invent the ring radiator. I believe that honor is bestowed on Stanley Stokes with his U.S. patent 1,845,768 filed in 1929. Then followed up by
    David Blattner with his U.S. patent 2,058,208 filed in 1935. One feature of note regarding the Stokes design, is the phase plug. It bears a striking resemblance to the phase plug
    used on the 2408 tweeter. Whereas the phase plug in Blattner's design, as long as it is, is more bullet like.

    The acoustic lens is a bi-product of the devices Winston Kock developed for his microwave research.

    HF

  4. #4
    Senior Member ivica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    serbia
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Horn Fanatic View Post
    Technically, the 2311 as short as it is would be considered less a horn, than a discontinuity. An acoustic lens by it's very nature attenuates high frequency.
    It's why if one prefers to hear very high frequency using an acoustic lens, a super tweeter would be in order. When the acoustic lens was implemented the dynamic range of recorded music
    wasn't what it is today. Consider the 375 driver, which began to tank at 10K. If what I have read about the Hartsfield is correct, JBL introduced the 075 to give the
    Hartsfield a high frequency boost when the dynamic range of recorded music improved.


    BTW - The engineers at JBL did not invent the ring radiator. I believe that honor is bestowed on Stanley Stokes with U.S. patent number 1,845,768 filed in 1929. Then followed up by
    David Blattner with U.S. patent number 2,058,208 filed in 1935.

    The acoustic lens is a bi-product of the devices Winston Kock developed for his microwave research.

    HF
    Hi,

    Do not forget about 7cm length of 2440/41/45/46/50 internal horn, so about 18cm of the total horn length.Jbl apply 2311 over say 1200Hz, but my experience with the home listening soumd levels I prefer 2441&2311&2308 then 2420&2312&2308, using about over 800Hz network.
    And as it is used with 2235 bass driver, a large amout of drver sensitivity is applied.
    If talking about the 2308 acoustic lenses, its influences on the UHF frequency is pronounced over 15-16lkHZ, so for the frequency up to 10kHz, such inflence is minor, but as a kind of widening device in the sound dispersion, with the mentioned driver&horn combo would produce almost flat driver response up to 10kHz.
    Regards
    Ivica

  5. #5
    Senior Member quindecima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NW, USA
    Posts
    521
    I contemplated the 2385 because the 2311 is hard to come by and I assume it could be used in place of it without much difference.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. CD EQ mod in RANE AC 22 for JBL 2445/2385 HELP!
    By Rudy Kleimann in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-13-2011, 01:49 PM
  2. CD EQ mod in RANE AC 22 for JBL 2445/2385
    By Rudy Kleimann in forum Electronic Crossovers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2011, 09:39 AM
  3. 2385 Question
    By blackwell in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2007, 01:33 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
  •