Zilch, Thanks for the comparison. The NL200t3 looks flatter than the 3134 with slightly better HF extension to boot.
In your opinion, which of the two sounds the best?
Zilch, Thanks for the comparison. The NL200t3 looks flatter than the 3134 with slightly better HF extension to boot.
In your opinion, which of the two sounds the best?
"Zobel is as zobel does"
Hello Zilch
Those full passive on the plots?? Seem ragged bellow 2.5K or so. You crossing at 1K and 1.2K??
Rob
Hiya, Rob.
All full passive there, as built, and not biamped, just LF & HF bridged together running on a single 6230 amp.
L200t3 is spec'd at 1.2 kHz, 4430 (N3134) at 1.0 kHz.
Part of it may just be the "laboratory," which is unusually full of stuff right now.
I'm most interested in the correctness of the VHF performance, but there may be some issues yet to be addressed lower down in the crossover region. It's a bit messy right now, looks like. Also thinking 'bout what's happening above 20 kHz with this.
Really waiting for 2342 horns to see the performance of the original design configuration, but it's interesting and notable that NL200t3 measures better with LE14H-3 woofer than 2235H when using 2426H on 2344A. 1.2 kHz may be a "push" for either of them.
I'm hoping you'll have some time to try out the originals and post some results, now that members are actually building with NL200t3. I'm always a bit uneasy when it's solely my own experience as basis for advice....
I believe I've concluded over time that I like a linear drop across the spectrum better than purely flat. At least with titanium diaphragms playing the VHF, perfectly flat usually sounds a bit harsh to me; too bright. Mr. Widget and RobH have said the same thing, if I recall.Originally Posted by Uncle Paul
The Behringer UltraCurve calls that contour "Room correction" and does a 1 dB/octave "tilt" of the response curve when engaged, so we're apparently not the only ones with this preference.
You can see that my N3134 does that, too, being down 5 dB compared to NL200t3 in the HF region. If I put an L-Pad on the HF output, I'd bet I could dial the NL200t3 virtually identical to the N3134 insofar as overall frequency response is concerned.
However, I must add that since I have moved the horns and crossovers back onto the LE14H-3's, I'm very much enjoying the extra "crispness" of their more flat frequency response today. Johnaec is coming over for a listen later this week, so I'll get another opinion. I'm also looking forward to hearing how aluminum diaphragms will play compared to titanium up there.
Perhaps by next weekend; I've gotta build my 16-Ohm HF version of the crossovers for that....
A) 16-Ohm version of biased NL200t3 HF section, 3" x 5" board.
B) 2426J on 2344A horn.
C) LE85 on same.
D) Schematic.
E) Full range w/ LE85.
2426J is flatter.
This LE85 is 5 dB hotter above 5kHz.
Sounds fine tho.
Inductor is Jantzen 20 Ga., 1.18 Ohms, PE # 255-054.
What's happening here? There's no standard crossover providing the requisite HF boost for 16-Ohm drivers on biradial horns like 2344(A) and 2342. 3110A doesn't get it.
Converting LE85 to 8-Ohms with original aluminum diaphragms (which are alleged to sound better than the later titaniums) to run on the available crossovers is an expensive proposition, and requires breaking the wax seals of these valuable drivers. Also, there's lots of 16-Ohm 2426J's available that might be used without a diaphragm change. This reconfiguration of NL200t3 comprises a platform for working with both. There's no way I could reasonably contemplate reworking the 4430's N3134 crossovers to accomplish this.
I also want to run LE85's on H3100 horns. While this crossover is not "correct" for that, it gives a boosted HF response that my EQ can work with using minimal adjustments. Then I can compare LE85 and 2426J to see if there's any difference in the sound quality.
Guess I'll build another one and let UltraCurve do its thing here....
If you are going to go to all this time and trouble you need to get set up with a decent hardware/software package.
There are 21,650 views on this thread as of right now. Maybe they will take up a collection.
I'd suggest CLIO Lite. 21,650 views is roughly a nickel per view for CLIO Lite and a calibrated mic. Reference this thread:
http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...ead.php?t=7351
People who make sound their business depend on JBL for their sound.
I'm about to spring for it, actually. I'm financing out of JBL Monitor Blue grille cloth sales.Originally Posted by DRG
I think I've demonstrated that a 1/3 octave RTA such as many members already have here can carry such investigations well beyond "casual." Here, it reveals that LE85/2420 is not quite so much the same, response-wise, as 2425/6/7 that I had supposed. I'll try a bunch of 'em here to confirm, as it's an issue Guido and others are wrestling with, as well. It looks like putting 8-Ohm aluminum diaphragms in 2425/6 does not give the same result as LE85/2420, but it may be a better one for certain applications.
You're right, though. Probably time for me to get more sophisticated about this....
Izzat LE14H-3 in your avatar?
That'll work.Originally Posted by Zilch
Yes, the LE14H-3.
People who make sound their business depend on JBL for their sound.
Support the Zilchster's divinations!Originally Posted by DRG
[Heh, heh....]
I'll support you by buying a bit 'o the cloth... but, I want to finish some speakers first... might be awhile.
I'd love to see comparisons of several LE85s and several 2425/26s... but I can happily wait for you to get set up.
Widget
I intend to.Originally Posted by Zilch
People who make sound their business depend on JBL for their sound.
Here's two 2426J's on the NL200t3-16 crossover, 2344A horn.
Then three LE85's under the same conditions.
The LE85's appear poorly matched; I couldn't make a pair out of this group. They are also different from 2426's. The second one is messed up in the 1 - 4 kHz region. They're all playin' 20 kHz well, tho.
So much for the "Preserve the red seals" thing. They should be opened, cleaned, the foam damping replaced as required, and retested. Maybe new aluminum diaphragms in them, too.
Somebody here said that. I confirm that they are right.
On to some 2425J's now....
I was suggesting this would be an interesting exercise once you had a Clio, MLSSA, or LEAP set up. Without time windowing, you are measuring the echos in your room as much as the drivers...
My take on the Red Wax... Sell them to the collectors at a premium and buy up the "tampered" ones and refurbish those... the profit you make off selling virgins will pay for new diaphragms, a bit of remagging, and cleaning them up...
I wonder if my ancestors were also into selling virgins?
Widget
Four 2425J's under the same conditions.
The first pair came on a pair of rock 'n roll 2370A's.
Second pair came in the 4660's with the smoked crossovers.
Guess we know which pair gets the new aluminum diaphragms, now....
May I have more of the last one, please?
[It's gonna play mighty nicely on this crossover, I betcha.... ]
I hear there is a tremendous market, and profit for virgins, but alas, they too, lose their value once their seals are broken!Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
:dont-know
scottyj
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)