Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chuck Simon]

Not actually new math, but long term ratings. The neo drivers don't dissipate heat as well as the newer designed ceramic drivers. Although not new JBL's vented gap cooling is responsible for a huge (3db) increase in power through loss to power compression, that nasty loss of power seen as drivers heat. The neo motor assemblies realize similar gains in performance, however, the neo motors won't take as much long term power as the ceramic drivers, hence the adjusted power rating.

In the past I've spoken about my 551P-TAC modified Bag End subs. Those subs, still in use today, run side by side with JBL SRX718s. There is no difference in performance, other than the 551P-TAC subs, equipped with 2242 drivers, are capable of reproducing lower frequency tones than the 718 using 2268 drivers. I paid almost $1100 each for the 2242 drivers new, and to this day feel they are one of the best investments I have ever made concerning pro sound.
 
Here is an older link explaining vented gap cooling;
 
http://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/tn_v1n18.pdf

That's all interesting, but JBL list specs for the 2206 and 2226 and they rate both at 600 watts,  and that's how they were rated in the SR series.  Now all of a sudden they are 800 watts when in the STX series.  Looks fishy to me.

https://www.jblpro.com/pub/components/2206.pdf

By the way, I am not questioning the quality or reliability of the product.  I have been using JBL almost exclusively for over 30 years.

[Mac Kerr]

That's all interesting, but JBL list specs for the 2206 and 2226 and they rate both at 600 watts,  and that's how they were rated in the SR series.  Now all of a sudden they are 800 watts when in the STX series.  Looks fishy to me.

https://www.jblpro.com/pub/components/2206.pdf

That is a whopping 1.25dB difference in power handling. With careful listening in a controlled environment you would probably hear that, but maybe not. It is hardly worth getting your panties in an uproar over. The difference could be due to different materials, or different loading by the cabinet, or even different testing sessions. In any case it is an insignificant difference and not worth blowing up into a bigger issue.

Mac

[Bob Leonard]

Wise words from a wise old sound man. Thanks Mac.

Sometimes I have to wonder how anything sound was ever accomplished without the lighter cabinets and neo motors. Reminds of the days of wooden ships and iron men. Especially in a world where many people place size and weight above tonal quality and sonic performance.

[Jamin Lynch]

That is a whopping 1.25dB difference in power handling. With careful listening in a controlled environment you would probably hear that, but maybe not. It is hardly worth getting your panties in an uproar over. The difference could be due to different materials, or different loading by the cabinet, or even different testing sessions. In any case it is an insignificant difference and not worth blowing up into a bigger issue.

Mac

Panties owners all over the world are thanking you right now.

[Tim McCulloch]

Panties owners all over the world are thanking you right now.

What about the Jackyl "edible" panties?

[Chuck Simon]

Really, my panties are just fine.  I just find this new, creative marketing interesting - wasn't trying to cause any uproar.

[Tim McCulloch]

Really, my panties are just fine.  I just find this new, creative marketing interesting - wasn't trying to cause any uproar.

It's not "creative marketing" IF the numbers came from actual testing and use.  If some guy who does mostly Photoshop came up with them, that's another matter.

JBL extensively tests their transducers, both during design and random production samples.  The room this is done in is pretty impressive - it's not really big, but there are lots of drivers being driven Full Tilt Boogie until they die, or survive intact.  Being in that room during tests requires multiple layers of hearing protection and you'll still feel the pink noise in your bones.

The long term power handling of individual transducers is a JBL number that IS believable...

[Ivan Beaver]

That's all interesting, but JBL list specs for the 2206 and 2226 and they rate both at 600 watts,  and that's how they were rated in the SR series.  Now all of a sudden they are 800 watts when in the STX series.  Looks fishy to me.

https://www.jblpro.com/pub/components/2206.pdf

By the way, I am not questioning the quality or reliability of the product.  I have been using JBL almost exclusively for over 30 years.

It could be as simple as a different way of measuring the same product.

The nice thing about "standards" is that there are so many to choose from.

Power handling is something that is very misunderstood.

Because music is dynamic, there is no easy way to put a single number on it.  Loudspeakers and the signals going to them are not like light bulbs or a sinewave input.

And of course once you start looking at "what is a watt" in regards to the rated impedance vs the actual impedance of a loudspeaker, it gets a lot more complicated.

Maybe all they did was figure the actual impedance of the loudspeaker and the voltage applied and then back calculated it actual "average power" to the rated impedance of the amp to deliver that voltage

That could easily account for the difference.

And consider a "typical" power rating.  Let's say 500 watts continuous-1000 watts program (music) and 2000 watts peak.

Many people consider this to mean "and" between the different numbers, but in reality is it OR.  Such as 500 watts continuous OR 2000 watts peak.

There is a huge difference there.  Consider either one a "not to exceed" rating.

The only time you get "both" is when you use noise as a source-most music has a much higher dynamic range (crest factor)

So if you are running around 2000 watts peak, with normal program material with a "15dB" crest factor, then that means the "continuous" level would be around 60 watts.

With a highly compressed 10dB crest factor signal-the average or continuous would be 200 watts.  In either case nowhere near the level that people "think" they are running.

So if you run that same 15dB signal up to the 1000 watt continuous level-then the peaks would be around 32,000 watts.  YES the peaks would "try" to be that high-if you had an amp that could produce them.

But the signals that loudspeakers are rated at use a typical 6dB crest factor-to the peaks are 6dB higher than the continuous.

So trying to figure out a "simple number" in terms of power is not as easy as some people would like to think.

And different people running different types of signals will have failures at different points.

The "test signals" try to simulate what the "designers" think "music" is like.  But there are all different kinds of music that have all different freq/time curves.

And often live music will have a very different response than recorded music.

So it is very important for the users of loudspeakers to get a handle on what THEIR speakers can do.

As usual-a simple single answer is very often WRONG.

[Ivan Beaver]

It's not "creative marketing" IF the numbers came from actual testing and use.  If some guy who does mostly Photoshop came up with them, that's another matter.

JBL extensively tests their transducers, both during design and random production samples.  The room this is done in is pretty impressive - it's not really big, but there are lots of drivers being driven Full Tilt Boogie until they die, or survive intact.  Being in that room during tests requires multiple layers of hearing protection and you'll still feel the pink noise in your bones.

The long term power handling of individual transducers is a JBL number that IS believable...

I've been in that room-it is impressive.

I kinda wanted to take the hearing protection off-JUST TO HEAR what it sounded like-----But I didn't

[Ivan Beaver]

What about the Jackyl "edible" panties?

Would they come "already chainsaw shredded" for easier chewing???

[ProSoundWeb Community]