Testing some used 2225 drivers

[RMC]

In a usual purchasing situation, REALISTICALLY, you won't have a lab nor a pile of instruments to test the drivers. But a good quality digital AC/DC multi-meter (easy to find and carry) can be of little help to measure drivers' DC resistance (Re) to see if far off or close to specs. JBL's spec for that 2225H is 6.3 ohms, which may vary a little. Too far off would be a red flag.

Coil rubbing (as mentioned by Lee) is a good indicator of driver damage or poorly executed recone job.

A meticulous visual inspection ALL around (bring a good flashlight) re: dents or cracks in frame or magnet, rear vent foam condition (if any, disintegrating?), cone and surround condition, spider and cone/spider junction condition to look at with light in hand when pushing a bit downwards on dust cap with your other hand, wires and terminal connectors, etc.

Naturally, a listening test of each. However, with no box the bass will be weak (front and back waves cancelling each other) but by pushing it just a little you can confirm it works ok and no coil rubbing heard.

In addition to careful inspection of black glue lines around the dust caps, as mentioned in my previous post, this is where many sellers flunk the test of "original" stuff... That black glue line is normally perfectly smooth all around on original drivers...

Unfortunately, many people lie about the real condition of their gear in order to get rid of it (selling it)... Just remember the 2225 is among the most beaten/reconed driver from the JBL lineup...

That's about the best you can do in REAL life (not an ideal world)!

BTW I agree with Lee when he says "You'll get more bass from the 2225." Though Fs, Qts and Vas are somewhat off for a 4520 type box, more like a second or third best choice in the absence of 2205H or E-140. However, I do disagree strongly with him when he says "The 2220 has a low Qts which should make it more suitable for a horn, but it is an upper midbass driver". The 4520 IS a horn-loaded box, and specs wise the 2220 is even more suitable than 2225 for 4520 use. Also the 2220 is NOT an "upper midbass driver " as he says, but rather a Low-frequency transducer as described by JBL, with even lower Fs (in the "H" version) than a 2225... But the 2220 has a few handicaps re 4520 use in practice: a much too rising response from 150 hz and up for direct radiating front wave, higher Fs, rated only 100W continuous program, and an Xmax of only 2mm in the "A" version, so it won't take the bass beating and field abuse these boxes are subject to. The "H" version of 2220 also has rising response but from about 700 hz, lower Fs, rated at 200W continuous program, but again limited Xmax of 3 mm this time. So H version much better than A version for 4520 use, but still short on Xmax concerning field requirements for bass output and abuse... That's the REAL story, and reason why the K/E-145 was even preferred in some cases over the 2220 for 4520 use considering its low bass output capability (though not recommended by JBL for that use).

Richard

[RMC]

First a correction. The 2220A I referred to at the end of my post # 16 is a 2220 alone (with no "A") as seen in the 03/70 spec sheet. Plus, concerning rising response: 60 hz level compared to mid-bass level on JBL's response curve there's about a 5-6+ db level difference, and that goes on from 200 hz up to about 2 khz !

Another correction. With regards to "The "H" version of 2220 also has rising response but from about 700 hz..." in my previous post (# 16) his WRONG. It also starts at 150 hz. That rise in response (spec sheet 07/89) is of comparable magnitude to that of earlier driver version mentioned above (60 hz level compared to mid-bass level on JBL's response curve there's also about a 5-6+ db level difference, and that also goes on from 200 hz up to about 2 khz!). The different graph presentation tricked me... Dumb me, as Keele once said.

That part of higher level response up to 800 hz, usual crossover to a 2440-1/2395 type of setup with 4520, would sound more agressive or offensive in a direct radiating front wave, compared to lower level bass output. Moreover, it would not disappear by magic at 800 hz because of driver response overlap above X-over point. In addition, JBL frequently used 12 db/oct. crossovers in Sound Reinforcement so the offensive woofer sound would have taken longer bandwidth to fade away compared to steeper crossovers...

So, H version of 2220 still better than previous one for 4520 use (not on response curve), but again not much better on Xmax...

Rarity of good 2205H/E-140, and handicaps of 2220 make the more available 2225H the "second or third best" choice for 4520 cabinets. It also has more uniform response than 2220/H, and a more gentle and progressive response rise from 500 hz to + 3 db at 1.5 khz.

Richard

[budney]

hey richard,

thanks for the info, I'm definitely learning a lot from this website! I'll steer clear of the 2220, none for sale round here anyway. But if you say that it has a limited Xmax of 3mm, the 2205 only has an Xmax of 2.54. I don't understand how the originally recommended driver for the 4520 has such a low Xmax if its meant to take a beating. Also, the E140 Xmax is 3.5mm, compared to the 2225 of 5mm. So that driver is not a good candidate for disco sound reinforcement (when comparing it to the 2225)? I only ask this because a pair of E140s have popped up closer to me than the 2225s, but for more money, so I'm trying to weigh up the pros and cons for both the E140s and the 2225s.

the E140s cost more, and there is only 2 of them, so could be tricky finding another pair. Also the genuine recone kit for them seems harder to come across than the 2225 so theres the issue of if one ever needed a recone I'd be in trouble. With a lower Xmax then they are more likely to reach excursion and become damaged, so an E140 requiring a recone would be more likely than a 2225. The E140 is more sensitive so would be more efficient, so many deciding factors!

The 2225s are pretty cheap (compared to the E140s) for all 4 and then I wouldn't have to be scrabbling trying to find another pair for a stereo set up, and hopefully further down the line they'd be easier to find for a quad set up. They'd be easier to repair and less likely to burn out, but the second runner up with regards to matching the 4520 requirements. I'm debating whether to just bite the bullet and get them all, and then decide which ones I like later...it seems like everything I need is suddenly appearing close to me so maybe its fate!

Also it depends on the condition, if when I see the 2225s they're not in the greatest shape then maybe I could get them for cheaper, or should avoid them all together. Just waiting on some pics of the E140s as he couldn't access them immediately, so not sure on their condition.

Barney

[RMC]

Yes, in that 4520 application stay away from 2220/H for reasons already given (plus more suited for front-loaded bass horns), and preferable to go with 2225H here. BTW the 2205 was also one of the most reconed drivers, during his time, because of abuses in 4520/4530 boxes. E-140 "higher" sensitivity is mid-band sensitivity (500-2,500 hz), not low frequency. Please check before. To make a long story short, here we go:

The original 2205 came out around 1971 and was converted from Alnico to Ferrite magnet (H version) around 1980 or so. I purchased my 2205H in 1981 and I have a computer printout from JBL's database, for a box they modeled for me, that says Xmax 0.14 inch (= 3.56mm). I have written before on this site in another thread titled "15 in. Pro woofers not tested by JBL?", that the 2.54 mm for 2205 appears to be an error. In JBL's tables of T/S parameters, the numbers for 2205A and 2205H are identical, as for a few other converted drivers at career end, which is VERY suspicious since in my sample of converted drivers there are ALWAYS at least minor differences between the before and after versions data (e.g. A vs H), but for a few exceptions near cycle end... Since its almost impossible that converted drivers' data be a carbon copy of the previous ones, a fellow member offered as an explanation the fact that most likely they didn't bother to correct/update numbers issued since these were phased out shortly anyway. Plus, 4520/4530 cabinets also disappeared from JBL catalogs since 1982 if my memory serves me well.

Remember, the late 70's/early 80's were hectic at JBL: the Ferrite conversion process/situation, JBL was being sold by Sidney Harman (named secretary of commerce) to Beatrice Foods (!) if my memory is correct (he bought it back, in dismay he said, after a couple of years), the competition (i.e. Gauss) was coming out with 400 W woofers VS JBL's 150 sine wave/300 W program, new format for data sheets including metric numbers and T/S parameters, etc.

Even if the 2205 was the most widely used driver for the 4520/4530 cabinet era, it was being phased out with the cabinets. It was replaced in 1982 by the 2225H (first spec sheet issued Jan. 82 and revised spec sheet issued Nov. 85). The largely selling 2205 and K-140 were "re-issued" in 1981-2 as 2225H and E-140 (converted, and higher power) with a 200 W continuous sine wave/400 W continuous program power ratings. Finally, the JBL marketing guys could also claim to have 400 W drivers too VS Gauss eating market share in power war...

To my knowledge, the 3 mm Xmax for 2220H came much later in time (spec sheet July 89) compared to 2205H being released in 1980-1. Previous version of 2220 had less Xmax at 2mm according to JBL's T/S tables (not mentioned in other 2220 spec sheet I have from 1970). Nothing unusual here, it follows the general tendency of Xmax increases with time, as well as with power capacity increase, and linked to the ever lower cost of the Watt... So the older version 2220 (2mm) should be compared to the 2205 (3.56mm) since the latter was phased out 1981, but the 2220H (3mm) seems to have appeared 8 years later in 1989. And the 2205 replacement (2225) has 5mm as you mentioned with 200 W/400 W compared to 2205 (3.56mm) with 150/300 W... You should also read JBL Pro Low-Frequency Enclosures 05/80 in the section about suitable drivers for rear AND FRONT loaded boxes to better understand the reality of 2220, 2205, E-140...

To understand the why and how of things they often have to be put in context and chronological order, which takes time and verifications. Don't compare lightly things from different ages, the results are bound to appear unacceptable. I'll leave it at that for the time being.

Richard

[budney]

I went to pick up the drivers today, and it went better than I expected. Turns out I knew the guy already, I engineered for him when he DJ'd once and I had a lengthy chat with him about gear, so was a pleasant surprise to meet him again.

Spent a good while testing them, they seemed dusty and dirty but not really that used. Turns out he's a squatter and pulled them out of an old cinema he was squatting at!

Two were recones as everyone rightly pointed out, they had the date they were reconed, 1989! They had the same white code as the other drivers so I'm confident they are the genuine kit. One of them was buzzing really quite badly, so I managed to get the price down quite a bit for that one. When I got home and had a proper look it was just the wires from the terminals touching the cone, so very pleased that it was an easy fix. Another one had a strange buzz but when I pressed and put pressure on the frame the noise changed, and eventually went away, so I'm not sure what the deal with that one is. The noise does sound like its coming from one side of the frame though, maybe the foam surround? Not sure what to do about that. The other two drivers were fine. I can't believe how punchy they are, even just as a raw driver not in a speaker! Really happy with them thanks everyone for all your help and answering my endless barrage of questions.

He also threw in 3 busted drivers for free, because he liked the sound of my project! and he thought I'd put them to use as he wasn't that big on jbl, and he probably lifted them/got them from somewhere so no skin of his nose. Anyone have any idea how far gone these drivers are? Obviously they'll need a recone, but would they need anything else done to them? Any suggestions for what I should do with the 2204s?

ps thanks richard for the history lesson, it really fascinates me, all this old gear. Knowing the history behind it all really helps me build a bigger picture of jbl back then, I'm glad that this community is here and this knowledge can be shared.

the broken drivers

[Lee in Montreal]

2220 vs 2225 vs 2235

As can be seen from the graph, the 2220 is way more generous in the upper range than a 2225. If you reduce the output of the 2220 to match its medium range with a 2225, you end up with much less bass. ;-)

[ivica]

I went to pick up the drivers today, and it went better than I expected........
Anyone have any idea how far gone these drivers are? Obviously they'll need a recone, but would they need anything else done to them? Any suggestions for what I should do with the 2204s?

......

Hi budney

may be 2204H can be used in a small box (100 Lit, 40Hz) crossed at round 1200Hz, with CD drviver such as 2441/45/46/50 with 2311 & 2308 or
2447/2450-1.5/2451/2452 loaded with CD horns such as stx825 or pth1010 horns

http://reconingspeakers.com/product/...f-1-waveguide/
or
http://reconingspeakers.com/product/...006815-stx825/
http://reconingspeakers.com/product/...19-for-stx815/

may interesting
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post397052


regards
ivica