Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Which speaker for 4530, 2205H or 2225H ?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    9

    Which speaker for 4530, 2205H or 2225H ?

    Hi,

    Back in the 80's I build 4 4530's with new 2205 speakers.
    On every 2 4530's there was one 2395 on top, all running at a crossover frequency of 800Hz... ;-)

    Sounded great but was sold about 10 years ago.
    Now our son is old enough to experience the good old JBL sound so we're going to build 4 new 4530's...

    My question to you is: which speaker to use, the 2205H or the 2225H?
    The 2205H are more difficult to get but I can get 4 used ones.
    The 2225H is a bit easier but of course, also used.
    All speakers look okay for their age though.

    Could you give me some advice please?

    Kind regards,

    Arne.

  2. #2
    Senior Member RMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    596
    Hi Arne,

    Welcome aboard!

    I hope you kept the box plans from the previous sets, since JBL never officially published these. A German fellow? (Helmut Lengefeld) has posted on the Net a set of his plans (exact or not, I don't know), but I have a similar set from Fane Acoustics, which I know are not the exact same thing: width and depth seem about ok but height definitely not as the original 4530 box had about 48" high and Fane's is 40" tall or so. If you need these from the German guy and Fane let me know.

    The original woofers for 4530 cabinets were the 2205 (A, B, C, H). Though I still have a pair of original 2205H in fine condition and appreciate them in vented boxes, I wouldn't necessarily go for these if I were you, purely for practical reasons.

    "Look ok for their age" seems like an honest description from you but it may not tell all unless you know the vendor personnaly and his usage. The 2205H are used, naturally, but may have been beaten like many of these were back in the days, could possibly have been reconed already with 2225H original or aftermarket kits? etc. If you had to recone the 2205H it would probably be with 2225H recones anyway. Moreover, you indicate 2225H being easier to get.

    Then you might as well go with the more recent 2225H, not identical to 2205H though, but has more power input and low-frequency capability, plus increased highest recommended crossover frequency than 2205H (giving a little more flexibility re horn driver if needed). Finally, recone kits for 2225H (original or aftermarket) may be easier to get if need be.

    The 2225H was not directly specified by JBL for use in 4530/4520 (2205H and E 140 were), but simply as a closest driver available (at the time) that could "replace" a 2205H. Comparing just a few relevant T/S parameters shows both drivers 2205H/2225H are not the same: Fs 30hz/40hz, Qts 0.21/0.28, Vas 297/179L. As for E-140, same parameters in same order: 32hz, 0.17, 297 L. 2225H will still work, not as optimal but you may not really hear a sizeable difference.

    In any case, you would need to inspect carefully and listen to those drivers to assess their condition (e.g. rubbing).

    I hope the above helps you a little. Regards,

    Richard

    EDIT: I have another set of similar plans from JBL's George Augspurger but these are more like 4520 cabinets than 4530.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    9
    Hi Richard,

    Thank you so much for your kind answer.

    At this moment we've put a stop on the 4530 build ideas because we are not sure this is the right way to go...
    I spoke to someone overhere and he told me, for the music nowadays (the music my son plays) the 4530 together with the 2395 will not do the job.

    Back then, the 4530 and 2395 were the best of the best but today it will be wiped away by the newer, smaller designs.
    The 2395 seems to produce a phase shift and we will have a lack of sub-low...

    I've started a new thread overhere asking for advice: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...-JBL-set-again

    Kind regards,

    Arne.

  4. #4
    Senior Member macaroonie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    near Glasgow Scotland
    Posts
    2,000
    2226H maybe ?

  5. #5
    Senior Member RMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    596
    Hi Macaroonie,

    Certainly by today's standards the 2226H would be the "last resort" available option in the catalog. Theoretically, the 2220H or 2227H MAY also fit the bill but there's other issues involved using them here. Had not mentioned the 2226H driver since Arne had inquired about 2205H/2225H. But you're right nevertheless.

    BTW there's a typo in my post # 2 here: Vas for 2225H is NOT 179 L., but instead 170 L., I guess I hit the wrong key.

    2226H: Fs 40 hz, Qts 0.31 and Vas 176 L. (from JBL's TS table). Qts at 0.31 is even a little higher than a 2225H which was already higher than 2205H/E 140...

    2226H was not purposely designed for this sort of use in 4530/4520 type of boxes, however, like a 2225H, it will still work, not optimally, but the perceived difference may or may not be quite significant.

    Just for fun, compare LF response curves of 2225H, 2226H and 2227H for example, in the same box volume (5 cu.ft) using the same tuning frequency (40 hz), as shown in their respective data sheet. Their Vas (box size influencer) is about the same, as well as Fs. But their Qts (another box size influencer) varies: 0.28, 0.31 and 0.21 (in same order as above).

    You will note the flattest LF curve of the group in these conditions is the 2226H one (highest Qts), second best, though a little more dropping, is 2225H with a Qts lower but close to 2226H, and the worst dropping LF curve is the 2227H one which happens to be the lowest Qts driver of the group by a good margin...

    The chamber volume behind the driver(s) in a 4530/4520 is pretty small and larger Qts drivers tend to be more "at ease" with larger back volumes... My guess is that 2226H may have here a little more peaky LF response due to chamber volume? Regards,

    Richard

  6. #6
    Senior Member macaroonie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    near Glasgow Scotland
    Posts
    2,000
    I'm trying to recall the chamber construction in the scoops , it may be that a
    little reduction in chamber volume would suit the 2226. It certainly would make
    for a punchy bass cab. Not so much deep deep though but you know punchy
    can give the impression of deep bass.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    GREECE - ATHENS
    Posts
    135
    I have try the k140 d140 2220 and Gauss 4580. K140 stay

  8. #8
    Senior Member RMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    596
    Hi Macaroonie,

    I'm looking right now at a scoop 4520 type (2 X 15") plan given by George Augspurger long ago and the dimensions shown for the rear chamber are: 6.25" D X 15.25" H X 34.25" W = 3,264.5 cu.in. or 1.889 cu.ft., again this is for the two woofer version.

    So this gives an idea of how small that chamber is, then figure about half of this for one driver cab 4530. You get almost a cubic foot per driver... Not a whole lot, and no wonder very low Qts drivers are usually the most suitable for this task, plus don't normally lead to good deep bass.

    To get otherwise the box would need to be HUGE. Still clever Engineering though, in my view, for what its designed to do.

    Exactly, punchy bass cabs as you say, I described that elsewhere as amplitude in response, instead of bandwidth as in VLF.

    RE "... you know punchy can give the impression of deep bass." Yes it can fool many, couldn't agree more with you on this. But since most of these type of cabinets were installed in dance clubs in the old days, then punchy met the beat/rhythm requirement of dance floors. Regards,

    Richard

  9. #9
    Senior Member RMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    596
    Hi Retro Soulman,

    Good to see you back with some feedback on what drivers you tried in 4530. I'm not surprised at all the JBL K 140 stay.

    If I remember well I hinted to you previously this was your best option among the drivers you had on-hand. Larger Xmax was one reason.

    Another is, as mentioned before, I had friends who built JBL LF horn type boxes for a living and in these 4530 or 4520 they typically used 2205 and K 140, even sometimes K 145!

    Keep those, among what you have, K 140 is your best bass bet, but don't crossover too high because of K 140 rising response since its a musical instrument driver. Nice to hear from you again. Regards,

    Richard

  10. #10
    Senior Member macaroonie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    near Glasgow Scotland
    Posts
    2,000
    Quote Originally Posted by RMC View Post
    Hi Macaroonie,

    I'm looking right now at a scoop 4520 type (2 X 15") plan given by George Augspurger long ago and the dimensions shown for the rear chamber are: 6.25" D X 15.25" H X 34.25" W = 3,264.5 cu.in. or 1.889 cu.ft., again this is for the two woofer version.

    So this gives an idea of how small that chamber is, then figure about half of this for one driver cab 4530. You get almost a cubic foot per driver... Not a whole lot, and no wonder very low Qts drivers are usually the most suitable for this task, plus don't normally lead to good deep bass.

    To get otherwise the box would need to be HUGE. Still clever Engineering though, in my view, for what its designed to do.

    Exactly, punchy bass cabs as you say, I described that elsewhere as amplitude in response, instead of bandwidth as in VLF.

    RE "... you know punchy can give the impression of deep bass." Yes it can fool many, couldn't agree more with you on this. But since most of these type of cabinets were installed in dance clubs in the old days, then punchy met the beat/rhythm requirement of dance floors. Regards,

    Richard
    2 cu ft. Wow that's not a lot although the 2226 will tolerate quite small reflex boxes ( in the
    grand scheme of things ) hence my hypothesis. I've built some of those back on the day so long ago
    I hardly recall anything about them other than them being pretty worhy sound wise. Built a vanload over Altec 1215 boxes as well. They seemed better what with the larger area
    My plywood merchant loved me 👍

  11. #11
    Senior Member jbl4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    McHenry IL
    Posts
    276
    Arne, the 2205 and 2225 work fine in either 4530 or 4520's. The 2220's not enough for any bottom end. Never tried the E140'S. Easy to find components over their maybe the 2225H, 3110A, 2370, 2426J make some 3106's add 2404H nice 3 way version. Here are some pictures of some that have come and gone. Last picture still have them.
    Name:  026.jpg
Views: 142
Size:  131.1 KB
    Name:  027.jpg
Views: 143
Size:  59.2 KBName:  028.jpg
Views: 146
Size:  52.4 KBName:  029.jpg
Views: 136
Size:  64.2 KBName:  517.jpg
Views: 144
Size:  82.5 KB

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    GREECE - ATHENS
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by RMC View Post
    Hi Retro Soulman,

    Good to see you back with some feedback on what drivers you tried in 4530. I'm not surprised at all the JBL K 140 stay.

    If I remember well I hinted to you previously this was your best option among the drivers you had on-hand. Larger Xmax was one reason.

    Another is, as mentioned before, I had friends who built JBL LF horn type boxes for a living and in these 4530 or 4520 they typically used 2205 and K 140, even sometimes K 145!

    Keep those, among what you have, K 140 is your best bass bet, but don't crossover too high because of K 140 rising response since its a musical instrument driver. Nice to hear from you again. Regards,

    Richard

    ) i cross my k140 at 800hz (always use active crossovers , passive JBL are total crap), the sound with a little help from the tone control of my GAS thaedra is great! 2220 got a little more open sound but not as fat as k140!

  13. #13
    Senior Member martin_wu99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Xi'An,China
    Posts
    1,487
    Quote Originally Posted by jbl4ever View Post
    Arne, the 2205 and 2225 work fine in either 4530 or 4520's. The 2220's not enough for any bottom end. Never tried the E140'S. Easy to find components over their maybe the 2225H, 3110A, 2370, 2426J make some 3106's add 2404H nice 3 way version. Here are some pictures of some that have come and gone. Last picture still have them.
    Name:  026.jpg
Views: 142
Size:  131.1 KB
    Name:  027.jpg
Views: 143
Size:  59.2 KBName:  028.jpg
Views: 146
Size:  52.4 KBName:  029.jpg
Views: 136
Size:  64.2 KBName:  517.jpg
Views: 144
Size:  82.5 KB
    Very beautiful
    46 lover

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    49

    K140

    K140 in 4560?

    what other designs does the K140 work well in.. I dont have room for 4530

  15. #15
    Senior Member Lee in Montreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    2,494
    A Low Qt is what is needed for a horn. Woofers with a high Qt are for bass-reflex system.

    The 2205 has Fs 30 and Qt 0.21 (same as K140).

    The e140 is known to be great for low end with Fs 30 and a Qt of 0.17. It was designed initially as a bass and organ woofer. Fast and snappy cone. It would be my choice along with the 2205.

    The 2226 has Fs 40 and Qt 0.31

    For best sound, the 2205 is preferred. It can handle less power than a 2226 but it'll be more than enough for home use. As a DJ in the very early 1980s, I had to be very carefull not bottoming my 2205s ;-)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 2225A vs 2205H vs 2225H
    By Lee in Montreal in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-22-2012, 02:28 PM
  2. Jbl 4530
    By alnico in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-24-2011, 08:26 AM
  3. K 145 in 4530, love it
    By paragon in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-13-2005, 01:00 PM
  4. 4530
    By imtkjlu in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-20-2004, 05:19 PM
  5. 2205H, What are it's designed uses?
    By still4given in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-05-2004, 07:47 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
  •