Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 92

Thread: Why is 4 Way design dead?

  1. #46
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Xi'An,China
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Not an appropriate comparison.

    I am wondering how you access these forums?
    How i access these forums doesn't important,the most important is how do you think of these JBL mid range cone
    46 lover

  2. #47
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,129
    Back to the topic if you want understand the “why” on JBL’s path of contemporary 3 way system it boils down to the intended listeners. The Japanese audiophiles. These systems are designed and voiced for that market. Fast firm bass and coherent midrange with industrial design elements from earlier systems. The 4365 and 4367 are examples. These system have a response in the order of 35-38 hertz f3. They have superior magnetic systems, suspension and cone structures allowing crossover points of 800 hertz without concern. The 1501 series woofers used in the DD67000 are better again. Having listened to them extensively in LA and Asia l can attest to what those woofers do.

    From a design perspective Greg Timbers didn’t compromise on the coherency of the DD67000 when he looked to bettering the bass performance for that system. See DD67000 brochure. What is perhaps lesser known is that that system goes up a whole new level when the two woofers and the horn-HF drivers are Tri amped according to Greg. Until now a hi end single chassis off the shelf Triamp active crossover configured for the DD67000 hasn’t been available.

    The problem for this audience is the significant cost of these Jbl systems and Jbl aren’t officially interested making these woofers available as a spare part.

    The notion of a 4 way system invokes extended bass and improved linearity. Back in the 70’s Jbl dealt with this by developing an extended bass woofer the 2231 and later iterations the 2231H and 2235H. While these drivers could be used up to 800-1000 hertz JBLs marketing boss at the time liked the idea of a 4 way system and jbl offered 2, 3 and 4 way systems using the 2231 woofers. What’s interesting is the 4 way systems drew popularity in Japan but were not commercially successful as envisaged in the studio segment due to the size of these systems. The initial 2120 and later iterations of a mid cone were able to produce mid range from 300-1300 hz without cone break up which was a limitation with the 2231woofers. These systems had a response to -32 hertz f3. The limitation of these systems is the restricted listening window due to the uneven polar response versus frequency. The extent of this limitation is s matter for the listener to determine. This later become a marketing claim for JBLs bi radial monitors in studio segment in the early 80’s.

    What l can say is the Jbl 4343-4345 designs as a 4 way system using the 2123H for mid duties are quite impressive. When refurbished, modified and setup properly they a stellar performers and commanding the best active crossover and power amplifiers. Other Jbl mid drivers “may” perform appropriately with due attention to the crossover network. In this context the Jbl vintage drivers were under utilised in the original stock systems.

    I have no doubt this post will draw some comments. Rather than quote the entire post can l suggest you reply with specific comments.

  3. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Iceland
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Back to the topic if you want understand the “why” on JBL’s path of contemporary 3 way system it boils down to the intended listeners. The Japanese audiophiles. These systems are designed and voiced for that market. Fast firm bass and coherent midrange with industrial design elements from earlier systems. The 4365 and 4367 are examples. These system have a response in the order of 35-38 hertz f3. They have superior magnetic systems, suspension and cone structures allowing crossover points of 800 hertz without concern. The 1501 series woofers used in the DD67000 are better again. Having listened to them extensively in LA and Asia l can attest to what those woofers do.

    From a design perspective Greg Timbers didn’t compromise on the coherency of the DD67000 when he looked to bettering the bass performance for that system. See DD67000 brochure. What is perhaps lesser known is that that system goes up a whole new level when the two woofers and the horn-HF drivers are Tri amped according to Greg. Until now a hi end single chassis off the shelf Triamp active crossover configured for the DD67000 hasn’t been available.

    The problem for this audience is the significant cost of these Jbl systems and Jbl aren’t officially interested making these woofers available as a spare part.

    The notion of a 4 way system invokes extended bass and improved linearity. Back in the 70’s Jbl dealt with this by developing an extended bass woofer the 2231 and later iterations the 2231H and 2235H. While these drivers could be used up to 800-1000 hertz JBLs marketing boss at the time liked the idea of a 4 way system and jbl offered 2, 3 and 4 way systems using the 2231 woofers. What’s interesting is the 4 way systems drew popularity in Japan but were not commercially successful as envisaged in the studio segment due to the size of these systems. The initial 2120 and later iterations of a mid cone were able to produce mid range from 300-1300 hz without cone break up which was a limitation with the 2231woofers. These systems had a response to -32 hertz f3. The limitation of these systems is the restricted listening window due to the uneven polar response versus frequency. The extent of this limitation is s matter for the listener to determine. This later become a marketing claim for JBLs bi radial monitors in studio segment in the early 80’s.

    What l can say is the Jbl 4343-4345 designs as a 4 way system using the 2123H for mid duties are quite impressive. When refurbished, modified and setup properly they a stellar performers and commanding the best active crossover and power amplifiers. Other Jbl mid drivers “may” perform appropriately with due attention to the crossover network. In this context the Jbl vintage drivers were under utilised in the original stock systems.

    I have no doubt this post will draw some comments. Rather than quote the entire post can l suggest you reply with specific comments.

    I respect your opinion 100% and I am agree with you at this thread should be stick to the discussion of (Why is 4 way design dead)

    I have play with all the new 15" woofer and also 476Mg and 476Be on few different horns
    for me nothing can match the 10" 2251j/251j midrange mid bass woofers in the 300 - 1200 range, they are faster and more accurate in that range
    and from the science, the much smaller and lighter cone in the 10" woofer fits better for that range

    of course we have all different sound taste, and that make this hobby so interesting




    Ari

  4. #49
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,129
    Hi Ari,

    I have provided an explanation on JBL’s prior 4 way offerings and the recent SOA systems.

    We can speculate on why there are no “current” 4 way market offerings but we may never know the reasons.

    Jbl appears to using the marketing buzz of the M2 wave-guide to create other offerings. The approach seems to be develop a technical feature then popularise that feature and franchise it across the business in other offerings. It’s a different approach to systems like the L250, XPL200, Array series, Project Everest that were conceived from the ground up.

    With Greg Timbers and other notable engineers now gone from JBL the capability to design and implement a successful 4 way system may not be possible. There maybe driver manufacturing limitations with the changes that have occurred in the past 5-10 years.

    I was reminded recently in a YouTube clip of a well know audio business manufacturer that it’s often the best ideas or technically correct products that don’t succeed in the market place.

    The beauty of diy audio is you have the flexibility to evaluate and experiment with different approaches and settle on what you personally like 😀.

  5. #50
    Administrator Mr. Widget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,983
    I am not sure about the relative health of the 4-Way, but last week I was able to spend some quality time with an augmented 12” 2-way. This system is quite costly, especially compared to vintage 4-Ways, but it totally kicks their butts in every way! Finesse, accuracy, SPL... this system was simply amazing. If I could afford them financially and real estate wise, I’d be waiting for delivery!

    https://www.whathifi.com/us/features...luehorn-system


    Widget
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  6. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Central Coast California
    Posts
    9,019
    Hey, Widget!

    Looks like a purposed three-way to me. Even the Berkeley install has all three drivers in L-C-R. Did you hear just the two drivers in the top cabinet, or were you listening to all three drivers in two cabinets per channel?

    I drive those Widget-delivered K2 S9900s actively with subs using BSS electronics with curves provided by Greg, so I consider them 3.5-way units. The SDA-4600 amps here driving the M2s also incorporate 18” subs into the channels, so the M2 is a functional three-way.

    The blue horn looks cool, and I assume the $80k price includes the subs and optimization electronics but not amplification? I’ve got maybe $12k into K2s, subs, electronics, and amplification, and it’s conceivable that the Meyer gear is more than six times the product that the K2 system is. I doubt it, but, still, I’d love to hear it. (I guess at full retail, it would be 4x as costly.)

    Yet, continuing the thesis of this thread I’ve yet to hear a two-way that did not benefit from augmentation either at the top or bottom (or both), so my subjective opinion is that a three-way properly constructed and equalized will be better than a two-way, and a four-way with advanced drivers, cabinetry, wave guide, and electronic optimization could be the best of all.

    Now, if someone would just make it...
    Out.

  7. #52
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,129
    Hi Widget,

    Time for project May mk2😀.
    Looks like a club system on steroids.

  8. #53
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,129
    Hi Dome,

    I heard a similar style of system in HK recently which was a bi amped pair of DD67000 flanked by dual Wilson subs. It was a cool setup and was likened to listening to giant headphones with the loudness button “in”.

    On the 3 or 4 way thing it is about what works for your kind of illusion in your own situation. The limiting factor is $ and real either way. This assumes as you point out it’s been optimised otherwise its diyfair with endless adjustments and no distinct end point.

  9. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Iceland
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Hi Ari,

    I have provided an explanation on JBL’s prior 4 way offerings and the recent SOA systems.

    We can speculate on why there are no “current” 4 way market offerings but we may never know the reasons.

    Jbl appears to using the marketing buzz of the M2 wave-guide to create other offerings. The approach seems to be develop a technical feature then popularise that feature and franchise it across the business in other offerings. It’s a different approach to systems like the L250, XPL200, Array series, Project Everest that were conceived from the ground up.

    With Greg Timbers and other notable engineers now gone from JBL the capability to design and implement a successful 4 way system may not be possible. There maybe driver manufacturing limitations with the changes that have occurred in the past 5-10 years.

    I was reminded recently in a YouTube clip of a well know audio business manufacturer that it’s often the best ideas or technically correct products that don’t succeed in the market place.

    The beauty of diy audio is you have the flexibility to evaluate and experiment with different approaches and settle on what you personally like 😀.


    the former JBL engineers are gone, we all know that, but I am not going to assert that there might be other in the future that could make a great 4-way speaker
    you can see at almost every other high-end manufacturers does not use big 15" woofer or even dual of them up to 800 - 1000Hz


    Ari

  10. #55
    Dang. Amateur speakerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,577
    Augmented 12" two-way: GT's diy.
    "Audio is filled with dangerous amateurs." --- Tim de Paravicini

  11. #56
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Xi'An,China
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Back to the topic if you want understand the “why” on JBL’s path of contemporary 3 way system it boils down to the intended listeners. The Japanese audiophiles. These systems are designed and voiced for that market. Fast firm bass and coherent midrange with industrial design elements from earlier systems. The 4365 and 4367 are examples. These system have a response in the order of 35-38 hertz f3. They have superior magnetic systems, suspension and cone structures allowing crossover points of 800 hertz without concern. The 1501 series woofers used in the DD67000 are better again. Having listened to them extensively in LA and Asia l can attest to what those woofers do.

    From a design perspective Greg Timbers didn’t compromise on the coherency of the DD67000 when he looked to bettering the bass performance for that system. See DD67000 brochure. What is perhaps lesser known is that that system goes up a whole new level when the two woofers and the horn-HF drivers are Tri amped according to Greg. Until now a hi end single chassis off the shelf Triamp active crossover configured for the DD67000 hasn’t been available.

    The problem for this audience is the significant cost of these Jbl systems and Jbl aren’t officially interested making these woofers available as a spare part.

    The notion of a 4 way system invokes extended bass and improved linearity. Back in the 70’s Jbl dealt with this by developing an extended bass woofer the 2231 and later iterations the 2231H and 2235H. While these drivers could be used up to 800-1000 hertz JBLs marketing boss at the time liked the idea of a 4 way system and jbl offered 2, 3 and 4 way systems using the 2231 woofers. What’s interesting is the 4 way systems drew popularity in Japan but were not commercially successful as envisaged in the studio segment due to the size of these systems. The initial 2120 and later iterations of a mid cone were able to produce mid range from 300-1300 hz without cone break up which was a limitation with the 2231woofers. These systems had a response to -32 hertz f3. The limitation of these systems is the restricted listening window due to the uneven polar response versus frequency. The extent of this limitation is s matter for the listener to determine. This later become a marketing claim for JBLs bi radial monitors in studio segment in the early 80’s.

    What l can say is the Jbl 4343-4345 designs as a 4 way system using the 2123H for mid duties are quite impressive. When refurbished, modified and setup properly they a stellar performers and commanding the best active crossover and power amplifiers. Other Jbl mid drivers “may” perform appropriately with due attention to the crossover network. In this context the Jbl vintage drivers were under utilised in the original stock systems.

    I have no doubt this post will draw some comments. Rather than quote the entire post can l suggest you reply with specific comments.
    Very reasonablebut for example,I am fully convinced that 1501AL-2 can work up to 850 Hz in DD67000 cabinet,but what its best performance range?
    46 lover

  12. #57
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Xi'An,China
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by hlaari View Post
    I respect your opinion 100% and I am agree with you at this thread should be stick to the discussion of (Why is 4 way design dead)

    I have play with all the new 15" woofer and also 476Mg and 476Be on few different horns
    for me nothing can match the 10" 2251j/251j midrange mid bass woofers in the 300 - 1200 range, they are faster and more accurate in that range
    and from the science, the much smaller and lighter cone in the 10" woofer fits better for that range

    of course we have all different sound taste, and that make this hobby so interesting




    Ari
    What new 15'' woofers do you play?you think 10" 2251j/251j midrange mid bass woofers are better than 2123H in the 300 - 1200Hz range?why?
    46 lover

  13. #58
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Xi'An,China
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Hi Ari,

    I have provided an explanation on JBL’s prior 4 way offerings and the recent SOA systems.

    We can speculate on why there are no “current” 4 way market offerings but we may never know the reasons.

    Jbl appears to using the marketing buzz of the M2 wave-guide to create other offerings. The approach seems to be develop a technical feature then popularise that feature and franchise it across the business in other offerings. It’s a different approach to systems like the L250, XPL200, Array series, Project Everest that were conceived from the ground up.

    With Greg Timbers and other notable engineers now gone from JBL the capability to design and implement a successful 4 way system may not be possible. There maybe driver manufacturing limitations with the changes that have occurred in the past 5-10 years.

    I was reminded recently in a YouTube clip of a well know audio business manufacturer that it’s often the best ideas or technically correct products that don’t succeed in the market place.

    The beauty of diy audio is you have the flexibility to evaluate and experiment with different approaches and settle on what you personally like ��.
    Maybe it is a very important factor that with GT's left,JBL now has no capability of designing complex muti way studio monitor speaker system
    46 lover

  14. #59
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Xi'An,China
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Widget View Post
    I am not sure about the relative health of the 4-Way, but last week I was able to spend some quality time with an augmented 12” 2-way. This system is quite costly, especially compared to vintage 4-Ways, but it totally kicks their butts in every way! Finesse, accuracy, SPL... this system was simply amazing. If I could afford them financially and real estate wise, I’d be waiting for delivery!

    https://www.whathifi.com/us/features...luehorn-system


    Widget
    Beautiful,is it a hi-end system?but it is too expensive
    46 lover

  15. #60
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Xi'An,China
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium Dome View Post
    Hey, Widget!

    Looks like a purposed three-way to me. Even the Berkeley install has all three drivers in L-C-R. Did you hear just the two drivers in the top cabinet, or were you listening to all three drivers in two cabinets per channel?

    I drive those Widget-delivered K2 S9900s actively with subs using BSS electronics with curves provided by Greg, so I consider them 3.5-way units. The SDA-4600 amps here driving the M2s also incorporate 18” subs into the channels, so the M2 is a functional three-way.

    The blue horn looks cool, and I assume the $80k price includes the subs and optimization electronics but not amplification? I’ve got maybe $12k into K2s, subs, electronics, and amplification, and it’s conceivable that the Meyer gear is more than six times the product that the K2 system is. I doubt it, but, still, I’d love to hear it. (I guess at full retail, it would be 4x as costly.)

    Yet, continuing the thesis of this thread I’ve yet to hear a two-way that did not benefit from augmentation either at the top or bottom (or both), so my subjective opinion is that a three-way properly constructed and equalized will be better than a two-way, and a four-way with advanced drivers, cabinetry, wave guide, and electronic optimization could be the best of all.

    Now, if someone would just make it...
    Hi Doug,i totally agree with you,by master designer,best drivers working togather at each best ranges must be a best speaker system
    46 lover

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-17-2016, 09:24 AM
  2. LE 20 Dead?
    By shaansloan in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-15-2008, 01:23 PM
  3. My JBL sub is dead
    By Thornton Davis in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-15-2005, 04:29 PM
  4. Till we `re dead
    By paragon in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-09-2005, 11:47 AM
  5. Dead LE5-2
    By Donald in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2004, 12:04 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
  •