DIY JBL Speaker Cabinets and Components Question

TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I was saying that a single cone driver cannot reproduce the full audible frequency range down to 20 Hz. You need a good woofer or a subwoofer to reproduce those low frequencies. It's a question of pure physics.

In addition, a 4" speaker is unable to put out the dynamic volumes required by today's recordings. I just don't believe it.

I had seen that Jordan Watts speaker many years ago in an ad. However, I am curious to know why that transducer hasn't been more popular on the hi-fi market. Was it because of its price?
The JW module had a good following in the UK, and especially the Far East. They were never imported into the US, but were in Canada where the north Americans destroyed them regularly on a diet of pop music. The speakers are not for rock and pop but classical, folk and jazz.

I used the speakers for many years. Back in the sixties I built a pair of labyrinth bookshelves using these drivers, for my eldest sister. She still has them and continues to drive them with her original Richard Allen 10 watt per channel integrated amp. She continues to tell me how much her and her husband still enjoy these speakers.

These drivers fetch high prices when they come up on eBay.

Of course four inch cones are limited in output especially in the bass. However I have designed speakers for large auditoriums back in the seventies using 15" JBL drivers in enormous back loaded horns, I used 8 of these drivers a side as a line source, biamped at 500 Hz. The results were really impressive.
 
G

gzubeck

Audioholic
Even though this thread started out as a JBL Help thread the amount of information has been very good. TLS guy I didnt know you were a transmission line expert. What do you use for cabinet dampening material in your cabinets...wool felt, wool, open cell foam etc. Also I noticed in your picture you have a couple of larger woofers below your mtm tl setup. what frequencies are you crossing over at and what crossover type/order are you using...3rd order, 4th order etc.
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
I'd sure like to hear the bass performance of TLS's system compared to mine but in the meantime I'm pretty sure mine out performs his, crossover issues or no.
I don't have a clue to what sounds best; but, I do know that I like dance/house music, and it's that genre which has given me appreciation for the sub I added to my system about 30 years ago, a JBL B380.
thGE5C11LF.jpg
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Even though this thread started out as a JBL Help thread the amount of information has been very good. TLS guy I didnt know you were a transmission line expert. What do you use for cabinet dampening material in your cabinets...wool felt, wool, open cell foam etc. Also I noticed in your picture you have a couple of larger woofers below your mtm tl setup. what frequencies are you crossing over at and what crossover type/order are you using...3rd order, 4th order etc.
I use Polyfill to the calculated weight, and test that one peak of impedance is totally suppressed (just), so one peak of impedance remains. The I know the damping is optimal.

There are two lines tuned a half octave apart. The mid line is allowed to taper acoustically mid forties. The bass line has two drivers both working up to 60 Hz cut fourth order. The upper driver is also fed the BSC signal for the upper drivers to offload them. This is mixed with the 60 Hz signal. The BSC comes from a heavily modified Shure SR 106 that now is first order transitioning to second and equalizing the woofer response.

The tweeter crossover is passive at 2.5 KHz, and is low pass second order electrically but also has the notch filter to deal with the fierce break up modes of the SEAS Excel drivers. The tweeter is third order low pass. The result is composite fourth order.

So the two lines blend over acoustically with driver support from the lines over two and a half octaves.
 
G

gzubeck

Audioholic
I use Polyfill to the calculated weight, and test that one peak of impedance is totally suppressed (just), so one peak of impedance remains. The I know the damping is optimal.

There are two lines tuned a half octave apart. The mid line is allowed to taper acoustically mid forties. The bass line has two drivers both working up to 60 Hz cut fourth order. The upper driver is also fed the BSC signal for the upper drivers to offload them. This is mixed with the 60 Hz signal. The BSC comes from a heavily modified Shure SR 106 that now is first order transitioning to second and equalizing the woofer response.

The tweeter crossover is passive at 2.5 KHz, and is low pass second order electrically but also has the notch filter to deal with the fierce break up modes of the SEAS Excel drivers. The tweeter is third order low pass. The result is composite fourth order.

So the two lines blend over acoustically with driver support from the lines over two and a half octaves.
Thanks for the response...It definitely looks like your blending old school with new school...I've never used the sure 106 electronic crossover and I tried doing a search on manufacture date...pre 1984? "The BSC comes from a heavily modified Shure SR 106 that now is first order transitioning to second and equalizing the woofer response." I'm not sure what is actually happening here as I have zero familiarity with electronic crossovers. I'm used to either reading about passive or active crossovers. Maybe this is somewhere in between?

"The tweeter crossover is passive at 2.5 KHz, and is low pass second order electrically but also has the notch filter to deal with the fierce break up modes of the SEAS Excel drivers. The tweeter is third order low pass. The result is composite fourth order. " Is this an MTM design and do you experience lobing issues crossing over this high? I know some people like to cross higher because of human hearing sensitivity in the 500-3000hz ranges.

Looking at all the pictures on your website it looks like you have a lot of knowledge of tape players, record players, old type modified amplifiers and such. At some point when HDR hits full swing though your going to want to replace your plasma TV...maybe 75 inch sony or samsung in a few years...
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Thanks for the response...It definitely looks like your blending old school with new school...I've never used the sure 106 electronic crossover and I tried doing a search on manufacture date...pre 1984? "The BSC comes from a heavily modified Shure SR 106 that now is first order transitioning to second and equalizing the woofer response." I'm not sure what is actually happening here as I have zero familiarity with electronic crossovers. I'm used to either reading about passive or active crossovers. Maybe this is somewhere in between?

"The tweeter crossover is passive at 2.5 KHz, and is low pass second order electrically but also has the notch filter to deal with the fierce break up modes of the SEAS Excel drivers. The tweeter is third order low pass. The result is composite fourth order. " Is this an MTM design and do you experience lobing issues crossing over this high? I know some people like to cross higher because of human hearing sensitivity in the 500-3000hz ranges.

Looking at all the pictures on your website it looks like you have a lot of knowledge of tape players, record players, old type modified amplifiers and such. At some point when HDR hits full swing though your going to want to replace your plasma TV...maybe 75 inch sony or samsung in a few years...
I don't think I would call a Quad 909 an old type amp.

The Shure crossovers make a nice platform for making basically your own crossover. They are very open and easy to work on. It was my idea to use a different larger driver to do the BSC for the smaller units, this offloads them a lot and reduces cone excursion significantly. The LFE signal is also captured and sent to the four 10" drivers.

I do not like to crossover in the speech discrimination band if possible. 2.5 KHz is still in the band, but I can't help it because of the break modes of the metal cones. I think the absolute worst region for crossovers is 1200 to 2500 Hz. I try and avoid crossing over in that range like the plague. There is also a lot of power in that range which stresses tweeters and blows them up.

The dispersion of the speakers is excellent. The black line is right out at 90 degrees.



This is the waterfall plot.



You can see at 2.5 KHz the crossover is not quite perfect, they never are, but it is very good. The vertical dispersion is obviously controlled, which is what you want as that reduces room problems from ceiling and floor reflections. Great care was taken with the crossovers and I followed Joe D'Appolito's teachings on MTM to the letter in the design. I used George Augspurger's mathematical model in the design of the lines.

This is the FR in the rear center listening position both speakers operating



There are no special room treatments and no room Eq. There is nothing amiss above 35 Hz. There is a rise to 27 Hz from 40 Hz but this just gives a little reinforcement to the 32 ft stops! It does nothing unpleasant.

The room is evenly filled with sound

This is the FR of the center line TL speaker. This was a difficult one for me. It uses 2 of the SEAS Prestige coaxial drivers. The lower driver is the main driver with cross to the tweeter at 2.8 KHz. I was careful to maintain the same phase response as the LR mains. The upper driver is used for active BSC. Unfortunately these drivers have a major suck out at 9 KHz which is audible. I had to equalize this out using the tweeter in the upper driver. As with all centers this design was difficult to say the least. However the result is satisfactory.



On axis response and impulse.



The waterfall plot.



The speech discrimination band is very smooth. The line is properly damped rolling off second order from an F3 mid 40s like the mains upper lines. The integration with the left and right speakers is seamless. Speech and all dialog are clear and natural.

Since you seem so interested in transmission line speakers, here is the FR and impulse response of my rear backs. The bass line uses two venerable KEF B 139 drivers. This is the grand daddy of all TL drivers, and was the one used in the great TL research project at Radford Audio. The two mids are from Dynaudio who assisted with this project and the tweeters are now Eaton due to a recent failure of a Dynaudio D 21 AF. The crossover between the lines is active at 180 Hz and the other drivers cross first order at 900 Hz and 5 KHz.





This was an horrendous project that took 10 years starting in 1984.

The frequency response is very good considering this almost impossible design brief.

However if you do a project like that this is the waterfall plot.



However there is a presence and sparkle about those speakers that is very attractive.

TLs just spoil you and after living with them nothing else will quite do.

I do not intend to give up my Panny Plasmas any time soon. I much prefer the color shading to anything available currently.

Finally this studio is a blend of old and new which is a big part of its fascination for people. For most of the equipment I'm the original owner. The three Revox A 77 are machines I restored from wrecks, the Revox A 700 and the very rare Brennel Mk 6 I have had since new.
 
G

gzubeck

Audioholic
I don't think I would call a Quad 909 an old type amp.

The Shure crossovers make a nice platform for making basically your own crossover. They are very open and easy to work on. It was my idea to use a different larger driver to do the BSC for the smaller units, this offloads them a lot and reduces cone excursion significantly. The LFE signal is also captured and sent to the four 10" drivers.

I do not like to crossover in the speech discrimination band if possible. 2.5 KHz is still in the band, but I can't help it because of the break modes of the metal cones. I think the absolute worst region for crossovers is 1200 to 2500 Hz. I try and avoid crossing over in that range like the plague. There is also a lot of power in that range which stresses tweeters and blows them up.

The dispersion of the speakers is excellent. The black line is right out at 90 degrees.



This is the waterfall plot.



You can see at 2.5 KHz the crossover is not quite perfect, they never are, but it is very good. The vertical dispersion is obviously controlled, which is what you want as that reduces room problems from ceiling and floor reflections. Great care was taken with the crossovers and I followed Joe D'Appolito's teachings on MTM to the letter in the design. I used George Augspurger's mathematical model in the design of the lines.

This is the FR in the rear center listening position both speakers operating



There are no special room treatments and no room Eq. There is nothing amiss above 35 Hz. There is a rise to 27 Hz from 40 Hz but this just gives a little reinforcement to the 32 ft stops! It does nothing unpleasant.

The room is evenly filled with sound

This is the FR of the center line TL speaker. This was a difficult one for me. It uses 2 of the SEAS Prestige coaxial drivers. The lower driver is the main driver with cross to the tweeter at 2.8 KHz. I was careful to maintain the same phase response as the LR mains. The upper driver is used for active BSC. Unfortunately these drivers have a major suck out at 9 KHz which is audible. I had to equalize this out using the tweeter in the upper driver. As with all centers this design was difficult to say the least. However the result is satisfactory.



On axis response and impulse.



The waterfall plot.



The speech discrimination band is very smooth. The line is properly damped rolling off second order from an F3 mid 40s like the mains upper lines. The integration with the left and right speakers is seamless. Speech and all dialog are clear and natural.

Since you seem so interested in transmission line speakers, here is the FR and impulse response of my rear backs. The bass line uses two venerable KEF B 139 drivers. This is the grand daddy of all TL drivers, and was the one used in the great TL research project at Radford Audio. The two mids are from Dynaudio who assisted with this project and the tweeters are now Eaton due to a recent failure of a Dynaudio D 21 AF. The crossover between the lines is active at 180 Hz and the other drivers cross first order at 900 Hz and 5 KHz.





This was an horrendous project that took 10 years starting in 1984.

The frequency response is very good considering this almost impossible design brief.

However if you do a project like that this is the waterfall plot.



However there is a presence and sparkle about those speakers that is very attractive.

TLs just spoil you and after living with them nothing else will quite do.

I do not intend to give up my Panny Plasmas any time soon. I much prefer the color shading to anything available currently.

Finally this studio is a blend of old and new which is a big part of its fascination for people. For most of the equipment I'm the original owner. The three Revox A 77 are machines I restored from wrecks, the Revox A 700 and the very rare Brennel Mk 6 I have had since new.
Thanks for the detailed response. The comment about the amplifiers being old was just off the the cuff statement after looking at all your pictures quickly...5 year old amps are not old....I believe you about the MTM and I was just wondering about the design choice. I've seen so many comments about designers being paranoid about MTM lobing. I've seen some designers wanting to cross over larger drivers at 1000-1200hz and was just curious about your choice to cross over a little higher.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Finally this studio is a blend of old and new which is a big part of its fascination for people. For most of the equipment I'm the original owner. The three Revox A 77 are machines I restored from wrecks, the Revox A 700 and the very rare Brennel Mk 6 I have had since new.
I have to admit, I've looked at the pics of your setup more than a couple times. "Fascinated" is the correct word for me, for sure. I would love to spend time there and familiarize myself with all the equipment. ...I don't even know what transmission line speakers are, but they do look impressive. The ports on the ends of the "T" are just downright cool. I've no doubt I would be astonished at the sq you're able to achieve on it.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I have to admit, I've looked at the pics of your setup more than a couple times. "Fascinated" is the correct word for me, for sure. I would love to spend time there and familiarize myself with all the equipment. ...I don't even know what transmission line speakers are, but they do look impressive. The ports on the ends of the "T" are just downright cool. I've no doubt I would be astonished at the sq you're able to achieve on it.
You are welcome any time, but I have no idea where you live. The speakers were designed according to function. It so often happens that when form follows function it also looks good. To be honest opinions vary as to whether these speakers look good or not. However in the room they do not seem nearly as big as they actually are.
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
Mark's answers and audio education is always more than welcome, but I'd like to point out that OP last posted two full pages ago
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Mark's answers and audio education is always more than welcome, but I'd like to point out that OP last posted two full pages ago
Yes, and those two pages took less than 24 hours. I have been busy today and just replaced all the Internet cabling, from Cat 5 to Cat 6.
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
Curious to why? Planning to get 10gig networking? Cat5e supports 1gig and sufficient for vast majority of homes
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Curious to why? Planning to get 10gig networking? Cat5e supports 1gig and sufficient for vast majority of homes
The old cable was Cat 5. Also there was a splice form the Paul Bunyan converter from 5e to 5. The system was not working well and the router loosing communication with the converter since I upgraded.

I also wanted to put cable to the lower level as it is a long way from the router. It was all in conduit except from the converter box to the entry to the conduit system

So I put in conduit from the PB converter box to the house conduit location. I have run a Cat 6 cable from the converter output to the router, and two Cat 6 cables to the system in the lower level.

Performance has improved. I now have consistent 250 Mbps up and down and now for the first time DSL reports is giving me all grade A, whereas before it was C with a lot of buffer bloat.

My eldest son and Paul Bunyan communications advised me to make this change to all Cat 6. There is now no significant difference in the cost of 5e compared to 6. The old Cat 5 was just not cutting it.

Anyone reading this should take home the main take home message. RUN YOUR CABLES IN CONDUIT!
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
I did not mean to add to the derailment of this thread, but felt the OP had jumped ship towards more specific forums.

Meanwhile, I had a rather short notice, yet significant funeral to attend up north that took 5 days out of my little journey with the woofers curiosities. Worst yet is, I haven't listened to any 'entertaining' music to speak of since I was gone.

Still, I always enjoy the side roads many of these discussions take and the posters who prompt them. It ends up making me research further about things I may not have otherwise.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
There is nothing wrong with the use of big subwoofers or woofers. If you want to reproduce very low frequencies at a certain volume with low distortion, you need to displace a lot of air and the size of the cone area is of most importance. When the frequency goes down one octave, the moving cone has to move 4 times as much.

A good subwoofer like those of the Dayton RSS-HF series will give you a good musical reproduction with low distortion and I know that for a fact because I use them in my 3 front speakers with excellent results.

Not all audiophiles need subwoofers. It all depends on the type of music you listen to and whether or not you like to watch action films. But in my case, as I like pipe organ music, I want the speakers to be able to reproduce notes put out by a 32 foot stop pipe, with fundamental frequencies from 16 Hz to 32 Hz.
I have been curious of the different Dayton subwoofer drivers and the different applications so I am glad you mentioned it. The current trend seems to favor the ultimax series. But again, I don't think that's as much for music as it may be multipurpose with HT.

Part of what sparks my curiosity is from memory of larger woofers in older three way speakers having incredible, yet low distortion bass, even though they were only rated to the mid 30's.

To be honest, the Eminence woofers in the Tempests are pretty complete and I really don't know how, or even why I would improve on what they do. It's just a quality of sound in that range I really like. If anything, I would tend to say that the Tempests make the Ultimax sound better, instead of the other way around. Perhaps the RSS-HF would be more of a compliment than the Ultimax is for this particular purpose.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
I have been curious of the different Dayton subwoofer drivers and the different applications so I am glad you mentioned it. The current trend seems to favor the ultimax series. But again, I don't think that's as much for music as it may be multipurpose with HT.

Part of what sparks my curiosity is from memory of larger woofers in older three way speakers having incredible, yet low distortion bass, even though they were only rated to the mid 30's.

To be honest, the Eminence woofers in the Tempests are pretty complete and I really don't know how, or even why I would improve on what they do. It's just a quality of sound in that range I really like. If anything, I would tend to say that the Tempests make the Ultimax sound better, instead of the other way around. Perhaps the RSS-HF would be more of a compliment than the Ultimax is for this particular purpose.
Most 'bass' that you think you hear in conventional music is just harmonics which lay in mid and upper bass regions. The subwoofer is only taking the fundamental and maybe the first couple harmonics. The Ultimax and Tempest are fine together. The RSS-HF would be fine as well. The RSS-HF would be more linear and would extend higher, because it has very low inductance. It does not quite have the dynamic range and extension that the Ultimax drivers have. It would be better as a part of a full range loudspeaker, since it can be crossover over at higher frequencies. Its advantages wouldn't do you much good, since you already have the Tempest which can take mid bass frequencies just fine. There is no reason to use the RSS-HF over the Ultimax if you are only using it for a sub crossed over at 80 Hz or lower.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Most 'bass' that you think you hear in conventional music is just harmonics which lay in mid and upper bass regions. The subwoofer is only taking the fundamental and maybe the first couple harmonics. The Ultimax and Tempest are fine together. The RSS-HF would be fine as well. The RSS-HF would be more linear and would extend higher, because it has very low inductance. It does not quite have the dynamic range and extension that the Ultimax drivers have. It would be better as a part of a full range loudspeaker, since it can be crossover over at higher frequencies. Its advantages wouldn't do you much good, since you already have the Tempest which can take mid bass frequencies just fine. There is no reason to use the RSS-HF over the Ultimax if you are only using it for a sub crossed over at 80 Hz or lower.
You are right. It does occur to me that I am not missing anything with the setup I have. Still doesn't keep us from fiddling with things though. The other side of this hobby, I suppose. Especially once invested in the DIY aspect. Sometimes, one may find that they don't want it to be over just yet.

I am still working on a system for my bedroom. Contemplating the Fusion-8 Alchemy speakers with a sub as a scaled down version of what I have managed to accomplish with the Tempests. Half of why I keep tapping you folks for information in the mean time.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
You are right. It does occur to me that I am not missing anything with the setup I have. Still doesn't keep us from fiddling with things though. The other side of this hobby, I suppose. Especially once invested in the DIY aspect. Sometimes, one may find that they don't want it to be over just yet.

I am still working on a system for my bedroom. Contemplating the Fusion-8 Alchemy speakers with a sub as a scaled down version of what I have managed to accomplish with the Tempests. Half of why I keep tapping you folks for information in the mean time.
Mr Boat,
I used a Dayton RSS315HF-8 sub, a 12 inch driver, in a pair of 3-way speakers, which have been considered by two serious and knowledgeable people in the Hi-Fi business, as better than most commercial speakers available now and from the past 50 years.
That sub is now discontinued and has been replaced by the RSS315HFA-8 sub, which also has very good specs. If you go the Dayton's website, you will note that this transducer would have a response down to -3dB at 20 Hz in a 4.63 cubic foot bass reflex, tuned at about 22 Hz. However, if you don't need a response down that low, you could install it in a 3.25 cf cabinet like I did with the above mentioned pair and still get an excellent response down to 25 Hz and below.
I would recommend this sub without any hesitation as it is very musical, solidly built and waranteed for 5 years.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
I forgot to mention that the above sub has an 8 ohm nominal impedance. Dayton also have a 4 ohm version which is slightly more sensitive: 87.3 dB @ 1W compared to 85.7 for the 8 ohm one. Either one would do a very good job IMO.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top