Modding 2226 drivers for more better LF performance

[Riley Casey]

I've been listening to a pair of 2226H drivers as the low end of my living room stereo for years now. The boxes are some 5 cubic ft enclosures originally designed for Altec 604s. I added ducts to the original ports to get them running a little more inline with the T/S parameters for the 2226s but I'm a little curious if I could drop the Fs enough to be noticeable by gluing in some 'mass rings" probably just some lead wire hot glued around the perimeter of the dust cap. I reconed these drivers about five years ago so they have plenty of life in them. They're used in a townhouse living room so I'm limited in how loud they will ever get so even with the LF boost I'm giving them with the DSP I have power and excursion capacity to spare. Any speculation as to what I might gain with this mod?

[Mr. Widget]

I wouldn't mod the driver. I would adjust the box to a sealed size that gives you Q=0.707 and then give it substantial DSP.


Widget

[RMC]

Hi Riley,

The 2226 EBP of 121 is much higher than normally prescribed for a sealed box (EBP around 50). That data alone doesn't tell everything but its a clue among other items below.

In the 2226 applications mentioned by JBL i don't see any for an acoustic suspension cab (AC).

Moreover the 2226 Fs at 40 hz is notably higher for its size and that of an implied AC cab. Here its the typical Fs of a sound reinforcement woofer engineered for higher mid band efficiency.

In addition, in terms of suspension compliance, drivers for AC normally have a pretty compliant suspension system, whereas the 2226 has a stiff suspension as indicated by driver Vas number.

You can still do what you want and fiddle with the AC idea, since any woofer in a box will nevertheless produce sound, personnaly i don't see this one in a sealed box being a winner. Extensive DSP/EQ might need to be used and no guarantee it would actually sound good.

Richard

[Mr. Widget]

Hi Riley,

The 2226 EBP of 121 is much higher than normally prescribed for a sealed box (EBP around 50). That data alone doesn't tell everything but its a clue among other items below.

In the 2226 applications mentioned by JBL i don't see any for an acoustic suspension cab (AC).

Moreover the 2226 Fs at 40 hz is notably higher for its size and that of an implied AC cab. Here its the typical Fs of a sound reinforcement woofer engineered for higher mid band efficiency.

In addition, in terms of suspension compliance, drivers for AC normally have a pretty compliant suspension system, whereas the 2226 has a stiff suspension as indicated by driver Vas number.

You can still do what you want and fiddle with the AC idea, since any woofer in a box will nevertheless produce sound, personnaly i don't see this one in a sealed box being a winner. Extensive DSP/EQ might need to be used and no guarantee it would actually sound good.

Richard

No pun intended, but using the 2226 in a sealed enclosure is out of the box thinking... but having heard the 2226 in numerous applications and not loving it, my thinking is, what the hell why not give it a go?


Widget

[1audiohack]

I've been listening to a pair of 2226H drivers as the low end of my living room stereo for years now. The boxes are some 5 cubic ft enclosures originally designed for Altec 604s. I added ducts to the original ports to get them running a little more inline with the T/S parameters for the 2226s but I'm a little curious if I could drop the Fs enough to be noticeable by gluing in some 'mass rings" probably just some lead wire hot glued around the perimeter of the dust cap. I reconed these drivers about five years ago so they have plenty of life in them. They're used in a townhouse living room so I'm limited in how loud they will ever get so even with the LF boost I'm giving them with the DSP I have power and excursion capacity to spare. Any speculation as to what I might gain with this mod?

Hello Riley;

This is very late I know, sorry.

I experimented with 2234/2235’s quite a bit with old surrounds, new surrounds, no surrounds, with and without mass rings and found that the mass rings on an average of six woofers resulted in an Fs shift of only 2.7Hz. The mass rings pull the mid range down just over 2dB SPL

As stiff as the spider and surround is on the 2226 I doubt you could effect much change with a “normal” mass ring.

This does make me wonder how much weight you would have to add to get their Fs into the 20’s

I have 2226’s deployed in systems without subs and like you, drive them with big power and DSP.

Knowing a bit of your PSW history I know you get it so ‘nuff said about that.

Hope that helps even a bit.
Barry.

[RMC]

We don't disagree on thinking out of the box here, nor on "what the hell why not give it a go?" But i forgot in my view an even more important aspect.

RE Any speculation as to what I might gain with this mod?

The point i forgot isn't about a gain (Barry took care of that), its rather about a loss. If you increase cone mass, other things being equal, then the driver's transient response would probably deteriorate due to the added mass. For example, the lower cone mass of the 2220 is often mentioned as why it has such transient response.

MERRY XMASS TO ALL!

Richard

[Mr. Widget]

The point i forgot isn't about a gain (Barry took care of that), its rather about a loss. If you increase cone mass, other things being equal, then the driver's transient response would probably deteriorate due to the added mass. For example, the lower cone mass of the 2220 is often mentioned as why it has such transient response.

MERRY XMASS TO ALL!

Richard

Agreed on the adding mass and losing subjectively in the transient response department as Barry suggested. I wasn't suggesting a sealed box in hopes of achieving a true acoustic suspension system, but if you tune the woofer at say 40Hz and boost it by 12 dB at or below 40Hz the woofer will be unloaded and likely distort substantially. My thinking was that at least with a sealed box, you still have box loading on the driver to keep some of that distortion under control. This would really require modeling before committing too much effort into it.

Yes, Merry, Happy!




Widget