The HF206 is an 'improved' HF204. Both are 2" exit versions of the the HF144 and HF146 respectively. This is FaitalPRO's statement regarding the HF144 vs HF146: "Presented as a new and improved version of an existing model, the HF146 driver is a technologically evolved version of the HF144 model. Compared to it, HF146 has a more linear frequency response and a different tonal balance. This second difference is the reason that both models are still in the catalog. Technical data on the nameplate is the same as that on the HF144: AES power 80W (maximum power 160W), sensitivity 109dB 1W/1m and suggested crossover frequency 0.9kHz (12dB/oct.). The magnet assembly still uses 15 neodymium slugs instead of the classic ring, also the dimensions and weight of the driver are unchanged."
I remember someone mentioning that the hf144 would have slightly lower harmonic distortion than the hf146. I use the HF146 because of the improved amplitude response linearity. I use it down to 650 Hz (acoustic -6dB xover point) on a XT1464 waveguide. I have corrected the response at two places by parametric EQ. But even without correction it sounds more neutral than the old 2344/2426 combo that I also own.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
Thanks for all the info! I found out the Canon was hooked to an older HP Win7 pro 64 laptop with no problems from when it was first released, so hopefully there's been no major changes to the program.
GM
Regarding HF146 and HF146R:
Don't know what the big difference is. On the data sheet the amplitude response of the R is a little more linear between 2 and 10 kHz. But the other one is better below and above - and it has more x-max.
But how the differences in subjective sonic impression is between those and whether there are other technical differences I don't know.
Regards
Charles
Don't know what the big difference is. On the data sheet the amplitude response of the R is a little more linear between 2 and 10 kHz. But the other one is better below and above - and it has more x-max.
But how the differences in subjective sonic impression is between those and whether there are other technical differences I don't know.
Regards
Charles
Found this BTW which contains an interesting statement by Faital:
Faital Pro HF206 on K510 - Technical/Modifications - The Klipsch Audio Community
Regards
Charles
Faital Pro HF206 on K510 - Technical/Modifications - The Klipsch Audio Community
Regards
Charles
HF146:
HF146R:
It looks like your 146 has slightly more output down low, so I am not sure if there's anything to gain with the 146R for domestic use.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
HF146R:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It looks like your 146 has slightly more output down low, so I am not sure if there's anything to gain with the 146R for domestic use.
This quote:
--------
The HF204 and HF206 are exactly the 2" versions of the HF144 and HF146 respectively.
The difference is in the air gap's geometry and treatment. Basically we reduced the volume of the air gap (so under the diaphragm) and added absorbent material. The end result is visible in the response curve in the mid-high freqs. It has a flatter (less rising) response above 1.5 kHz.
While for the difference between the Titanium 3" VC and the Ketone Polymer 2.5" please know that the differences go beyond just the material because they are indeed two mechanically different compression drivers.
The HF200 has a bigger VC hence a bigger volume under the Diaphragm in the air gap. The phase plug is a 3 slot phase plug and the titanium diaphragm is one piece with the surround so it may result in a slightly more nervous higher frequency but also more efficient because of its higher reactivity than polymers.
On the other hand the HF204/206 have a 2.5" VC with a whole ketone polymer diaphragm and a 4 slot phase plug. This all together gives these compression drivers a smoother and more linear response throughout and up to the very high frequencies. In the higher fequencies the "sound" may result smoother than the titanium. One final word on Ketone Polymer, it is a very peculiar material because it is a polymer which is loaded with mineral while being sheeted. This allows it to retain the polymer's elasticity but it also gives it a higher rigidity and capability to withstand heat better than other polymers used in these applications. Therefore we consider it to be the best compromise between commonly used polymers lime Mylar and metals like aluminum and titanium.
----------
This is an interesting little thread about the 2380A (clones).
Thanks Mitch for your contributions, very enlightening as usual! Do you still have the plots somewhere? Perhaps you could upload those directly as attachments to a post, because the originals are hardly visible thanks to #$%@!*& Photobucket.
While I hold djk's experience and opinions in high regard, I am not convinced his statement on "air overload" is true. This myth has been debunked before. The "overload" inside any of the modern coaxials would be many times higher compared to a diffraction slot.
(ex-JBL) SpeakerDave's reply makes sense. And even if djk's notions were true at higher SPLs, who would listen to those horns in the nearfield> 120dB ??
Every horn or waveguide is a compromise of sorts. I am convinced the eventual perceived sound quality primarily comes down to implementation.
Last edited:
Hey Ro808, np, attached. The two threads that match the plots are:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/268577-jbl2380a-myth-busting-3.html#post4308133
and
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/268577-jbl2380a-myth-busting-3.html#post4308762
I would not put too much emphasis on the distortion measurements as the measurement mics distortion is unknown as is the Pass Class A ACA amp. I don't have that system anymore, so can't take any further measurements.
Attachments
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
I've heard the overloading on jbl horns, but it was in a movie theater.
Even home up to 115 db, it may not be audible.
Maybe it is a runaway resonance due to the difraction slot.
I remember him saying friend had a difraction horn eq'd in, byt the eq was then off at different db levels.
Even home up to 115 db, it may not be audible.
Maybe it is a runaway resonance due to the difraction slot.
I remember him saying friend had a difraction horn eq'd in, byt the eq was then off at different db levels.
Last edited:
The most interesting horn, to me, from the JBL collection, being discussed of recent; Jbl 2386
JBL 2386 Horns | eBay
JBL 2386 Horns | eBay
I have a question....there were some comments made about the potential of the axi2050 based on the PWT measurements....can someone please help educate me on how those determinations are made? I'm looking at the PWT measurements of the 2451 and wondering what is possible. Since I own the driver and a horn youd think I'd take some measurements....I haven't had the time to make a spacer to account for the odd ball mounting hole spacing of the 2451.
My guess is that Plane-Wave Terminated Tube measurements represents full loading.
My guess is that Plane-Wave Terminated Tube measurements represents full loading.
Last edited: