Looking at the price of blanks from Marchand I ordered the units made up.
Can you get the blanks here in Europe?
Hi crash;
I have never heard a 10" I would mate with an 18". There is always a hole in the energy, even with heroic EQ.
My favorite affordable fairly easy to get JBL 15" that is amazing in a horn or as a direct radiator is the 2220. They have eveything I love about the 2123 and will play with solid authority with your 2245's in a very small enclosure.
If you pursue a pair make sure they are proper. They share no parts with other JBL 15's although many have been improperly reconed as 2225's and such.
All the best,
Barry.
I have never heard a 10" I would mate with an 18". There is always a hole in the energy, even with heroic EQ.
My favorite affordable fairly easy to get JBL 15" that is amazing in a horn or as a direct radiator is the 2220. They have eveything I love about the 2123 and will play with solid authority with your 2245's in a very small enclosure.
If you pursue a pair make sure they are proper. They share no parts with other JBL 15's although many have been improperly reconed as 2225's and such.
All the best,
Barry.
I like the JBL 2225's I use in a very similar system to yours. I run them from 80Hz to 800Hz in sealed boxes. They are a nice directivity match to my LeCleac'h horns when using the right crossover, they have enough output before significant distortion on the low end to keep up with the rest of my system, and they just start having energy storage problems above 800Hz. If you are crossing them over higher on the low end like you mention, I'd try Barry's recommendation of the 2220's.
I'd also suggest ditching the Marchand crossover if you have the ability to take good measurements and use the capabilities of a good DSP crossover. I know the slopes and EQ I'm running to get my system to have a good polar response and the final in-room response I want would not be possible with such a limited choice of filtering. I could do it passively or with custom active filters as well, but it would be a ton of work. The delays I'm using in my system are only very small corrections on the order of a few inches of driver positioning so you don't really need DSP for the delay in a system like this. It just makes it convenient - take one set of measurements, add the needed delay after you come up with the filters needed. You don't have to go back and remeasure with the drivers moved around and redo the filtering again.
I'd also suggest ditching the Marchand crossover if you have the ability to take good measurements and use the capabilities of a good DSP crossover. I know the slopes and EQ I'm running to get my system to have a good polar response and the final in-room response I want would not be possible with such a limited choice of filtering. I could do it passively or with custom active filters as well, but it would be a ton of work. The delays I'm using in my system are only very small corrections on the order of a few inches of driver positioning so you don't really need DSP for the delay in a system like this. It just makes it convenient - take one set of measurements, add the needed delay after you come up with the filters needed. You don't have to go back and remeasure with the drivers moved around and redo the filtering again.
Thanks John but with DSP the DAC is the problem. As soon as you hear a really good DAC its a revelation.
I believe the less in the path of the signal the better and as soon as you start getting into serious measuring it opens up a whole can of worms.
The whole idea of a 4 way system is to choose drivers with the best possible integration. keeping it simple. I have designed the system so each unit can be moved in relationship to the other. If loads of EQ delay etc are required then its a failure, I use none and my friend who runs JBL 4350s likes the sound mine make but there is always room for improvement
crash999, Did Santa bring you a pair of 15" JBL 2220H speakers for Xmas? (sketch of 18"+15"+eJMLC stack)
90H x 25V polar pattern super tweeters like JBL 2405H are often set near ear level, aimed at the listener, and distance-positioned by ear. Time and phase coherence across the listeners is not possible since 8kHz has a 0.4" quarter wavelength, and there is over 7" separation between horns. Lobing. I believe the main placement goal is to have just one lobe cover the seated listeners for even SPL and consistent sound stage.
-------------
Transmission Line
Leonard Audio | Audio Engineering Resources
90H x 25V polar pattern super tweeters like JBL 2405H are often set near ear level, aimed at the listener, and distance-positioned by ear. Time and phase coherence across the listeners is not possible since 8kHz has a 0.4" quarter wavelength, and there is over 7" separation between horns. Lobing. I believe the main placement goal is to have just one lobe cover the seated listeners for even SPL and consistent sound stage.
-------------
Leonard Audio offers a free TL Design program which models cabinet shape and stuffing absorption.
Transmission Line
Leonard Audio | Audio Engineering Resources
Attachments
Last edited:
Have you considered the JBL 2226? It is what JBL themselves often used for exactly this role.
My current system is still in "Beta Test" but similar to yours.
2245 (x2)
2226
2453
2405
The 2226 can easily cross at 60 or 70 Hz and add to the 2245, not that it's needed.
It will stretch to 800 Hz, I have it a little lower, around 650 Hz.
It's low distortion, low cone breakup below 1 kHz, efficient, and will play at ear bleed levels if you insist, or any tolerable level with effortless lack of power compression.
Plus it's fairly common and consequently not too expensive second hand.
Best wishes
David
I need a pair for 5.1 surround sides, if you still have these then please email me
DaveJZan (at) Gmail.com
Best wishes
David
David,
-Are the two 2245 woofers positioned away from the main midbass-horn-tweeter stack? i.e. the 2226 cabinet is at floor level
-What horn do you use in your current system?
-Where/how do you mount the 2405 tweeter?
___In-line above 2226 and below horn?
___In-line above the horn?
___On the side of the 2226 aimed at the listeners?
How do you set up the time and phase of the 2405 for the listeners?
No, the 2245 and the 2226 are mounted in the same stack, the 2245 underneath the 2226 but fairly close so they are acoustically coupled at crossover.
I try to deal with floor bounce with a carpet laid on sound absorption in front of the speakers.
At the moment it's an improvised radial horn, the final horn is around 24" wide plus transition radius to blend with the curved front of the woofer cabinet.
Around a 72 x 45 pattern, rectangular mouth, an exponential / constant directivity blend but influenced by Earl Geddes.
None of the above, I had it mounted above the 2226 but next to the mid rather than in-line, purely for convenience.
In-line and above the horn was my intention, but even at best it is impossible to maintain phase coherence over more than a tiny listener area. So the theoretically non-optimal side offset hardly matters.
It was aimed at the listener, as mentioned in your own post.
I do not have time delay options on the 2405 so phase/position was done entirely by ear.
I believe in measurement usually, but the response near crossover is so position dependent that it seems futile.
I just tried to keep power response more or less even.
When the final mid horn is finished I hope not to need the 2405.
They were purchased because the 2447 mid drivers that I tried initially needed just a bit more top end - or "air" (if I used that sort of subjective fluff term
)Best wishes
David
Last edited:
JBL never used the 2226 in a home or studio/broadcast speaker system. Don't get me wrong, I like 2226's, for their intended sound reinforcement use.
Since crash' system has very capable subwoofers covering at least the bottom two octaves, the mid bass driver needs little excursion nor a tough cone.
If you put a 2220 against a 2226 in a mid bass comparison with instruments like snare, piano or acoustic guitar or bass, the 2220 will absolutely smash the 2226 in clarity and dynamics, no contest.
In keeping with the "affordable and relatively easy to get" speaker, the 2220 is a winner.
No doubt opinions weigh heavily in audio and I realize the 2220 suggestion is not gaining much traction here, and that is OK. My experience says you have to get at least into the JBL 2216 or 1501Fe to equal what a 2220 will do as a mid bass. Still my first go to in a system with subs.
All the best,
Barry.
Did JBL make any home systems like the OP's, with dual 224X sub's and 4" voice coil compression driver mids?
When they wanted to fill this role in the cost-no-object system for the Academy Awards theater they used the 2226
But the 2220 would no doubt be fine, harder to find than the 2226, at least in Australia.
Best wishes
David
Ok, it's a 3" throat mid driver - but they did use the 2226 with the 2" and 1.5" throat mids too.
Last edited:
Nope.
But you are missing the point.
The 4350-4355 with two 15's", a 12" and a 4" coil large format comp driver is as close as they got for studio/broadcast and the DD6600/6700 with two 15's" and a 4" coil large format comp driver for home. Both use woofers better suited for the job.
Barry.
When they wanted to fill this role in the cost-no-object system for the Academy Awards theater they used the 2226
.
The arrangement of the four 15's is as much about directivity as it is about level and sound quality, and they would not use an "obsolete" 2220 in a new install.
As sound reinforcement gets more and more powerful and the drivers get tougher, the drivers get further and further away from the hi-fi ideal.
I have a lot of new stuff and a lot of old stuff to experiment with and I am just sharing my experience. Not trying to provoke.
All the best,
Barry.
Hi Barry
Yes, our ideas are actually pretty similar.
The trade-offs for Sound Reinforcement are different and some of the alterations to the JBL line have made them better for SR but less suitable for hi-fi.
For instance I consider the 2245 is a more desirable hi-fi unit than the latter 2241 and 2242 where they are optimized for heavy duty durability and use in massed banks.
But I think the 2226 is perfect for the OPs application.
The cone is stiffer and less prone to break-up than the curvilinear unit in the 2220.
So up to 700 or 800 Hz the 2226 will be more pistonic, flatter response and less distortion.
Above that the 2220 will have more top end and sound more impressive on snare or piano, as you say.
But for the band limited requirements of the OP's application this doesn't help.
The extra capacity of the 2226 - more Xmax, less power compression, more freedom to cross-over to the subs - is hardly needed but it is a nice bonus.
So that's why I choose it for my own system, but my post only said "have you considered...?".
Like you, I would also recommend the 1501 if they were a tolerable price.
Best wishes
David
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.