Lithoc,
Not sure a 8" woofer is going to reproduce decent treble. I'm looking for 6.5" and below, and want to build a smaller speaker with a sub.
Another interesting alternative is the Jordan JX53, which has better highs than the JX92 but obviously does not go down as low. The JX53 is being replaced with a new model that has a resonance frequency of 80Hz, so it may also be a candidate to be used with my sub (peerless 8" XLS with linkwitz transform).
I did a quick WinISD on the old JX53 using my tang band W3-871S in a 4L cabinet and the JX53 does slightly better on the bass. However with the preliminary specs on the new JX53 with lower Fo I thought it would go lower but the Q of the new driver is considerably smaller so it wont go down as low as the old driver.
Regards,
Dean
Not sure a 8" woofer is going to reproduce decent treble. I'm looking for 6.5" and below, and want to build a smaller speaker with a sub.
Another interesting alternative is the Jordan JX53, which has better highs than the JX92 but obviously does not go down as low. The JX53 is being replaced with a new model that has a resonance frequency of 80Hz, so it may also be a candidate to be used with my sub (peerless 8" XLS with linkwitz transform).
I did a quick WinISD on the old JX53 using my tang band W3-871S in a 4L cabinet and the JX53 does slightly better on the bass. However with the preliminary specs on the new JX53 with lower Fo I thought it would go lower but the Q of the new driver is considerably smaller so it wont go down as low as the old driver.
Regards,
Dean
More research on the Jordan JX53
Further investigation for the JX53 driver shows that it may be suited to my setup, as I have an active 100Hz high pass filter that will remove the bass energy from a smaller driver, allowing it to reproduce the treble with less distortion due to bass modulation.
The Jordan web site recommends this driver using a 200Hz high pass filter, however with a subwoofer anything greater than a 100Hz becomes directional. I'm hoping the new JX53 driver will go lower than the current version then it would be an ideal replacement for my tang bands.
Regards,
Dean
Further investigation for the JX53 driver shows that it may be suited to my setup, as I have an active 100Hz high pass filter that will remove the bass energy from a smaller driver, allowing it to reproduce the treble with less distortion due to bass modulation.
The Jordan web site recommends this driver using a 200Hz high pass filter, however with a subwoofer anything greater than a 100Hz becomes directional. I'm hoping the new JX53 driver will go lower than the current version then it would be an ideal replacement for my tang bands.
Regards,
Dean
Hi,
As I see you want to use those speakers in bigger room for rock music... In this case JX53 won't work well with only sub... I want to second the B200 recommendation. I've read about direct comparison between B200 and JX92 (on decware forum-you can ask barfind) and B200 is said to be overal better (better bass, dinamics, much higher efficiency, also better top end!!! )
Martin
As I see you want to use those speakers in bigger room for rock music... In this case JX53 won't work well with only sub... I want to second the B200 recommendation. I've read about direct comparison between B200 and JX92 (on decware forum-you can ask barfind) and B200 is said to be overal better (better bass, dinamics, much higher efficiency, also better top end!!! )
Martin
Re: More research on the Jordan JX53
The replacement for the JX53 will operate to 110Hz in a 4 litre enclosure, 150Hz in a 1 litre sealed box. From a brief listen to an early version last year, it sounded very punchy, much more substantial in the 100-200Hz area than the JX53. Ted says there will be full spec on his website when the units are in the hands of distributors, in the next week or so.
deandob said:
The replacement for the JX53 will operate to 110Hz in a 4 litre enclosure, 150Hz in a 1 litre sealed box. From a brief listen to an early version last year, it sounded very punchy, much more substantial in the 100-200Hz area than the JX53. Ted says there will be full spec on his website when the units are in the hands of distributors, in the next week or so.
sumacSK said:
I kind of question whether that comparison was due to nonoptimized implementation of the JX92 or the definition of "live" is quite different that "live performance". Lots of people like speakers with certain longer decay and resonant characteristics. But then, optimization of full range drivers are kind of tricky directly pluging them into boxes normally do not yeild optimum results.
sumacSK said:
I currently have a setup with the JX53 and JX125 crossed at around 450Hz. The bass is very good for all bass except the 1812 cannons. Low organ music really let you "feel" the low end. Rock music I cannot really comment because most recordings and live performances rely on electronic equipment, and they really differ from band to band.
Don't forget Bandor as an alternative to the Jordans, I love my 50mm modules.
The Hartley 220 MSG 25cm 20-22k, almost got a pair on ebay Aust with 24" and tweeter, but I was to cheap to go over AU$1,000.
The Visatons are available in Aust from sound labs group
regards
James
The Hartley 220 MSG 25cm 20-22k, almost got a pair on ebay Aust with 24" and tweeter, but I was to cheap to go over AU$1,000.
The Visatons are available in Aust from sound labs group
regards
James
Attachments
Re: More research on the Jordan JX53
Reading information from this site will give you a good idea what to look for regarding bass reproduction. The spreadsheat under "4 - Excursion-limited SPL Nomographs" is very usefull.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/publications.htm
deandob said:
Reading information from this site will give you a good idea what to look for regarding bass reproduction. The spreadsheat under "4 - Excursion-limited SPL Nomographs" is very usefull.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/publications.htm
Take Xmax with a pich of salt. Cone area, as mentioned, is a major factor, as is the enclosure type. A DX55 will stuggle to shift much air in some enclosures certainly, but stuffed into, say, a pair of MONSTER horns like the J-Lo or something of the ilk, cone excursion becomes less of an issue.
Subs directional from 100Hz up? Personally, I'd think that's very optimistic. 70Hz is about the limit of omni-directional frequencies. That's why Linn Kans (which really struggled below 100Hz) always sounded lousy with a single sub, but, when properly integrated, worked very well with a stereo pair of subs.
Subs directional from 100Hz up? Personally, I'd think that's very optimistic. 70Hz is about the limit of omni-directional frequencies. That's why Linn Kans (which really struggled below 100Hz) always sounded lousy with a single sub, but, when properly integrated, worked very well with a stereo pair of subs.
8 hours sleep overnight and I come back to a page full of replies - especially when a few of the posters are in my time zone!
The new Jordan JX53 do sound interesting, although my ISD model of the preliminary specs dont show it doing as well down low compared to the old model (probably a mistake in the data). The old model has a reputation of burning out if overdriven, so hopefully the new model will be better in this regard, and using an active highpass filter will help.
The B200 is a little too big for my needs, but if a 8" paper speaker can do a good job reproducing the treble it is indeed a marvel.
Regarding subs, as I'm listening near field, if I cross over around 100Hz and have the bass unit very close nearby I dont have a problem with any slight directonality in the bass. Also with near field I dont need such high SPLs.
Bandor dont get the same rave reviews as the Jordans and it seems the Jordans have had ongoing development/tweaking.
The Hartley sure is a monster, but can't find any data about them.
Regards,
Dean
The new Jordan JX53 do sound interesting, although my ISD model of the preliminary specs dont show it doing as well down low compared to the old model (probably a mistake in the data). The old model has a reputation of burning out if overdriven, so hopefully the new model will be better in this regard, and using an active highpass filter will help.
The B200 is a little too big for my needs, but if a 8" paper speaker can do a good job reproducing the treble it is indeed a marvel.
Regarding subs, as I'm listening near field, if I cross over around 100Hz and have the bass unit very close nearby I dont have a problem with any slight directonality in the bass. Also with near field I dont need such high SPLs.
Bandor dont get the same rave reviews as the Jordans and it seems the Jordans have had ongoing development/tweaking.
The Hartley sure is a monster, but can't find any data about them.
Regards,
Dean
Interesting thread. It's nice to read about options beyond some of the usual suspects. I have to say that the Veravox looks really intriguing to me. Could be the next on my list.
With regards to the JX53, the current version. I read that it's not recommended to cross it much below 500hz. While it seems you could get away with it, I guess it doesn't have much body at in the upper bass / lower mids area.
Just thought I'd share. I'll be curious to hear what everyone thinks of the new JX53. Good luck with your search.
With regards to the JX53, the current version. I read that it's not recommended to cross it much below 500hz. While it seems you could get away with it, I guess it doesn't have much body at in the upper bass / lower mids area.
Just thought I'd share. I'll be curious to hear what everyone thinks of the new JX53. Good luck with your search.
I think the JX92S would be an excellent choice, but I always feel that if you are willing to part with much dosh, you ought to actually listen to a pair before buying.
The new JX6 allegedly has an octave-lower resonance than the JX53 and could theoretically reach 100Hz, so don't rule it out either.
The new JX6 allegedly has an octave-lower resonance than the JX53 and could theoretically reach 100Hz, so don't rule it out either.
lithoc,
Yes, a <4" driver with a 8" or larger sub at 100Hz looks to be the best setup for near field. The new Jordan JX6 would be worth hanging out for, especially if it does go lower by an octave (even if my preliminary WinISD model says it wont).
I currently use a 2.1 active highpass filter for a set of TangBand monitors with a lowpass Linkwitz transform for a small sub and get excellent results. Using this approach with the new Jordan should raise the performance bar even higher.
Dumbass, agreed, it would be good to listen before parting with the cash. I'm looking forward to initial reports.
One1speed, if you can dig up more info on the veravox or listening impressions, please post.
Regards,
Dean
Yes, a <4" driver with a 8" or larger sub at 100Hz looks to be the best setup for near field. The new Jordan JX6 would be worth hanging out for, especially if it does go lower by an octave (even if my preliminary WinISD model says it wont).
I currently use a 2.1 active highpass filter for a set of TangBand monitors with a lowpass Linkwitz transform for a small sub and get excellent results. Using this approach with the new Jordan should raise the performance bar even higher.
Dumbass, agreed, it would be good to listen before parting with the cash. I'm looking forward to initial reports.
One1speed, if you can dig up more info on the veravox or listening impressions, please post.
Regards,
Dean
Bandors don't get the same rave reviews? True. Doesn't make them bad drivers though. They all come from the same person as I understand it. You see, the good lady who owns Bandor is, I believe, Ted Jordan's ex-wife, and the Bandor drivers are I suspect based upon some of his earlier designs which went with the divorce settlement. I hasten to add that I don't know that for certain, and anyone who knows better do correct me if I'm wrong.
As for larger cones performing better than smaller in the same air volume -sort of. Again, depends on the circumstances, and how the enclosure has been optimised. Assuming properly engineered and optimised enclosures (and drivers), I agree that the larger driver will tend to have more punch in the bass than a smaller one as it can shift more air. I think the DX55 etc strike a pretty good compromise.
Big horns relying on some resonance? Probably, I'm no expert on horns, so I'll leave better qualified people to comment on that and stick to my TL variations for the moment. That said, 99% of BLHs are actually QW loaded, not horn loaded at bass freqencies, and the smaller you go, the greater and higher up the QW loading tends to be. The Buschorn is a classic example -if you look at the measured response and frequency curves, it screams quarter wave loading -there's hardly the slightest hint of horn loading at all. I would tend to classify that as more of a resonance issue than that seen in larger enclosures, like the J-Lo for example. Then again, I'm just conjecturing here.
8" drivers can indeed do decent high treble -but it'll cost you. Lowther DX4 for example, or higher. The cheaper 8" units like the Fostex range and the cheaper Lowthers make a very good fist of it indeed, but if you're after treble quality as good as a high-end tweeter, you have to pay a whole lot more, or downsize to a slightly smaller driver like the DX55, a Fostex 6 1/2" unit etc.
Best
Scott
As for larger cones performing better than smaller in the same air volume -sort of. Again, depends on the circumstances, and how the enclosure has been optimised. Assuming properly engineered and optimised enclosures (and drivers), I agree that the larger driver will tend to have more punch in the bass than a smaller one as it can shift more air. I think the DX55 etc strike a pretty good compromise.
Big horns relying on some resonance? Probably, I'm no expert on horns, so I'll leave better qualified people to comment on that and stick to my TL variations for the moment. That said, 99% of BLHs are actually QW loaded, not horn loaded at bass freqencies, and the smaller you go, the greater and higher up the QW loading tends to be. The Buschorn is a classic example -if you look at the measured response and frequency curves, it screams quarter wave loading -there's hardly the slightest hint of horn loading at all. I would tend to classify that as more of a resonance issue than that seen in larger enclosures, like the J-Lo for example. Then again, I'm just conjecturing here.
8" drivers can indeed do decent high treble -but it'll cost you. Lowther DX4 for example, or higher. The cheaper 8" units like the Fostex range and the cheaper Lowthers make a very good fist of it indeed, but if you're after treble quality as good as a high-end tweeter, you have to pay a whole lot more, or downsize to a slightly smaller driver like the DX55, a Fostex 6 1/2" unit etc.
Best
Scott
deandob said:
Don't rely on the simulations, particularly with some of Ted's drivers which can be a law unto themselves as the suspension is unusual. Ted himself uses computer sims so far then goes for the box and listen approach (I think he has something to say about it on his website). Although the JXR6 cone area hasn't significantly increased (as far as I know) from the specs I've seen, the xmax has increased considerably. (I've seen a pair 'breathing' at less than 10Hz).
Ref the Bandors, when I last heard several Bandor systems in the late 90s at a trade show, I thought the Jordans had the edge and they've probably been subject to more continuous development since. The JX53 got up to mk3 and the 6 is supposed to be a significantly better driver.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.