Hi Guido,
- That's an interesting thought, that the back-cap size, influences those impedance curves .I always thought the impedance differences where due to the different backcap volumes of the 2420 and 2426 motors.
- You could test for this by simply swapping back-caps around / just hold them down tight enough to make a decent seal and run new tests . Gaffer tape would work nicely .
- Do you have any 2425 drivers ?
Frank
- Well I don't know, but I never underestimate the ability of people to hear small nuances caused by " whatever " .So, the same diaphragm in a 2426 would sound different than in a 2420 - 2421 - 2425, if only because the impedance match to the crossover of the two different drivers would be different then.
- In this case, I'd have to say it would depend on the crossover. For instance; JBLs' widespread use of fairly low Z value conjugate-resistors goes a long way to mitigating the effects of these impedance spikes .
Is this really true? I am curious to know if the D16R2421 diapgragms sound any differant, or maybe better(?) then the original D162420 diaphragms in a stock 4343.Originally Posted by Guido
Tom
well the problem in my eyes is the 2420 D162420 is not available !!!
my question is a compatibility question because it is shure 30 years of evolution technology groove a big deep step. and it iipossible to push out or support comparison....
in regard of flatness response or distortion or power handling. the evolution of technology is not a myst...
the best upgrade is go direct at case of 4348 studio monitor but in this case my question is track in your surprise ???
what is the best refersh diaprham for motor 2420 to perform better ???
Jean.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote