Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: M2 vs 4430/35

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    28

    M2 vs 4430/35

    How far has reproduced sound quality really advanced in the last 40 yrs? Any thoughts on a fully active 4430/35 with DSP vs M2?

  2. #2
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,573
    The drivers have improved so that makes a difference. It would be fun to compare.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  3. #3
    Senior Member ivica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    serbia
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    The drivers have improved so that makes a difference. It would be fun to compare.

    Rob
    Hi Robh3606,

    To be really correct, the mentioned 44xx have to be "actively driven" ,and after that to make final decision, as M2 has no passive option. I would expect that 4435 LF section would overcome M2 LF section.

    Regards
    Ivica

  4. #4
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,573
    Quote Originally Posted by ivica View Post
    Hi Robh3606,

    I would expect that 4435 LF section would overcome M2 LF section.

    Regards
    Ivica
    I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. Those 2216's are quite capable. The 2234's may win an SPL contest but I doubt they will sound better in the upper part of the range.

    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. Those 2216's are quite capable. The 2234's may win an SPL contest but I doubt they will sound better in the upper part of the range.

    Rob
    Lf cones are still made from paper and aluminium is still widely used ( and sometimes preferred) in compression drivers.Through research, materials used in transducers have now given engineers a better understanding of their physical properties, but has that really elevated sound quality? I believe the M2 enclosure is larger than 4430 but smaller than 4435. Is the 4435 lower in distortion and more capable of greater spl than the M2 at the low end? JBL driver manufacturing tolerances have always been to the highest industry standard right back from when James B Lansing ran the company. That I believe that is a major contribution to the quality of reproduced sound. With the number of 4430/35 units the were made someone out there must be able to put active versions head to head. The M2 is a class leader but with DSP the 4430/35 Could be a close second, maybe even ahead in some areas?

  6. #6
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,573
    Cone material is one thing. Dual differential drive, low TCR voice coils to combat power compression, better adhesives, higher power handling and lower distortion, greater X-max is a potent combination of improvements.

    Lower distortion and higher power handling in compression drivers as well with extended HF range.

    Would be fun to try but remember this 40 year old woofer technology in the 4430/4435's and older considering the compression driver design. Same with the 2344 Horn 40 years on.


    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  7. #7
    Senior Member pos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    2,613
    I have never heard or measured a "modernized" (ie with a properly implemented DSP crossover) set of 4430, but from the technical info I can gather (as well as some subjective assumptions) I guess the 4430 will probably display a better directivity control above 7 or 8kHz thanks to the smaller aperture, especially on the horizontal axis where the horn throat gets pretty narrow. The nominal direcitvity is also narrower which makes it easier to maintain higher...

    From there everything else should be in favor of the M2.

    The 2216nd will be better in the upper part of its range, with more sensitivity, less breakup effects or resonances, less distortion thanks to its motor design, and will be able to reach the intended 750Hz crossover point without much problems. On the other hand the 2235H will show less control in these areas, and will also have to go higher in order to meet the smaller compression driver and horn combo (albeit it could probably be run a bit lower than the passive 1kHz filter, but not too much or direcitivty matching will suffer).

    In the lower range the 2216nd will most probably have less distortion (excursion is very silent, and it should also be less prone to IMD, meaning it can play LF+MF with less issues), and the TCR VC material also reduces thermal effects (power compression, or even short term effects like the pretty controversial thermal distortion). On that matter, if you compare the 4430/4435 presentation sheet on that website to the 4367 one (if you manage to find it), it appears like the power compression of a single 2216nd-1 is pretty comparable to that of two 2234H in the 4435. I don't know if such a comparison is fair given these measurements were taken some 30 years apart, but it is still fun to see...

    The D2+M2 will show less distortion, especially in the higher range when played loud as the flare is faster (2nd order distortion rise) and the diaphragm surface is also bigger.
    Nominal directivity is wider, meaning it can be crossed-over lower to match the 15" woofer.
    Directivity control is probably less "tight" than the 2344, but the profile of the M2 horn is probably less prone to acute directivity artifacts like diffraction (at least this is what I gather (and remember) from a discussion I had with
    David Smith a while back).

    And of course the M2 will also play much louder, if that is your thing.

    All in all the difference should be pretty clear, even with an properly implemented active crossover (which is easier said than done!).
    Because yes, this is also the final advantage of the M2: the crossover and correction work is done, validated from both extensive measurements and listening sessions. The correction even manage to address high Q defects in the lower range, something that you could only dream of measuring with a domestic measurement rig. Going all-out to measure everything correctly would probably cost more than buying a pair of M2 in the first place...

    That said the 4430 could probably benefit a lot from a similar effort, and good results can already be obtained with some careful measurements.
    I did such an experiment a while ago, with a set of (unbaffled) 2344 and (probably out of spec) 2426J, measuring and correcting an average on the horizontal listening window, and the results looked pretty good and not to difficult to achieve, including the well matched acoustical 6th order LR high-pass (well, it took 14 EQ points and a 2nd order filter, same ballpark as the M2 and easily implemented with a modern DSP crossover or plateamp).
    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post373946
    But then you would also have to include the vertical axis in the average, as well as the diagonals (ouch)...

    Regarding the compression driver, going for a 16 ohms diaphragms would have many advantages in an active setup (less hiss and distortion from any amp, lower protection cap value needed).

    Regarding the woofer, removing the massring to turn the 2235H into a 2234H would also have some benefits in term of efficiency, without altering the LF response:
    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...ull=1#post2750
    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post281470


    my 2 cents, to be taken with 2 grains of salt...

  8. #8
    Senior Member macaroonie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    near Glasgow Scotland
    Posts
    2,262
    Chapeau .... c'est vrai .. Mac

  9. #9
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,573
    I don't think you need DSP just use the original passive compensation in bi-amp mode. Look at the polars!

    http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...0-35/page2.jpg


    Rob
    "I could be arguing in my spare time"

  10. #10
    Senior Member pos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    2,613
    These polars are normalized for 0dB at 0°, so frequency response is not part of the equation here.
    Directivity cannot be changed with DSP (well, outside of the crossover region at least) but the frequency response certainly can, and it is a worthwhile endeavor when on/off axis tracking is this good.

  11. #11
    Member sebackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    562
    This is kind of a wishful thread.

    4430/35 are not on the same planet as M2.

    M2 is a integrated system. It is not unlikely that the development of the D2 was cost driven as opposed to use the expensive 4" drivers (476XX) but I argue that these newer speakers are really built in a different way that the older speakers. These are from the outset produced as systems. I get the sense that many older systems took the best drivers available at the time and designed a system as good as possible around them.

    New systems are probably made the other way around, you decide what to build, what is the price point and then design the components that need to go in there. Such approach demands access to DSP, new materials, fast prototyping, better measuring equipment and computer based development/production. Most of that was not available in the 80's.

    There are people liking the sound from 4430/35 and that is just fine. Many would even prefer 4430/35 over M2, or a modern LSR, in a A/B test, which just manifest that HiFi is a preference and personal taste game.

    There is where the similarities ends.

    If you like or prefer them that is fine, but as a monitor reproducing accurate sound in a controlled environment there is no comparison. It's the same with the classic "Blue baffles", they were well ahead of it's time and many prefer the vintage sound even today. But a "best in class monitor" by today's standard they are not.

    That has nothing to do about being able to enjoy any of them and by no means bashing on any vintage JBL speakers, but reality has moved on over the last 50 years. I have said many times, each of us needs to find what our own ears/rooms prefer and stick to that. "My" speakers, that my ears enjoy, does not get worse because something else turns up that is better. Or even significantly better.

    Personally I love both, vintage for that wonderful live feeling and modern for critical listening. We should all have at least 4 different JBL systems to be really happy :-) .

    4430/35 is +40 years old technology. 2235/34 kan produce good bass but was not built to go beyond say 400Hz. 2216 was.

    4430/35 uses a 1" Titanium driver that at the time performed well beyond the competition due to the for its time advanced horn. But the driver, even on the 2344 horn, struggles to get down to 1kHz and horizontal off-axis is no match for the M2 waveguid.

    Any JBL 1,5" driver on a modern wave guide would win in a shout-out today. Especially in a two way construction.

    4430/35 and the Blue baffles are wonderful pieces of JBL history and still damn good performers. Enjoy them for what they are.

    If you need a monitor tool for accuracy in the studio, get a pair of M2's or LSR705/8.


    an additional 2 cents

    //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 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    22
    I would agree, that the M2 is, technically, far beyond the great 4435. Sound wise it is, I assume, more of a personal preference and the what one wants from a speaker. Still I would love a comparison. And maybe tuck a TAD 2404 in that comparison too. I think the latter might be even further evolved than the 4435

    greetings

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. How old is my 4430?
    By CarlHungus in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2006, 05:51 PM
  2. 4430 X-Over
    By "Duke" Spinner in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-14-2005, 07:09 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
  •