JBL 2235H.
The only equivalent (possibly superior) driver I have come across is the AE TD15H.
This driver seems to be super versatile. High sensitivity, low Fs. Good for subwoofer, two way (crossed over to a CD-Waveguide), three way, Hi-Fi, HT, SET amps... what have you...
I wonder why nobody is making such a driver now, other than Acoustic Elegance. Or am I missing something?
The only equivalent (possibly superior) driver I have come across is the AE TD15H.
This driver seems to be super versatile. High sensitivity, low Fs. Good for subwoofer, two way (crossed over to a CD-Waveguide), three way, Hi-Fi, HT, SET amps... what have you...
I wonder why nobody is making such a driver now, other than Acoustic Elegance. Or am I missing something?
Most high quality drivers in 2021 spread the motor force out across the entire stroke of the woofer.
Basically you can concentrate all of the motor force at a single point, like older drivers did, or you can spread it out, like modern drivers do.
The modern way of doing things reduces distortion at the expensive of maximum motor force at that single point.
This is particularly noticeable with drivers that have ultra long stroke; if you look at some of the woofers from TC Sounds or XBL^2 woofers, the sensitivity is substantially impacted. Some of the Adire woofers had efficiencies in the low 80s.
EDIT: I just read the spec sheet, and the 2235H has an aluminum shorting ring. So it includes the features I described, that modern drivers have, but it's stroke isn't as extreme as current drivers are. But it's definitely in the ballpark.
Basically you can concentrate all of the motor force at a single point, like older drivers did, or you can spread it out, like modern drivers do.
The modern way of doing things reduces distortion at the expensive of maximum motor force at that single point.
This is particularly noticeable with drivers that have ultra long stroke; if you look at some of the woofers from TC Sounds or XBL^2 woofers, the sensitivity is substantially impacted. Some of the Adire woofers had efficiencies in the low 80s.
EDIT: I just read the spec sheet, and the 2235H has an aluminum shorting ring. So it includes the features I described, that modern drivers have, but it's stroke isn't as extreme as current drivers are. But it's definitely in the ballpark.
Last edited:
I think brands like BMS and B&C do offer drivers that will do what a 2235H can do. You could add mass to the cone to get fs down, the JBL does have quite low efficiency. But most of the professionals use EQ, of course.
It is a unique and wonderful driver.
But Fs of 20 Hz means little since the F3 response is still around 50 hz
in a large box. You have to high tune around 30 Hz to get better F3
Thermally it does around 300 watts , mechanically around 100 to 150 watts
with 6 to 7 mm xmax
Not to rain on your parade but there is newer drivers that outperform it
rather easily. Even if newer drivers with 30 to 35 Hz Fs
outperform it easily with 2x or more power handling and achieve lower F3 in similar\or smaller boxes
But Fs of 20 Hz means little since the F3 response is still around 50 hz
in a large box. You have to high tune around 30 Hz to get better F3
Thermally it does around 300 watts , mechanically around 100 to 150 watts
with 6 to 7 mm xmax
Not to rain on your parade but there is newer drivers that outperform it
rather easily. Even if newer drivers with 30 to 35 Hz Fs
outperform it easily with 2x or more power handling and achieve lower F3 in similar\or smaller boxes
There is Scan Speak 15".
38WE/8582T00 – Scan-Speak A/S
I'd argue that it is a whole lot more versatile than JBL and simply better.
38WE/8582T00 – Scan-Speak A/S
I'd argue that it is a whole lot more versatile than JBL and simply better.
High sensitivity / low Fs are parameters very hard to achieve, almost working against each other. Woofer designers can push one parameter up by sacrificing the other. Its all compromises.
If you do not insist on Fs 20Hz, but are ok with 30Hz, you can find plenty FaitalPro with sensitivity ~99dB. And even better excursion.
Check out this one.
FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | 18XL2000 (8Ω)
If you do not insist on Fs 20Hz, but are ok with 30Hz, you can find plenty FaitalPro with sensitivity ~99dB. And even better excursion.
Check out this one.
FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | 18XL2000 (8Ω)
JBL 2231H is another model that seems to have more or less the same philosophy (as that of 2235H) behind it's design.
Agree, I used to use eight of the 2235 in two corner loaded IB enclosures and they could not keep up with the dynamics of a pair of single TAD 1201's in front loaded horns.
We make at McCauley Sound, our 8141-8 http://www.mccauley.com/files/8141-8.pdf
Which is very similar parameter wise, aside from the lower Fs. If that was a requirement, it would not be hard to replace the single 9" diameter spider, with a more compliant dual-opposed 7.5" diameter spider setup which would land the Fs somewhere around 22Hz or so. It was designed as a subwoofer, so not much attention was paid to the frequency response beyond 200Hz, but the smaller spider OD, and a 4in dustcap would in addition clean up the 900-1000Hz region.
-Mark
Which is very similar parameter wise, aside from the lower Fs. If that was a requirement, it would not be hard to replace the single 9" diameter spider, with a more compliant dual-opposed 7.5" diameter spider setup which would land the Fs somewhere around 22Hz or so. It was designed as a subwoofer, so not much attention was paid to the frequency response beyond 200Hz, but the smaller spider OD, and a 4in dustcap would in addition clean up the 900-1000Hz region.
-Mark
Last edited:
It might be of interest to know that you can get a 2235 by reconing a 2225. The motor is the same. You get the 2234 with just the new cone.
Adding a “mass ring” will take down the Fs so that you get the 2235 specs.
I have tried to measure these and I wonder how correct the factory reported specs really are.
So this discussion abow is highly interesting but do we get specs wise what we are promised.
Adding a “mass ring” will take down the Fs so that you get the 2235 specs.
I have tried to measure these and I wonder how correct the factory reported specs really are.
So this discussion abow is highly interesting but do we get specs wise what we are promised.
Attachments
Those have very good spec but are as good if not better at 15" or 16", I would say the JBL has nothing special today while still being among the good ones. In fact they are local market North America area but not the sota of what can be made today.
Tad, Fostex, PHL, Faital, RCF, BMS, 18ThSounds, Davis Acoustic (that has a very good 16" with woven hybrid kevlar cones), Audax Pro, B&W (hard to source but possible), some confidential european and japaneese brands have better also but come at a price like the ones making electro magnet or very low Qts but made for Hifi reproduction not in a PA purpose... In the hifi traditional brads where the efficienty is not the purpose for studio oriented, Big ScanSpeak are certainly a head or two above these JBL.
Tad, Fostex, PHL, Faital, RCF, BMS, 18ThSounds, Davis Acoustic (that has a very good 16" with woven hybrid kevlar cones), Audax Pro, B&W (hard to source but possible), some confidential european and japaneese brands have better also but come at a price like the ones making electro magnet or very low Qts but made for Hifi reproduction not in a PA purpose... In the hifi traditional brads where the efficienty is not the purpose for studio oriented, Big ScanSpeak are certainly a head or two above these JBL.
You weren’t promised anything. JBL did not design the 2234-2235 for use in a closed box and never ever used it that way in any of their speaker systems.
Barry.
There isn’t really a market for all round drivers of this size anymore.
If you want a large sub there are plenty of drivers out there that handle 10x the power and Xmax and will outperform it any day (assuming low passed), even in smaller cabinets.
If you want a large mid bass there are plenty of drivers out there that handle much more power combined with much more sensitivity (assuming high passed), even in smaller cabinets.
If you want a all round hifi bass there’s plenty of nice 10” and 12” around for a lot less, even in smaller cabinets.
It’s probably very nice for DIY 2-ways but that’s it, it’s niche product today. Most serious systems is 3 or 4 ways active and with more dedicated components. 2-way all round systems are usually smaller.
If you want a large sub there are plenty of drivers out there that handle 10x the power and Xmax and will outperform it any day (assuming low passed), even in smaller cabinets.
If you want a large mid bass there are plenty of drivers out there that handle much more power combined with much more sensitivity (assuming high passed), even in smaller cabinets.
If you want a all round hifi bass there’s plenty of nice 10” and 12” around for a lot less, even in smaller cabinets.
It’s probably very nice for DIY 2-ways but that’s it, it’s niche product today. Most serious systems is 3 or 4 ways active and with more dedicated components. 2-way all round systems are usually smaller.
I have measured the driver and that was what i refered to. JBL does publish the driver specs. But generally I am sceptic how we'll different producers production drivers meet publiched values.
My solution putting 2235 drivers in a closed box was by design my solution. My goal was to use JBL classic drivers to see could I better my JBL monitors that I built 40 years ago. Now using active DSP FIR filtering etc.
I also have two 12” subs but they don’t ad any low end to the system as the room gain lifts the 2235 closed box curve as you can see in my post here abow.
I thik my system work well but you can always argue that there might be better options.
Attachments
Last edited: