JBL 4350 minus one woofer...?

[DogBox]

I need HELP!
In my quest to build a JBL 4343 [maybe 4344??] I have managed to accumulate enough speakers and bits, where, now what I am thinking of doing is a "bit out of the park.."

On some board I had cut for another project, I found it was only just smaller than the size of a 4350 [which is an awsome thing!] So I set about to draw all the parts [which I have, by the way] to just see "how BIG" this speaker is... WOW! Well, that's deceided; I just don't have room for two... unless I move out of my unit! But I really wanted to have the "top-end" of the 4350... Can you marry the 4350 top-end with the bottom end of the 4343? I don't even know if I should try..?? But it IS tempting!!!! But, [here we go again with the "but's" :( ] Will I get kicked off the forum for even suggesting such an idea... Well, I was building the things for a guy here in Aus. who was selling them for a heap of money!
Basically only one 2235 with the complement of the 3-vents either side of it; and the top-end (2202, 2240/2311/2308, 2405slot) per 4350.
Exactly what he used in the crossover to run it as is [with provision for bi-amp] I don't know, as he had the habit of spraying everything with matt black so nobody had a chance to see..
On another piece of board, I drew the outline size of the 4343 baffle - to get the overall size. Put all the 4350 top-end parts on "4343 style" and found out if I increased the 4343 baffle 'width' by 1" and lowered the 4343 height by 2" .... everything seems to look as though, mmmm....
Even though I could use the 3107 for the "top-end" ... I'm not sure if I could just use the 5.4mH coil & 72uF to bring in the 2235 to the mix?
When I drew everything out, the bottom looks exactly like the 4343 up to the rotatable section - vents in the same place - maybe toward the edges a bit and the 2441 with the 2405 beside it - spaced appropriately , the 2202 centre directly below the centre of the 2441. This seemed to me that it should give some separation this way...??? I dunno...
Like I said at the beginning: I NEED HELP!
I even thought of making 4350's using dual E-145's... until I saw how big the 4350 was...
Since I obtained a 2445 with a 2360 hanging off the end, I have come to have a lot of respect for the 2" driver... I'd like to use it if I can...
Even the 4343 is the largest size monitor I could possibly fit, I still don't know what to do... listening to the 4343 parts as a sum IS nice...
Please [and I know I am going to cop heaps for suggesting unruly ideas...]
Please help....

DogBox

[DogBox]

Maybe I should have titled this: Single Woofer DIY 4350 Project.
That's the Q.? ... and that is the AIM!!!
Is it a "good idea" that is 'space-saving'..? Or, doomed from the start...

DogBox :crying:

[Lee in Montreal]

Hmmm... If you want to use a single woofer, then maybe swap the pair of 2235 for one 2245. You are losing 6db of bass by ditching one 2235... 3db for the woofer itself and another 3db from the (un)coupling. Not a good idea in my opinion.

[macaroonie]

Hi Dogbox. Quick reply , on paper there is nothing wrong with your plan , 4343 with a bit of tailoring. Whether you do that passive or active or DSP is up to you. As Lee has ID'd you will run out of Bass before you run out of Mid and Top.
You are the only one who can judge your likely use and max loudness. The 2235 is a great woof and goes down lovely and low but there is a payback , it does have limited max SPL before it hits the bumpers.

These forums are full of discussion re 2235 and its applications , I have a pair in daily use and have not got to the point where I have pushed them into the red zone however bigger rooms , new year party etc etc.

I say do it , Bi Amp your X/O at least and only walk away from the project if you are either a loud freak or live in a huge place or both.

M

[Vahe Sahakian]

Can you marry the 4350 top-end with the bottom end of the 4343?


Some background before I give you my 2 cents worth of opinion.

I constructed a 4350 clone a loooong time ago, I made several radical changes to the original enclosure shape and form, from ergonomic standpoint I did not particularly care for the horizontal layout of the stock unit, in a residential setting, and not a recording studio, the horizontal shape just does not look right and you definitely do not want the woofers to be close to the floor, so I redesigned it into a vertical orientation, I did not use any internal bracing for the bass enclosure but instead made the walls in double laminated thickness with one layer of birch plywood and a second inner layer of dense particle board, each woofer is in a separate 5 cu ft enclosure, the resulting enclosure is as solid as concrete and it weighs close to 500 pounds. Cabinet resonance has always been an issue with the original design but JBL had to accept the trade off to keep the speaker weight manageable, well almost manageable.

Now, looking back and based on the lessons learned if I had to do this all over again I would consider two changes, for one I would make two separate cabinets, (they are bi-amplified meaning no connection between high and low ends), one separate enclosure for the high and one for the low ends, stacked vertically, and, instead of two 2235’s I would use a pair of 2245’s doubling the enclosure volume. Separate hi-low enclosures for ease of moving/handling and to cut down the weight of each part, and pair of 18” woofers to better keep up with the upper end.

In my opinion the top end of 4350 is just a bit overpowering compared to its low end, the issue here is the 2” compression driver used for the upper midrange, this thing by itself can fill a large stadium and at higher volumes the upper end clearly shows this imbalance.

Now to your question, just my opinion, I would not use the top end of 4350 with a single 2235, not only does this creates audible imbalance but the resulting single woofer will reduce the low end sensitivity to 93dB, down from 96dB for the pair of woofers, the sensitivity reduction (99dB for the high and 93dB for a single woofer) will certainly compromise the low frequency performance with respect to the high end in the resulting system.

Vahe

[DogBox]

Hey Thanks! Guys for all the comments!!!

Lee, firstup, I read that (and looked into) using a 2245... But I will still need a cab that is too big for my 2-bed unit. Wont be going X-loud, so the bass potential of a 4343 will be plenty...

Macaroonie, I wont be able to Bi-amp at present (although will incorporate this into the crossover) so will be happy to run passive all the way...

and Vahe, that "audible imbalance" was THE thing I was concerned about!!! If I can get things to even out passively [noting what Greg Timbers said about matching the 2245 into the 2345 - which has basically got the 4343 top end as well] crossing at 275Hz will require some large crossover components...
This will mean if I start cutting wood or not. If I cant get a viable crossover [passively, 12dB] - it will mean there is no choice BUT to bi-amp.
I can remember Widget actively having to use his two units "set-up properly" to get everything to "blend"...

Hopefully, I am not trying to climb a mountain I will never get to see the view from the top of... :(

Might even look into CC'ing the 3107 as we go...

Ever hopeful,
DogBox

[Lee in Montreal]

Hi Dogbox

The 4350 is indeed a huge chunk of cabinet. You could still get mamouth volume with lower visual impact by having the bass cabinets separate from the mid/highs. a 10cft cabinet (for one 2245 or two 2235) can easily be cut from a 4'x8' sheet. That's a bit under 2' x 2' x 3' (very roughly). All your eyes will see is a 10cft box, because the mids and highs require very small visual print.

Think Fostex LS/2 - LS/3 - LS/4
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?5229-Mystery-Large-Format-Monitors&highlight=fostex

The benefits are multiple. Lower visual impact. Cheaper to build. and you can make extra stiff bass cabinets, yet use a thinner structure for the midrange...

[hjames]

I like the cabinet designs you show in your post -
That'd temp me to dump my L200 cabinets with 2234s
and slip those in to get a pair of 2245s in the process!
Already got the smith horns and slot tweeters on top!

What are you doing for crossovers with that 3 way combo?


Hi Dogbox

The 4350 is indeed a huge chunk of cabinet. You could still get mamouth volume with lower visual impact
by having the bass cabinets separate from the mid/highs. a 10cft cabinet (for one 2245 or two 2235) can
easily be cut from a 4'x8' sheet. That's a bit under 2' x 2' x 3' (very roughly).
All your eyes will see is a 10cft box, because the mids and highs require very small visual print.

[Lee in Montreal]

@Miss James

I built a sub for my 2245 that way, last Spring. This winter I will build two similar cabs, but with two 2225 in each of them. The construction is very basic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/Lee_Vuong/JBL parts factory/DSCN2574_zpseea4a070.jpg

[DogBox]

[QUOTE]

Think Fostex LS/2 - LS/3 - LS/4
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?5229-Mystery-Large-Format-Monitors&highlight=fostexbenefits [QUOTE]

Hi Lee,
Thanks for the ideas, however, I only want to think: JBL! :)
I am working on the same volume as a 4343, but, starting with the baffle, to get a size, it's 1" wider than a 4343 and 2" shorter. I can determine my correct volume using the first two sizes. I have spaced everything out on a board to get good placement, even having a 45 litre sub-chamber for the 2202. I thought about what you said 'losing 3dB' by having only "one" woofer, so I incorporated a voltage divider before the supply to the top end - namely a 3107 and will have a 5.4mH series coil and 78uF of cut with a 16uF + 12ohm zobel impedance correction.
I didn't want to lose out on two "very conspicuous boxes"..... but not 4350 "big!"


Appreciate the help!
DogBox

[ivica]

Hey Thanks! Guys for all the comments!!!

Lee, firstup, I read that (and looked into) using a 2245... But I will still need a cab that is too big for my 2-bed unit. Wont be going X-loud, so the bass potential of a 4343 will be plenty...

Macaroonie, I wont be able to Bi-amp at present (although will incorporate this into the crossover) so will be happy to run passive all the way...

and Vahe, that "audible imbalance" was THE thing I was concerned about!!! If I can get things to even out passively [noting what Greg Timbers said about matching the 2245 into the 2345 - which has basically got the 4343 top end as well] crossing at 275Hz will require some large crossover components...
This will mean if I start cutting wood or not. If I cant get a viable crossover [passively, 12dB] - it will mean there is no choice BUT to bi-amp.
I can remember Widget actively having to use his two units "set-up properly" to get everything to "blend"...

Hopefully, I am not trying to climb a mountain I will never get to see the view from the top of... :(

Might even look into CC'ing the 3107 as we go...

Ever hopeful,
DogBox

Hi DogBox,

As I have understood You want to use 2235H + 2205H + 2441/45J + 2311 +2308 +2405J JBL drivers and horn+lenses, mainly based on 4343 network design.
Only "a problem" that I can see is that You have to reduce 2202H sensitivity in comparison to 2121 drivers sensitivity, what I can guess is about 6 dB. Final tuning can be done by L-pads. I thin that 2235 is about 1~2 dB larger efficiency then 2231A (used in original 4343) under the same voltage applied.
so the whole change has to be done in 3143 network around 2R, 2R, 30R that has used to reduce 2121 sensitivity.
May be even there that can be done using L-pad for 2121 section.
It has to be mentioned that 2441/45 driver with 2311+2308 is a little bit ( about 2 dB) more efficient that 2420+2307+2308 combo, but I can expect that with L-pad that can be compensated. I think that several of the forum members has done 4343 upgrade from 2421 to 2441 with the appropriated horns with the 'great' success.

I do not think that 3107 would be better solution then 3143.

If You prefer much louder combo then a pair of 2242H drivers per box would be well-come, with 2445 + 2360 combo and dual 2402H UHF drivers on top.
I have no experience with such combination, but seems tome that some of the forum members can "help".
A "small problem" can be to "drive" 2242H up to 600~700Hz, but I believe that would be 'acceptable' concerning the expectable '"loudness" ( I can expect almost 120dB/1m )

Regards
Ivica

[DogBox]

Hi DogBox,

As I have understood You want to use 2235H + 2205H + 2441/45J + 2311 +2308 +2405J JBL drivers and horn+lenses, mainly based on 4343 network design.
Only "a problem" that I can see is that You have to reduce 2202H sensitivity in comparison to 2121 drivers sensitivity, what I can guess is about 6 dB.
I do not think that 3107 would be better solution then 3143.

If You prefer much louder combo then a pair of 2242H drivers per box would be well-come, with 2445 + 2360 combo and dual 2402H UHF drivers on top.
Regards
Ivica

Hi Ivica,
Maybe my intentions of what I would like to build aren't so clear....
I titled the thread "JBL 4350 minus one woofer" because that's exactly what is intended here. All the components of a 4350:[using] 2235H ONE; 2202H; 2241(with D16r2441 diaphragm)+2311(finally got 'em!)+2308lens; 2405H, in a box the size of a 4343 with a bigger sub-chamber to allow for the 2202H mid.
I did think about using 2245's or other 18" drivers, but they need too big a box for me to 'handle'... [ aka,fit in my unit; have room for]
Seeing that I am dealing with a 4350 - albeit, "minus one woofer"; I didn't want to stray away from what "works in the first place" : the 3107.
In driving the "whole lot" passively, all I have to do is: introduce the ONE woofer to the crossover.
Correcting my calculations [I forgot to 'square root'...oops!] if I introduce a 'Voltage Divider' before feeding the 3107 by -3dB, I "may" be able to use the network design where this driver [2235H] is used in a "full range' system.

Is that a "bit more clearer...???" [or, maybe I have just lost the plot...] :blink:


All help is really "Greatly Appreciated" - many thanks!!!

DogBox
steve

[Mannermusic]

Hey Dog,

A couple of us here have built that configuration. It's just an upright 4-way based on the 4350/55 components. The key is the crossover designed by Giskard which is listed here in the data base. It's the same as the 4355 (3155) except without the tapped coil and is DC biased as well for max hi fi. It's a bi-amp only so the efficiency between the bass and treble is just a matter of adjusting the gain on the active crossover. My rig has the 15 and 10" in the main enclosure and horns sitting on the top. Nothing amazing. Same footprint as a 4343, 4344, etc. It works with either the 2202 12" or 2123 10". Do a search for the 3155 crossover and you're pretty much all set; get out the soldering iron. Mike
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?27199-DIY-quot-4345-quot-Project/page7&highlight=3155+crossover+schematic

[DogBox]

Hey Dog,

A couple of us here have built that configuration. It's just an upright 4-way based on the 4350/55 components. The key is the crossover designed by Giskard which is listed here in the data base. It's the same as the 4355 (3155) except without the tapped coil and is DC biased as well for max hi fi. It's a bi-amp only so the efficiency between the bass and treble is just a matter of adjusting the gain on the active crossover. My rig has the 15 and 10" in the main enclosure and horns sitting on the top. Nothing amazing. Same footprint as a 4343, 4344, etc. It works with either the 2202 12" or 2123 10". Do a search for the 3155 crossover and you're pretty much all set. Mike

Hey Thanks Mike!
We'll see what we can find with the 'search'... Although, I was hoping to be able to run it full without going the bi-amp route, mainly because I haven't got the gear to do it! Lame excuse, I know, but - hey, life is like that sometimes... Thanks for the help!!


DogBox

[ivica]

Hi Ivica,
Maybe my intentions of what I would like to build aren't so clear....
I titled the thread "JBL 4350 minus one woofer" because that's exactly what is intended here. All the components of a 4350:[using] 2235H ONE; 2202H; 2241(with D16r2441 diaphragm)+2311(finally got 'em!)+2308lens; 2405H, in a box the size of a 4343 with a bigger sub-chamber to allow for the 2202H mid.
I did think about using 2245's or other 18" drivers, but they need too big a box for me to 'handle'... [ aka,fit in my unit; have room for]
Seeing that I am dealing with a 4350 - albeit, "minus one woofer"; I didn't want to stray away from what "works in the first place" : the 3107.
In driving the "whole lot" passively, all I have to do is: introduce the ONE woofer to the crossover.
Correcting my calculations [I forgot to 'square root'...oops!] if I introduce a 'Voltage Divider' before feeding the 3107 by -3dB, I "may" be able to use the network design where this driver [2235H] is used in a "full range' system.

Is that a "bit more clearer...???" [or, maybe I have just lost the plot...] :blink:


All help is really "Greatly Appreciated" - many thanks!!!

DogBox
steve

Hi DogBox - steve,


1.
If you have mentioned that You have 3107 network, I can understand that there are no L-pads ( ? ), or You have them?
If You have L-pads on 2202, 2441 and 2405, then You can regulate the drivers sensitivities with them. ( I can imagine about 3~5 dB reduction)

In order to use all passive You have to:

2.
introduce "Hi-pass" section for mid-bass (2202) almost the same as JBL have done in 3143 ( 52uF + 2.8mH), or as 3144/45 ( 60uF and 4.8mH)

3.
Bass section as 3143 :( 72uF + 5.4mH) or as 3144/45:( 90uF + 5.4mH )

But at the end I would expect that You will have to do some network adjustments in order to get final acceptable results.

May You can read: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?24283-4344-Mk-II-network&p=247755&viewfull=1#post247755

Have a good luck !

Regards
Ivica

[DogBox]

Thanks for the encouragement, Ivica!
I don't actually 'have' the 3107 but will build from scratch.
Exactly what you said about incorporating the HF/LF sections "into" the 3107 is going to be "THE" difficult part.
I am looking closely [well, studying really!!!] the diagram by Giskard & Greg Timbers that Mr Widget used when doing his 4355 build - however, he 'did' use two woofers, but crossed actively. I want to do the cross 'passively'.
That link you gave me for the 4344 also reminded me to go back and check over the switched section for the bass driver. Very close to what "I" had in mind...
Now all I need is a "spare few grand" to invest in the "Leap Crossover Design" program... always wanted one of those.... ;)



DogBox

[speakerdave]

The 3107 circuit has no low pass elements for the midrange compression driver. It is meant for use with the 2440 diaphragm which tails off at about 9-10K on its own. The later diamond surround diaphragms have more extended high frequency response and need to be rolled off below the 2405.

[DogBox]

Hi Speakerdave,
Yeah, here is where I have been spending a lot of time trying to get used and known HP and LP elements of crossovers used, and the speakers they have been used upon, to get some idea where I should go. Not having software to help; I have also been pouring all over the forums for 'anything' that may be useful.
Having found out that some members have used the same configuration I want to use, 'is' heartening, however, it seems none were all-the-way passive..:(
I have got spread out in front of me the 3143, 3107, 3155, 3145 and the updated version of the 3155 from Mr Widget [Giskard and GT product].
Noting I am one woofer less (-3dB); No low pass element on the 2202, which - thanks to you, I may not have to include; and No low pass on the 2235 for the 2202, which the sub-chamber may be able to take care of...? - leaving me only with the elements of the 2235 low pass.
Ivica reminded me that the only 4-ways in the range that ran passive were the 4343 and 4345 [noting 3141 is same as 3143 in its LP].
The 2121 or 2123 I don't think were a straight swap for the 12" 2202. "were they??" And I cant find any other crossover where the 2202 was used as a mid above a 15"...? to get some idea. I was thinking going more with the 3145 sections as the 2202 has been likened 'to' the 2123, in many ways.
I will get a network diagram posted soon, to get some ideas from willing helpers!!! Hint! Hint! [who may even be able to check my crossover values?]

Many Thanks for all the help on this one! I just hope I am not breaking any JBL design principles??? :o

DogBox

[speakerdave]

Why have you so firmly eliminated the biamping option?

I think you need to consider that this is the best path for you. It answers the lack of a circuit to copy for the woofer/ mid bass handoff and it answers the problem of the single woofer efficiency differential.

If you decide to biamp you can stop worrying about having just one woofer per side, build a 4344 style enclosure with adjustments for the different mid bass if you use it and use the Widget updated 3155 replacement crossover for the upper three elements.

Another question I have is, What components do you actually have?

[DogBox]

Hi SpeakerDave,
Sorry for the title... if I don't have a laugh now & then, I have a breakdown! But, that is basically why I would "like" to make it passive - for now,....
but building into the design of the network I build, capability 'to' bi-amp.
All I have at the moment to run my gear is only a Yamaha integrated amp. I actually have two. Which I am hoping to be able to utilize as they have pre-out ability. But an 'active crossover' - I don't have. And not a great deal of cash left after having so much fun getting a heap of JBL gear.

You ask: What "do" I have? what? everything??!! or, just relating to a 4350/4355? As to the 4350/4355 - all of it; except two of the 2225's haven't been re-coned to 2235H yet. I am already listening to all the proper components wired together [but not in a proper box] a 4343. So, I would end up using those 2235's to put into this next project,- saving the other re-coning for later. Yes, I built proper 3143's to suit as well!!!

I am glad I started trawling the forum again as I found your post of 12-02-2007..."The 3107 is considered obsolete even here,..." Now, when I looked back, I realized that 'I' have 2441's 'that will need a low pass to the 2202...' I am a slow learner...! :p

Makes the updated 3155 diagram the way to go... and as you say, a 4344 style cabinet with the sub-chamber [yep:dogbox] enlargened along with the cab. But what to do about an active crossover...? I didn't really want to be defeated so soon!, as, I have heard this set-up before - sounding really nice!
Actually, it was THIS set-up back in 1989 that drew me to the JBL Sound. Sadly, I had to sell those because of a misguided marriage... Now that I am by myself, I would like the JBL's back! On a disability pension doesn't leave much to splurge on...

Isn't there a way to run things passively "for now" , until I can expand on the electric's? Most of my JBL gear has come from the US ebay... I am glad
crossovers aren't real heavy! Depending on the weight of the item - shipping can sometimes DOUBLE the cost of the item to buy. Then exchange rate.. Everything I end up buying is at Premium price. good thing I don't want to re-sell it.. :o

Thanks for Your Help! Not only am I learning, it is all Invaluable to me!!!

Regards,
DogBox

[speakerdave]

For the cost of the passive elements for a 290-300hz crossover you could nearly pay for a JBL/UREI 5234a or 5235 crossover and a pair of 18dB cards. The manual available on line will give you the loads for the special 4345/4355 card.

[speakerdave]

I've just checked eBay pricing in those crossovers. Those sellers are shooting for the moon. What's really happened is those crossovers were not selling, and they have been withdrawn from the market, and people are just letting them sit in their garages. Like me. PM if interested. It's not the best sounding solution, but it's a solution. They are switchable 120/220. Maybe one of our other down under members has one closer.

[macaroonie]

Not ideal but they will get you on the road.

http://www.hlabs.com/products/crossovers/

or a S/H Behringer CX 2310

https://www.storedj.com.au/products/BEH-CX2310

[DogBox]

Hi Dave and Macaroonie,
Looks like we all went searching for active networks! I like that one from Store DJ! How do you know about them? They were cheaper than a place I was looking at those before. Have emailed them about freight/post costs... Their site calculator said $0.00 from Sydney, about 2hrs drive Nth for me. Hey, hope it's right!
I also found a guy from Hong Kong[ebay] selling Ashley XR-2001's. A Buy Now:$299 and has one for auction that when I put $166.99 on it I didn't make reserve... expensive huh? Cost me a whack to get it here too.. I MAY be PM'ing you Dave, to see how all this could work out??
At the same time, I was going through the Spec Sheets of the 4-ways [bi-ampable ones] and saw something you also put in your reply Dave, about the crossover cards to suit what I am after if I used a 5234... : 4345/4355 CARDS! So, went back to the drawing board and came up with what I am sure will be a workable Passive Crossover; incorporating a switchable Voltage divider to the top-end when not in Bi-amp mode.
I also have to think how I can use my two Yamaha integrated amps and utilise the Pre-Out/Main In sockets. I just cant quite get my head around the wiring-up just yet, but I am sure it can be done. :crying:
As long as none of this is going to be 'easy' - it's bound to work!

Appreciate all the help & advice! As you can tell, copious amounts are getting me somewhere! Many Thanks!!!

DogBox

[Lee in Montreal]

2 x 4 channel Mini-DSP

http://www.minidsp.com/products/minidspkits/2-x-in-8-x-out

[DogBox]

2 x 4 channel Mini-DSP

http://www.minidsp.com/products/minidspkits/2-x-in-8-x-out

Hi Lee,
Wow, when I first saw that I got excited and was going to ask how much was SMD to build it....? ;)

But it is Pre-Done! Nice unit though! And nice and cheap to get it here.
Have you used one before?

Thanks Lee!
Regards,
DogBox

[macaroonie]

Hi Dave and Macaroonie,
Looks like we all went searching for active networks! I like that one from Store DJ! How do you know about them? They were cheaper than a place I was looking at those before. Have emailed them about freight/post costs... Their site calculator said $0.00 from Sydney, about 2hrs drive Nth for me. Hey, hope it's right!
I also found a guy from Hong Kong[ebay] selling Ashley XR-2001's. A Buy Now:$299 and has one for auction that when I put $166.99 on it I didn't make reserve... expensive huh? Cost me a whack to get it here too.. I MAY be PM'ing you Dave, to see how all this could work out??
At the same time, I was going through the Spec Sheets of the 4-ways [bi-ampable ones] and saw something you also put in your reply Dave, about the crossover cards to suit what I am after if I used a 5234... : 4345/4355 CARDS! So, went back to the drawing board and came up with what I am sure will be a workable Passive Crossover; incorporating a switchable Voltage divider to the top-end when not in Bi-amp mode.
I also have to think how I can use my two Yamaha integrated amps and utilise the Pre-Out/Main In sockets. I just cant quite get my head around the wiring-up just yet, but I am sure it can be done. :crying:
As long as none of this is going to be 'easy' - it's bound to work!

Appreciate all the help & advice! As you can tell, copious amounts are getting me somewhere! Many Thanks!!!

DogBox


I just googled CX 2310 and australia , up it came , voila !!

To use your amps ( assuming both have pre out / power in ) split both amps , use the pre amp in one , feed the output from that preamp to feed the active crossover input. The other pre amp is redundant. You will then have two outputs , hi and low per channel. If the amps are the same then feed lo and hi to each amp and then to the appropriate speaker inputs. This way the power use is easier as the Hi power signal will typically be less in watts than goes to the bass. Gives the amp an easier time.

OR if one amp is more powerful use it for the bass and use the smaller one for the mid - hi.

The power amp sections in any amp do not care whether they are left or right channel or mid hi or bass , think of them as 4 individual power amps.

60200

[Lee in Montreal]

Hi Lee,
Wow, when I first saw that I got excited and was going to ask how much was SMD to build it....? ;)

I don't have one, but wished I did. It has received great reviews on many forums. I specially like the 2 x 4 channels format, and the apps with which the dsp works. It is infinitely expandable.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/minidsp/188332-new-minidsp-2x8-kit-review.html

Consider what it would cost you to build a quality analog passive crossover, and how restricted the tuning once built. In 2013, I don't see one reason to go analog passive crossovers... :D

[DogBox]

Hi Macaroonie,
Thankyou! Thankyou! Thankyou! You've made my day! That's what I was supposing, but you have even done the diagram!!!
You don't know what a relief it is to still be able to use "what I have"! Lately it seemed every which way I would turn was
going to involve 'more' of an outlay... when I am "running on empty!"
I hope you all are not going to scream at me when I say: Now I can design my full passive and incorporate the 'Bi-Amp "switch"
knowing it's going to work!!! Now, don't think I am going to all this trouble NOT to go ahead with it - 'cause I am going the Bi-Amp path!!

Lee, I know DSP would be a better step in the right direction, but I have to grow with this- one step at a time. And to attempt to add
to the workbench with an electronics project as well, would be too much "at this time"... definately later though! While I have got 'this'
project to listen to while i'm doing it.. Good music and the smell of burning solder go well together!
I have printed out quite a few things from 'Mr Elliot's' site too. Really worth a look if you haven't heard of "ESP" http://sound.westhost.com
The many projects you can make up are right up there if you can swing a soldering iron! Priced very reasonable too. Not sure, but I think
Ian Mackenzie has done some of his projects.

I can't "Thankyou!" ALL enough for helping me out the way you all have. Deeply appreciated!!!

Regards,
DogBox

[macaroonie]

Glad to help you out DB. If you can snag a used Berry CX2310 you will always be able to boot it out the door when you are done with it and get you money back. They are not the best but they are inexpensive , they have made squillions of them and the are fine for the money. It'll get you started. Bass coils would cost you a mint for that application.

If you need to expand your inputs you can use the second preamp for your extras , then take a REC out to the tape in on the main pre amp. If you select tape mon on the main pre you will get all the inputs that are used in the second pre.

[Lee in Montreal]

... and create lots of delays by cascading loop-in/loop-out etc... Sure is the poor man's way, and it almost work, but it also creates problems... ;)

I say go DSP. It will sound much better and will be cheaper... Quality inductance is very expensive.

[DogBox]

... Sure is the poor man's way, and it will almost work, but it also creates problems... ;)

I say go DSP.... Quality inductance is very expensive.

Well??? As long as "it's a start.." - doesn't mean it's gonna "stay" like that.... I don't mind going slow [you've obviously never followed me walking down the street!] and learning bit by bit. And if the poor man's way works - it'll do for now. The same with "Quality inductance"... - all I have to get is an 'iron-core inductor =5.4mH & parallel 80uF on the 2235 and we're good to go! I thought about the LP on the 2202 but will wait and see how it sounds first...
...if we didn't have problems, it wouldn't be interesting! Don't we all want to "turn the light on" in the dark art of crossover-building...? :spchless:

Many,Many Thanks! for the continued help!!! :applaud:

Kind Regards,
DogBox

[macaroonie]

... and create lots of delays by cascading loop-in/loop-out etc... Sure is the poor man's way, and it almost work, but it also creates problems... ;)

I say go DSP. It will sound much better and will be cheaper... Quality inductance is very expensive.

Lee what on earth are you on about ? This is simple input routing plus what would be standard hook up for the x over.
It gets the job done with what DB has on hand and if he is lucky he will score a x/o for $100 -120 Au. He has a load to do building his boxes and you know what that can cost.

M

[DogBox]

Thanks for the help and sanity... You, of course would like to "go all the way" on your first JBL build - however, back to the real world where expenses ruin dreams, I have to be a tad realistic and definately "leave room for improvement!" Hence, my wanting to incorporate the [some would say] dreaded switch that was used on the 4343 and some others to enable Bi-Amping.
I say this as I would still like to make this build "with" full passive connection if possible. I say "if possible" because I know I can't just 'tack' on
a known set of LP components and expect them to work with the rest of the crossover "just 'cause it worked on another design' - I have learned a little more than that. I don't even think a program like BBCS-6 would help; only going to 3-way crossovers. Bass Box would help if I could count what is done by a 3107 a complete and treat it like "a" speaker and look at the whole exercise like a "two-way" to bring the woofer in? I don't think we can afford the LOUDSOFT program just yet. Nice but...!!!!
If anyone has run this configuration, "Please tell me how you tackled the problem, and how it sounds to you?"
And about boxes,.. You can tell which 43xx used a 1" baffle [& I would suppose rear panel as well] by how far the 2405 "sticks out". As good as the cabinet makers were back then, I don't think they would rebate the inside of the front baffle for the 2307 or 2311 or 2405 to allow mounting of these 'front-flush-fitting'?? And some used 3/4" for the rest of the panels, others state inch panels throughout. I will stick with the 3/4" [19mm if I choose pre-veneered pine-board] and am fortunate to know a really good cabinet maker to cut all the panels for easy assembly. All my previous work was with metal, but making good speaker cabinets is a wonderful hobby to have! The amount of information from other builds on the forum helps with lots of bracing ideas. I would just like to have the crossover sorted before I start proper...

Really appreciate your knowledge and help! Please help out on the crossover if you can. I am sure it can be done! Thanks!!! :applaud:

DogBox

[DogBox]

Doing another Google search on the Monitors I was helping make such a long time ago [in my previous posts] I actually came across a pair!
Looks like someone gave the front a different colour, however: http://hifiexchange.com.au/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=887

Like I said, at the time, I didn't know half the things I do now [oh, if only!!!] yet, I "did" have a pair of my own!!!
Maybe you can say, 'I want to have them back again' only built properly; from the knowledge of this site and people...



http://hifiexchange.com.au/image/cache/HOLMANJBL-250x250.jpg (http://hifiexchange.com.au/image/cache/HOLMANJBL-400x400.jpg)


DogBox

[sparky2]

Hello,

If you will send me your overall cabinet volume minus the approximated component volumes, the woofer impedance, desired crossover frequency, and a crossover schematic, or series inductor value, I think I can give you an idea about what to do to use just one woofer, with your non-standard cabinet volume. I will give it a try. Take care. sparky2

[sparky2]

I would also need the woofer model and resonant frequency Fs, the approximate volume of the internal bracing members (usually 2"x4" wood), the length, internal diameter, and number of existing tubular ports (or the standard ones for a 4350). Cheers! -sparky2_

[DogBox]

Hey Sparky,
Thanks for the help!
As you see from the slightly re-arranged 'title' - that's what I am going to attempt to build...
Which 'has' the parts of the speaker in the photo, that my friend built years ago.
I don't intend to have my design like that [although, it was tempting...but not so many ports! ]
Basically think of a 4344 upper/4343 lowersection [woofer centered] and all the upper drivers the same kind as in a 4350/4355.
So the box has just a bit more volume inside to allow for the 2202 mid-box (I can't say it!) ...and voila! A single woofer 4350/4355.
Not needing the extra SPL's from "dual woofer design", I am confident of the design.[oh yeah?] In thinking, instead of using a switch wired in
to be able to Bi-amp; I could wire up extra terminals on the rear for direct connection to bi-amp instead of the signal going through
a switch and the wiring that goes along with it.
I have just downloaded some crossover and box design software to see how well I can integrate the single 2235H into the 'revised
4355 network' from the "4355 - 3155 clones" thread.
I will get back to you on the "working box details and sizes" soon.
Before I think twice about the whole thing.... :blink:????


DogBox

[DogBox]

This hopefully will join successfully the transducers involved.... 60422










*PLEASE NOTE: This network design is IN PROGRESS and NOT FINISHED to be able to recommend "at this stage", DogBox.

[DogBox]

In the prevoius Network, the amount of capacitance to the two low-end drivers has me concerned....???!!!!!
Could someone please advise? Or, would that be better dealt with in the Tech. Section.?
I am getting the parts to assemble the network and building gear for testing, but if someone can direct, it would help immensely. Thanks! :)


DogBox

[ivica]

This hopefully will join successfully the transducers involved.... 60422 *PLEASE NOTE: This network design is IN PROGRESS and NOT FINISHED to be able to recommend "at this stage", DogBox.

Hi DogBox,
My interest is to realize almost the same box, but with 2245H instead of yours 2235H,
so I have done some simulation of the network starting almost with the same as you have shown.
While doing that I have get better (simulated) results when:

2202H section:
- I have put a resistor about 4 Ohms inline with 60uF ( cc: 120+120uF) capacitor
IN-FRONT 4.8mH in the 2202 network part (the real value has to be determined measuring 2202H sensitivity relative to 2235H,
may be 4 Ohms has to be enlarged to about 8 Ohms)

2441H section:
- I have put about 8 Ohms resistor inline with 8 uF ( cc: 16 uF + 16 uF) capacitor IN-FRONT 1.0 mH in the 2441 network, and
- I have put capacitor about 2.2uF paralleled with 1 mH inductivity in the 2441 network, and
- I have reduced 0.47mH inductivity to 0.30mH value in the 2441 network
- resistor 18 Ohms have been removed in the 2441 network

2405H section:
- I have put a resistor about 4 Ohms inline with 1uF (cc: 2uF+2uF) capacitor IN-FRONT 0.16mH in 2405 network
- while removing 4R3 (on your network) and 36 Ohms resistor too
- I have reduced 0.16mH to about 0.10 mH in 2405 network
- I have put about 0.12mH inductivity inline with 1.8 uF ( cc: 3.6uF+3.6 uF) ( in the place You have 4R3 resistor)

So for easy 'reading' "CC" capacitors are removed in the attached figure of the possible solution

Even in the 2235H network part some "improvements" can be get in the F/R by adding
'serial' LRC 'resonance circuitry' large inductivity - 15mH/ 5 Ohms inline 330 uF, and put paralleled to the driver
in order to reduce some bass 'bump' under 100 Hz, because applied 5.4mH/90 uF 'interact with the driver's motional impedance'

Regards Ivica

[more10]

Making passive filters for horns is very difficult. You need to do several iterations with different values of the components.

Go DSP, miniDSP HD is 4-way and it has delay. The delay will allow you to time align the compression drivers to the other drivers. You will be able to eq your horns properly. Then you can try to make a passive filter which behaves like the active one (without delay of course). You will need very small amplifiers for the horns. A bit more power for low midrange. Class D amps will be quite cheap.

Mårten

[DogBox]

Thanks Ivica and More10! Really welcome the help!!! More10, I can't figure out what you are refering to when you say: "horns" ? the only horn will be a 2311/H93 [in my case] that will attatch to the 2441... What did you mean?
Ivica, you mention a lot of changes to the "upper three drivers" - which will be able to be Bi-amp capable. I used this particular network section as a "finished" part for the bi-amp purpose. Also because it was done by Mr. G. and wasn't going to fool with it UNLESS adding the 5.4 mH and capacitance upset the balance when run full passive.
I will print it off and go study for a while and soak it all in!
Thanks again!! I'll get back to you...
;)

DogBox

[more10]

the only horn will be a 2311/H93 [in my case] that will attatch to the 2441... What did you mean?

Its my english. Horns as in any horn. But the 2405 is also a horn, but maybe not that difficult to make a filter for.

I have no experience with the 2311, but it looks way too short to me. Is there ispace for a 2309 with a lens? They are intended for short distances.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/106944188/jbl_2309.jpg

[ivica]

Making passive filters for horns is very difficult. You need to do several iterations with different values of the components.

Go DSP, miniDSP HD is 4-way and it has delay. The delay will allow you to time align the compression drivers to the other drivers. You will be able to eq your horns properly. Then you can try to make a passive filter which behaves like the active one (without delay of course). You will need very small amplifiers for the horns. A bit more power for low mid-range. Class D amps will be quite cheap.

Mårten

Hi more10,

I have to agree with You about the difficulties to realize appropriated passive network (either for LF, MF, VHF and UHF section).
Any of them have their own problems that have to be solved ( for LF 'motional impedance interaction with large inductivity', for MF section - proper 'tweaking' between bass and VHF, especially in "off-axis response", on VHF section proper compensation of the driver-horn combo "cooperation", and on UHF lowering VHF - UHF "acoustical interconnection", on axis and especially off-axis).

For sure using DSP for delay compensation is much more easier task then to physically arrange the drivers in order to align them "in time domain". But using DSP have some drawback such as: you have to use more amplifiers. And the price for quality amp is not neglect-able thing. Introducing D-type amps for 'low-level' listening is another "problem" too.

Proper use of DSP means:
-using some spacial preamp or multichannel ADC (such as mini DSP 10x10 (8x8) ).
-Not to mention that sound level has to be done with analog attenuators for EACH channel (driver) synchronously, either on preamp output or at the power amp side .
-You must have special muting circuits and the procedure to turn-on / turn-off amplifier section.

Regards
Ivica

[DogBox]

I have no experience with the 2311, .... Is there ispace for a 2309 with a lens?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/106944188/jbl_2309.jpg

Oh, More10! All I can say is: " Is there enough money in my bank account to get a couple of these...??? " Oh, Please! Please!
I have always been on the lookout for a pair of these as soon as I saw them! Probably why the 4343 still brings a smile and
will be on the 'Drawing Board' if I am forced to go back to it. For now the 2311/2308 on the 2441 [ as used in the 4355/4350 ]
will do its thing nicely!
By the way, you're english is fine!


DogBox

[BMWCCA]

By the way, you're english is fine!
As long as he doesn't use yours as an example!! ;)






Just kidding!

[DogBox]

As long as he doesn't use yours as an example!! ;)

...You noticed, huh. That bad, is it? ...& I never thought Australians had an accent...?




DogBox

[macaroonie]

Hey there DB. The more I see where you are going with your project the more I'm thinking you should go DSP. Just making small changes to a passive network can be spendy if you don't have a coil winding machine and a good stock of caps.

For your illumination / fun / education here is the sofware for XTA management. Upper end Brirish designed and well respected.
The user interface is a breeze and you will learn how easy it is to make all your settings and corrections etc.
Thing is its done in seconds whereas tweaking a network could take you hours or days.

Hint. Every input and every output has parametric eq x 5 + x/o filters with hugely variable parameters. Includes gain on all the inputs and outputs and delay's. Nifty and easy to use.

Well worth playing about to get a taste of the versatility.

Download : http://www.audiocore.co.uk/software-audiocore_info_download.html

The M2 setup can be easily dialed in for example. Have fun

[DogBox]

Hey there DB. The more I see where you are going with your project the more I'm thinking you should go DSP. Just making small changes to a passive network can be spendy if you don't have a coil winding machine and a good stock of caps.

For your illumination / fun / education here is the sofware for XTA management. Upper end Brirish designed and well respected.
The user interface is a breeze and you will learn how easy it is to make all your settings and corrections etc.
Thing is its done in seconds whereas tweaking a network could take you hours or days.

Hint. Every input and every output has parametric eq x 5 + x/o filters with hugely variable parameters. Includes gain on all the inputs and outputs and delay's. Nifty and easy to use.

Well worth playing about to get a taste of the versatility.

Download : http://www.audiocore.co.uk/software-audiocore_info_download.html

The M2 setup can be easily dialed in for example. Have fun

Hi Macaroonie!
Always goot ta hear ya! I have also been looking at something that has been around for ages - but never took the plunge...

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/350429633168?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649 Yes, I know where it's advertised...

I keep on hearing about DSP and don't know how much time its going to take to get the hang of before I could start to use it...?
I have also been thinking of 'biting the bullet' [before I shoot myself with it!] and spending up on a Computer Design Crossover Tool... Big$$$$$
But I am thinking, ultimately worth it, I think. To be able to do what I would like to do. Seen the other Tech Thread I put up?
Hopefully to be able to "unite the two together"... Yes, bliss is that far away....

I will Download the AudioCore and have a go. I have also built a small Pre-Amp and Amp for my Test set-up. We are getting there...
I am investing a lot of time and money in this.. Hoping for a good outcome.

Thanks for the Help and Software link! Really appreciate it... :)


DogBox

[DogBox]

For your illumination / fun / education here is the sofware for XTA management.( Upper end Brirish designed and well respected.)Well worth playing about to get a taste of the versatility.

Download : http://www.audiocore.co.uk/software-audiocore_info_download.html

The M2 [is that "Motorway?"...]

Hey I'm glad the software is free to dabble with - 'cause the " 4 Series [from 2 In to 4 Out through to 4 In to 8 Out available here in Aust.] units
are a little outa my "affordable" range.
I downloaded the software and searched and searched if any "hardware" or external equipment was needed to go with it... You DID say "Upper End British.." The 4 Series is what you use it with and at $4000 to nearly $5000 is a tad over the top... & not a microphone in sight...
DSP will take the place of a crossover. I was never after something like that. I want to be able to expand on or change a crossover that is there rather than replace the components with another box of electrics. And I don't need to adjust them by remote control... My hips and lower back is crook - but I can still walk at the present!
I think further study and understanding and proper guidelines will see a passive crossover that has the option of being Bi-Amplified will be the result... eventually!


Thanks for the help and thought!


DogBox

[macaroonie]

DB the only reason I sent you that link was because the software is easy to use and comprehend. You probably have not had time to find out how to adjust the Q of a given filter etc. I suggest you persevere with that software , treat it as a computer game and go back to it when you feel like it. I suggest you run a simple try out 2 way system and mess with the parametric EQ ( PEQ ) etc and see where it takes you.
The bones of it is that you would truly struggle to dial in a passive network with anything like the ease that these systems afford.

Yes the XTA is expensive , however our friends at Behringer will do you one for drinking money (DCX2496) , not far away from your prototype passive box.
The software on the behringer is not as user friendly and the graphics are poor by comparison with Auydiocore but its not a costly piece.

For your proposed system I would suggest that you treat it as a 3 way and tag on the slot tweet passively in the normal way. That HP filter is the least expensive to build.

M

[DogBox]

DB the only reason I sent you that link was because the software is easy to use and comprehend. You probably have not had time to find out how to adjust the Q of a given filter etc. I suggest you persevere with that software , treat it as a computer game and go back to it when you feel like it. I suggest you run a simple try out 2 way system and mess with the parametric EQ ( PEQ ) etc and see where it takes you.
The bones of it is that you would truly struggle to dial in a passive network with anything like the ease that these systems afford.

For your proposed system I would suggest that you treat it as a 3 way and tag on the slot tweet passively in the normal way. That HP filter is the least expensive to build.

M

Ok,Ok, I re-downloaded things - even though I am analogue at heart...
Now, how to adjust the Q [or, Bandwidth ] of a given filter. At what 'slope' would that given filter be? If I am getting this....
I am used to reading the frequency response of a speaker and noting all the relevent Theile/Small Parameters before getting the calculator out and seeing how things look after going through a few formulas.
I have built and rebuilt a three-way crossover 'by ear' but can tell that the amount of variables in "3" ways is pushing the ears - although it is surprising how much you can hear "results" & changes.
If this can give me ideas of components and their sizes - well that's a whole different ball game! ... will it?
I 'have built'... well, "assembled all the components and parts" in relative boxes to be able to listen to a 4343 - in a sense. So, to progress from here, I thought I was "going to the next step..."
Maybe I am just expecting too much...

I'll go back to the XTA computer game for a while....



DogBox

[macaroonie]

To change / edit the Q you need to double click the box with the figure. You can make the filter be as narrow as you like or at the other extreme as wide as you like.

[DogBox]

Yes the XTA is expensive , however our friends at Behringer will do you one for drinking money (DCX2496)
For your proposed system I would suggest that you treat it as a 3 way and tag on the slot tweet passively in the normal way. That HP filter is the least expensive to build.
M

Behringer Ultra-Drive Pro DCX2496 Active Crossover.... Does this make the "Crossover" you suggested before obselete? And 'this thing' is now going to drive my speakers? I am glad I don't drink anymore, as this will go $559 or "just now" Special @ $419.00 (That's a serious "session!")....Hic'
That sort of money will get a lot of things... maybe a whole bunch of inductors capacitors resistors to choke on...

JBL 4350 minus one woofer... dead and buried.



DogBox

[macaroonie]

All any of the many digital speaker management processors do is what an analogue crossover does PLUS huge EQ options PLUS huge time delay / alignment options.

For sure if you feel comfortable working with passive networks then by all means press on as per your plan.
I would attest that a goodly part of the magic of the M2 system is down to the DSP running the show. It remains to be seen whether this route will deliver more greatness fron the classic 43XX systems and also from the newer offerings K2 xxx etc.

Just so you understand whats going on here is that this technology is a trickle down from the live music / PA / tour sound. DSP has been the go to method to run these complicated systems for a good few years now. Delay is crucial to making these systems work well as is PEQ. Every venue will require different EQ and these systems allow this all to happen easily.

Whats the downside ? Many including myself have had reservations about digital anything in the signal path however , it would seem that these management processors have evolved to where they are more than acceptable. Most certainly they offer huge versatility and ease of adjustment on the fly , this cannot really be achieved with passive networks.

I suggest you keep playing with Audiocore , our man Cooky runs an XTA with his speakers , perhaps he will chime in with his personal experiences.

You should be able to find that Behringer used for a decent price .

M

[DogBox]

:applaud: Thankyou! Macaroonie for your kindness and help in this. Your input has been wonderful.

I just never imagined that this was the only option open to me to realise a build I had been trying to bring together for a long time.
The Digital route wasn't in the original plan. I think just a copy of a 4343 warts and all will do and I will be happy with that.
Thanks again for all the links and ways that you suggested.



DogBox.

[DogBox]

All any of the many digital speaker management processors do is what an analogue crossover does PLUS huge EQ options PLUS huge time delay / alignment options.

I suggest you keep playing with Audiocore......

Or, something like this that I found while stooging about... http://www.thuneau.com/products.htm Download the Frequency Allocator and have a "play" with it... maybe a little more 'speaker-ish'.. I dunno. Pretty impressive but...

DB