well, thats a slightly ambiguous statement. I always felt he gave impartial advice regardless.
To be fair, there are vendors on the full range forum who sometimes promote their products over others so..
Wow, why all the hate? He gives free information. Take it or leave it. If you don't trust it, take your own measurements. And feel free to host a website with all your free information so I can read about it 
Many of the drivers he tests perform better than the ones he sells, and he doesn't pull any punches or try to cover that over. Sure, he doesn't like full range. He thinks there are better ways to get hifi. And you probably don't like multi-way, so...
Many of the drivers he tests perform better than the ones he sells, and he doesn't pull any punches or try to cover that over. Sure, he doesn't like full range. He thinks there are better ways to get hifi. And you probably don't like multi-way, so...
I mean that he has provided a review of the driver and his review calls it the BEST of what HE has tested. There are likely many more better.
If you don't care about what he has to say fine, don't knock others who use his info. If you want to rely on the manufacturer's data... GO AHEAD hahahaha
Personally, I'll use the third party info to make a more informed decision. That doesn't mean I'll go buy the Jordan because it tests the best in his pack. It's just another tool to confirm (or refute) manufacture's specs. I'll also check other sites, peoples comments on this forum and other, etc.
If you don't care about what he has to say fine, don't knock others who use his info. If you want to rely on the manufacturer's data... GO AHEAD hahahaha
Personally, I'll use the third party info to make a more informed decision. That doesn't mean I'll go buy the Jordan because it tests the best in his pack. It's just another tool to confirm (or refute) manufacture's specs. I'll also check other sites, peoples comments on this forum and other, etc.
From the data that is presented, it looks like the base model is unchanged, and the HD versions just have bigger motors without any of the inherent problems fixed. I hope i'm wrong.
I would like to see them priced more in accordance to what they cost to make.
dave
It would appear based on the published data that's what the new units are, I'll wait until I see some more information or have a pair through here before drawing any conclusions though.
As a brief aside, I presume the hate comment was not aimed at me, given that I've clearly stated John's site is a very valuable resource, and had I the space & funds, I would most likely to be found running multiple HE woofers with compression mid-HF units. Or possibly an array of some form.
As a brief aside, I presume the hate comment was not aimed at me, given that I've clearly stated John's site is a very valuable resource, and had I the space & funds, I would most likely to be found running multiple HE woofers with compression mid-HF units.
Or possibly an array of some form.
Last edited:
Can you elaborate on his predjudices? I think his site is very informative and I have not picked up any particular bias. Please elaborate to help me better understand driver testing & simulation.
As Scott noted above, there's a lotta good stuff on John's site. He's definitely a proponent of vigorous measurement and classical engineering. Many of us here certainly don't have the time / inclination / resources to make and publish all the measures he posts.
A lot of folks use similar similar building techniques he describes are , and AFAIC, all points of view are valid, but one area on which some might differ would certainly be:
Zaph|Audio
To say anything further could only conflate the issue.
Last edited:
They won't seem to be biases if they are similar to your own.
Heavy emphasis on THD, Geddes has shown these to be fairly meaningless. Bias in amps (i do too, but in general opposite to his), is into standard cone + domes with all the inherent issues of putting an XO right where it is worst. Seemed to me to knock drivers with big resonance peaks, and then puts his name on one.
Everyone's data/comments have to be filtered thru the presenter's inherent biases (and your own, and keep in mind that those can change)
dave
Heavy emphasis on THD, Geddes has shown these to be fairly meaningless. Bias in amps (i do too, but in general opposite to his), is into standard cone + domes with all the inherent issues of putting an XO right where it is worst. Seemed to me to knock drivers with big resonance peaks, and then puts his name on one.
Everyone's data/comments have to be filtered thru the presenter's inherent biases (and your own, and keep in mind that those can change)
dave
Gotcha, its all about the measurements.
I have a number of Dunlavy speakers in my home theater and living room, so I suppose I subscribe to a similar objective approach as Dunlavy is famous for measurement but ultimately it all comes down to how pleasing the sound is, and the Dunlavy's just sound right to my ears.
Back to the Jordans, and being subjective, I do wonder if the new models will sound any different or better than the old drivers. I suppose we have to wait for the first reviews.
I have a number of Dunlavy speakers in my home theater and living room, so I suppose I subscribe to a similar objective approach as Dunlavy is famous for measurement but ultimately it all comes down to how pleasing the sound is, and the Dunlavy's just sound right to my ears.
Back to the Jordans, and being subjective, I do wonder if the new models will sound any different or better than the old drivers. I suppose we have to wait for the first reviews.
Even the Dunlavy's IIRC had a somewhat idiosyncratic approach, as they placed a lot of emphasis on pulse coherence, which not everyone subscribes to, and compromises other areas. YMMV as ever. There are many different approaches & people pick what suits them best.
Re the Jordans, that's what I'm doing, unless I can get my hands on a pair anytime soon (unlikely).
Re the Jordans, that's what I'm doing, unless I can get my hands on a pair anytime soon (unlikely).
The peaks ARE, and have ever been, when making the measurement straight at 0º on axis, which, as for most FRs the worst listening position for the obvious reason of those peaks, and rising response...
A JX92 on a 18cmX18cm baffle shot in my kitchen from more or less 0º to more or less 60º ( more or less regular steps too...), semi anecoic with about 4ms time window.
I know that those peaks are not on Zaph's curve. I suppose he shot about 10º out of axis which makes thing look, and more usefully, SOUND much more even.
Second shot is a jx92 VTL with passive BSC measured in room with no time window, at 1 and 2.5m, slight off axis too. That's probably the more realistic way of "PAINTING" how it sounds...
A JX92 on a 18cmX18cm baffle shot in my kitchen from more or less 0º to more or less 60º ( more or less regular steps too...), semi anecoic with about 4ms time window.
I know that those peaks are not on Zaph's curve. I suppose he shot about 10º out of axis which makes thing look, and more usefully, SOUND much more even.
Second shot is a jx92 VTL with passive BSC measured in room with no time window, at 1 and 2.5m, slight off axis too. That's probably the more realistic way of "PAINTING" how it sounds...
Attachments
Last edited:
The curve of the upgraded unit is not smoother, and the upgrade does not consist in this. It looks like the upgraded response rises a little more and a little higher, so that more energy is radiated in the top octave, and that what should make of the new JX92 a better driver. Imho...
Btw, a flatter response, what is some would probably expect as an upgrade, would only contribute to make a worse driver, with a more rolled off power response and a duller in room sound. Imho...
Btw, a flatter response, what is some would probably expect as an upgrade, would only contribute to make a worse driver, with a more rolled off power response and a duller in room sound. Imho...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.