JBL 2397 Curves

[cooky1257]

while I much prefer the compact H9800 from a design standpoint, I really couldn't use it in my system.


Widget

Thank you, this summer's adventure should be interesting.
I'll hold off on selling on the 2397/2441 combo till I'm absolutely certain it's right for me.
Cooky

[Doc Mark]

Evening, Cooky,

Are you considering selling off your 2397/2441 combo, in an effort to search for that elusive "perfect" system? Best of luck, no matter how it turns out for you! Take care, and God Bless!

Every Good Wish,
Doc

[Mr. Widget]

And yet you seem to like the H4338 with the cheaper 435AL in the 1400 Array?

I do like them... though I have only had a few rather brief listening sessions. I hope to have access to the SAM version in the not too distant future... I'll know them better then. I expect I'll continue enjoying them for a high end HT system... I am not sure how I'll feel about them for two-channel.

The short comings of the H9800/435Be as I see them may not be a problem at all in a 5.1 or 7.1 system. When you add surround processing and a center channel, the criteria for a successful design are not the same as those required for a superb two channel stereo system.


Widget

[cooky1257]

Are you considering selling off your 2397/2441 combo, in an effort to search for that elusive "perfect" system? Best of luck,

No, the combo is an excellent fall back position, I was merely saying I'll not be too hasty!
Cooky

[DAS]

Hello, I'm trying to find out what the "recommended cylindrical baffle" is...I have a pair of 2397's with adapters and 2425 drivers mounted in cases...sort of works like baffle but surely not correct...and I have another pair with 2445's which I'd like mount in cases, and get the baffles correct...using these for small PA systems and they sound sooooo smooth...help please!

Thanks!

[10 Watt Street]

The recommended cylindrical baffle extends 3" above and below the mouth. I believe that is tied to the 60 degree vertical beamwidth spec:
http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/...-comp/2397.htm

They employed it in the Cinetron system:
http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbull...ron#post111188

[pos]

I would take those early plots of mine with a grain of salt... these were some of my very first measurements and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were not entirely repeatable.

I found some more recent measurements by Widget (2005)
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...2&postcount=32
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...3&postcount=36

[pos]

and here is an interesting post with measurements of 2435 on westlake smith horn with a P-Audio adapter.

It looks really good! (measuring conditions unknown...)

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...4&postcount=85

Cooky, are you starting to regret your 2397?


I tried the 2397 with 2470, LE85 and 2435.
The LE85 was already way better than the 2470, but the 2435 is really a huge step forward in my opinion. My H9800 clones are now on the shelf (for some time at least...)

I am using the same P-Audio adapter:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...d.php?p=259601

[cooky1257]

Cooky, are you starting to regret your 2397?

No, I never tried the 2435 on the Smith but what they and the SAM1HF have in common is they don't sound like horns.
The 2397 very wide dispersion is a major issue for my circumstances however and in this the SAM nails it. Isn't there an issue with the 2397 that it starts to beam narrowly above about 11k so precludes its use as a 2 way?
The 2397's are off to their new Belgian owner once the funds have cleared as are the 2441's.
Cooky

[Mr. Widget]

The 2397's are off to their new Belgian owner once the funds have cleared as are the 2441's.

I wouldn't have decided to send them off quite so quickly... while I tend to agree with the direction you've headed I would have thought a series of proper comparisons would have been good.

While I never did sell off my 2397s or the first pair of Westlake clones I built that were pictured here years ago, I haven't played either of them since sometime in late 2004.

I tried the 2397 with 2470, LE85 and 2435.
The LE85 was already way better than the 2470, but the 2435 is really a huge step forward in my opinion. My H9800 clones are now on the shelf (for some time at least...)

You should try the 2441 or better still, the TAD TD-4001. Unfortunately the TD-4001s are quite pricy... even if you pick up some blown drivers the diaphragms are $1500 ea.

A note about the 2397 plot of mine posted above... if you read the notes at the bottom of the plot you'll notice that both curves are of the 2397 with a TAD TD-4001. One is using the standard 2328 throat adapter and the other a custom made adapter. Had I used a JBL 2441, the curves would have been fairly similar but slightly less extended and less linear.


Widget

[cooky1257]

I hear ya,
Well the 2441/2397/2405 combo did me proud during the time I had them.
The change to the (still not fully dialed in) SAM1HF's was revelatory in terms of detail, precision and focus-an upgrade to the extent I feel I have a new cd collection, stereo image is very good in my listening room they project a wide stage into the room with good image depth.
It wasn't all one way however like most things in life it ain't all win win. The vintage combo had a presence, dynamics and scale that was extraordinary if ultimately false but oh so impressive and great fun, the stereo image was huge though a bit of a mess as if every instrument was competing to be huger than the next. Had I the luxury of finance and space I may have kept them for some future fun but to these ears the newer stuff is well worth investigating. To satisfy any 70's nostalgia cravings I just picked up some 4311's for the back room system.
Cooky

[Dr.db]

Here is a comparison between the JBL 2397 and one of my Westlake clones. It is interesting how the the wider lips of the Westlake do seem to improve the lower response, but at a sacrifice at the top end. This explains why I always feel the need to EQ up a bit around 6-10KHz.

I know it´s been a long time since...

But I have one question; did the Westlake clones use the 2328 throat-adapter as well ?
Could this cause the difference at the top end ?
If the Westlake clones didn´t use this adapter, I guess their inner height was bigger? Probably 2" height for the westlake and 1,5" height for the 2397....!?

[ivica]

I know it´s been a long time since... But I have one question; did the Westlake clones use the 2328 throat-adapter as well ? Could this cause the difference at the top end ? If the Westlake clones didn´t use this adapter, I guess their inner height was bigger? Probably 2" height for the westlake and 1,5" height for the 2397....!?

Hi Dr.db,

I would expect driver to horn adapter something like on the figure
or 2" horn height as explained in the:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...ll=1#post49874

regards
ivica

[Mr. Widget]

I know it´s been a long time since...

But I have one question; did the Westlake clones use the 2328 throat-adapter as well ?
Could this cause the difference at the top end ?
If the Westlake clones didn´t use this adapter, I guess their inner height was bigger? Probably 2" height for the westlake and 1,5" height for the 2397....!?

Yes, the early Westlake horns that I copied did use the JBL 2328 adapter. I copied them exactly and also used the JBL adapter.


Widget

[Dr.db]

Thanks a lot, both of you have been a big help