Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 62

Thread: Uh-oh - 4628B's

  1. #31
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    10,036
    O.K., O.K., how many packing peanuts fill a Z2 cabinet?

    [I'll count 'em real soon now.... ]

    Same height as L200, basically.

    Once I know the volume, I'll cut in the other drivers and ports.

    Looks like it came outta Tut's tomb.

    [Or offa the back of legal tender....]
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  2. #32
    RIP 2009
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rohnert Park, CA
    Posts
    3,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Zilch
    O.K., O.K., how many packing peanuts fill a Z2 cabinet?
    So what do you do - measure the displacement of a peanut, then count the peanuts? What if they're different sizes??

    I had another idea - use something like a 2235 and instead of the 2404H use an 035Ti. With the right crossover that would be pretty slick, and also have enough LF to preclude the use of a sub. Oh, but to have the time and drivers to play...

    I also thought about using the L100T components in a similar, somewhat smaller cabinet. It'd look good with the grilles on, but without them, wouldn't have that smooth progression in driver size. I may still do something like that. I've got all the spare components, (incl. L100T3 x-overs), except for the 2214's.

    John

  3. #33
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    10,036
    I've got two pair of 4628B's here, one of 'em in stock cabs that UPS busted up pretty bad that I could dismantle and rebuild in mirror image, which'd be an improvement.

    But, vertical in-line might be better, even with the stock crossovers. It's a driver combination that seems to work especially well. Gonna try it.

    Even Everest, which also used rebadged 145's, had an optional sub. It's a trade-off to get what that driver is good at.

    LE14x would likely play nicely here too, tho.

    [Subs are NOT a problem.... ]

  4. #34
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    10,036
    Apparent L250 derivatives, Sony's ES series SS-M3 two-way and SS-M7 and M9 three-way systems, cited above. 1996 MSRP $900, $1400, and $3500, presumably per pair, they featured 24 dB/octave crossovers, 8" woofers (M3 is 6-1/2"), "anhedral trapezoid" time-aligned cabinet design, 1" MDF construction:

    {*burp*}
    Attached Images Attached Images    

  5. #35
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    10,036

    Thumbs up Peanuts tell the tale:

    Gross internal volume of Z2 box for 4628B components is 3.85 cuft. with 1" thick front baffle and 3/4" sides, back and bottom. Increase depth 1" to 18" (top becomes 14.75" deep) for 4.2 cuft. volume, if desired. "Can" for 2118 will use 0.17 cuft. of gross.

    Front baffle of loaded cabinet is 99-44/100% "business."

    (Don't be askin' how it sounds, tho.... )

    John's rendering was "Spot ON!"

    Decorative bezels on both woofer and mid-driver consume panel space. We'll likely move them up a bit to make more room for ports in the bottom corners.

    Grille minimum 1" deep will be required to clear both butt cheeks and E145.

    Special thanks to the Makita "Barbie" saw for assistance in completing this prototype....
    Attached Images Attached Images     

  6. #36
    RIP 2009
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rohnert Park, CA
    Posts
    3,790
    Zilch - looking at your mock-up I realized I made a mistake in my version! I noticed the vertical speaker clearance difference between yours and mine and realized I mistakenly made my main cabinet 36" high, plus the 1.5" for the base, resulting in a total height of 37.5". 'Sorry! It would make it easier to fit the ports, though. And I still like your design better than the Sony, including the base treatment. Also, I get a little closer to 1.25" required for 2404H clearance.

    I'm seriously thinking of a cabinet like that but with an LE14A, 104H-2, and 035Ti, with L100T3 crossovers, simply because I've got all those as basically extra components. I'm not sure how that crossover would work with the LE14A, though, as the LF portion has multiple components for the 2214H, not just a simple roll-off...

    John

  7. #37
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    10,036
    Quote Originally Posted by johnaec
    And I still like your design better than the Sony, including the base treatment.
    Yeah, it takes on a different "character" once it's loaded. Z1 became an entirely different object once the grille was added, too. I'm pretty happy with both now, actually.

    No doubt some think them the ugliest damn things they've ever seen. That's how I feel about L250 et.seq..

    For added WAF, we COULD make these do the vacuuming as well, I suppose....


    Quote Originally Posted by johnaec
    It would make it easier to fit the ports, though.
    The error is fortuitous. I don't want to push the drivers any closer together; it needs a little more height, and perhaps more rake, as well. The tweeter axis is at 30" right now. I'll alter the dimensions accordingly. We'll get a bit more volume at the same time....


    Quote Originally Posted by johnaec
    I'm not sure how that crossover would work with the LE14A, though, as the LF portion has multiple components for the 2214H, not just a simple roll-off....
    Build 'em. We'll tweak them into submission!

    Come by and have a look. It's quite stunningly deceptive, actually. Silly, I stare at the pictures; the real thing is right here....

  8. #38
    clmrt
    Guest
    Thou dost rock.

  9. #39
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,743
    "The cabinet volume might be slightly less than optimal for the E145, but a little judicious EQ ought to take care of that."

    That is a nice looking speaker!! As far as EQ you can't EQ what's not there. You have to have a useable response to work with for the EQ to work. If you look at an E-145 in about 4 cubic ft. they rool off at around 70Hz. By the time you get to 40Hz you are way down and at 30Hz you are in the mud. If you want good solid bass below what room gain will add your going to need a sub to get there.

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  10. #40
    RIP 2009
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rohnert Park, CA
    Posts
    3,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606
    If you look at an E-145 in about 4 cubic ft. they rool off at around 70Hz. By the time you get to 40Hz you are way down and at 30Hz you are in the mud.
    Hence my idea of using an LE14A instead. 'Biggest problem is then level matching, at least if using the rest of the 4628B components...

    John

  11. #41
    clmrt
    Guest
    Is 4ft optimum for the 145? I messed, and 6 ft tuned to 50 looked better.


    Is that legal?

    Space = no worries for me, I have room for 8 ft3...lemme see what that does...

  12. #42
    clmrt
    Guest
    8 ft3 tuned to 35 = -3 @ 36

    What's the consensus on the curve going down-up-down?


    (I know this is 2x the size of the prototype.....yipes!)

  13. #43
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    8,743
    Is 4ft optimum for the 145? I messed, and 6 ft tuned to 50 looked better.


    Is that legal?

    Space = no worries for me, I have room for 8 ft3...lemme see what that does...

    8 ft3 tuned to 35 = -3 @ 36

    What's the consensus on the curve going down-up-down?


    (I know this is 2x the size of the prototype.....yipes!)

    What value are you using for Vas?? There is a mistake in the JBL T/S table. When you run it in BBP6 it recalculates the Vas to 427L. When you make that adjustment and re-run the curves the difference is significant.


    "So that means the Vas of the E145 is 427.7 liters instead of the published 274.7 liters. It makes sense since JBL likes to put this driver in a 4.0 cubic foot volume tuned to 40 Hz."

    Last edited by Giskard : 06-22-2003 at 10:06 PM.



    Check out this thread

    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...ighlight=E-145


    "Hence my idea of using an LE14A instead. 'Biggest problem is then level matching, at least if using the rest of the 4628B components..."

    Hello John

    That's the cobo I use in my mains. Le-14A's with E-145's up top. I really like the combination of these two drivers. I think the compliment each other well and blend nicely too. I use a active crossover an M552 to drive the plate amps for the Le-14'S and an M553 for the active crossover for the rest of the drivers. I tried using the rolloff from the E-145's and the crossover in the plate amp but the slopes were not steep enough to work well in my room. If you go with the Le-14 watch the x-max on them. I have mine tunned to 30Hz or so in 4 cubic ft. and the X-max peak is about 50Hz or so. I use that as a crossover point cause it works well in my room and it gives me 6dB of attenuation with the 24dB L/R slopes so it helps keep me from overdriving them. Don't know what you spacing will be but mine are close and couple below 40Hz so I get a rise in response which helps match them up efficency wise.

    http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...light=coupling

    You can also tailor the tunning on the boxes so the you don't have an abrupt change in the group delay at crossover. My 145's are in 5 cubic ft. and the GD at the crossover point is very close with Le-14's in 4.

    Rob

  14. #44
    clmrt
    Guest
    I was aware of the TS error and have it changed in my WinISD ProAlpha. Not a subtle difference.

  15. #45
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    10,036
    I played briefly with E145 in WinISD and concluded there's not much to be done with that driver at the low end. Raising the volume, even substantially, has little effect.

    BUT, it's also acknowledged that E145 is unique among bass drivers in other respects. I don't know what all of those are in detail, but I DO know I certainly like the way it plays in 4628B, and my objective here is to repackage those, and it looks like anything between 3 and 5 cuft. will be fine. It's no coincidence that JBL puts most of its 15's in 4 - 4.5 cuft. boxes.

    It was a given from the start that these'd require subs. I have a pair of Citation 7.4's with LE14's in them, which Rob is telling us will play nicely with these. I'm presently playing the 4628B's with Sub1500's, and that combo will knock the house down with bass dynamics. Perhaps some restraint is in order.

    Of course, a box is a box, and we can put whatever else might be appropriate in this design. We have about 4 cuft. to work with in these cool little things. The only woofer they won't accept in this size is an 18".

    Y'all KNOW I'm not above putting like, LE14H-3's or others in these. Whatever perceived weaknesses LE14's have in the midrange can likely be mitigated through proper integration with the 2118's, themselves well recognized as excellent midrange performers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 4628B's - opinions on sound
    By lodoc in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-12-2010, 11:37 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
  •