2435HPL

[LE15-Thumper]

I have been lucky enough to have aquired a set of these nice mid-horn drivers.
What is the best horn to use with these for home hi-fi applications ?
And how low could/should you run them ?

Maybe a new "KILLER" 4430 ?

Thanks guys

[Zilch]

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...ead.php?t=3838

Bottom line: 2352, parametric EQ, or passive implementation thereof:

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...&postcount=749

Could? 800 Hz, maybe. Slope would matter.

Should? 1 kHz, probably....

[frank23]

zilch, the 2352, why is that? The beamwidth goes just like the 238x series. Not at all like a 2344.

Do you like the 2435/2352 combination better than the 2435/PT-Waveguide combination?

frank

[Zilch]

zilch, the 2352, why is that? The beamwidth goes just like the 238x series. Not at all like a 2344.

Do you like the 2435/2352 combination better than the 2435/PT-Waveguide combination?

frank

Contemporary constant directivity with tight pattern control affords the opportunity to choose, and it's been great fun having the different dispersion patterns available to try. 2344(A)'s 100° x 100° pattern interacts much differently with the listening space than a PT-F 60° x 40°, for example. I've done all of my testing in the one room, which is fairly large, approximately 15' x 20' x 10' high, and I move around quite a bit in that space working with various systems.

It's apparent that, optimally, the pattern might best be chosen for a particular space and listening preference, even the nature of the installation, i.e., HT vs. two-channel music. JBL themselves don't seem to be able to settle on a single recommended pattern for home listening. 2344(A)'s wide vertical and horizontal beamwidth takes advantage of wall, floor and ceiling reflections to create a big "ambience," which some might consider artificial.

Me, I like having access to the full response spectrum it provides standing, sitting, working, up close, far back, no matter that the soundstage gets "smeared" somewhat by it. However, I can easily appreciate that in my media room, I might want it all more controlled. Rather than damping everything in the room to achieve that, I might choose a horn with different dispersion pattern, other factors being equal.

Toe-in, I have found, is also a major factor in tuning early sidewall reflections. Spacing of the speakers relative to the walls, and listening distance are also significant variables. Bottom line: music happens in a space which, generally speaking, is not in the source material. We have to create that ourselves with the various tools available to us, and horn beamwidth is a major one not available in most systems.

2352's 90° x 50° seems a reasonable compromise to limit reflections off the floor and ceiling, though, up close, I stand outside the sound field. Being so well controlled, it's simple trigonometry to get it right for just about any listening area. Same with the even narrower patterns; the available field just gets smaller and more controlled. Note: this is not about "sweet spot." They all, with the exception of Everest/3100, of course, retain that, though with some, according to marriage of all other conditions, it's more diffuse, is all.

2352 is a BIG horn, obviously. It confers an immediately apparent clarity and transparency to the sound reproduction. I'm not a horn theorist, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that JBL typically ignores the "good practice" mandate to stay at least an octave away from horn resonance with the smaller horns and waveguides in their SR systems. 2352 is good down to 500 Hz or so. I'm crossing around 1 kHz. It seems to matter, though I haven't done the requisite testing to verify this. The sound is certainly different.

As with all issues in speaker building, we pick our compromises. Few would tolerate these beasts in their living room, no matter the sonic benefit....

Footnote: I did ultimately receive confirmation from JBL Tech Services that 1.5" Optimized Aperture horns such as 2352 are compatible with 243x drivers. Horn flanges in some cases must be modified to accommodate mounting them, is all. 2352 is one of those cases....

[norealtalent]

FWIW, I use them on smith horns and love them. One pair with stock back caps and a second with 435Be back caps. No audible difference to my ears. No RTA to verify anything. I'm not looking to argue any of it with anybody, just sharing my experience. I'd love to check the actual responses, I'm just not there yet. Either way, I LOVE them more than anything I've had and for me, that's all that matters. I've got 2441's on smiths right now and they are sweet but my memory is saying Be's are better. Hopefully I will take the time to A-B them very soon.

[speakerdave]

I use them on smith horns and love them.

What Smith's? 2397 with adapter? Downsized?

David

[jbljfan]

.
As with all issues in speaker building, we pick our compromises. Few would tolerate these beasts in their living room, no matter the sonic benefit....

But I don't where else to put them.

Footnote: I did ultimately receive confirmation from JBL Tech Services that 1.5" Optimized Aperture horns such as 2352 are compatible with 243x drivers. Horn flanges in some cases must be modified to accommodate mounting them, is all. 2352 is one of those cases....

Good to know. I've been very happy with the 2352/2435 combination.

Regards,
Mike

[norealtalent]

What Smith's? 2397 with adapter? Downsized?

David

Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, 2397's and 1 1/2-2" adapters.