Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: M2 clone variation proposal

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    france
    Posts
    4

    Post M2 clone variation proposal

    Hi all,

    First post on a speaker's forum, I am a beginner, near Paris, and after reading the few thread about M2s, your nice stories pushed me to imagine owning a pair to listen to CDs, mp3, streaming and home theater.
    I like pop, rock, beethoven like, modern jazz, voices.
    I am not in a hurry, so it could take 2+ year to imagine understand few maths as well the wood working, fine.
    My listening place is currently horrible, being not symetric. Perhaps in 1 year, I may have a dedicated room, let's see.

    So, before ordering the standard M2 parts that represent some K$, I wanted your feedback if the D2430 is the only way to go, or if a "2450 + 2216" would make the job.
    Is a 2450 better for home, compared to the D2430 for pro?

    As I did hear none of them, I am looking forward to your experience and advices.
    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Don C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Santa Rosa CA
    Posts
    1,641
    2450 is 2 inch throat, larger then the M2 horn with it's 1.5 inch inlet.

  3. #3
    Senior Member ivica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    serbia
    Posts
    1,605
    Quote Originally Posted by rodec View Post
    Hi all,

    First post on a speaker's forum, I am a beginner, near Paris, and after reading the few thread about M2s, your nice stories pushed me to imagine owning a pair to listen to CDs, mp3, streaming and home theater.
    I like pop, rock, beethoven like, modern jazz, voices.
    I am not in a hurry, so it could take 2+ year to imagine understand few maths as well the wood working, fine.
    My listening place is currently horrible, being not symetric. Perhaps in 1 year, I may have a dedicated room, let's see.

    So, before ordering the standard M2 parts that represent some K$, I wanted your feedback if the D2430 is the only way to go, or if a "2450 + 2216" would make the job.
    Is a 2450 better for home, compared to the D2430 for pro?

    As I did hear none of them, I am looking forward to your experience and advices.
    Thanks in advance.
    HI rodec,

    Welcome to the Forum.
    May be You think of 2450-1.5 or 2451 or 2447, or 476Be or 476Mg, but the problem would be UHF reproduction, except You would get Be/Mg diaphragms.
    regards
    ivica

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    france
    Posts
    4
    Thanks for your prompt responses.

    I tought about the 2450SL 1.5" (saw in the spec), read that 476be would be very difficult to find.
    I did not imagine the UHF will be an issue.
    I will check the price of be diaphragram and reread some threads where I remember have seen some measures.

  5. #5
    Member sebackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    469
    Hi,

    You should be fine with a 4" (2447, 2450SL, 2451, 2452 or 2453) 1,5" driver with SL diaphragms. No real need for UHF with those diaphragms just some tweaking in the DSP. The 243* drivers do not seem to work equally good on the M2 WG


    However, M2 is a system with the specific BSS DSP, the JBL settings, the cabinet and the specific drivers. If you alter any of this it is no longer an M2 system and the result will be different.

    You may very well like the new system and be very happy with it, but an M2 it is not.

    I have tried many drivers on the M2 waveguide (I got my first pair of M2 WG’sin early 2015) and my preference is the 24XX-sl drivers on a stand-alone basis. The Be drivers may sound a little “closer” but the early drop off in frequency and IMHO need for UHF support makes the SL a better choice. However, if you add the JBL M2 factory settings D2 is a better/easier choice unless you spend a lot of time on measuring and testing.


    Us mere mortals cannot expect to achieve the same level of system quality as achieved by JBL with thousands of hours work going into the M2 system.

    If you have the 4” drivers go with them but expect to put in many measuring/listening hours to get them working. If you need to buy drivers get the D2’s and be done with it.

    Having said all that, I built a pair 2-ways with with LE1400H woofers, M2 WG’s with 2450SL cores (476Nd diaphragms), BSS DSP with tweaked JBL M2 settings and they sounded wonderful.


    I’m also building a system with 2451Be (Truextent) on M2 WG’s and as Iveca said due to them falling off early I’m going to use 045 UHF drivers with them. They will definitely not be M2 clones but have a potential to sound pretty decent.

    You choose. The easy way with predictable very good outcome = build faithful M2 clones with BSS DSP, or go you own way and expect quite some man hours and with the possibility to get very good result.

    Kind regards
    //Rob
    The solution to the problem changes the problem.
    -And always remember that all of your equipment was made by the lowest bidder

  6. #6
    Senior Member pos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    2,491
    Hello Rodec, welcome to this forum, and to this hobby

    Quote Originally Posted by rodec View Post
    I am not in a hurry, so it could take 2+ year to imagine understand few maths as well the wood working, fine.
    That's the spirit

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    france
    Posts
    4
    Thanks all, I did not expect a so active forum with fast replies, wonderful!

    I quote this, because I was afraid to get it: "You choose" . Thanks anyway ;-)
    Certainly a good risk management, take a proven "open" association, and focus where you have more flexibility.

    By default, I did not imagine to make a 100% M2 clone, just reach a very good level of music at home.

    Before having a 100% fixed idea on the compression model, I would like to understand the digital path.
    Do you know good articles / threads where the digital chain is exposed, i.e. the amp / dsp / filter possibilites?
    I want to make the digital progression step by step, I will not copy harman crown.



  8. #8
    Member Mitchco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Canada
    Posts
    49
    If you are into computer audio playback, one can perform all of the DSP in the software domain. Here is one example from a member that chose this route for his M2's and subs: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum...s-w-subs.2369/

    I did something similar with JBL 4722's: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/c...diolense-r712/ Mentioned to say I am very impressed with the 4" 2453h-SL CD"s that replaced the 2432's. The 4" SL's can make it almost to 20 kHz, as shown in the measured frequency response in the article. Sounds really smooth to my ears with really low distortion...

    User notnyt on the AVSForum measured numerous 1.5" JBL CD's including the D2430, on the 2384 waveguide: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...akers-121.html While not the M2 waveguide, maybe give you some ideas... The measurements go on for some 40 pages, including notnyt's CD preference..

    Good luck with your journey!

  9. #9
    Member sebackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    469
    Hi Rodec,

    Sorry for a lengthy post.

    This will lack some spaces between words and I don’t know why that is but is a result of being cut and past from Word.

    It’s really that simple. If you want audio Nirvana (for some) build faithful M2 clones/system as they are (to me and many others) a superior design and performance. -And they can be adapted by the DSP to the room they are put in.

    They are probably the only such advanced speaker system in the world right now that it is possible to replicate in close enough detail to expect very close to original results.

    As member 4313b elegantly put it while back: “Either you like them or you are wrong”. 😊

    You also do have member POS in Paris and he is very experienced and give very good input o M2 and many other things.

    Having said all that, many of us enjoy other combinations, even on M2 WG’s. So, it is really your choice 😊 as undoubtedly there is little chance that someone else has tried your eventually chosen combination of drivers in combination with your electronics. Hence, we don’t know and can only provide help and experience in parts not the whole. With M2 clones using the original parts/electronics we can be pretty sure about the expected outcome.

    I myself have chosen the second path in building my own combinations and had excellent help from very experienced members here on LH and elsewhere, but for “system” design I had to do the hours at the measuring rig and listening using reference material and reference speakers to keep the findings reasonable sane. Fun but time consuming.

    Regarding the digital chain there is really a matter of what your source of material is. Is it a digital source, then keep it in the digital domain for as long as possible. To go further on this topic, we venture into mined territory as there are many views on this. I will just share my view and others can correct and/or share their views.

    DAC’s are rather easy to get right, there are only a handful manufacturers of chips and they all provide standard circuits to use. Many high-end producers may alter the schematics but since you are working with rather controlled environment and digital input to the circuits my findings are that the most important areas are the clock and the output filters.

    Low sampling rates require more expensive filters components and many argue that high sampling rate or up-sampling improves quality of which I’m not so sure. Please see attached articles. Most producers go high sampling because it is easier and cheaper and many others do it because the general view is that “higher is better”.

    The real problem IMHO is the sample rate conversion done in most digital equipment to manage clock drift. In a studio you typically would see all “machines” run 24 bit / 96Khz from one master clock. No sample rate converters in the chain.

    The CD format is 16bit / 44,1kHz (red book) format so there has to be a conversion before the material leaves the studio chain where it normally is 24/96. As 44,1 and 48kHz is nor evenly divided such conversion is power consuming to be done bit perfect, hence this procedure is often done off-line when leaving mastering. The reverse is also true going from 44,1 to 48/96/whatever-times-8 is also difficult on the fly, hence the inherent problem in sample rate converters. Even so-called high quality femto clock’s drift, hence most equipment with their own clocks use sample rate converters on the input circuits to re-clock the material. In the BSS world you can actually disengage the sample rate converters in SW but unless you use the same clock unit for both sender and receiver unit it does give audible digital artefacts.

    However, my view is that most DAC implementations are “good enough” and often what many people refer to as identifiable sonic differences is really differences in sound pressure level. The ear is not really that sensitive in frequency shifts but very sensitive to sound pressure changes. I’m not saying that they all sound alike but I’m claiming that in a full double-blind AB test of high-quality equipment and with Lab Standard calibrated sound pressure levels, very few would be able to identify the differences. The Nyquist theorem still rules.

    The real problem lies on the other side, the ADC. Thera are many ways to convert analogue to digital and the circuits are very sensitive on the analogue side. Combined with the fact that most of us does rarely listen to the systems at full power the ADC will have very low level of input signal to work with and often come close to the signal to noise floor. Her I would argue that the difference is rather noticeable between different units, even at the same sound pressure level. Any thermal noise, jitter or digital artefacts here would be audible well after the DAC’s.

    And for computer music my short recommendation is to use an external sound card with asynchronous USB connection. Simplified, in a synchronous USB link the computer sends data when it wants and in an asynchronous USB link the sound card demands data in the pace it can buffer it. This is regardless if you use analogue or digital out from the sound card. And the best is to use an external sound card that uses the clock signal of subsequent the DSP/XO to avoid sample rate converters further down if you keep the signal in the digital domain. Unless you go studio style with a separate clock unit BSS is the only manufacturer (that I know of) offering an sound card with asynchronous USB running the clock from the DSP and they achieve that trough their proprietary BLU-Link connection. The BLU-USB is connected to the computer asynchronous and then feed the signal in digital form 24/48 to any BSS BLU-Link enabled unit. Not known to very many but cheap, reliable and good sound quality if you run BSS DSP.

    Fore my own part I have tried to solve this by keeping the signal in the digital domain as long as possible running an all-digital system using a Meridian G68 only as a “digital switch”. The Meridian also has a Dolby decoder so it can provide 7.2 SPDIF digital 24/48 or 24/96 out. I then feed a BSS BLU-800 DSP equipped with digital input cards from the Meridian. From the BSS I have 16 channels analogue out to feed the power amps. To control the volume, I have two 8-channel attenuators (Burr Brown VCA) between the output of the BSS DSP and the power amps. In reality the digital attenuator in the BSS would be good alternative as they internally work with 41 bits floating point and hence you can reduce volume in the digital domain without losing resolution. If you drop volume on a 16-bit signal that would mean that you lose resolution. And you can control the BSS from the iPad or the iPhone via the app.

    But there are many good alternatives here besides BSS. From my point BSS is a bit pricey but the are very flexible and the algorithms do sound better than most other units I have had the chance to test. The HW probably does not deviate too much from others but the SW is very good IMHO.

    I realize now that I can go on forever on this topic so I shall stop here. I did attach an article from Xiph.org that is close to my own beleives, however I do accept that there are many other very relevant views on this and this is only my 25 cents.

    I do believe that many voices in our beloved hobby, be it producers or others, tend to be driven by money reasons rather than the laws of physics. There is much money to be had in supporting different trends regardless of real-world results. The HiFi business has to a large extend taken the form of the fashion industry and you cannot argue about taste.

    I have attached a link to a speech from Floyd Toole at CIRMMT that has many good points. Well spent time.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM


    Here is also some interesting reading from Mr Toole in 2015.
    http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17839

    And I have also attached some interesting documents.

    Sorry for the rant.

    Kind regards
    //Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images
    The solution to the problem changes the problem.
    -And always remember that all of your equipment was made by the lowest bidder

  10. #10
    Senior Member herve M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    france
    Posts
    345
    Hello Rob,
    I can not send you new private message:
    "

    • Sebackman has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space."

    Regards
    Herve


  11. #11
    Member sebackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    469
    Hi Herve

    Sorry for that. Didn't know it was full.

    Now cleaned. .

    //Rob
    The solution to the problem changes the problem.
    -And always remember that all of your equipment was made by the lowest bidder

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    france
    Posts
    4
    Hi Mitcho, I am not in music business and I do not play guitar like you. I will add Acourate in the list of candidates. I though the M2 would be perfect w/o subs. And a lot of good reading via the links you posted, even if there are very technical for my starter level.
    >Good luck with your journey!
    Will be long. Thanks.

    Hi Sebackman, first, I love the first part of the Floyd utube video (I did not finalized yet).

    >You also do have member POS in Paris and he is very experienced and give very good input o M2 and many other things.
    I need to progress on some areas before talking with him ;-)

    >Regarding the digital chain
    I am learning what could be the global scheme of the system, I spent few hours this week end just to read and read again. I start on a specific forum, and I jump from threads to thread, sites to sites, new areas to look into.
    I saw BSS, minidSP and I’ll check how to use room correction.
    All, you help a lot, I takes me a lot of time to read all you’ve sent.

    Those M2 are very interesting and very exciting

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. l88plus variation question
    By bldozier in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-03-2015, 10:35 PM
  2. Proposal Per Don's Suggestions
    By kingjames in forum Forum Feedback
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 04:34 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
  •