Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

JBL 2231A - has anyone tried it? (in open-baffle)
JBL 2231A - has anyone tried it? (in open-baffle)
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 7th September 2007, 07:23 PM   #1
hasselbaink is offline hasselbaink  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Copenhagen, Frederiksberg
Default JBL 2231A - has anyone tried it? (in open-baffle)

This driver is up for sale and I am considering buying a pair.
I intend to cross it at ca. 150-200hz to a full range Hemp Acoustics driver in an open-baffle configuration. I'm interested in opinions on this alnico bass unit.

Kris
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2007, 08:10 PM   #2
chops is offline chops  United States
diyAudio Member
 
chops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lakeland, Florida
Default Re: JBL 2231A - has anyone tried it? (in open-baffle)

Quote:
Originally posted by hasselbaink
This driver is up for sale and I am considering buying a pair.
I intend to cross it at ca. 150-200hz to a full range Hemp Acoustics driver in an open-baffle configuration. I'm interested in opinions on this alnico bass unit.

Kris

Don't know for sure. The only thing I found of any use is the tech sheet on it, no T/S parameters though. The 2231A does have a nice low Fs of 16Hz however, which would really be nice for OB use!

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/obsolete/2231a.pdf
__________________
Charles
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2007, 08:15 PM   #3
Robh3606 is offline Robh3606  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Robh3606's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Destiny
Watch the x-max on it. It's a nice driver the pedesosor to the 2235. If it has been reconed recently it will have a 2235 kit which significantly increases x-max. The T/S are in the T/S document on the JBL Pro Site in the Technical Documents Section. The 136A is the same woofer

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2007, 09:05 PM   #4
chops is offline chops  United States
diyAudio Member
 
chops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lakeland, Florida
Yes, the T/S parameters for both the 2231A and 136A are identical, except the SD for the 136A is 0.008 whereas the 2231A is 0.088.

The 2235 is a bit different than the other two drivers.

Either way, with a Qts of only 0.21-0.25, these would not be ideal for OB and would need a serious amount of EQ, Xmax and power to get any bass out of them.
__________________
Charles
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2007, 01:08 AM   #5
Robh3606 is offline Robh3606  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Robh3606's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Destiny
"except the SD for the 136A is 0.008 whereas the 2231A is 0.088."


It's a typo with the large difference. SD is effective piston area. There are several mistakes in that table.

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2007, 12:16 PM   #6
hasselbaink is offline hasselbaink  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Copenhagen, Frederiksberg
Quote:
Originally posted by Robh3606
Watch the x-max on it. It's a nice driver the pedesosor to the 2235. If it has been reconed recently it will have a 2235 kit which significantly increases x-max. The T/S are in the T/S document on the JBL Pro Site in the Technical Documents Section. The 136A is the same woofer

Rob
Wouldn't it be enough to just change the surround rather than the whole cone to achieve a higher x-max?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2007, 05:06 AM   #7
Robh3606 is offline Robh3606  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Robh3606's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Destiny
"Wouldn't it be enough to just change the surround rather than the whole cone to achieve a higher x-max?"

What about the spider?? You need to change all the suspension elements and maintain the same mechanical properties as the original or the T/S will change.

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2007, 08:44 AM   #8
hasselbaink is offline hasselbaink  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Copenhagen, Frederiksberg
Quote:
Originally posted by Robh3606
"Wouldn't it be enough to just change the surround rather than the whole cone to achieve a higher x-max?"

What about the spider?? You need to change all the suspension elements and maintain the same mechanical properties as the original or the T/S will change.

Rob
Good point, they both have foam surround so changing it would not make a vast difference. A new spider would be overdoing it, I should think.

Kris
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2007, 03:39 AM   #9
Robh3606 is offline Robh3606  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Robh3606's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Destiny
"A new spider would be overdoing it, I should think."

Well no not in this case. The spider change in the 2231-2235 was significant. The 2235 uses a progressive spider and it alowed for more travel. You can easilly see the diferences in the spider pleats between the 2 drivers. Also spider stiffness is a key element in determing the Fs of a driver.

Rob
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2007, 07:40 PM   #10
lhoward is offline lhoward  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Western NY
Quote:
Originally posted by Robh3606
"A new spider would be overdoing it, I should think."

Well no not in this case. The spider change in the 2231-2235 was significant. The 2235 uses a progressive spider and it alowed for more travel. You can easilly see the diferences in the spider pleats between the 2 drivers. Also spider stiffness is a key element in determing the Fs of a driver.

Rob

One other consideration is that the xMax defines linear travel so that accurate frequency response is maintained. Two things the tables don't show is the height of the magnetic gap and the width of the voice coil windings. Although the suspension might be altered to allow the extra travel desired, in the end all that would be accomplished is increased levels of distortion when the ends of the voice coil travel out of the magnetic field on each half cycle, thus that portion of the magnetic field generated by the signal throught the voice coil would not add any inter-reaction with the magnetic field of the speaker magnet existing in the gap and non-linear signal response would ensue.

Personally IMHO, I don't consider this driver suitable for use in an OB system. Put it in a box with proper loading for the cone and maybe, depending on what you want for an F3.

L. Howard
  Reply With Quote

Reply


JBL 2231A - has anyone tried it? (in open-baffle)Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does open baffle suffer from baffle step? 454Casull Multi-Way 15 19th May 2012 04:12 PM
Open-baffle baffle length matejS Multi-Way 2 21st September 2010 05:49 PM
Murphy baffle radios [ open baffle ] keithpeter Full Range 10 11th September 2007 08:59 PM
what effect does baffle have on open-baffle system? kappa546 Multi-Way 6 24th January 2006 11:21 PM
Australians- what solid timbers for baffle? (open baffle loudspeaker) tktran Multi-Way 13 30th November 2004 12:09 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 16.67%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio
Wiki