Edgewound...JBL Pro Authorized...since 1988
Upland Loudspeaker Service, Upland, CA
Here’s an email from a customer in Finland back in 2015:
”Hi Ken.Reconing went well and the reproduction cone sounds very accurate but little bit dry.I think thats because the cone is not broken in yet.the spider is still little bit tight but it will come loosen when time goes on and sound comes warmer.Thank you regards Eljas.”
His word is “accurate”.
Edgewound...JBL Pro Authorized...since 1988
Upland Loudspeaker Service, Upland, CA
Glad to see you've got the shop up and running and are making the modified kits. I don't need any currently, but accidents happen, and JBL ain't got em. There's a lot of 2245h baskets our there. Great woofer.
I too would load your box with a 2245h. You will need the 6db boost as explained in the linked article. Fiberglass, or loose wool stuffing for fill.
My vote (FWIW) is the 2245. It is optimized in 8 cu ft as evidenced by the B460 sub JBL designed.
I don’t think the 2243 was designed for domestic use. It was used in the Sound Power series I believe.
Barry.
If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.
Pros and cons
2241H is by far the cheapest and most readily available. 2245..., not so much.
2241 goes lower than 2242. Forget watts, that's not an issue here.
2245 will require a refoam every 10-20 years.
2245 is better for a subwoofer, but a 2241 sounds more like a bass guitar should sound (texture) in a multi-way system.
BTW, I would seriously be considering the 2269 if available.
Not that anyone really noticed, but G.T. let it be known many years back, ( through his spoke-person of the time ) that the 2241H was a laudable substitute for the hard-to-get 2245H.
Running some sims shows that to be true. Additionally, one has some recent testimonials ( like Todds ) to savour.
On the same subject ( sort-of ), G.T also mentioned the undiscovered HiFi capabilities of the roundly ignored 2204H.
I have not found that the 2241 goes lower than the 2242 and quite the opposite. I've used quite a bit of both and the 4645C routinely out performs the 4641 and the only difference is the driver...same box, same tuning.
Neither go as deep as the 2245, natch, though the 2245 doesn't have the power of the others. I'd agree that, for home use, the 2245 would be the one to seek. I also agree that the 2269 is worth considering though I think it should be given a box worthy of it. I have a genuine B460 (original owner) and this past year built a pair of SUB18 semi-clones (a little bit bigger, play a little bit deeper). The 2269 is just all kinds of awesome if one has the funds and the power to feed it (it isn't efficient).
I am letting WinISD do its own comparison based on whatever WinISD bases it's comparisons on.
By program default, if nothing is changed (e.g., box size/tuning) all drivers are shown in their optimum tuning based on their T/S parameters to get a flat response. Certainly the box can be tuned differently (e.g., a lower frequency with a dip before a rise back to average before the rolloff, or a higher frequency with a peak before the rolloff), but I let the program select these parameters for the flattest response and this is what it comes up with.
You'll have to take that up with WinISD.
So....WinISD is better than JBL and defies actual measurements?
JBL's specs for the 4641 (2241 in an 8ft3 box) http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachm...ec%20Sheet.pdf
JBL's specs for the 4645C (2242 in the same 8ft3 box) http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachm...ec%20Sheet.pdf
The 2241 does better in the mid bass (flatter) but for getting more bottom end, 2242 will routinely beat the 2241 when loaded in the same box (be it the 4645C type box, the 4642A type box; to get it with the 2242 it is the 5749 LF system).
Again, WinISD optimizes the box for the driver's T/S parameters. The 2241H is in a 10.7 cu ft box tuned to 35.3Hz. The 2242H is in a 3.0 cu ft box tuned to 50.85Hz. The 2245 is in a 7.7 cu ft box tuned to 30.16 Hz. Anything else will result in either a dip or a peak before the roll-off.
You note that the 2241 does better in the mid bass (flatter). This is most likely because the 2242 is producing the noted dip in response though this area of the band to get the lower extension in the bigger box than is optimum for the T/S parameters.
BTW, there is another issue that need to be addressed and has been totally ignored. That is, what are the other drivers to be used?
The 2242 is so efficient that you will need to use it with some type of horn be it a "woofer" horn or driver horn. If you try to use a simple cone midrange, you will be hard pressed to find one that will keep up with the 2242. The 2251H 10" (with no horn enclosure as intended) barely keeps up with the 2241H.
In fact, I had the 2251 tuned nice and flat, but it didn't have the volume (dB) to keep up with the 2241 and I had to take a different tact in redoing the crossovers to let them sing louder. Know that you don't want to put a resistor in series with your woofer to knock down its dB (screws with the damping), and the best you'll do is to put a 20 ohm high wattage, non-inductive resistor across the woofer terminals to reduce the volume ~1-2 dB.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)