Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 111

Thread: 435BE vs 2435HPL

  1. #46
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,548
    Quote Originally Posted by pos View Post
    So the three last factors that could explain the superiority of the 435Be are :
    • absence of ferrofluid
    • aquaplas
    • large back cap
    I can't wait to see your mesurements when you get back your aquaplased 2435 !
    I would say it is all in the aquaplas. Rob sent me his data files and I will normalize them. I'm also evidently going to have to go through a 2435 and ensure it is "good" along with new ferrofluid, measure it, aquaplas it, and measure it again. I'll also compare it against a stock 435Be. I guess I'll use an H9800 or H4338 for the measurements. I really wish I had more time for this kind of stuff..........

  2. #47
    Senior Member pos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    2,544
    That will be a great resource!

  3. #48
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Giskard View Post
    Rob sent me his data files and I will normalize them.
    I did that and here are the graphs. We will have to redistribute the ferrofluid and possibly add a bit more to flatten out the curves in the 1.8 kHz region. It could be as simple as spinning the diaphragms around in the gap a turn or two. Rob measured these on one of those 1010 thingies. PWT would be ideal for this kind of stuff but we are fresh out of them.

    None of these curves have smoothing applied.
    Attached Images Attached Images     

  4. #49
    Senior Member pos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    2,544
    The blue curve is with too much ferrofluid, or no ferrofluid at all? The response above 10khz seems flatter with the blue curve, so maybe a good option for two ways?

    Do you have harmonic distortion curves?

  5. #50
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,548
    The blue curve is before anything at all was done to each driver. The red curve is after the removal of all the original ferrofluid, application of 100 ul of new ferrofluid and the coat of aquaplas.

    Rob added an additional 100 ul of ferrofluid to each driver last night and re-measured them. Doing so flattened out the bottom end but it also reduced the very top end further.
    Attached Images Attached Images     

  6. #51
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,548
    Quote Originally Posted by pos View Post
    a good option for two ways?
    There are a couple options:

    2435HPL at $1,399 each
    2452H-SL at $1,315 each

  7. #52
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,975
    I will put up some distortion plots later today. OK looks like a wash to me. The only place you can see a reduction is above 5khz. The blue is after the green before. The light blue and purple go with the blue plot. The lower plots are 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion with the 3rd the lower of the two.

    Rob
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    Last edited by Robh3606; 09-20-2007 at 11:57 AM. Reason: Added Plots

  8. #53
    Senior Member edgewound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,672
    By the looks of the graphs with the raw response curves...it would look to indicate that aquaplas isn't of much benefit to the Be diaphragms.

    Actually, it looks to hinder more than than help...by adding excess mass.
    Edgewound...JBL Pro Authorized...since 1988
    Upland Loudspeaker Service, Upland, CA

  9. #54
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,548
    Quote Originally Posted by edgewound View Post
    By the looks of the graphs with the raw response curves...it would look to indicate that aquaplas isn't of much benefit to the Be diaphragms.

    Actually, it looks to hinder more than than help...by adding excess mass.
    Yeah, JBL probably just put it on so they could say they did, you know, for the product literature. Kind of like they added that 045Be to the E2.

    At least we got to the bottom of it.

    I'm sure not doing any more of them.

  10. #55
    Senior Member edgewound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Giskard View Post
    Yeah, JBL probably just put it on so they could say they did, you know, for the product literature. Kind of like they added that 045Be to the E2.

    At least we got to the bottom of it.

    I'm sure not doing any more of them.
    Well...at least it does do wonders for the Ti diaphragms. For less than a third the cost of the Be units (diaphragms, that is).
    Edgewound...JBL Pro Authorized...since 1988
    Upland Loudspeaker Service, Upland, CA

  11. #56
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rocinante
    Posts
    7,975
    Well the most important thing hasn't been done yet. That's simply having a listen. I know from measuring for differences with the Titaniums to expect some HF roll-off and a drop in level.

    What is surprising to me is the 1K wide shelf in some on the drivers at the top end and the 2k rise. My original drivers had god knows how much ferro in them but they did have a smooth roll-off. Looks like we sacrificed a bit of high end response and that smoothness for some extra dampening.

    Time will tell if it was worth it but after the first song we should know for sure. Based on what it does for Titanium I not sure what to expect with these. I will let you know once I power them up.

    Rob

  12. #57
    Obsolete
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NLA
    Posts
    14,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606 View Post
    Well the most important thing hasn't been done yet. That's simply having a listen.
    I suppose. These guys evidently did just that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Don McRitchie View Post
    Later that day, we were invited to Greg Timbers's home for a listening session of his custom built stereo and home theatre. This system is described in detail here. Suffice it to say that this ranks as the finest system I have heard in a home environment. For this visit, we were joined by Paul Bente, president of JBL. He is pictured at the back left in the fourth photo.
    I've posted before how to use these aquaplased drivers and I think it's best if I just leave it at that. Some people will prefer the 2435 and some people will prefer the 435Be and that about sums it up. At this point I don't think too many people care since they will use the cheaper 2452H-SL.

  13. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Giskard View Post
    I suppose. These guys evidently did just that.I've posted before how to use these aquaplased drivers and I think it's best if I just leave it at that. Some people will prefer the 2435 and some people will prefer the 435Be and that about sums it up. At this point I don't think too many people care since they will use the cheaper 2452H-SL.

    I have really enjoyed the info posted here, thanks guys. However I am still a little confused regarding the 2452H and 2452H-SL differences. Am I correct in assuming the only difference is that Aquaplas is added to the SL version? Both are Ti, right?

  14. #59
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Giskard View Post
    I suppose. These guys evidently did just that.I've posted before how to use these aquaplased drivers and I think it's best if I just leave it at that. Some people will prefer the 2435 and some people will prefer the 435Be and that about sums it up. At this point I don't think too many people care since they will use the cheaper 2452H-SL.
    I agree. This is why its important to consider what is meant by voicing and make your own observations. Not just someone else's impressions.

    When I was at Rob's we played a familiar tune on using a titanium equiped JBL driver and the JBL Be equiped driver.

    Despite the two systems used in the camparison having different horns there was no denying the brillance of the titanium compared to the relatively damped and somewhat dry sound of the Be.

    I was so used to hearing this tune on the titanium equiped 2344 horns I did not know what to think at first. Depending on how fussy you are there is also the not all be drivers are the same issue. I would speculate the tad Be drivers are different beast to the Be JBL's based on what I have heard to date. You owe it to hear the tad stuff to appreciate this even if the are unobtanium at this stage.

    No doubt depending on how a whole system is finally adjusted and setup you could be quite happy with either but the Be definately has more resolving power. I am not sure Be in the UHF area would be everyones cup of tea particularly on DVD's.

    I guess Greg runs his system without the 045 for a reason!

    Just food for thought.

    Ian

  15. #60
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    10,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Chas View Post
    I have really enjoyed the info posted here, thanks guys. However I am still a little confused regarding the 2452H and 2452H-SL difference. Am I correct in assuming the only difference is that Aquaplas added tothe SL version? Both are Ti, right?
    http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...313#post185313

    They are both titanium, but not the same diaphragm.

    Perhaps Techbot can post the EDSs for these for us, now that they've moved up to "Honorable Mention" here....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 2435HPL vs. 435Be
    By jim henderson in forum Lansing Product Technical Help
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 08-12-2004, 12:24 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
  •