marantzfan
...
I just cant wait to see some more pictures of this project coming together... Keep it up Will! :thmbsp:
Sir.Byrd's 2226H based super speaker project
- Thread starter Sir.Byrd
- Start date
Speakerbox
Super Member
I need friends like you...:cry:
Sir.Byrd
Lunatic Member
Sir.Byrd
Lunatic Member
Why's that?
srbliss
Active Member
You will love it
I believe the 2226 is the same driver as the 2235 without the mass ring (Zilch will correct my if I am wrong) and these things should rock your world! I hear stuff I never noticed before - even in the mid-bass.
Steve
I believe the 2226 is the same driver as the 2235 without the mass ring (Zilch will correct my if I am wrong) and these things should rock your world! I hear stuff I never noticed before - even in the mid-bass.
Steve
Sir.Byrd
Lunatic Member
2225 can be reconed to a 2235, but a 2226 has a different magnetic assembly.
aidynphoenix
Super Member
oh boy!! here it comes!!
Russellc
Addicted Member
Wrong. totally different. The 2225H has the same motor as the 2235H. 2226H is a different animal alltogether. Without the mass ring on 2235H, you would have 2234H. Gordon takes the 2226H frame and puts a custom coil, spider and cone/surround for a franken woofer deluxe, however!
russellc
Russellc
Addicted Member
Sir Byrd and Russellc are correct... the 2226 has a different motor technology (vented gap, vs. vented pole piece) than the 2234/2235.
That said, the 2226 can become a "2236"... JBL never made one, but that didn't stop Cosmos and I from doing it.
Uses the 2226 frame, a long-winding edge-wound copper-wire voice coil (goes from about 7/8" winding in the 2226 to about 1" long winding in the "2236"), a 2235 cone and dustcap, and a moderate-stiffness spider (not quite as soft as the 2235, but softer than the 2226).
It's basically, a 2235 with twice the power handling, and probably a little better transient response (since it didn't need a mass ring). Wants a little bigger box (6-7 cubic feet, as opposed to 4-5 optimal for the 2235), but goes lower at about the same efficiency level (of the 2235) as a trade-off...
Regards,
Gordon.
That said, the 2226 can become a "2236"... JBL never made one, but that didn't stop Cosmos and I from doing it.
Uses the 2226 frame, a long-winding edge-wound copper-wire voice coil (goes from about 7/8" winding in the 2226 to about 1" long winding in the "2236"), a 2235 cone and dustcap, and a moderate-stiffness spider (not quite as soft as the 2235, but softer than the 2226).
It's basically, a 2235 with twice the power handling, and probably a little better transient response (since it didn't need a mass ring). Wants a little bigger box (6-7 cubic feet, as opposed to 4-5 optimal for the 2235), but goes lower at about the same efficiency level (of the 2235) as a trade-off...
Regards,
Gordon.
Sir Byrd and Russellc are correct... the 2226 has a different motor technology (vented gap, vs. vented pole piece) than the 2234/2235.
That said, the 2226 can become a "2236"... JBL never made one, but that didn't stop Cosmos and I from doing it.
Uses the 2226 frame, a long-winding edge-wound copper-wire voice coil (goes from about 7/8" winding in the 2226 to about 1" long winding in the "2236"), a 2235 cone and dustcap, and a moderate-stiffness spider (not quite as soft as the 2235, but softer than the 2226).
It's basically, a 2235 with twice the power handling, and probably a little better transient response (since it didn't need a mass ring). Wants a little bigger box (6-7 cubic feet, as opposed to 4-5 optimal for the 2235), but goes lower at about the same efficiency level (of the 2235) as a trade-off...
Regards,
Gordon.
Gordon left out a couple parts..
1. This woofer is his creation
2. It flat out ROCKS!
I would highly recommend it for many applications.
dnewma04
The Healer
Based on Gordon's description, I suspect it will have higher inductance and thus less high frequency extension, less power handling, but much closer than the 2226, and deeper bass capabilities albeit, possibly at lower overall output (the 14mm excursion should probably still be a fair bit more than a modded 2226.
Le of the "2236" is about 1.18mH. I'd call that "average" for a 15". A smidgen lower than the 2234 and 2235 (which are 1.2mH), but not enough different from that to make a significant difference.
The TD15M has an extraordinarily low inductance (for a 15" driver), at .2mH. The other Lambda drivers seem to have around .3mH, which is still remarkably low. This means, as Newman mentioned, that the Lambda drivers have more bandwidth. However, since the 2226 and 2234 are known to easily be able to do 1.5KHz (the 2235 has problems, due to the mass ring, ostensibly- they really don't do terribly well above 1.2KHz, in contrast. But, since the "2236" has no mass ring, it should perform closer to the 2234 and/or 2226), this shouldn't be a deciding issue for most people, using these with horn mid-high-systems (most of those can at least play down to 1.5KHz easily).
Also, since the 2226 is rated at 600 watts for the motor, the "2236" should also share this same power rating. In fact, the copper voice coil of the 2226 should conduct heat better than the aluminum coil in the 2226... so, it may actually handle a little more power in practice... unless I'm reading the data wrong, none of the Lambdas are rated at higher than 500w?
Regards,
Gordon.
The TD15M has an extraordinarily low inductance (for a 15" driver), at .2mH. The other Lambda drivers seem to have around .3mH, which is still remarkably low. This means, as Newman mentioned, that the Lambda drivers have more bandwidth. However, since the 2226 and 2234 are known to easily be able to do 1.5KHz (the 2235 has problems, due to the mass ring, ostensibly- they really don't do terribly well above 1.2KHz, in contrast. But, since the "2236" has no mass ring, it should perform closer to the 2234 and/or 2226), this shouldn't be a deciding issue for most people, using these with horn mid-high-systems (most of those can at least play down to 1.5KHz easily).
Also, since the 2226 is rated at 600 watts for the motor, the "2236" should also share this same power rating. In fact, the copper voice coil of the 2226 should conduct heat better than the aluminum coil in the 2226... so, it may actually handle a little more power in practice... unless I'm reading the data wrong, none of the Lambdas are rated at higher than 500w?
Regards,
Gordon.
Last edited:
First of all, I own Lambda TD-15X (not TD15M).
Second, in my applications, I cross the Lambda over at about 500Hz. Certainly, the Lambda, 2226 or 2236 would play to 500 without issue.
Further, I have them installed in different systems. The "2236" is in 8 to 9 cu ft boxes with a 6" midbass (not sure of the crossover point). The Lambda TD15x are in 6.5 cu ft boxes crossed over to Horns at 500 Hz.
With all that said, I really like the sound of both of them. However, the "2236" sounds like it has more snap and not as dark. How would it compare to a TD15m? I don't know, but I'd absolutely think the "2236" would go lower.
I agree completely with Dave that the Lambda would play higher with success, better than any JBL 15" I know of, but I am not using them that way. If I did and that was important, Lambda would be a clear winner.
Therefore, if anyone can follow this convoluted logic, for either of my applications I would take the "2236" over the TD-15M or TD-15X. My reasoning is simple. It has more snap than TD15x and goes low enough to be a true woofer and it goes easily lower than TD-15M. Don't misunderstand, the Lambda woofers are fantastic for $600/pair new. Simply fantastic. But, I think if you found a set of dead JBL 2226 frames cheap enough and had Gordon work his magic, you'd be money ahead with the "2236".
I have not compared them in the same box and system. Perhaps, I shouldn't make any judgment until I did, but these are my considerable impressions thus far.
The GordonW "2236" Rocks.
My deepest apologies to Sir.Byrd (and others) for the thread hijack. It was not intentional.
Second, in my applications, I cross the Lambda over at about 500Hz. Certainly, the Lambda, 2226 or 2236 would play to 500 without issue.
Further, I have them installed in different systems. The "2236" is in 8 to 9 cu ft boxes with a 6" midbass (not sure of the crossover point). The Lambda TD15x are in 6.5 cu ft boxes crossed over to Horns at 500 Hz.
With all that said, I really like the sound of both of them. However, the "2236" sounds like it has more snap and not as dark. How would it compare to a TD15m? I don't know, but I'd absolutely think the "2236" would go lower.
I agree completely with Dave that the Lambda would play higher with success, better than any JBL 15" I know of, but I am not using them that way. If I did and that was important, Lambda would be a clear winner.
Therefore, if anyone can follow this convoluted logic, for either of my applications I would take the "2236" over the TD-15M or TD-15X. My reasoning is simple. It has more snap than TD15x and goes low enough to be a true woofer and it goes easily lower than TD-15M. Don't misunderstand, the Lambda woofers are fantastic for $600/pair new. Simply fantastic. But, I think if you found a set of dead JBL 2226 frames cheap enough and had Gordon work his magic, you'd be money ahead with the "2236".
I have not compared them in the same box and system. Perhaps, I shouldn't make any judgment until I did, but these are my considerable impressions thus far.
The GordonW "2236" Rocks.
My deepest apologies to Sir.Byrd (and others) for the thread hijack. It was not intentional.
Last edited: