Your welcome!
Yes it was essentially a 4425 using a coaxial driver arrangement.
Rob
Your welcome!
Yes it was essentially a 4425 using a coaxial driver arrangement.
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
Good morning Bedrock, and colleagues, I have built my current and probably last system based on the l100t and t3 components, in a "bookshelf type" 3ft. box. The difference being that I used the crossover and level controls from the 4412 system. I am very pleased with the results in that the system is very neutral which is a necessity for listening to acoustical instruments. I've not heard the 4425 but my thinking is that that particular speaker may not work as well in a home environment. I like the idea of level controls is because I have found that the spectral balance on recordings can vary especially if the balance engineer used monitor speakers that incorporated the BBC dip. Dr. Toole's circle of confusion is very much at play here. So if you like to playback your recordings at concert hall level ( as I do) that is the direction I took and would recommend. Ed
KEEP ON LISTENING!
Hi Rob,Originally Posted by Robh3606
Your welcome!
Yes it was essentially a 4425 using a coaxial driver arrangement.
Rob
I don't think digging into technical information is helpful here in this discussion
Firstly the technicalities of one design versus another are not a reliable indicator of a particular listeners enjoyment.
There's a lot more to it.
Tech Docs
Looking at that these tech notes they are for professional applications. Not for home use in a room with flat walls and sparse furnishings.
So is that information really relevant? Does this listener have a recording studio at home?
Reading JBLs tech docs is like Mr Widgets reference to 'Site Bias". Just reading that information may convince you it's better. But in a double blind test in your own room which loudspeaker will you prefer? (not in Harman's acoustically treated listening room).
John Nebel and I compared both the 4343 and the 4435 in his listening room. The subjective outcome was it wasn't clear cut by any means.
This is a very good insight from Andrew Jones
https://youtu.be/4t-wdP4gISI?si=JFnfzvlPQ6uGRwsz
The Reality Check - building a loudspeaker
The thing is even if a loudspeaker build is cloned or designed according the a tech doc it may not subjectively be as enjoyable as a less technically perfect or a different design. A successful consumer system is often the result of empirical trial and error, listening, measurements, trial and error, listening.
If in the listening it doesn't Translate to how you as an individual recalled it sounded or how you believe it should sound its a Fail.
The sound speaker builder. The limitations
Why do loudspeaker builders scratch their heads wondering why a technically perfect (in their mind) system isn't doing it for them?
I recall the frustration of loudspeaker builder who went out and bought aftermarket beryllium diaphragms thinking they were the holly grail. But in the initial listening they fell short of expectations.
This is because they wanted the end result in a thread on the forum.
They didn't do any comparisons, trial and error because they were / are either lazy or didn't think that they had to. They were too reliant on what they wanted to believe (unfortunately).
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Greg Timber's himself called this out in an interview.
You have to be open minded at the very start before you get deep in the detail.
With all the JBL Consumer systems JBL hasn't told you they spent considerable time and effort with prototypes, voicing the L100T and every other system so that it did deliver an enjoyable subjective result. Otherwise they wouldn't sell anything. Dooooooo?
He has to put the work in and listen for himself in his own room rather than form a judgement based on adhoc comments.
Hello Ian
"John Nebel and I compared both the 4343 and the 4435 in his listening room. The subjective outcome was it wasn't clear cut by any means."
"He has to put the work in and listen for himself in his own room rather than form a judgement based on adhoc comments."
I guess you missed i said this
"I would try both but that's me."
And JBL's tech sheets I very much respect, many could be an industry reference at the time they were published. They offer a lot of information and references for further evaluation.
Typically the references are AES peer reviewed and published papers.
As far as reading a tech sheet adding bias??? These are basically factual with measurements and tech references for back up.
If you see that as adding significant bias fine. I don't, agree to disagree.
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
To the original poster, because I have no idea where you are located from your profile (many of us feel the need to be cute, like blocking a license plate in an ad for a vehicle for sale—what's the point?), here'a a pair of L100T for what seems to be a negotiable if not reasonable price these days:
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace...2111112l%22%7D
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
Thank you for the link.
To the original poster,
In my first post, I stated that I have all of the components for the L100T and before building enclosures for them, (I am a woodworker), I was considering building the 4425 instead since they share the same LF driver as the L100T, for which I already have the 2214H.
Since I have received some very informative responses encouraging me to build the L100T, that's what I plan to do. The only modification I will make to the original design will be to mirror image the drivers, which the L100T were not. I will not however, replicate the aesthetic of the L100T enclosures which to me are extremely unattractive.
Which makes me envious!
Please share your build with us as you make progress.
Good luck
I've never understood why some JBLs are mirrored and others not. Case in point the L112 and the L150A. About as similar in drivers, if not concept, as you get in JBLs from the 80's, but the L112 is mirrored and the L150A isn't. Not that the mid and HF are much more than an inch off-center line, but still! Even my 240ti are mirrored and they aren't much more off-center than the L150As.
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
These f’ing posts are only a one way communication which is very limiting of this kind of topic that needs nuance and sentiment. These types of threads are therefore prone to disagreement.Hello Ian
"John Nebel and I compared both the 4343 and the 4435 in his listening room. The subjective outcome was it wasn't clear cut by any means."
"He has to put the work in and listen for himself in his own room rather than form a judgement based on adhoc comments."
I guess you missed i said this
"I would try both but that's me."
And JBL's tech sheets I very much respect, many could be an industry reference at the time they were published. They offer a lot of information and references for further evaluation.
Typically the references are AES peer reviewed and published papers.
As far as reading a tech sheet adding bias??? These are basically factual with measurements and tech references for back up.
If you see that as adding significant bias fine. I don't, agree to disagree.
Rob
I am on a long beach camping with very limited internet access. I only see the last email notification.
What l am saying is he the thread starter should try a few different approaches himself as a subjective reality check as opposed to coming here for a consensus of opinions.
People do this a lot. It’s does not necessarily work out.
It’s not really how you set about buying a loudspeaker system back in the heyday of hifi.
He is far better off experimenting with a prototype build before determining which way to go.
Simply sell off what you don’t want after the comparisons.
The tech docs are not a pre determination of which driver or system is better before you listen for yourself in a home listening setting. People in the context of this situation here use them to further validate others opinions in a decision making process. All they end up with is a decision based on opinions.
Thank you, will do
I don't know if JBL ever fabricated their own enclosures or contracted them, but if they did take bids, the fabricator may have given them a better deal if they didn't have to mirror image the baffles. Just a thought.I've never understood why some JBLs are mirrored and others not. Case in point the L112 and the L150A. About as similar in drivers, if not concept, as you get in JBLs from the 80's, but the L112 is mirrored and the L150A isn't. Not that the mid and HF are much more than an inch off-center line, but still! Even my 240ti are mirrored and they aren't much more off-center than the L150As.
Hello Ian
I agree limited format. I basically agree, you should try it before you decide which is why I would build both. The Technotes are a reference and useful for technological changes/improvements.
They are not intended for anyone to make a speaker preference decision. If you read the attached Technote it clearly states to audition the systems.
To me that's understood especially if you read them. As far as people making decisions based on forum thread bias or after reading a review????
I see "Which should I build" threads all the time. You had no problem saying which he should build. I reference a Techsheet and that's going to bias the OP?? What about your opinion??
Isn't the point of the forums to exchange ideas and discuss various designs and issues?? You have to start somewhere. If you make a build you don't like you move on.
You can also plan ahead and have a bass cabinet with different HF heads to try out or have a removeable front baffle so you can try different driver set's in.
I have had several builds that over time got either modified or were abandoned over my 20 years of DIY
I started building LE-14A subs under my L80T3 as a poor man's L250Ti. First speakers I ever built still have those subs in use.
Did I post a What do you think post??? Don't remember.
We don't know the OP'S experience Could be his first or his 31st build.
Enjoy your camping!!!
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
I welcome all suggestionsThe last time I went camping, I didn't bring the internet with me. It was still there when I got back and no one missed me.I have a complete set of L100T, drivers, crossovers, port tube and crappy enclosures. I am not a speaker designer and even if I fancied myself one, I am certain that for my first build, I would not improve upon, or even come close to the L100T as JBL designed themI am not buying a set of loudspeakers, I am building a set to JBL specifications, I simply wanted some direction as to which system to go with for my home listening roomJBL has already done thatIf after I build the enclosures, mount the drivers and listen for a few weeks, if I am unhappy with them, I will report back to you personallyIf you have a better plan for the L100T components, please share them with us here
Your first post in this thread was an attempt to sell me something I don't need. Your second post hurled some pretty vulgar insults toward me which have been deleted. Now you are simply thread bashing.............. Please try to enjoy nature.
They built there own back in the day in the 70's. Not sure when they lost their "Furniture" shop. They had a prototype shop in the 2010's maybe still do.
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
Well actually you became defensive here.
Had you have demonstrated some humility and grace l might have responded differently.
I read you remain conceited.
No one cares because nobody accept you has it listen to what your about.
Enjoy your build. Give this a read. It's informative and compares horn vs all dynamic drivers in the smaller monitors. You can sub L100t for 4412 in the comparisons. Very similar systems.
I would try both but that's me. Make sure you match the driver spacing baffle placement and width. Also recess the tweeter so it's flush mounted.
The crossover was designed with that spacing and placement. If you don't flush mount you will get ripples in the tweeter response.
Rob
https://www.audioheritage.org/vbulle...me-1-Number-15
Hi Rob,
Now that l have the bandwidth to load a page yes l read the attachment and re read the entire thread. We agree to disagree on the relevance to the end application. See below.
Others may benefit from my thoughts below on where the simpler 4425/4425mk11 maybe a preferred diy build over the L100T.
The facts:
https://jblpro.com/en/site_elements/4425-information
https://audio-database.com/JBL/speaker/4425mkii-e.html
My understanding was original poster refers to a dedicated 9x12 home listening room listening to classical and jazz with low wattage amps. Power rating unknown.
(There is a long thread on a 4425mk11 build somewhere).
It’s an about face on my earlier post but the 4425 with its coherence & wide dispersion is an advantage in a dedicated listening room with classical and jazz genres. ( this is assuming side wall, rear wall and floor treatments for those wide angle bi radial horns).
Why l bring this up is that the context of that tech note quoted below is for professional mixing environments where control rooms and other post production facilities have treated acoustics. The backbone of the JBL bi radical systems design theory is uniform directivity off axis into a uniformly treated room. Not a bare room with flat walls, floor and ceiling. You can’t mix with first reflections and bounce of the ceiling and rear wall. To obtain an accurate mixing translation the room and the monitor requirements are actually quite critical.
In the consumer listening space JBL use the term controlled directivity when describing horns used for consumer use. They are typically narrower than the 4425 100 x 100 directivity and closer to 90 x 60, 80 x 60 degrees depending on the system. They can also benefit from corner placement so that side walls have less interference with first reflections. Referring to owner manual and it’s self explanatory.
People can believe and do what they like of course. I don’t dwell on that because they live with their own situation and out of sight.
The 4425 is a relatively simple loudspeaker system which benefits from adding your own diy flavours into the listening mix. That is why some of use are in this hobby after all.
I’ve personally had good results with the larger 4430 bi radical horn on jazz genres in terms of the sound stage and coherence in a modest but untreated listening room. Rob and l worked out the crossover and EQ for the larger bi radial horn 20 years ago. The bi radial horn projects a warmth that works well on brass instruments. But it lacks absolute resolving power in the upper octaves. I am not sure the 035 titanium tweeter is any better. It’s not an Array horn or a beryllium driver though. I used a Pass Aleph diy clone power amp. I think that really lifted the system above its weight. single ended class A amplifiers have a subtle 2nd harmonic warmth that can wash over some of the more irritating system errors while also being very transparent.
Improvements are possible with advanced driver designs and diaphragms. In the Voice Coil industry journal Vance Dickason tests a Radian 1” inch compression driver with a beryllium diaphragm. See link below . The aluminium diaphragm is also very good.
https://audioxpress.com/article/voic...ression-driver
This gives the 4425/4430/4435 traction for genuine improvement in the compression driver. In other areas Greg Timber’s made a better job of the 4425mk11 passive crossover. The earlier 4430/4435 network was designed by David Smith. These earlier networks had a high impedance causing ripple in the crossover region as a result of a compromise in the exponential section of the horn throat.
The 4425mk11 used a 175 nd driver which was probably better than the driver used in the 4425.
The larger 4430/4435 bi radial horn used a bolt on driver flange which allows alternative compression drivers.
Another avenue for performance gains comes with a bi amp solution with a low wattage valve amp on the horn and the SS amp on the woofer. I worked on an active crossover solution for a user in the UK a while ago. Being able to blend a particular amp on the horn and the woofer offers advantages for the savvy audio amateur aiming for audio nirvana. A powered sub could also be used to limit the load on the main amplifier driving the 4425.
The jfet active crossover kit over on Diyaudio.com can be set up for what l have outlined above.
The 2214H is a fast woofer according to Greg Timbers so that’s not much to be done there. Bass reflex tuning can be customised according to your enclosure location in the room.
Collectively these diy approaches may provide an intriguing journey inching closer to perfection than otherwise possible with the L100T.
************************************************** *******************
JBL tech note posted by Rob. As can be clearly read the audience of that tech note are pro mixing engineers in broadcast environments. Are you monitoring at home with Sonar Works in a bedroom covered in acoustic treatments? I rest my case.
“Which Monitor to Choose? There are no easy answers here. We recommend that the prospective user arrange an extended monitoring ses- sion with each basic design, carefully evaluating subjective performance with a wide variety of program material. Both current designs will handle almost any kind of program
material in stride. In general, the Time Align design may exhibit a little more "up front" character than the Bi-Radial, and this might favor it, in some engineers' views, for pop or rock applications. On the other hand, the smooth power response of the Bi-Radial design will require less third- octave equalization in the typical control room environment for adapting to a given house curve. Some engineers sub- jectively describe the imaging of the Time Align as existing in front of the enclosures, while the Bi-Radials seem to place the image in perspective behind the plane of the enclosures.
Monitors with Compression Drivers:
The UREI 809A and JBL 4425 represent a scaling down of the superlative performance offered by the large format monitors, and they are intended largely for smaller control rooms and so-called "semi-pro" applications where the larger models cannot be accommodated. Their design characteristics are listed below:
* Flat axial response extending to 18 kHz, with optimum low-frequency performance in a wall-mounted position.
* Smooth power response.
* Smooth phase (time domain) response.
* Accurate stereo imaging.
* System ruggedness at high frequencies, due to use of a compression driver.
Figure 12: UREI 809 On-axis response (1 W, 1 meter)
2= mounting; impedance.
Figure 13: Beamwidth (Horizontal and Vertical)
vs. Frequency, UREI 809
Figure 14: JBL 4425 On-axis response
(1 W at 1 meter) and Impedance.
Figure 15: JBL 4425
4312A and 809A may also be recommended here, inasmuch as they can be operated at high levels, making it easier to spot problems such as noise or distortion.
* Remote recording applications: We recommend either the 4410, 4412, or the 809A because of their smooth, extended low-distortion response. This facilitates making critical decisions both in balance and critical stereo image placement. If size is a constraint, the 4408 may be used.
* Audio-visual applications: We recommend the Control 1 for smaller scale applications, and either the 809A or 4312A for larger scale applications. All three of these will produce excellent speech articulation.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote