As a person who has listened to three & four way JBL systems (E90, L5, LX44, L150A, XPL200), I say sell all the L100T components and find/build yourself a UREI 811C + subwoofer combo.A member here turned me on to the UREI "cocaine" and I've been addicted ever since.
You would need to purchase a pair of 811c's. As far as DIY unless you can source original crossovers that's not possible. There is a custom multitap Inductor that would have to be wound to pull it off. Used drivers are also hard to find.Originally Posted by DerekTheGreat
As a person who has listened to three & four way JBL systems (E90, L5, LX44, L150A, XPL200), I say sell all the L100T components and find/build yourself a UREI 811C + subwoofer combo.
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
This dude on eBay is selling the drivers and crossovers!: https://www.ebay.com/itm/17586771977...a-613130643135
Project much? .................. your, you're....learn to spell and learn some self-awareness
A friend has a pair of Urie, 809 I believe, nice sounding speakersAs a person who has listened to three & four way JBL systems (E90, L5, LX44, L150A, XPL200), I say sell all the L100T components and find/build yourself a UREI 811C + subwoofer combo.
Ah, 809's. I'm still looking for a pair of those, would complete my UREI collection.
Hi Derek,
That’s a great insight.
You hint at a question that should have been asked at the start.
This is what l have been using? (Loudspeaker + amplifiers)
Should l built a L100T or something else?
I have attached a magazine review of the 4425 with measurements comparing it to the Urei 809 that was previously reviewed in this publication.
https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/m...jbl-4425/12852
https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/m...urei-809/12827
Typo right off the bat in the section:
Design Concepts and Presentation
"Like the Urei 809, the 4425 also represents an attempt to provide a small but highly specified studio monitor based on the success story of a larger system. In the case of the 4435, it is derived from the JBL 4430 and 4435, but employs scaled down components."
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
Hello Ian
Wait a minute!
"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."
You rest your case and reference reviews from Home & Studio Recording, August 1986.
Who's their target audience??
They compare the 4225 vs the Urie 809
Just like my Techsheet
"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"
And yet the Techsheet is not appropriate???
You are a piece of work!!! LOL
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
Good pick up.
Anyway’s l thought those response plots would add something to the discussion on the Urei.
Ah you found a way to save grace…excellent…LolHello Ian
Wait a minute!
"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."
You rest your case and reference reviews from Home & Studio Recording, August 1986.
Who's their target audience??
They compare the 4225 vs the Urie 809
Just like my Techsheet
"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"
And yet the Techsheet is not appropriate???
You are a piece of work!!! LOL
Rob
A piece of work? Apparently…..in the eyes of some….but l got a rise out of you didn’t l ..Lol.
It’s all a matter of an individuals perspective when looking at a complex topic like audio.
We are all right and we are all wrong depending on how you look at it.
Of course none of this would occur in a two way conversation which makes it a black hole on time taken to write up a response. It’s so primitive when you think about it but there is a funny side to it.
‘Oh your thread bashing now’. Some people loose it over nothing. I’m just having fun.
I just took the discussion up a notch to make a point. You know rub it in……Lol.
Hey, l was out listening to a band on Sat night standing right in front of the group.
The sound of the cymbals was so enlightening. Metallic shimmers that were so clear. Why can’t we get that at home? I’ve been pondering Todd’s Heil work and l must grab a pair.
[QUOTE=Robh3606;446375
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.
We don't know the OP'S experience Could be his first or his 31st build.
Enjoy your camping!!!
Rob
Those LE-14A’s are a great driver!
On this thread it really is all about building stuff and trying different things till you are happy and settled with it. That’s before getting serious with the woodworking.
But is asking about the pros and cons going point you in the right direction if you haven’t heard at least one of those systems? We were excluded from that part of the thought process…. like we didn’t need to know. Not my problem. But why build either if you actually haven’t heard one or the other? That’s not smart if you going to spend money and time on a nice enclosure. So l initially simplified it down to my recollection of both systems subjectively after a realised he had all the components. I do get a range of enquiries on sourcing drivers, driver repairs ect. That to my mind was what he needed to know in the absence of being more forthcoming about what he was really trying to achieve. Therefore throwing tech into the discussion didn’t make sense even though he wanted to know the pros and cons. Then l attempted to convey why l felt that wasn’t appropriate when we don’t know what or who he or what he’s trying to achieve? It made no sense.
To get help you need to be helpful towards the people who are potentially going to offer their time on your enquiry. Not arrogant, rude, dictatorial or defensive. You’re there to learn. You’re not there to dictate how you see the world or their world. In that space they own you. It’s their knowledge, experience and wisdom you want from them. It’s voluntary. So be nice.
Why is it so hard to effectively use HTML language when quoting? It makes it really difficult to tells what the heck is going on in this pissing contest!
". . . as you have no doubt noticed, no one told the 4345 that it can't work correctly so it does anyway."—Greg Timbers
Hello Ian
Wait a minute!
"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."
You rest your case and reference reviews from Home & Studio Recording, August 1986.
Who's their target audience??
They compare the 4225 vs the Urie 809
Just like my Techsheet
"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"
And yet the Techsheet is not appropriate???
You are a piece of work!!! LOL
Rob
Wait a minute 2.
Yes it’s a technical comparison now the 809 has entered the discussion.
I’m assuming the application around here is home music reproduction.
But if you have time please read each review of both the 4425 and the 809. Each review is by the same reviewer with both the full subjective (from an engineering & mixing perspective) and technical reviews of both the 4425 and the 809
The reviewer concluded the 809 is the superior monitor.
Now tell me and the rest of the planet why you believe in your own words figure 12, 13, 14 and 15 are so important to you??? Get up in your soap box and holler, worship and cut a fart is you feel like it.
I think you keep hinging on that because you personally believe those graphs paint a picture of it being better in some way.
I agree in a technical A/B if that’s the only criteria it might polarise a subjective assessment. But Robert, there are a myriad of reasons why measurements alone don’t add up to one listening preference over another. In this case is a pro mixing situation. Despite all JBL technical marketing blurb the Urei 809 with the same compression driver and a technically inferior horn (according to JBL) is preferred. The review measurements don’t depict one subjectively better than the other even if you think they do.
That of course is why the reviewer did a subjective assessment of both. Dooooooo.
The situation would be different again in a 9 x 12 room sitting mid field, not at a mixing console.
What l am saying is when you drill down into it and then lay a perspective on it the outcomes don’t appear logical. It’s in a sense irrational . Just because is looks that way doesn’t necessarily make it so. The truth is in the listening. It always was and it always will be.
https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/m...jbl-4425/12852
https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/m...urei-809/12827
I’ve attached your precious graphs too.
To bedrock
Quote Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie View Post
He is far better off experimenting with a prototype build before determining which way to go.
JBL has already done that.
With a wider perspective after reading all my posts fully and an open mind you will garner my point. Don’t criticise what you don’t understand.
The short response is every JBL system and any well engineered loudspeaker that is somehow different from another is voiced differently. If it’s a specific application it will be voiced for that end use. To understand what voicing is this look at my attachment of an interview l posted previously with Andrew Jones and Steve Gutenberg who lays it out in common language everyone can appreciate. It’s basically Pandora’s box.
Andrew Jones is one of the most respected senior loudspeaker designers on the planet. In the interview he explains complex concepts in a way that is easy to grasp. This helps audiophiles or loudspeaker builders appreciate why listening differences exist that are not at all easily quantified with conventional published measurements. He covers a lot of space around rooms too. So it’s a wise read that will save many a lot of over thinking.
Last edited by Ian Mackenzie; 01-09-2024 at 03:06 AM. Reason: Response to Bedrock post 26
4425 review
See attachment for the measurements
Ken Dibble concludes this short series with a review of the JBL 4425 and compares the results with the Urei 809 reviewed last month.
Click image for larger view
Last month we discussed the country cousin relationship between these two West Coast studio monitor loudspeaker systems, set out the tests and the criteria to be applied, and reviewed Urei's new baby monitor, the 809. This month, it's the turn of JBL's baby: the 4425.
JBL4425
General Specification
Drive unit compliment
Single 2214 30cm lo/mid cone driver with 2342 bi-radial constant directivity HF horn and 2416 titanium diaphragm compression drive unit.
Crossover
Internal passive 2-way, 12dB/oct, 1.2kHz.
User Controls
Mid-level, HF level.
Cabinet loading
Direct radiating 54Ltr tuned reflex.
Impedance
8Ω nominal, 6Ω minimum.
Fundamental Resonance
34Hz
Termination
Screw terminals/4mm sockets
Power Rating
200W with band limited pink noise to IEC-268:1 or 1 kW 10mS peak unclipped.
Sensitivity
91dB for 1 W at 1m.
Dispersion Angle
100° x 100° nominal.
Dimensions
635mm high x 406mm wide x 310mm deep (375mm deep to include horn flare).
Weight
26kg
Finish
Oiled walnut cabinet with slate grey horn panel and dark blue fabric grille.
Price
£937.25 each suggested retail, including VAT.
Design Concepts and Presentation
Like the Urei 809, the 4425 also represents an attempt to provide a small but highly specified studio monitor based on the success story of a larger system. In the case of the 4435, it is derived from the JBL 4430 and 4435, but employs scaled down components. The system is intended for use in smaller control rooms and in other demanding audio production applications. Smooth accurate frequency response, flat power response and high power handling, combined with constant directional characteristics are the design objectives and as with the Urei, the 4425 also comes as left and right handed versions to maximise accurate imaging.
In total contrast to the Urei however, the 4425 is finished to a very high standard, with oiled walnut veneer to the cabinet sides, smart slate grey top panel carrying the horn and crossover control panel and blue stretch fabric covered detachable grille. Even the front rim of the drive unit chassis is black painted and finished to provide that little sparkle when the grille is removed. It is an altogether superbly presented and finished loudspeaker, quite in keeping with the long held traditions of this manufacturer.
Constructional Aspects
The enclosure is of 18mm high density chipboard and has no further bracing except for a horizontal webb across the top which supports the compression driver unit, thus relieving stress at the horn neck. Also, there's appreciably less internal absorption than with the Urei, with just a thin scrim of low density fibreglass quilt over part of the back and the four sides. Whereas the Urei has a single, short square reflex port, the JBL sports two smaller circular ports, each with a cardboard tube duct at least half the internal depth of the cabinet. So there is an immediate and obvious difference in the way the two enclosures are tuned.
The 2214 lo/mid driver and the horn flare are the front loaded and secured by machine screws engaging with tee nuts recessed into the chipboard.
The 2214 driver itself is visually identical to that fitted to the Urei 809, having the same chassis, the same cone, and a similar foam plastic front suspension. The magnet too is the same symmetrical field ceramic unit, including the hole through the pole piece for location of the co-axial horn unit in the case of the Urei, but in this instance, the screw thread to facilitate mounting the compression driver on the back of the magnet plate has not been cut. Also, whereas the Urei unit has the third spider suspension point at the base of the horn flare, the 2214 is a conventional single spider arrangement.
There does however seem to be a difference in suspension compliance, the 2214 being noticeably higher compliance than the unit fitted to the Urei, and would therefore be expected to exhibit a lower free air resonance. Such a difference would account for the different reflex tuning system employed.
The HF horn is of the now familiar JBL 'baby's bum' bi-radial, constant directivity design and is moulded from acoustically inert high impact structural foam. The 2416H compression drive unit is a recent development from JBL and is an attempt to provide good high frequency performance from a moderately priced unit with a standard european 1.375" x 27tpi screw thread coupling. It features JBL's latest titanium dome and diamond suspension technology and, unusually in a driver whose design parameters are governed by cost constraints, the diaphragm and phasing plug are in a compression chamber at the rear of the magnet assembly. That fitted to the 4425 is a bare bones version of the commercial product with no cosmetics, but does seem quite a nice unit. Exactly the same unit is fitted to the Urei 809.
The crossover appears to be a fairly complex affair and is mounted on a PCB attached to the back panel of the cabinet so that the screw terminals protrude through an appropriately placed cut-out. Apart from the user controls and a large laminated iron cored inductor (presumably the series inductor in the lo/mid leg of the network which is separately mounted to avoid undue strain on the board), all components are on the one circuit board and appeared to be of an adequate quality and rating, with those Mexican capacitors much in evidence.
Test Results
Figure 5 shows the impedance/frequency curve. It can be seen that the lowest value reached is 12Ω, compared with a value of 6Ω given in the maker's specification. I really can offer no justification for this anomaly, as the 4425 was measured immediately after the Urei 809, on the same equipment and the same set-up, and was checked for accuracy afterwards. But 12Ω was the figure produced each time. In other respects, the general characteristic is very similar to that recorded for the 809, including a similar system resonance at 60Hz, and apart from that, it's value is in close agreement with the curve given in the manufacturer's literature.
Click image for larger view
Figure 5. JBL 4425 impedance/frequency curve.
Again, two amplitude/frequency curves were taken at 1W at 1 m in order to avoid confusion in illustrating the effect of the mid and HF level controls. Figure 6a shows the mid-range variation available with the HF control at its maximum (flat) setting whilst Figure 6b shows the high frequency variation available with the mid-range control set at its flat position. According to the control panel calibration, the range of control provided should be between +2dB and -8dB in the case of the mid-range level control and between flat and -7dB in the case of the high frequency control, and it would seem as if this is in fact what is happening.
Figure 6a. JBL 4425 amplitude/fequency response showing mid-level control range at 1W.
Figure 6b. JBL4425 amplitude/frequency response showing HF level control range at 1W.
Using the upper curve of Figure 6b as the nominally flat response curve, the sensitivity works out at 91 dB, which is in exact agreement with the maker's specification, and the useful frequency response at 45Hz-17kHz, which again is close to the maker's figures.
Figure 7 shows the amplitude/frequency response at 6dB below rated power (in this case 50w RMS sine wave) and indentifies the second and third harmonic distortion components. It can be seen that there is a small flurry of activity below about 200Hz amounting to some 1.5%-2% in all, and then the usual rising distortion normally associated with compression-type drive units, rising to around 10% above 10kHz. Nothing untoward here.
Figure 7. JBL 4425 amplitude/frequency response showing 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion at 6dB below rated power.
Figure 8 shows the horizontal polar response characteristics at 800Hz, 2kHz, 5kHz and 10kHz and it can be seen that the 4425 certainly lives up to its constant directivity design objective, with no more than a few dB deviation from the stated 100° Figure throughout the range. The asymmetry is due to the HF horn being offset to one side of the baffle panel. This really is quite an achievement in such a small loudspeaker system and demonstrates excellent control.
Figure 8. JBL4425 horizontal polar response.
Unlike the Urei co-axial design, where drive unit displacement has to be compensated for electronically, in the case of the 4425 the two drive units are physically aligned one above the other, thus resulting in a system which is naturally time-aligned and therefore does not require special correction. According to the maker's literature however, a 0.4mS time delay is introduced due to the phase response characteristic of the crossover network, but according to research carried out by Blauert and Laws, this is well below the level of perceptibility. In practice, the measured data at 1 metre was 3.4mS for the LF driver and 3.3mS for the HF driver, showing a time alignment error of 0.1 mS.
Tabulated Test Data
Nominal Impedance 8Ω.
Minimum Impedance 12Ω at 100/200Hz and 10kHz
Fundamental Resonance 60Hz
Sensitivity 91dB @ 1w @ 1m average 50Hz-16kHz
Useful Response 45Hz-16kHz
Distortion 2% maximum below 2kHz, rising to 10% at 10kHz at 6dB below rated power
Time Alignment 0.1 mS error
Horizontal Polar Resp 100° @ 800Hz
60° @ 2kHz included angle
100° @ 5kHz @ -6dB points
90° @ 10kHz
Auditioning
Standing alone, the 4425 is an impressive loudspeaker, with particularly clear, well dispersed highs and impressive low frequency performance, if a little on the woolly side by comparison with my regular home hi-fi loudspeakers. But without being able to identify the reasons why, it seemed to me unexciting for some reason.
The first thing to strike home is the laid back, smoother subjective response of the 4425 when compared to the strident aggression of the Urei. The high frequencies in particular are more open than with the Urei and the bass is more forward, but it somehow lacks the attack and that uncanny impression of presence and loudness which characterise the Urei sound. Also sadly missing is that imaging accuracy.
With the JBL, the strings sound sweeter, the bass more rounded and full, and it sounds just as good on a Shostakovich symphony as it does on Dire Straits, making it obviously a better all-round choice, but gone is that screaming Knopfler guitar break in the live recording of 'Sultans' or the raucus rasp of Mel Collins' sax in 'Two Young Lovers'. To me, after the Urei 809, it is rather tame by comparison, but to others, the sweeter sound of the JBL was the more acceptable of the two.
As far as a studio monitoring application is concerned, it does not seem to have that absolute accuracy and imaging quality of the Urei either. But we must put all this into perspective. Had I not been reviewing the Urei at the same time, I would have rated the 4425 very highly, and it's indeed an excellent loudspeaker in all respects. It's just that the Urei 809 has something extra that really brings rock and roll music to life and sends that little shivering sensation down the spine at times. (You know what I'm driving at.) But that's not all; it has this phenomenal accuracy and definition as well which must render it just about the best small studio control room or near field monitor going.
Conclusions
Because of its very smart presentation and because its performance characteristics do not seem to favour any particular type of programme material, it will have a wide variety of applications outside the studio control room and would be equally acceptable in the smartest of playback lounges, editing suites, presentation studios, offices or homes.
Like the Urei, it's audibly better when driven by a large power amplifier and for studio use, it will benefit from active room EQ in addition to its inbuilt response contour controls, excellent though these are for more general applications.
The maker's literature is first class and includes a far more detailed specification than we have published within this review, with virtually all electrical and acoustical data amplified by no less than 24 graphs! The performance characteristics are fully described and the technical foundation and limitations of the data given is stated. And, interestingly, apart from that impedance anomaly, the data given is extremely close to our own laboratory resultsand observed details.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
