Sorry Bo, I deleted the post when I realized I was just hashing over what you and Rob said.
As for the 2245H comment, I think I said -
If I had to chose only one thing I like most about the 2245H it would be that even with as little as 1 watt input, you still "Get it All".
But seriously, I'm back to this post because I want to know how Mike really feels
The theory of a smaller driver being "quicker" is valid I suppose. The theory is shot to hell if the smaller driver has a heavier moving mass or a weaker motor. The choice of words might be the error. I understand your point that for any given frequency the smaller driver isn't going to be quicker or faster, 50 Hz is indeed 50 Hz and that's what makes it 50 Hz. But I think you reinforced the common perception of "quickness" with the sentence "The large magnets on JBL woofs and subwoofs, for example, provide great cone control and start, stop, and reverse very well!!!" and probably therein lies the reason why certain transducers are deemed "faster" or "quicker" than others. Attack and decay. Mass and acceleration/deceleration. "Fast" is a term used to describe a transducer like the E145/150-4H. Although I'd put it in the "really fast" category
The 4645C is indeed "fast" enough and "quick" enough to render an audio playback of several tightly spaced 105mm artillery hits as intended, instead of as one big burp.
*****
"The dumb (#*^(#@$ that think that some cabinet with a bunch of small drivers is going to combine to make great, deep bass, with additional "speed" are morons..............."
The concept of scaling is valid. Two 4645C's for a real small venue, perhaps a dozen for a big venue. A bank of E145's will be perceived as "faster" or "quicker" than a bank of 2245H's simply because the E145's have such fantastic transient character. Gotta pay the piper though, those E145's simply will not do what the 2245H's can do way down low.
Scaling occurs in transducers themselves as well. An example would be the excellent scaling done with the 2235H and 2245H. JBL increased the electromagnetic force of the 2245H to sufficiently deal with the increased moving mass and compliance resistance in such a way that, in reality, one might be hard pressed to tell the difference between the transient character of a properly loaded 2235H and a properly loaded 2245H.
Now the scaling of the 124/2203 and the 136/2231 is interesting. I remember a conversation with Mark Gander WAY back in the 70's about this driver... Basically a 12" basket and cone with the whole back end of a 136/2231 bolted to it, ROFLOL. (Kinda like slinging a 454 big block into a Vega). But... we're all used to listening to the 124/2203 in a 4315 and the 136/2231 in a 4333. Well that much volume on the 124/2203 "kills" any "speed" or "quickness" advantage is might otherwise have had (same motor as a 136/2231 operating on 50 grams less moving mass). Result was the 4315 didn't really show any "speed" or "quickness" advantage in the bottom end even though it used a smaller driver. Now, pop that little beast into a 1.6 cubic foot space tuned up to 40Hz or so and bang! There comes all that transient advantage back with a rush. Gotta pay the fiddler though. Deep bass then goes bye bye and it is no longer able to maintain the same bandwidth as the 136A/2231A in a 4333 enclosure.
Anyway, maybe I'm all wet. That's just my take on the matter.
Reply With Quote
They are pretty weak below 80 to 100 Hz.
