Closed Thread
Page 11 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 427

Thread: Quick & Dirty 4430-Inspired Two-Ways Part II

  1. #151
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,736
    Hi Zilch

    Maybe LE14's deserve their own thread more fully exploring the potential.
    Yeh, probably,,, but too late now .

    jus' have to work with LE14H-3 a little more to make them sound their best. I'll be watching for more Project Array details, schematics, in particular, with considerable interest.
    - I'd suggest,,, start considering a 700 to 800 hz crossover point for use with a 3" diaphragmed / 1.5" exit compression driver .
    - Horns ? Some other Manufacturers come to mind.
    - Here's one example from DDS ( this is setup for vertical mounting a la the "Array Series" ) .
    - I'd also suggest doing what JBL does ,, politely ignoring (when they can ) the "1/2 octave lower than Fc for proper acoustic loading" rule and start exploring so called 1000 hz CD horns from other manufacturers . "Preferred Practices" for SR use & Home use really is different . You may just find that other horns have the same amount of loading as the H3100 ( for instance ) when used down to 750hz .
    - DDS actually does mention 800hz in their copy. Just not as a recommended crossover point . That's understandable given the SR idustry they typically OEM to .

    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #152
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancer
    Yeah, well, I certainly understand the fascination with the 2235H so I guess if there are people out there that like it better then good for them.
    LE14's got a bad rap for muddy midrange due to cone mass.

    To me, they play just fine, right through 1kHz and beyond....

  3. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,736
    LE14's got a bad rap for muddy midrange due to cone mass.
    Heh,

    - I remember that quote & I stick by it .
    - I'd actually say "veiled" more than muddy .
    - The deeper gap of the le14h-3 should have offered a bit more resolution / but so far I've heard "nadda" that would confirm that hypothesis.
    - OTOH, I've heard quite a few opinions expressing a preference for the older .6" short coil ( read rising mid ) . Who would have thunk it ?

  4. #154
    Administrator Robh3606's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Destiny
    Posts
    7,495
    "LE14's got a bad rap for muddy midrange due to cone mass."

    Yeah I think the older systems where they were maried to the Le-20 is the problem. The box is too small so you can't see how low they can really go and crossing them at 1.5-2K is really pushin things. I think that's how most people have heard them. I use 14A's as subs and have 2235's and those Le-14 have nothing to be ashamed about. I think the 2235's have a bit more punch but the Le14 sounds like they have perfect pitch. You can hear every single note.

    Rob

  5. #155
    Senior Member Lancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Robh3606
    Yeah I think the older systems where they were maried to the Le-20 is the problem.

    I think the 2235's have a bit more punch but the Le14 sounds like they have perfect pitch. You can hear every single note.
    You are the winner!

    Note -
    The current LE14H-1 (latest recone kit) and the LE14H-3 yield extremely similar results. They can be considered interchangable. They have somewhat of a rising response. The original LE14H-1 as used in the 240Ti and 250Ti (Hawley cone) had remarkably flat response.

  6. #156
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancer
    You are the winner!

    Note -
    The current LE14H-1 (latest recone kit) and the LE14H-3 yield extremely similar results. They can be considered interchangable. They have somewhat of a rising response. The original LE14H-1 as used in the 240Ti and 250Ti (Hawley cone) had remarkably flat response.
    And the LE14A and H reconed with H-1 kits (which is all that's currently available for them,) they're better than original LE14A cones, as well, in these applications, i.e., subwoofer and "full" range to beyond 1 kHz?

  7. #157
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Earl K
    Heh,

    - I remember that quote & I stick by it .
    - I'd actually say "veiled" more than muddy .
    - The deeper gap of the le14h-3 should have offered a bit more resolution / but so far I've heard "nadda" that would confirm that hypothesis.
    - OTOH, I've heard quite a few opinions expressing a preference for the older .6" short coil ( read rising mid ) . Who would have thunk it ?
    The LE14H-3 has more cajones than LE14A, for sure. Kinda like LE15A vs. 2235H to me.

    Do I like LE15A? Yes. Do they play in B380? Well, yes, but only briefly, while the 2235H's are gettin' refoamed....

  8. #158
    scA7500
    Guest

    Back Caps 2435hpl?

    Zilch, I have recently upgraded my A7-500's to 2435HPLs on 2352 medium format horns. Midrange is Significantly clearer than the prior 2451s on the same horn. These drivers are truly awesome. Anyone have a lead on larger back caps for the 243x? The forum has really be helpful with my project. Thanks.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  9. #159
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,985
    Quote Originally Posted by scA7500
    Anyone have a lead on larger back caps for the 243x?
    Not available, to the best of our knowledge, alas. 2435HPL plays down to 800 Hz with the smaller back cap in testing. I've never heard what it sounds like down there, tho.

    A recent post indicated that it was designed for maximum lower frequency output (down to 400 Hz) with the larger back cap as 435Be.

  10. #160
    Senior Member stevem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by scA7500
    Zilch, I have recently upgraded my A7-500's to 2435HPLs on 2352 medium format horns. Midrange is Significantly clearer than the prior 2451s on the same horn. These drivers are truly awesome. Anyone have a lead on larger back caps for the 243x? The forum has really be helpful with my project. Thanks.
    Hey Zilch! The 2352. Isn't that the one that got away?? (I mean, the only one you haven't tried?)

  11. #161
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,985
    Quote Originally Posted by stevem
    The 2352. Isn't that the one that got away?? (I mean, the only one you haven't tried?)
    Heh. I ain't goin' there. Nope.

    Those "medium format" horns are HUGE!

    http://www.jblpro.com/pages/pub/components/23525354.pdf

    [The directivity index IS good tho.... ]

  12. #162
    Senior Member Lancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Zilch
    Not available, to the best of our knowledge, alas. 2435HPL plays down to 800 Hz with the smaller back cap in testing. I've never heard what it sounds like down there, tho.

    A recent post indicated that it was designed for maximum lower frequency output (down to 400 Hz) with the larger back cap as 435Be.
    435BE is the consumer version of the 2435 and has a larger back can to lower the useable response from around 1 kHz to around 650 Hz. It is quite happy down to 800 Hz. Slope roll-off is curved such that passive EQ is difficult. Roll-off starts around 7 kHz. Digital parametric EQ is the way to go. Watch out for latency in digital crossovers.

    The 2431 is an improved 2430 and offers better HF response. It has an improved surround. 435AL is the consumer version of the 2431. They all use aluminum diaphragms with improved kapton surrounds as compared with the older 2421/2441 style diaphragms.

    The 2425 is fairly breakup free up to around 15 kHz. It starts to roll off around 2 kHz and is easy to passively EQ. The aluminum diaphragm is "better" than the titanium diaphragm because it is better damped. The titanium can handle the abuse. And most recently - Aquaplased titanium is very smooth across the bandwidth and only loses about 1 dB of output at 20 kHz due to the increased mass.

  13. #163
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,985
    Parts ordered for LE85 (and other 16-Ohm driver) compatible version of NL200t3.

    The simple circuit is eminently tweakable using Spice.

    Gonna be sweet, I betcha....

  14. #164
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancer
    Aquaplased titanium is very smooth across the bandwidth and only loses about 1 dB of output at 20 kHz due to the increased mass.
    Izzat 1 dB down evenly across the bandwidth, or just at the extreme high end?

    Actually, I wouldn't mind it rolling off quicker at 20 kHz....

  15. #165
    RIP 2011 Zilch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    9,985
    As requested, 2426H on 2344A, B380 LF.

    Top = N3134 at "0"
    Bottom = NL200t3

    The latter is 5 dB "brighter"
    Attached Images Attached Images   

Closed Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Quick & Dirty 4430-Inspired Two-Ways Part I
    By Zilch in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 449
    Last Post: 03-05-2006, 04:41 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