Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: 2440 (2") Driver in a 4343 cabinet

  1. #16
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by RMC View Post
    Hi Goldjazz,

    Thanks for your good word.

    RE "I'm going to track down a copy of this book."

    If you're going to track down a copy of John M. Eargle's "Loudspeaker Handbook", Chapman & Hall, 1997 (first edition, which I have, paid in 1997 $84. plus tX and shipping, but seen today B/O on Amazon at $130.), or the newer second edition from 2003 (with about 100 pages more than mine), this one published by Springer-Verlag New York Inc., you should be aware the latter book may well be on the expensive side, like $200+ ! even on Amazon, still worth it in my view for 2nd ed., especially if you also have his "Handbook of Sound System Design", 1989, ELAR Publishing Co. Inc, as I do. With that complementary duo, you're seriously into sound/JBL knowledge. Real sad that Eargle passed-away some years ago... (RIP).

    John Eargle was not only a trained musician (Bachelor and Master degrees in Music), but also a trained Engineer (Bachelor and Master degrees in Electrical Engineering). In addition, he was a renowned Recording Engineer for RCA and Mercury records (he wrote books on Recording Engineering/Mics-also transducers), and worked for Altec and JBL. At JBL, if my memory serves me well, his last position was V-P or Senior Director of Product Development and applications. That should ring a bell re my post # 8 where you thanked me! He was also a noted expert in Cinema Sound, studio monitors, etc. Plus, he was JBL's pen or writer, having authored with G. Augspurger the famous "Sound System Design, Reference Manual", and written MANY articles in the "Journal of the Audio Engineering Society", with JBL Engineers, covering anything Loudspeaker. Almost an encyclopedia, a rare breed of fellow, not the first "Audio Joe" met on the street corner. Many other smart fellows at JBL, but none as good as him for sharing Loudspeaker knowledge...

    If you can't get your hands on the two above-mentioned books, then my advice is: "beg, borrow or steal", as they say. These are often used at University level as tutorial and reference material for Audio Engineering.

    The first edition of "Loudspeaker handbook" (less expensive, but still quite good) may be out of print, as for the "Handbook of Sound System Design", however you may be able to puchase a used copy of each on Amazon or E-Bay, still well worth it, as long as in good condition. Regards,

    Richard

    P. S. Electroacoustical Reference Data, Chapman & Hall, 1995, is another one of his books... JBL Audio Engineering for Sound Reinforcement, 2002, by John Eargle and Chris Foreman MAY be an update or an alternative to Eargle's Handbook of Sound System Design, but I wouldn't bet on that, title not the same.
    Thanks again Richard, I will start looking for these. Watched a brief video of John Eargle speaking on youtube from several years ago. Seemed to be a true pioneer and I was very impressed with his belief in sharing knowledge.

  2. #17
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372

    2441 with Crinkle lenses.

    So I just got a pair of 2441 on 2309 horns with crinkle lenses. Quite an intense experience. Explosive and effortless indeed, a big sound. I havent got them eq'd in properly yet though. Next I'll be trying some TAD4002's om different horns.
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  3. #18
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372

    Tad YD-4002

    The Tad's are very nice. More detlicate and detailed than the 2441.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldjazz View Post
    The Tad's are very nice. More detlicate and detailed than the 2441.
    Looks like you are having fun

    It’s a chalk and cheese comparison

    What is interesting is sometime ago a highly experienced member tried the 4002 and in the end went back to a 2 inch JBL driver. I don’t recall what Jbl driver he preferred but the 4002 drove him nuts.

    The JBL Sound is what it is.

    It’s quite unmistakable.

    In the context of the Tads many people still prefer to add the slot radiator.

    A lot of these horns apart from the most recent Jbl wave guides loose diffraction control at high frequencies and they beam like a pencil or they change character.

    The 2 inch driver will do this naturally at 10,000 hz due to throat diameter. Unless the horn has a narrow vertical diffraction slot, vanes or has a narrow coverage overall it will beam.

    That’s not ideal for home audio.

    In the diy situation of course it’s about whatever floats your boat
    Some people only run the Tad 4002 up to 4000 hz then use the Tad 2002 on a smaller horn like The Living Voice large format systems.


    Keep us in the loop on your investigations

  5. #20
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Looks like you are having fun

    It’s a chalk and cheese comparison

    What is interesting is sometime ago a highly experienced member tried the 4002 and in the end went back to a 2 inch JBL driver. I don’t recall what Jbl driver he preferred but the 4002 drove him nuts.

    The JBL Sound is what it is.

    It’s quite unmistakable.

    In the context of the Tads many people still prefer to add the slot radiator.

    A lot of these horns apart from the most recent Jbl wave guides loose diffraction control at high frequencies and they beam like a pencil or they change character.

    The 2 inch driver will do this naturally at 10,000 hz due to throat diameter. Unless the horn has a narrow vertical diffraction slot, vanes or has a narrow coverage overall it will beam.

    That’s not ideal for home audio.

    In the diy situation of course it’s about whatever floats your boat
    Some people only run the Tad 4002 up to 4000 hz then use the Tad 2002 on a smaller horn like The Living Voice large format systems.


    Keep us in the loop on your investigations


    Yes having lots of fun.

    I'm using the slot when using the TAD and the 2441, I'm just using the internal crossover HF output connected to the horn, essentially just replacing the 2420 for the other driver and the new horn.

    To my ears the 2441 with the crinkle lense delivers a bigger, more effortless sound. It's a very present, live experience. It's a little fuzzier and warmer than the TAD. The 2441 seems to integrate well with the midbass to deliver nice deep notes, or draw out the deep notes better from the midbass and woofer. But perhaps doesn't integrate as well as the TAD does with the slot tweeter, or maybe the TAD is just just sharper in detail up to 9500Hz. Or maybe the 2441 is just maskiing the slot tweeter becuase its not eq'd.

    The 2441 is less hissy than the 2420 as previously mentioned, but also perhaps a little less airy. As mentioned, I haven't eq'd the 2441 so I'm sure the HF is raised which is probably contributing to the forward, powerful perception. I think I understand/agree the 2441 setup sounds more "JBL" than the TAD setup.

    The TAD 4002 on the Renkus Heinz horn is immediately lighter and more delicate. Perhaps a little faster, and a little more detailed. It's resulted in a lighter, faster, more laid back, less forward experience. It picks up nice layers of details like you'll notice a gentle synthesizer layer that you hadn't before. So delicate layered music is better on the TADs. But bold simple tracks like big soul tracks where everything is on one forward layer and boldness and engagement are key the 2441 sounds better. The TAD on the Renkus heinz horn occasionally shouts at me. Which the 2441 doesn't do on the crinkle horn. Piano and strings are nicer on the TAD, piano particularly sharper and more defined. Vocals are starting to almost float on gentle songs, whereas they don't really on the 2441.

    I think the next step is to make some measurements and adjust resistors (since I removed Lpads) to get both drivers flat. I feel a lack of EQ is causing the 2441 to feel a little one dimensional, whereas the TAD seems to have fallen closer to a flat setup to my ears.

    At this stage I can't make a call as to which I prefer. Will report back after those adjustments and more listening.

  6. #21
    Senior Member RMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,626

    Re tad 4002 more detailed than jbl 2441



    Hi Goldjazz,

    In my post # 8 I discussed differences between 2440 and 2441 compression drivers. Now time to mention some difference between 2441 and TAD's 4001-4002.

    ASSUMING the 4001 and 4002 have SIMILAR frequency response curves (since I don't have such for 4002, however both models have Beryllium diaphragm and Aluminum voice coil, the former being ribbon and the latter edge-wound), it seems to me it would not be unreasonable to think the frequency responses of both should look about equivalent.

    Therefore, looking again at John Eargle's comparison of the compression drivers mentioned in my post # 8, the additional detailed sound perceived from the TAD driver may be explained objectively. As I said before in that post, the 2441's response is rolling-off from about 6 khz. However, the TAD remains reasonably flat up to 15 khz or so, then its response rises a lot (secondary resonance explained by Eargle earlier) with a peak at about 17 khz followed by a steep drop...

    Between about 6 khz and 11 khz, the high frequency output of the TAD is roughly + 3 db higher than the JBL which is rolling-off. Plus, in the following range of about 11 khz to 15 khz the TAD has almost +5 db more output than the 2441 (this is without considering the TAD's peak at 17 khz I mentioned above).

    Seems to me at least three db more output in the high-end is bound to put forward more detail and integrate better with the slot tweeter sound (you mentioned up to 9500 hz ). Floyd E. Toole's extensive research shows frequency response and power response (off-axis) are of utmost importance regarding the quality of perceived sound from a speaker... Regards,

    Richard

  7. #22
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by RMC View Post

    Hi Goldjazz,

    In my post # 8 I discussed differences between 2440 and 2441 compression drivers. Now time to mention some difference between 2441 and TAD's 4001-4002.

    ASSUMING the 4001 and 4002 have SIMILAR frequency response curves (since I don't have such for 4002, however both models have Beryllium diaphragm and Aluminum voice coil, the former being ribbon and the latter edge-wound), it seems to me it would not be unreasonable to think the frequency responses of both should look about equivalent.

    Therefore, looking again at John Eargle's comparison of the compression drivers mentioned in my post # 8, the additional detailed sound perceived from the TAD driver may be explained objectively. As I said before in that post, the 2441's response is rolling-off from about 6 khz. However, the TAD remains reasonably flat up to 15 khz or so, then its response rises a lot (secondary resonance explained by Eargle earlier) with a peak at about 17 khz followed by a steep drop...

    Between about 6 khz and 11 khz, the high frequency output of the TAD is roughly + 3 db higher than the JBL which is rolling-off. Plus, in the following range of about 11 khz to 15 khz the TAD has almost +5 db more output than the 2441 (this is without considering the TAD's peak at 17 khz I mentioned above).

    Seems to me at least three db more output in the high-end is bound to put forward more detail and integrate better with the slot tweeter sound (you mentioned up to 9500 hz ). Floyd E. Toole's extensive research shows frequency response and power response (off-axis) are of utmost importance regarding the quality of perceived sound from a speaker... Regards,

    Richard

    Thanks Richard, what you say certainly makes sense with what I experienced. I've just attached a plot of all 3 drivers. This image was taken from another post on this forum.

  8. #23
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372
    Just went back to the TADs after listening to the 2441 for a day or two. Lowered the 4343's so the TAD drivers were closer to ear level. They are pretty great sounding now. Will go back and listen to the 2441 also at the better height, but the clarity I'm hearing from the TAD-4002's is pretty hard to beat.

  9. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldjazz View Post
    Just went back to the TADs after listening to the 2441 for a day or two. Lowered the 4343's so the TAD drivers were closer to ear level. They are pretty great sounding now. Will go back and listen to the 2441 also at the better height, but the clarity I'm hearing from the TAD-4002's is pretty hard to beat.
    Okay

    Putting it in perspective there are three key aspects to the changes

    1. Technologies- early aluminium roll surround diaphragm versus advanced beryllium surround and diaphragm
    - driver phase plug design and construction. Jbl have some technical papers in the reference section of forums on compression driver design.

    2. Response - each driver will interact differently with a particular horn depending on the drivers natural resonance, phase plug and throat design and the diaphragm design and materials.

    The Jbl compression driver design was largely unchanged for many years. They did change the diaphragm surround and materials . In recent Jbl drivers the design is almost throatless to take advantage of diffraction wave guides.

    The larger diaphragm has more output and lower distortion at the low end

    3. In the network design there are four key aspects

    The slope of the pass band
    The frequency range of the pass band
    The flatness or tilt of the pass band
    Voltage level or amplitude

    JBL carefully customised the pass band filter to suit a particular compression driver in their factory Prof Series studio multi monitors

    In the not too distant future l will publish an article on the above

    Please keep us in the loop and continue to have fun

    Ian

  10. #25
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Okay

    Putting it in perspective there are three key aspects to the changes

    1. Technologies- early aluminium roll surround diaphragm versus advanced beryllium surround and diaphragm
    - driver phase plug design and construction. Jbl have some technical papers in the reference section of forums on compression driver design.

    2. Response - each driver will interact differently with a particular horn depending on the drivers natural resonance, phase plug and throat design and the diaphragm design and materials.

    The Jbl compression driver design was largely unchanged for many years. They did change the diaphragm surround and materials . In recent Jbl drivers the design is almost throatless to take advantage of diffraction wave guides.

    The larger diaphragm has more output and lower distortion at the low end

    3. In the network design there are four key aspects

    The slope of the pass band
    The frequency range of the pass band
    The flatness or tilt of the pass band
    Voltage level or amplitude

    JBL carefully customised the pass band filter to suit a particular compression driver in their factory Prof Series studio multi monitors

    In the not too distant future l will publish an article on the above

    Please keep us in the loop and continue to have fun

    Ian
    Thanks for those interesting points. The point about integration and the crossover and other drivers is of particular interest. See plot below. Seems to integrate a little poorly as there's a noticeable dip at the crossover point of 1250 Hz. I do reacall the 2420 as being a bit more seamless in it's integration that both the TAD, the 2441, and 2440. The TAD being the "worst" for subjective integration. However the clarity and speed of that TAD is pretty undeniable, certainly appreciate the advances in material science etc that it leverages and how wonderful a performer those JBL drivers are given then have been largely unchanged. As stated in a previous post us JBL fans can "claim" the TAD due to Locanthi. So i'm able to retain my JBL pride while appreciating the TAD.

    I am interested in playing around with integrating the TAD better. I'm going to get a second active crossover and try a 3-way implementation of the 4343. So use the TAD up to 20K and not the slot. This will let me dial in a better crossover point and slope and I'll see what results I get. I'm sure the results will still be not as integrated as the 2420 on the stock crossover, some smart people went to a lot of trouble to get that result.

    The fun continues
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  11. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    Going down the Rabbit hole.

    There are lots of things going on in terms of integration

    Unfortunately none of this is a plug and play situation

    Are you using a 2121 mid cone?

  12. #27
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    Going down the Rabbit hole.

    There are lots of things going on in terms of integration

    Unfortunately none of this is a plug and play situation

    Are you using a 2121 mid cone?

    Not afraid of the Rabbit hole 2121H.

  13. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    There are two possible approaches in terms of tightening up on the integration.

    Choose a known passive network update Or

    Tri or quad biamp with active crossover

    Unless you’ve got a lot of technical resources design of your own passive crossover is quite difficult
    But a well designed passive crossover for your final choice of horn will mitigate the complexity of using several amplifiers, wires and problems with noise.

    However, if you want to experiment with several horns and your active crossover has some flexibility this is much easier for the diy person.

    The closest pre design passive network for bi amp woofer only is the 3155 charge coupled network

    Swap out the 2121 with the 2123 10 inch Mid and this network is reported to work with the 2445 2 inch driver/2311/2308 and the 2405

    This could be your baseline passive network for comparison purposes

    For the later some people are using Hypex modules with built in dsp active crossovers.

  14. #29
    Senior Member Goldjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
    There are two possible approaches in terms of tightening up on the integration.

    Choose a known passive network update Or

    Tri or quad biamp with active crossover

    Unless you’ve got a lot of technical resources design of your own passive crossover is quite difficult
    But a well designed passive crossover for your final choice of horn will mitigate the complexity of using several amplifiers, wires and problems with noise.

    However, if you want to experiment with several horns and your active crossover has some flexibility this is much easier for the diy person.

    The closest pre design passive network for bi amp woofer only is the 3155 charge coupled network

    Swap out the 2121 with the 2123 10 inch Mid and this network is reported to work with the 2445 2 inch driver/2311/2308 and the 2405

    This could be your baseline passive network for comparison purposes

    For the later some people are using Hypex modules with built in dsp active crossovers.

    Thanks Ian, Some good options there. What I'm trying next is basically Tri-amping with two active crossovers. Omitting the 2405 and using the TAD 4002 for 1250 up to 20K. Will post some impressions and plots late on this evening. I'll be using the First Watt B4 for the crossover of the 2121H to the 4002 so I've got a lot of crossover and slope options.

    Regards.

  15. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,942
    Cool

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 2440 vs. 2441 Diaphragm in 2445-driver
    By Dr.db in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-17-2015, 10:35 AM
  2. 4343 cabinet stuffing?
    By iain42 in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-05-2010, 10:29 AM
  3. When is a 1/4" - 1/2" 2440 [or 2441,5,6] spacer needed?
    By m8o in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-08-2009, 10:22 AM
  4. 4343 cabinet issues
    By pioneer in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 06:25 AM

Posting Permissions

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