What to do with 2241H's

So one evening after a nice margarita and in a moment of idle boredom, I bought a pair of used JBL 2241H's off the interwebz. It was so impulsive, I was thinking 2245's and didn't notice the single digit was off. My thought was to build some house shaking 2-ways with large horn up top. Upon unboxing them in my living room, not only did I realize I goofed on the model, but also just how HOOGE 18" woofers are. I have 240Ti's as my main speakers, and often have 2-3 pair arrayed for comparing, but these 18's absolutely dwarf the LE14's.

What really killed the project is that JBL recommends a 10 CF enclosure for these, and I know I've been lucky so far but the wife will never approve that size cabinet as a permanent fixture in the living room. So they've been hibernating in the basement for 2 years.

My question is: can I stuff these into smaller enclosures as a compromise? I know it would not be optimum, but using the woofers would seem to be better than not using them. At 98 dB efficiency, they would seem to be a perfect mate to a CD and horn, and would move a heck load of air.

Thanks for any suggestions and input

I think the short answer is probably not, when I recall that the 2245, designed for what you want to do, needs 8 cu ft with BX63a for equalization to get there.

The one slim slim chance might be to employ Rod Elliot's extended base active equalization or Linkwitz's updated idea of a mirror compensation circuit for in-room response, given the measurement and technical capacity. The extended base idea is to house a woofer with unsubwooferlike higher native resonance, good power handling and excursability in a very small sealed enclosure so that operation is entirely below system resonance, and increase drive by 12dB per octave going down.

I know that 4313b has experimented with this idea using a 2242, a similar driver but more capable in key ways, and leaving out the compensation circuit to see what might happen with just room gain.

Limitations and risks of this idea: 1) It takes a very small box to raise the resonance to the top of the normal subwoofer range, so that true usefulness may be below 50 or even 40 Hz. 2) IMO the cones in most large woofers would not be built to behave pistonically under the pressures created in this kind of environment with severe drive, so output before garbage may be unexpectedly limited. Number two would be even more of a risk using a woofer cone that has led a wild life in SR.

If I had, like, you, waked up in the company of woofers with the wrong name, sending them on down the road would look easier and more likely to succeed than trying to make them change their names.

The 2241 will do fine in a 9ft³ enclosure (look at the JBL 4641 subwoofer system).

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/c...1#.XBk_LVVKiHs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sguttag

The 2241 will do fine in a 9ft³ enclosure (look at the JBL 4641 subwoofer system).

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/c...1#.XBk_LVVKiHs

---

I understood him to to mean he needed to go small.

Hi Sablotny,

RE: "What really killed the project is that JBL recommends a 10 CF enclosure for these..."

Well there's hope for you and convincing your wife. Happy wife, happy life! I seem to have learned that over 30 something years...

The 10 cu.ft. box shown with Fb 30 hz in the data sheets (12/95 and 04/08) is an example given for low frequency extention with an F3 in the 30s.

However, in both versions of the data sheet, the recommended box volume for this driver is given at 5-12 cu.ft. Therefore no need to keep them hibernating in the basement any longer. You can still make something worthwhile with them, even if not necessarily optimal LF wise... Naturally you'll need to sacrifice some deeper bass but you already know that.

RE: "At 98 dB efficiency..." Btw that sensitivity number was measured at 100-500 hz, not 50-500 hz like some other LF drivers from JBL. A tiny red flag re VLF output.

Just checked in Winspeakerz speaker design software to see if the 2241H is already in the data base (quicker), and it is so I'll be back shortly with a few quick modelings/suggestions for you. Gotta go now wife says lunch ready... Regards,

Richard

EDIT: I understood the same as Speakerdave, i.e. to go smaller...

I think these are about 6 cu ft.

http://www.audioheritage.org/photopo.../DSC_00011.JPG

Hi Sablotny,

A few notes to start with.

As promised I did four modelings in Winspeakerz using the 2241H in 5, 6, 7 and 8 cu.ft. targeting relatively flat response (< 1 db ripple) also trying to avoid long vents like 14.6 & 18.8" I got in some modelings if I took a larger area port which may complicate the builder's work when too long. The vent diameters given here still meet and exceed JBL's min. rule of one-third the driver's diameter (one-third of 18" being 6" and my two 5" vents are equal in area to a single 7" vent). I also gave 2 X 6" vents info when length was more acceptable (< 12").

I avoided tuning each box (Fb) below driver's free air resonance (Fs 35 hz), as a precaution only. Tuning at 35 hz for all boxes also minimized the amount of ripple in response. The software showed with all the boxes here none of them exceeded 7mm of cone travel at 600W!, the rated Xmax for this driver being 7.62 mm.

Remember that all box volumes given are NET, therefore you'll need to account for (add) space taken by driver (JBL: 18" = 0.3 cu.ft.), good bracing and vents. This increases the gross cabinet size that your wife will eventually see in the living room...

* 5 cu.ft., Fb 35 hz, F3 48 hz, ripple + 0.7 db @ 100 hz, Sv min. 41 sq. in., 2 X 5" vents (39.3 sq. in.), Lv 12.2"

* 6 cu.ft., Fb 35 hz, F3 46 hz, ripple + 0.4 db @ 90 hz, Sv min. 41 sq. in., 2 X 5" vents (39.3 sq. in.), Lv 9.3"

* 7 cu.ft., Fb 35 hz, F3 43 hz, ripple + 0.25 db @ 95 hz, Sv min. 41 sq. in., 2 X 5" vents (39.3 sq. in.), Lv 7.2" or as another vent option 2 X 6" (56.5 sq. in.), Lv 11.7"

* 8 cu.ft, Fb 35 hz, F3 39 hz, ripple + 0.15 db @ 90 hz, Sv min. 41 sq. in., 2 X 5" vents (39.3 sq. in.), Lv 5.7" or as another vent option 2 X 6" (56.5 sq. in.), Lv 9.4"

Its up to you now to decide what you can "sell" and live with in terms of box size vs LF performance. Regards

Richard

Edit: Modelings done assuming 2 Pi placement and box loss factor QL 7 which may be a little too optimistic, depending on box size chosen.

If your intent is to build a 2-way, I think you are better off with the 2241 rather than the 2245. You will get better integration at the horn as well as better definition in the bass. You give up a bit of deep bass, but eq can take care of that.

The 2241 even goes higher with better articulation than the 2235, let alone the 2245.

Thanks so much for all of the very informative replies. Playing around in AutoCAD, I think a 5-6 CF cabinet including vents & braces might just work. I will spend some time checking out Winspeaker as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toddalin

...The 2241 even goes higher with better articulation than the 2235, let alone the 2245.

---

This is going to seem rude and that is not the intent but,,, that’s a series of typo’s right?

Barry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1audiohack

This is going to seem rude and that is not the intent but,,, that’s a series of typo’s right?

Barry.

---

No, look at the specs and listen to the both of them side-by-side for hours on end.

For a sub, get a 2245 and cross it around 50Hz.

2241 are worthless in my very humble opinion. No bass and too much mids.

That's helpful thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sablotny

That's helpful thank you

---

If you want to keep that 2241 and use it as a sub, it will need to be heavily processed. Start with a larger cabinet than 5cft and boost the bottom octave. By boosting, I mean equalize by as much as 15db per octave. The cabinet, if designed as a bass reflex, shall be tuned to the lowest frequency you intend to reach (or close to). The reason is that the woofer unloads under that tuning frequency. Meaning that if the cab is tuned to 40Hz, then you will end up with a controlless cone under that frequency... ;-) Tuning a cabinet to 40Hz for PA is fine as it is often the very low end of what you want to reproduce anyway, not for sound reproduction at home. Oh well. That was just my 02¢ and other people might think otherwise. :bouncy:

Also, if you go to a smaller cabinet, you'll need more power to reach that bottom octave. Can't beat physics...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal

For a sub, get a 2245 and cross it around 50Hz.

2241 are worthless in my very humble opinion. No bass and too much mids.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal

If you want to keep that 2241 and use it as a sub, it will need to be heavily processed. Start with a larger cabinet than 5cft and boost the bottom octave. By boosting, I mean equalize by as much as 15db per octave. The cabinet, if designed as a bass reflex, shall be tuned to the lowest frequency you intend to reach (or close to). The reason is that the woofer unloads under that tuning frequency. Meaning that if the cab is tuned to 40Hz, then you will end up with a controlless cone under that frequency... ;-) Tuning a cabinet to 40Hz for PA is fine as it is often the very low end of what you want to reproduce anyway, not for sound reproduction at home. Oh well. That was just my 02¢ and other people might think otherwise. :bouncy:

Also, if you go to a smaller cabinet, you'll need more power to reach that bottom octave. Can't beat physics...

---

+1 on all points.


Widget

With two drivers, how about a dipole sub? Not sure 2241s would work for that, and I've never heard one in operation, but they seem to be pretty compact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee in Montreal

If you want to keep that 2241 and use it as a sub, it will need to be heavily processed. Start with a larger cabinet than 5cft and boost the bottom octave. By boosting, I mean equalize by as much as 15db per octave. The cabinet, if designed as a bass reflex, shall be tuned to the lowest frequency you intend to reach (or close to). The reason is that the woofer unloads under that tuning frequency. Meaning that if the cab is tuned to 40Hz, then you will end up with a controlless cone under that frequency... ;-) Tuning a cabinet to 40Hz for PA is fine as it is often the very low end of what you want to reproduce anyway, not for sound reproduction at home. Oh well. That was just my 02¢ and other people might think otherwise. :bouncy:

Also, if you go to a smaller cabinet, you'll need more power to reach that bottom octave. Can't beat physics...

---

What about adding weight to the cone for an interesting experiment?

I think that some of you are missing the point here:

"My thought was to build some house shaking 2-ways with large horn up top."

No one is talking about building a sub here and a 2245 running "all the way up to a horn" is just not going to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toddalin

I think that some of you are missing the point here:

"My thought was to build some house shaking 2-ways with large horn up top."

No one is talking about building a sub here and a 2245 running "all the way up to a horn" is just not going to do it.

---

It takes bottom end to shake the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toddalin

I think that some of you are missing the point here:

"My thought was to build some house shaking 2-ways with large horn up top."

No one is talking about building a sub here and a 2245 running "all the way up to a horn" is just not going to do it.

---

Then get a 2240 which has the exact same basket as the 2245. It has Fs30, will cross at 600Hz no sweat and it has a light cone. ;-)

If cabinet volume is limited, then using woofers in an isobaric system will reduce cabinet size by half. But you need twice the amps. Nothing is free. ;-)

He wants bass and an extended range. The 2241H is the best 18" for the job, except perhaps the neodymium 18" which gets a bit more bass. I've been through the plots before I purchased my 2241Hs.

These are the WinISD plots for the three woofers in question. The yellow line is the 2245, the red is the 2241, and the green the 2240. As far as I can tell the 2240 is just a big, loud, lower midrange with volume and power handling being it redeeming values. These plots represent WinISDs "best" attempts at bass that the speaker can reproduce, regardless of cabinet size or porting, to produce the flattest response.

http://www.audioheritage.org/photopo...c_21_14_43.jpg

Hi toddalin,

I'm fully supportive of your approach since you entered the thread, regardless of the curves in post # 21 and some other things, since it tries to make something acceptable with what the "customer" HAS, instead of what he DOESN'T. Sablotny is in a particular situation which requires more help than simply the dump/replace driver approach...

I'll be back with more on my reasoning here and consequently why I support what you do. Keep the approach and position! There's two of us. Regards,

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toddalin

http://www.audioheritage.org/photopo...c_21_14_43.jpg

---

Wow. I am impressed by your plot. Three woofers that are flat from 100Hz and up... Just kidding ;-) But I don't think it reflects the real world. That being said. Any woofer can do anything if one is willing to heavily digitally "massage it"... The OP has a 2241, well let's have him do the experimentation by himself. And if comments from more experienced people is not wanted as mentioned by RMC just above, oh well. ;-)

BTW I once did some test with a 2241... Not impressed at all. Sure it can handle twice the power as a 2240, but that's probably because you need twice the power to get decent low bass. Just the same as its little brother, the 2226 which is well known to be a mid bass driver, not a woofer as we expect it... ;-)

Hi Toddalin and Sablotny,

RE Lee's fairy tale, the usual crap, no time to waste on that: he sure hasn't read nor understood post # 22.

I think the purpose of this site is to share info and provide help whenever possible and within the means of everyone (provider and "client").

Some folks here seem to be quite fast on the trigger, driver wise (i.e. kill it). If I can help Sablotny make an acceptable LF box, not necessarily ideal in view of constraints, I will though the "jury" may think otherwise. Trying first to "salvage or rescue" the drivers seems important, as he won't get reimbursed for these = money down the drain. Also important when its JBL drivers being discussed on a JBL stuff related site, and the member has requested suggestions to make things work. Dumping or scraping them he can do all by himself, he doesn't really need help for that.

Right from the start Sablotny admitted having made a mistake when ordering the drivers, and that there are concerns from spouse about box size. Fine for me, that's part of real life and of the challenge of working with constraints, like taking whats there.

I'm much more interested in trying to help him out of the ditch than making thumb up or down on the equipment. This is why I modeled a number of 2241H boxes for him so that he can assess the impact and help him make a choice.

Seems to me this site has an elitist tendency in its approaches. Looks like "audio snobbery", and it reminds me of what another member wrote in another thread not long ago about members giving too much importance to perfection and their reference system than really helping the younger generation or newbies who come here for help and know mostly MP3 sound on ear buds. Can't remember his Avatar and exact words but its something along these lines here.

2241H is basically a sound reinforcement driver (not really for sub), with all that comes with it, instead of a home hi-fi or a control room monitor driver (though tech sheet tries to salvage the latter aspect). These are different ball games. One emphasizes linearity and deeper bass, the other sensitivity and spl output at the expense of the former items.

I take it as it is trying to provide something helpful to the member, like Toddalin, rather than focus on what he should own or puchased, which would mean dumping working drivers he spent money on, plus spending more on others that fellows here won't pay for. Then lets try to make these work.

Sure doing it this way requires more time and effort. But I think that discarding the drivers doesn't really help him at all, it just means "you purchased the wrong thing" i.e. appears blaming vs helping him out.

Going back to the following, plus his stated context, its my guidance: "My question is: can I stuff these into smaller enclosures as a compromise? I know it would not be optimum, but using the woofers would seem to be better than not using them." He knows its not best but still better than nothing.

If the bass is deficient, then he can start with 2-3 boundary box placement to help increase VLF output, that is free bass boost, saving some EQ and associated amp power requirement.

So I support Toddalin's approach, which is also mine here, to try to make something with the drivers instead of nothing. I see this as more useful, relevant and cost-effective in the circumstances. We agree on the end result for somewhat different reasons, but some are complementary. Regards,

Richard

Subject to building a real enclosure for subjective assessment the OP may like the D.B. Keele 6th order boosted alignment with the 2241 woofer.

A bass reflex enclosure of 7cu ft 3 with 1 inch of fibre glass lining yields an f3 of 29 hertz (see curser window box readout) with the tuning of Fb = 26 and boost of 26 hertz (Q=2).

At full power the output is 128 db AT 26 hertz and 124 db at 40 hertz.

A large JBL 2384 wave guide and a suitable driver could be used down to a crossover frequency of 630 hertz. Theis wave guide is regarded as being particularly impressive from diy user reports.

The 2241H has a maximum recommended crossover frequency of 800 hertz

The boost for the woofer, horn and crossover for a bi amp system (for friendly diy ) can be applied with a DSP loudspeaker management system such as from DBX.

The reason l went for the above approach is the 2241H is not a hifi woofer. You can’t get any worthwhile bass extension that would be an expectation for relatively large enclosures in a domestic setting.

If the OP is a SE triode nerd with 2 Watts who only listens to acoustic or folk music he might be happy but otherwise it would sound loud but thin in the bass. It’s a pa woofer and with its efficiency requires a relatively large enclosure by domestic standard.

Good stuff Ian, thanks. I've got a pair of 811b horns I had stripped and re-powdercoated black, but larger waveguides that can cross over lower would be a better bet. DSP crossovers would seem to be a prefect match for this project with their flexibility. Just figuring out now if I want to dedicate my garage to the project or if I should hand off the 2241's to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sablotny

...or if I should hand off the 2241's to someone else.

---

Hello,

I too have a pair of 2241H’s on the shelf. The size of the required reflex enclosures puts me off a bit as well.

I am thinking that putting these drivers into closed 4.5 ft^3 boxes would be idea for a 2.1 system. The 2241 will be down only 3dB at 63Hz. Perhaps with just a little equalization and room gain in your small listening space at home no sub would be required.

Use what you have; add a sub sometime in the future if you must.

Thanks DT

Hi DT,

For the most part I totally agree with you, specially "Use what you have" and add a sub in the future.

But why settle for sealed box 4.5 cu.ft. F3 63 hz when better can easily be done according to my simulations in post # 7? Whether for your own 2241H or Sablotny's.

5 cu.ft vs 4.5 is pretty much the same cab size in my view. However, my 5 cu.ft simulation showed:

* 5 cu.ft., Fb 35 hz, F3 48 hz, ripple + 0.7 db @ 100 hz, Sv min. 41 sq. in., 2 X 5" vents (39.3 sq. in.), Lv 12.2"

So for half a cubic foot more or so (peanuts) you get F3 at 48 hz in vented. That's 15 hz lower bass with no sweat!!

Plus you get the benefit of vented- box increased efficiency with lower distortion due to vent work, more so when you mention EQing the low end on top of room gain. Why bother with closed box in this context?

Why not go for 5 cu.ft vented then?? With all due respect, that's the part I have some difficulty with. Regards,

Richard

Hello,

I agree that ½ cubic foot out of 5 is not going to be much difference either way.

Another option is to build the enclosures with a port(s) and tune to your prescribed resonance and also provide a plug or cap to seal the port(s) tight. Try it both ways; vented and closed.

My preference leans towards the tighter controlled bass of the sealed enclosure.

Added thought; 12dB boost at 35Hz for the sealed enclosure is flat down to 35Hz, not shabby.

Thanks DT

Hi DT,

RE: "I agree that ½ cubic foot out of 5 is not going to be much difference either way." But it does make a big difference in favor of the vented box re better effiency and 15 hz lower bass with no sweat here.

That someone has a preference towards the sealed box low-frequency sound I accept that, all tastes are in nature and that's fine. Its 12 db/oct LF roll-off is a plus and it doesn't "unload" driver like vented box does below Fb.

I prefer the higher efficiency, lower F3 and reduced distortion of the vented box. I see these aspects as being more important in high level sound reproduction though.

RE: " Added thought; 12dB boost at 35Hz for the sealed enclosure is flat down to 35Hz, not shabby."

I'm not sure you realize what this implies.

According to Eargle's nomograph for determining power ratios in decibels, a 12 db boost requires 15-16 times the power vs one watt. If one had planned on using or uses say 100 watts before EQ (well within the limits of 2241H), then with a 12 db boost applied the power requirement becomes 1,500 - 1,600 W! (10 db 10 X).

Assuming one has an amp with 1.5-1.6 kw capability, the use of such power at 35 hz on this driver in a sealed box may result in seeing the cone just "flying off" the driver's frame?

This is just to show that a 12 db boost is a tall order for an amp and more so for the driver. It gets worst faster on sealed box side because of constantly increasing LF distortion as power increases.

In a vented box, because of the significant cone travel reduction at Fb (35 hz here), the driver would accept much more power with 35 hz EQ, than a sealed box would, also with much less LF distortion. Vent's bonus.

Maybe this compromise for you: Vent plugged at low levels for sealed box sound and unplugged at high levels sound reproduction for vented box benefits? Regards,

Richard

Hello,

Yes 1 watt doubled 4 times is 16 watts or plus 12dB’s.

Yes 100 watts times 16 is 1600 watts; however we are not living on that planet. Remember the premise here. This JBL 2241 is operating in a living room in a home, by definition a small space. This JBL 2241 will never see 100 watts input even if boosted 12dB at 35Hz. Worth repeating, try the 2241 with the reflex port open you may like it better. Some folks do not like the sound of phase delay caused by reflex loading. It is more about sound quality preference rather than efficiency.

For a two way system add a 2432 compression driver and 2384 horn.

If you find the sub bass lacking add subwoofers or subwoofers under the seating, the house will be rockin. Multiple subs help smooth room modes.

Thanks DT

Attached is s simulation to assist in the discussion.

On the top left is the bass reflex simulations of 5, 6, 7 and 8 cu ft3 enclosures( Red, green, purple and blue curves respectively). The other lower blue and white curves are the sealed enclosure response.

The bass reflex tuning frequency Fb was chosen by the simulator for a maximal flat response. The Fb ranged from 39 hertz for the 5 cu ft3 enclosure to 33 hertz for the 8 cu ft3 enclosure. The fb for the 7 cuft3 enclosure is 35 hertz

Below in the left hand screen is the amplitude response based on sensitivity versus frequency ref 2.83 volts.
On the bottom right hand screen are the impedance simulations.
The top right screen demonstrates a comparison of the maximum acoustic output versus frequency for the bass reflex and sealed enclosure simulations.

My interpretations are as follows:

Factually we want to know what the system options will do before the build in real terms.

The trade offs for the bass reflex options are enclosure size versus bass extension and displacement limited output. The equalised sealed enclosure trade offs are enclosure size versus bass extension, system sensitivity and displacement limited output.

Starting with the sealed enclosure option refer to the maximum acoustic output screen. Note the relative difference in acoustics output of the sealed versus bass reflex options. This translates into dynamic capability and distortion as mentioned by RMC.

The system resonance for a sealed bass system is very high at 67.9 hertz for the recommended enclosure volume of 3.7 cu ft3. Typically a sealed system would be in the range of 30-40 hertz for a system Q of 0.707. If an equalised response was attempted by shaving the response with a low pass shelf filter at about 40 hertz the system would have a sensitivity of around 90dB for an f3 of 35 hertz (ref 2.83volts) That 9 db down on the nominal sensitivity of 99 dB ref 2.83 volts. Nearly 10 times the power would be required for the sealed enclosure to produce the same sound level.
But power output is falling dramatically with descending frequency. Comparing the sealed and 7 cu ft3 bass reflex system the difference is 17 dB in displacement limited output (117 dB versus 134 dB).

By comparison there are far more suitable woofers with could give a sensitivity of 90 dB and an F3 of 35 hertz in an enclosure of less than 3 cu ft3. So this is really not the right application for this woofer.

Next the bass reflex simulations. Looking at the enclosure size the 5 cu ft3 is already a bulky enclosure with golden ratio dimensions compared to the OP other system.

So why compromise the performance when significant improvement can be made with a 7 cu ft3 enclosure.
The 7 cu ft 3 is a bit wider (37”Hx23”Wx14”D versus 33”Hx20.5”Wx12.7”D) This is typical of many Altec and JBL systems of the 50’s and 60’s.

Looking at the bottom left screen the 7 cu ft3 enclosure is about 3 dB more sensitive than the 5 cu ft3 enclosure in the bass (91dB versus 94 dB at 35 hertz). Interpret that as power in versus bass output. Putting this driver in an enclosure at the bottom end of the recommended enclosure size sacrifices low frequency extension in the context of a domestic application. Even if 3 dB of bass boost was applied at 35 hertz is double the amplifier power against an additional 2 cu ft3 of enclosure volume viable?

Increasing the enclosure volume an additional 1.25 cu ft 3 from 7.00 cu ft3 to 8.25 cu ft3 yields an additional 1 dB increase in sensitivity at 35 hertz and 1.5 dB at 30 hertz.

In summary the drivers manufacturered application cannot to overlooked when considering the correct enclosure type and enclosure volume. Given the desire for a two way system and the drivers sensitivity a sealed system is not recommended.

Selection of the optimal bass reflex volume is about finding an acceptable balance in the frequency extremes of this relatively sensitive system.

My recommendation is the 7 cu ft 3 system which gives an acceptable bass response in an un assisted alignment. An assisted alignment may be considered if additional bass extension is required.

Hello and happy New Year,

We are back from the northern California coast.

I agree with you all the way down to the fact that the 2241 is not a subwoofer. When it gets to compromises and performance improvements that is where we take different paths today.

I am assuming that there will be a pair of 2245’s added later and that I would like to avoid reflex loaded mid woofers. In the meantime the experiment of boosting the bottom octave of the 2241’s in sealed enclosures sounds interesting to me. This may be a perfectly good compromise in a small listening space. I sit with a sound pressure meter in my lap. If I am bumping 90dB’s it is too loud.

It is not always about bigger and louder.

Thanks DT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DualTriode

Hello,

Yes 1 watt doubled 4 times is 16 watts or plus 12dB’s.

Yes 100 watts times 16 is 1600 watts; however we are not living on that planet. Remember the premise here. This JBL 2241 is operating in a living room in a home, by definition a small space. This JBL 2241 will never see 100 watts input even if boosted 12dB at 35Hz. Worth repeating, try the 2241 with the reflex port open you may like it better. Some folks do not like the sound of phase delay caused by reflex loading. It is more about sound quality preference rather than efficiency.

For a two way system add a 2432 compression driver and 2384 horn.

If you find the sub bass lacking add subwoofers or subwoofers under the seating, the house will be rockin. Multiple subs help smooth room modes.

Thanks DT

---

I'm pretty sure the 2241will go linear down to about 33hz in a 1000 liter cab!😎😎

That might work.

Typically commercial systems use a smaller driver for mid bass.

What you would gain is low distortion and the dynamic impact of the 18 inch driver