Testing some used 2225 drivers

[budney]

I've found some 2225 drivers locally but I've never bought some vintage drivers before so was hoping that someone could detail some tests I can do to ensure they're in proper condition. I had planned on running pink noise through them and check they all sound the same but other than that I'm not sure what to do.

I've attached some photos, do they look like the real deal? Seem to be in alright condition visually but i wouldn't be able to tell if they're the original cones or aftermarket ones, seller says they're original cones and haven't been used much. Thanks!

77932
77931
77933
77934

[speakerdave]

I'm not an expert, but I think those are the correct cones, although they look well-traveled, and because they are sound reenfircement drivers, that means they are probaby pretty wrung out.

My question is, What do you want them to do? I would not recommend them for hi fi use. The beauty part, though, is the frame and magnet are identical to the 2235/2234. If they are priced correctly for cores to be reconed as real hi fi woofers, then they would be worthwhile. That would be my suggestion.

[budney]

Im building some 4520 replicas, so my main use would be sound reinforcement for some parties. With them being 20-30 years old I'm not really holding out on finding any in mint condition and I'm in the UK so buying on ebay and shipping is not something I want to do. They don't pop up often here so I've not got much choice.

I was just wondering if there was anything I can specifically look out for to show that they're a bit weathered, so maybe I can haggle the price down a bit, other than just looking at them and seeing that they've been used.

[speakerdave]

I would want to play some rock or jazz (drums and bass) through them and briefly turn the LF up some so the cones move a lot to see if there are any tocks, rattles, flutters or scrapes. Barring, that, I would pay their value as cores in your locale. Even if they pass that test I would pay very little over core value. Whoever owns them has gotten their use out of them or has bought them real cheap, is my guess. There is definitely an arc of life in cones, spiders and surrounds. Basically, I wouldn't touch them not planning on a recone. When in good condition this is a great driver, not for VLF, but for upper bass impact, but used up is used up.

[budney]

Okay, thanks, good to know. Will give them a thorough test. The seller is asking for £100 each or £350 for 4 so maybe I could get them a bit lower if they seem well used. Hard to tell from the photo how much use they've really had. I had toyed about the idea of reconing them, I think I can find the genuine jbl recone kit in some places, not cheap though :(

[Lee in Montreal]

Look for coil rubbing. Simply push the cone from all around the dome by a few millimeters and see if they rub.

[budney]

Look for coil rubbing. Simply push the cone from all around the dome by a few millimeters and see if they rub.

Hey lee, okay thanks, will check that out. I've managed to find 2 pairs of 2395s locally, can't believe my luck!

Someone has said to use 2220s for the 4520, but I can't figure out the difference between the 2220 and 2225 apart from sensitivity, do you have any experience comparing the two?

[Lee in Montreal]

The 2220 has a low Qts which should make it more suitable for a horn, but it is an upper midbass driver. You'll get more bass from the 2225.

[budney]

The 2220 has a low Qts which should make it more suitable for a horn, but it is an upper midbass driver. You'll get more bass from the 2225.

okay, 2225 it is :D now I'm hoping the ones I found are in okay shape

[Lee in Montreal]

okay, 2225 it is :D now I'm hoping the ones I found are in okay shape

And a word of wisdom. If you simply connect your woofers to the amp and think that the preamp's tone control is enough to get good sound, you may be in for a surprise. I suggest getting a digital crossover to shape the sound to your taste. Most likely more bass under 60Hz and less midrange. As for that dip around 120-150Hz, there's absolutely nothing you can do. If you boost that range, you will boost equally on the front and rear waves, getting a null. Which is why I was suggesting using the 4520s up to a tad below of that null range and get another cab from 100 to 800hz where you'll be crossing over to the slants.

[budney]

I had planned on using a digital crossover, at least at the beginning whilst im experimenting. Got a choice of a dbx or a behringer that I can borrow for the timebeing, obviously the dbx being the first choice. The null point is worrying me but I'm not going to stress about it too much until I've actually built a cab and can hear for myself. Seriously considering building a Waldorf too, id really like to compare the two and see which I like more before committing to building 4 stacks. I'd love to have a set up similar to the garage :D but taking it step by step. I've found a stash of bgw amps in Europe so a eurotrip might be on the cards soon!

[Horn Fanatic]

I had planned on using a digital crossover, at least at the beginning whilst im experimenting. Got a choice of a dbx or a behringer that I can borrow for the timebeing, obviously the dbx being the first choice. The null point is worrying me but I'm not going to stress about it too much until I've actually built a cab and can hear for myself. Seriously considering building a Waldorf too, id really like to compare the two and see which I like more before committing to building 4 stacks. I'd love to have a set up similar to the garage :D but taking it step by step. I've found a stash of bgw amps in Europe so a eurotrip might be on the cards soon!

Hello again, budney -

Instead of all the suggested guessing, perhaps you could sweep your 2225 speakers with a sine wave generator at low amplitude to check for rubbing, then boost the amplitude to check for nulls and peaks, then compare your findings to the published nomograph on the back of the data sheet. The 2220 actually has a lower free air resonance than the 2225 by 3 cycles. Although it's not suggested for rigorous low frequency use in professional sound systems, it will perform admirably in a HiFi situation.

The 2220 is the professional version of the 130A, which was used in the C34 and C40 folded horns. Between the 2220 and 130A, the Thiele-Small parameters are a dead match. The improvement was employing the more rugged surround on the 2220.

You won't get much bass out of the Jensen Imperial, AKA RLA Waldorf. Some kind soul on the forum some years ago posted a frequency response graph where it showed the box tanking at 50Hz. The C34 will surpass that easily. However, the chamber volume of the C34 is much too small for what a 2225 requires.

Good luck,

H.F.

[budney]

Hello again, budney -

Instead of all the suggested guessing, perhaps you could sweep your 2225 speakers with a sine wave generator at low amplitude to check for rubbing, then boost the amplitude to check for nulls and peaks, then compare your findings to the published nomograph on the back of the data sheet. The 2220 actually has a lower free air resonance than the 2225 by 3 cycles. Although it's not suggested for rigorous low frequency use in professional sound systems, it will perform admirably in a HiFi situation.

The 2220 is the professional version of the 130A, which was used in the C34 and C40 folded horns. Between the 2220 and 130A, the Thiele-Small parameters are a dead match. The improvement was employing the more rugged surround on the 2220.

You won't get much bass out of the Jensen Imperial, AKA RLA Waldorf. Some kind soul on the forum some years ago posted a frequency response graph where it showed the box tanking at 50Hz. The C34 will surpass that easily. However, the chamber volume of the C34 is much too small for what a 2225 requires.

Good luck,

H.F.

Hey H.F

Cheers for the testing info, I'm hoping that theres no issues with the drivers. But as speakerdave mentioned, with them being so old a recone would be the sensible idea even if they're in okay condition, but a genuine recone kit costs so much! As for the 2220, I gather that they're an older driver, from the same era as the 2205? I think I'm in trouble of going down a vintage rabbit hole, looking at all these old drivers. Then theres the E140, the K140, the 2205, all hard to find! I think I'll stick with the 2225s for now, since theres some local to me that aren't too expensive. Maybe one day I can look into getting some older nicer drivers, if I can find them. Lee mentioned on another thread the altec 515, and I have heard them before and I did really like the sound, but as for finding some for a good price, I can forget them!

As for the waldorf, I'm aware of their shortcomings, but they are famous for being installed in some old clubs in new york, and are attached to a specific sound and genre of music, the same genre that I like and wish to play. Its still a maybe to build one, and I would compare it to the 4520 to see which one I liked more. I am not likely to find the genuine plans though, so again this is still all up in the air. I have not seen this post on the forum showing the frequency response, do you think you could send me a link?

Thanks again

[budney]

I got the seller to send me some pics of the writing on the cone, I want to make sure they are proper jbl cones and not aftermarket. Do they look legit?

77991
77992

[RMC]

The black glue line around the dust cap is often a good indicator if the thing is original since a factory made one is usually smooth and almost perfect all around. On your pictures some raise a question in my mind... Compare first and second pictures at bottom of your first post, and also compare those where you have the three units side by side (left looks better than the other two). Seems like some hesitation from the hand holding the glue tube. My factory original JBL 15" sure don't have that hesitation in their glue lines. Original probably machine made. To me some may have been reconed.

Richard

[RMC]

In a usual purchasing situation, REALISTICALLY, you won't have a lab nor a pile of instruments to test the drivers. But a good quality digital AC/DC multi-meter (easy to find and carry) can be of little help to measure drivers' DC resistance (Re) to see if far off or close to specs. JBL's spec for that 2225H is 6.3 ohms, which may vary a little. Too far off would be a red flag.

Coil rubbing (as mentioned by Lee) is a good indicator of driver damage or poorly executed recone job.

A meticulous visual inspection ALL around (bring a good flashlight) re: dents or cracks in frame or magnet, rear vent foam condition (if any, disintegrating?), cone and surround condition, spider and cone/spider junction condition to look at with light in hand when pushing a bit downwards on dust cap with your other hand, wires and terminal connectors, etc.

Naturally, a listening test of each. However, with no box the bass will be weak (front and back waves cancelling each other) but by pushing it just a little you can confirm it works ok and no coil rubbing heard.

In addition to careful inspection of black glue lines around the dust caps, as mentioned in my previous post, this is where many sellers flunk the test of "original" stuff... That black glue line is normally perfectly smooth all around on original drivers...

Unfortunately, many people lie about the real condition of their gear in order to get rid of it (selling it)... Just remember the 2225 is among the most beaten/reconed driver from the JBL lineup...

That's about the best you can do in REAL life (not an ideal world)!

BTW I agree with Lee when he says "You'll get more bass from the 2225." Though Fs, Qts and Vas are somewhat off for a 4520 type box, more like a second or third best choice in the absence of 2205H or E-140. However, I do disagree strongly with him when he says "The 2220 has a low Qts which should make it more suitable for a horn, but it is an upper midbass driver". The 4520 IS a horn-loaded box, and specs wise the 2220 is even more suitable than 2225 for 4520 use. Also the 2220 is NOT an "upper midbass driver " as he says, but rather a Low-frequency transducer as described by JBL, with even lower Fs (in the "H" version) than a 2225... But the 2220 has a few handicaps re 4520 use in practice: a much too rising response from 150 hz and up for direct radiating front wave, higher Fs, rated only 100W continuous program, and an Xmax of only 2mm in the "A" version, so it won't take the bass beating and field abuse these boxes are subject to. The "H" version of 2220 also has rising response but from about 700 hz, lower Fs, rated at 200W continuous program, but again limited Xmax of 3 mm this time. So H version much better than A version for 4520 use, but still short on Xmax concerning field requirements for bass output and abuse... That's the REAL story, and reason why the K/E-145 was even preferred in some cases over the 2220 for 4520 use considering its low bass output capability (though not recommended by JBL for that use).

Richard

[RMC]

First a correction. The 2220A I referred to at the end of my post # 16 is a 2220 alone (with no "A") as seen in the 03/70 spec sheet. Plus, concerning rising response: 60 hz level compared to mid-bass level on JBL's response curve there's about a 5-6+ db level difference, and that goes on from 200 hz up to about 2 khz !

Another correction. With regards to "The "H" version of 2220 also has rising response but from about 700 hz..." in my previous post (# 16) his WRONG. It also starts at 150 hz. That rise in response (spec sheet 07/89) is of comparable magnitude to that of earlier driver version mentioned above (60 hz level compared to mid-bass level on JBL's response curve there's also about a 5-6+ db level difference, and that also goes on from 200 hz up to about 2 khz!). The different graph presentation tricked me... Dumb me, as Keele once said.

That part of higher level response up to 800 hz, usual crossover to a 2440-1/2395 type of setup with 4520, would sound more agressive or offensive in a direct radiating front wave, compared to lower level bass output. Moreover, it would not disappear by magic at 800 hz because of driver response overlap above X-over point. In addition, JBL frequently used 12 db/oct. crossovers in Sound Reinforcement so the offensive woofer sound would have taken longer bandwidth to fade away compared to steeper crossovers...

So, H version of 2220 still better than previous one for 4520 use (not on response curve), but again not much better on Xmax...

Rarity of good 2205H/E-140, and handicaps of 2220 make the more available 2225H the "second or third best" choice for 4520 cabinets. It also has more uniform response than 2220/H, and a more gentle and progressive response rise from 500 hz to + 3 db at 1.5 khz.

Richard

[budney]

hey richard,

thanks for the info, I'm definitely learning a lot from this website! I'll steer clear of the 2220, none for sale round here anyway. But if you say that it has a limited Xmax of 3mm, the 2205 only has an Xmax of 2.54. I don't understand how the originally recommended driver for the 4520 has such a low Xmax if its meant to take a beating. Also, the E140 Xmax is 3.5mm, compared to the 2225 of 5mm. So that driver is not a good candidate for disco sound reinforcement (when comparing it to the 2225)? I only ask this because a pair of E140s have popped up closer to me than the 2225s, but for more money, so I'm trying to weigh up the pros and cons for both the E140s and the 2225s.

the E140s cost more, and there is only 2 of them, so could be tricky finding another pair. Also the genuine recone kit for them seems harder to come across than the 2225 so theres the issue of if one ever needed a recone I'd be in trouble. With a lower Xmax then they are more likely to reach excursion and become damaged, so an E140 requiring a recone would be more likely than a 2225. The E140 is more sensitive so would be more efficient, so many deciding factors!

The 2225s are pretty cheap (compared to the E140s) for all 4 and then I wouldn't have to be scrabbling trying to find another pair for a stereo set up, and hopefully further down the line they'd be easier to find for a quad set up. They'd be easier to repair and less likely to burn out, but the second runner up with regards to matching the 4520 requirements. I'm debating whether to just bite the bullet and get them all, and then decide which ones I like later...it seems like everything I need is suddenly appearing close to me so maybe its fate!

Also it depends on the condition, if when I see the 2225s they're not in the greatest shape then maybe I could get them for cheaper, or should avoid them all together. Just waiting on some pics of the E140s as he couldn't access them immediately, so not sure on their condition.

Barney

[RMC]

Yes, in that 4520 application stay away from 2220/H for reasons already given (plus more suited for front-loaded bass horns), and preferable to go with 2225H here. BTW the 2205 was also one of the most reconed drivers, during his time, because of abuses in 4520/4530 boxes. E-140 "higher" sensitivity is mid-band sensitivity (500-2,500 hz), not low frequency. Please check before. To make a long story short, here we go:

The original 2205 came out around 1971 and was converted from Alnico to Ferrite magnet (H version) around 1980 or so. I purchased my 2205H in 1981 and I have a computer printout from JBL's database, for a box they modeled for me, that says Xmax 0.14 inch (= 3.56mm). I have written before on this site in another thread titled "15 in. Pro woofers not tested by JBL?", that the 2.54 mm for 2205 appears to be an error. In JBL's tables of T/S parameters, the numbers for 2205A and 2205H are identical, as for a few other converted drivers at career end, which is VERY suspicious since in my sample of converted drivers there are ALWAYS at least minor differences between the before and after versions data (e.g. A vs H), but for a few exceptions near cycle end... Since its almost impossible that converted drivers' data be a carbon copy of the previous ones, a fellow member offered as an explanation the fact that most likely they didn't bother to correct/update numbers issued since these were phased out shortly anyway. Plus, 4520/4530 cabinets also disappeared from JBL catalogs since 1982 if my memory serves me well.

Remember, the late 70's/early 80's were hectic at JBL: the Ferrite conversion process/situation, JBL was being sold by Sidney Harman (named secretary of commerce) to Beatrice Foods (!) if my memory is correct (he bought it back, in dismay he said, after a couple of years), the competition (i.e. Gauss) was coming out with 400 W woofers VS JBL's 150 sine wave/300 W program, new format for data sheets including metric numbers and T/S parameters, etc.

Even if the 2205 was the most widely used driver for the 4520/4530 cabinet era, it was being phased out with the cabinets. It was replaced in 1982 by the 2225H (first spec sheet issued Jan. 82 and revised spec sheet issued Nov. 85). The largely selling 2205 and K-140 were "re-issued" in 1981-2 as 2225H and E-140 (converted, and higher power) with a 200 W continuous sine wave/400 W continuous program power ratings. Finally, the JBL marketing guys could also claim to have 400 W drivers too VS Gauss eating market share in power war...

To my knowledge, the 3 mm Xmax for 2220H came much later in time (spec sheet July 89) compared to 2205H being released in 1980-1. Previous version of 2220 had less Xmax at 2mm according to JBL's T/S tables (not mentioned in other 2220 spec sheet I have from 1970). Nothing unusual here, it follows the general tendency of Xmax increases with time, as well as with power capacity increase, and linked to the ever lower cost of the Watt... So the older version 2220 (2mm) should be compared to the 2205 (3.56mm) since the latter was phased out 1981, but the 2220H (3mm) seems to have appeared 8 years later in 1989. And the 2205 replacement (2225) has 5mm as you mentioned with 200 W/400 W compared to 2205 (3.56mm) with 150/300 W... You should also read JBL Pro Low-Frequency Enclosures 05/80 in the section about suitable drivers for rear AND FRONT loaded boxes to better understand the reality of 2220, 2205, E-140...

To understand the why and how of things they often have to be put in context and chronological order, which takes time and verifications. Don't compare lightly things from different ages, the results are bound to appear unacceptable. I'll leave it at that for the time being.

Richard

[budney]

I went to pick up the drivers today, and it went better than I expected. Turns out I knew the guy already, I engineered for him when he DJ'd once and I had a lengthy chat with him about gear, so was a pleasant surprise to meet him again.

Spent a good while testing them, they seemed dusty and dirty but not really that used. Turns out he's a squatter and pulled them out of an old cinema he was squatting at! :lol_fit:

Two were recones as everyone rightly pointed out, they had the date they were reconed, 1989! They had the same white code as the other drivers so I'm confident they are the genuine kit. One of them was buzzing really quite badly, so I managed to get the price down quite a bit for that one. When I got home and had a proper look it was just the wires from the terminals touching the cone, so very pleased that it was an easy fix. Another one had a strange buzz but when I pressed and put pressure on the frame the noise changed, and eventually went away, so I'm not sure what the deal with that one is. The noise does sound like its coming from one side of the frame though, maybe the foam surround? Not sure what to do about that. The other two drivers were fine. I can't believe how punchy they are, even just as a raw driver not in a speaker! Really happy with them :) thanks everyone for all your help and answering my endless barrage of questions.

He also threw in 3 busted drivers for free, because he liked the sound of my project! and he thought I'd put them to use as he wasn't that big on jbl, and he probably lifted them/got them from somewhere so no skin of his nose. Anyone have any idea how far gone these drivers are? Obviously they'll need a recone, but would they need anything else done to them? Any suggestions for what I should do with the 2204s?

ps thanks richard for the history lesson, it really fascinates me, all this old gear. Knowing the history behind it all really helps me build a bigger picture of jbl back then, I'm glad that this community is here and this knowledge can be shared.

the broken drivers
78007
78008
78009
78010
78011

[Lee in Montreal]

2220 vs 2225 vs 2235

As can be seen from the graph, the 2220 is way more generous in the upper range than a 2225. If you reduce the output of the 2220 to match its medium range with a 2225, you end up with much less bass. ;-)

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=70667&d=1459609201

[ivica]

I went to pick up the drivers today, and it went better than I expected........
Anyone have any idea how far gone these drivers are? Obviously they'll need a recone, but would they need anything else done to them? Any suggestions for what I should do with the 2204s?

......

Hi budney

may be 2204H can be used in a small box (100 Lit, 40Hz) crossed at round 1200Hz, with CD drviver such as 2441/45/46/50 with 2311 & 2308 or
2447/2450-1.5/2451/2452 loaded with CD horns such as stx825 or pth1010 horns

http://reconingspeakers.com/product/jbl-442730-001-pth1010hf-1-waveguide/
or
(http://reconingspeakers.com/product/jbl-horn-lens-5006219-for-stx815/)http://reconingspeakers.com/product/jbl-horn-lens-5006815-stx825/
http://reconingspeakers.com/product/jbl-horn-lens-5006219-for-stx815/

may interesting
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?36686-New-JBL-waveguides-5006812-90x50-vs-PT-F95HF&p=397052&viewfull=1#post397052


regards
ivica