Compared to all the drivers out there,are they respectable at all.Just from my experience over time they sound better when crossed over above 800Hz.But still theres something odd.Am I for the price range of these drivers better off getting something different.I don,t have the money to try many different drivers.Is there a better solution or a way to improve the tonal quality.Regards Tim

Hi, Tim.

This is difficult question, and it is difficult in it’s abstractivnes. I really do not understand, or understand but refuse to acknowledge the validity of the word “respectable”. How valid for YOU would be a “reputation” of this driver if it DOES in your installation what YOU need? However, my experience indicates that if people ask those questions whan there are some issues. Which brings to the contra-question: what is wrong in the “tonal quality” that your get out of 2440 that makes to worry? Am not trying to pick on your but just detect what you would like to accomplish.

Generally, I liked what 2440 does. This driver is atypical JBL driver, probably among better of them, particularly for the money. All those 2440, 2441, 2445 and few others they are essentially the same drivers with very a slightly different gap geometry and few other minor things. (I call them the “poor’s man 375” ),  They all do more of less the same quite reliably-none-faulty sound and for those $250-$300 that they cost today they do very well. The only important thing (and I can’t stress if strong enough) is to use thier original aluminum diaphragms and under no circumstances to put in the contemporary titanium diaphragms. With the titanium diaphragms those driver sound very crappy and very hi-fiish.

One more thing, you said that “they sound better when crossed over above 800Hz.” Any compression driver sound better when you have 1-2 octaves under it’s lower knee and when the driver (and horn!!!) is not overwhelmed with the lover mid range. (It I what most ignorant people love to do: to peruse as low crossover point as possible for their compression drivers driver mid-channels and eliminate the upper bass drivers. This is a big mistake and I consider that upper bass channel is the key for any horn loaded installation)

So, if you suggest that  it “sound better when crossed over above 800Hz” that why do you use the 300Hz horn? I personally find that most 300 Horns are conceptually faulty as they have too large bell for the typical 2”-4”compression driver. If you have a chance then try to load your 2440, crossed at 800Hz into 400-450Hz horn instead of 300Hz. You will have many benefits: a shorter horn,  twice smaller horn, better HF, wider dissipation pattern, less throat reactance (less air mass in the bell), better transient response, way less possibility to get horn’s honk, ability to use “more interesting” low pass filter in your upperbass channel….

What I have seen was that people load their compression drivers into the belly of the oversized horns. As the result they do not ingrate their upperbass channel with the horn-loaded mid-channels but they integrate their upperbass channel with those artificial lower-mid frequency noise coming from the large belly of the oversized horns, that horns that in their case act as the “virtual resonators” and produce more the “large barrel sound” then actual useful sound.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy,
I understand you are saying that a midrange horn rated flat to 300HZ should really be crossed at  600 or 1200 HZ. That claim doesn't make sense to me, esp. with a 24 db or higher crossover (active). Unless you are saying that horn/driver combos that are measured as being flat to, say 300HZ, really are not flat, I don't see the issue.
Perhaps you could explain why, i'd appreciate it.  
ML