Another point of view.
First GM, thank you for your design. I'm really excited to build it. I will be building my own cabinets, but I don't agree with your response. I think its a bit hasty, maybe think about it. Jordan is a small company, and it seems to me, trying to sell speakers, not boxes. To me, its good business sense to encourage DIY, and maybe make a little to keep the company alive, not cheating you from your hard work. No more Jordan, no more J92.
They weren't selling your design as their own, that is stealing intellectual property. Since you gave it away for DIY, what money do you lose? What harm comes to you? In fact, they mention you by name, giving your intellectual property credit. To me this encourages the DIY community, also conveying that this design is quality enough to get manufacturer support.
I think they show your design quite a bit of respect. However, I do believe they should have ask your permission first, which I'm sure you would given. Anyone who does hard work to give free for others enjoyment has a good heart. That I believe is the problem, maybe you feel a lack of respect for your intellectual work, but not stealing it. You are justified. But for them to cheat you, I'm not sure. They did pay for software license and that is honorable.
You gave it away for people to use, and they help people to build your design. They are selling boxes, not your design. OK, so they are boxes for your design. I would prefer this than taking my chances with a local cabinet maker.
From my perspective, I dont really see whats wrong will someone selling boxes for your designs. Many other companies sell parts for crossovers and such. Its like a painting. The paint and canvas and brushes dont make the painting, you do. To me it's still DIY. Your nice design was given full credit.
I can empathize with you as one who's been cheated before myself, but I dont agree with your logic.
And Jordan makes these unique drivers which you use which have high amount of intellectual property themselves and engineering. They (cabinets ) appear quite reasonably priced, so I believe the profit motive is to sell more Jordan drivers, not cheat you out of your designs. Many diy'ers hire guys to build their cabinets, or make group buys of hardware. Some people don't have workshops or table saws or even the skills to build a nice cabinet. I hope this doesn't enrage you to keep your designs secret, which would go against open designs, which you seem to stand for.
Not trying to flame war with anyone, just my perhaps voice of reason and 2 cents.
First GM, thank you for your design. I'm really excited to build it. I will be building my own cabinets, but I don't agree with your response. I think its a bit hasty, maybe think about it. Jordan is a small company, and it seems to me, trying to sell speakers, not boxes. To me, its good business sense to encourage DIY, and maybe make a little to keep the company alive, not cheating you from your hard work. No more Jordan, no more J92.
They weren't selling your design as their own, that is stealing intellectual property. Since you gave it away for DIY, what money do you lose? What harm comes to you? In fact, they mention you by name, giving your intellectual property credit. To me this encourages the DIY community, also conveying that this design is quality enough to get manufacturer support.
I think they show your design quite a bit of respect. However, I do believe they should have ask your permission first, which I'm sure you would given. Anyone who does hard work to give free for others enjoyment has a good heart. That I believe is the problem, maybe you feel a lack of respect for your intellectual work, but not stealing it. You are justified. But for them to cheat you, I'm not sure. They did pay for software license and that is honorable.
You gave it away for people to use, and they help people to build your design. They are selling boxes, not your design. OK, so they are boxes for your design. I would prefer this than taking my chances with a local cabinet maker.
From my perspective, I dont really see whats wrong will someone selling boxes for your designs. Many other companies sell parts for crossovers and such. Its like a painting. The paint and canvas and brushes dont make the painting, you do. To me it's still DIY. Your nice design was given full credit.
I can empathize with you as one who's been cheated before myself, but I dont agree with your logic.
And Jordan makes these unique drivers which you use which have high amount of intellectual property themselves and engineering. They (cabinets ) appear quite reasonably priced, so I believe the profit motive is to sell more Jordan drivers, not cheat you out of your designs. Many diy'ers hire guys to build their cabinets, or make group buys of hardware. Some people don't have workshops or table saws or even the skills to build a nice cabinet. I hope this doesn't enrage you to keep your designs secret, which would go against open designs, which you seem to stand for.
Not trying to flame war with anyone, just my perhaps voice of reason and 2 cents.
Here comes another 2 cents. If Jordan wants to sell a kit of GM's box design, they should have worked out an arrangement with him before hand. He has every right to be pissed, I sure would be. If Jordan offered to pay him a commission on every box kit sold. That would be right, moral and expected. I would approach them and ask for $20 per kit sold. It might not add up to a whole lot, but it would at least relieve the feeling of being ripped off.
And another two cents! A design like GM's which is "open source" is _not_ public domain. It is a creative work that is protected by copyright (and there is no need to apply for copyright although it has benefits, see http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/).
Adding a Creative Commons license can help clarify / enforce the limits, e.g. commercial use prohibited: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ
IANAL but when someone is infringing on your IP, you tell them via a cease and desist letter, and if they refuse, you take it from there. In my experience, they are probably just ignorant of the fact that they are doing something wrong.
Adding a Creative Commons license can help clarify / enforce the limits, e.g. commercial use prohibited: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ
IANAL but when someone is infringing on your IP, you tell them via a cease and desist letter, and if they refuse, you take it from there. In my experience, they are probably just ignorant of the fact that they are doing something wrong.
The Taste of Humble Pie
A few posts ago I answer a question about the capability of the JX125 NG without much thought. The question and my reply:
3. "With all the chatter about your neat little design, I went to the EJ Jordan website, and found that they have a bargain price on the JX-125 NG, and suggest its use in your design will yield a benign improvement in bass down to 20Hz!, no small feat. I wondered what your thoughts were on this, as I read how carefully and thought out your compromises were. I would be interested if you can forsee any drawbacks, or if anyone has already built one of these versions. It sure would be nice to have more bass and save nearly $200 on the components. See the link here:
http://www.jordan-usa.com/specials.html"
Well, the enclosure was developed for the Jordan JX92S driver and simulated with Martin King's excellent worksheet. I doubt that the JX125 driver would yield the same or better results without changes to the box. You can re-run Martin's MLTL worksheet if you wish but I doubt that you will get 20 Hz bass out of the JX125 in any enclosure.
---------------------------------
I am eating humble pie on that last statement because Mark Dikovics of Jordan-USA contacted me and sent me a copy of Martin King's worksheet. He inserts the JX125 in place of the JX92S and makes a couple of other box changes (goes to a larger port tube diameter (3 inches) by 1.75 inches long plus lowers the amount of stuffing by about half). Viola! you achieve 20 Hz about 3-4 dB down output with that change.
I'm impressed with what he was able to do. As we know with a MLTL on the low end, the 20 Hz at just over 80 dB SPL output comes at not much over 1 watt power. None the less for music these results are likely to be scary good if you add some room gain. It will be like magic for that tiny driver.
Now the JX125 isn't full range like the JX92S so this will not be a full band answer but if you add a crossover and appropriate tweeter, then you have a giant killer solution. Thanks to Mark for his reply.
Jim
A few posts ago I answer a question about the capability of the JX125 NG without much thought. The question and my reply:
3. "With all the chatter about your neat little design, I went to the EJ Jordan website, and found that they have a bargain price on the JX-125 NG, and suggest its use in your design will yield a benign improvement in bass down to 20Hz!, no small feat. I wondered what your thoughts were on this, as I read how carefully and thought out your compromises were. I would be interested if you can forsee any drawbacks, or if anyone has already built one of these versions. It sure would be nice to have more bass and save nearly $200 on the components. See the link here:
http://www.jordan-usa.com/specials.html"
Well, the enclosure was developed for the Jordan JX92S driver and simulated with Martin King's excellent worksheet. I doubt that the JX125 driver would yield the same or better results without changes to the box. You can re-run Martin's MLTL worksheet if you wish but I doubt that you will get 20 Hz bass out of the JX125 in any enclosure.
---------------------------------
I am eating humble pie on that last statement because Mark Dikovics of Jordan-USA contacted me and sent me a copy of Martin King's worksheet. He inserts the JX125 in place of the JX92S and makes a couple of other box changes (goes to a larger port tube diameter (3 inches) by 1.75 inches long plus lowers the amount of stuffing by about half). Viola! you achieve 20 Hz about 3-4 dB down output with that change.
I'm impressed with what he was able to do. As we know with a MLTL on the low end, the 20 Hz at just over 80 dB SPL output comes at not much over 1 watt power. None the less for music these results are likely to be scary good if you add some room gain. It will be like magic for that tiny driver.
Now the JX125 isn't full range like the JX92S so this will not be a full band answer but if you add a crossover and appropriate tweeter, then you have a giant killer solution. Thanks to Mark for his reply.
Jim
I’ve used my JX92S drivers in Jim’s minimonitor, GM’s 48” MLTL and added a ribbon using Jim’s xover. I built the MLTL with pentagonal cabinets which look good and have a clean sound due to lack of parallel sides. All have sounded great, but I sometimes long for a bit more air to be moving, - a little more weight on orchestral music.
After reading the JordanUSA site, I thought about the JX125s to replace my JX92s, but then remembered Jim’s bipole design for the FR125S plus WR125S., and I saw the other bipole designs by Planet 10 and others. I wondered if it it might be possible to integrate the JX125 into the JX92 MLTL. Because of the pentagonal shape it would be possible to have the125 firing into a corner (or even upwards.)
Is this a non-starter because of the differences beween the drivers?
Can I simply double the CSA of the MLTL since both drivers use the same CSA in the MJK worksheets on the JordanUSA site?
How much leeway do I have in the height in the MLTL at which I fit the JX125 given the height of the JX92 and the ribbon cannot be altered?
I am keen to keep the pentagonal shape and rebuild the cabinets since they sound and look nice, have a reasonable WAF, can be increased in CSA without looking too enormous and, lastly, I know what mistakes I made first time out and this time can get it all done to a better standard in half the time.
(GM I quite understand that you may not want to answer this at all)
After reading the JordanUSA site, I thought about the JX125s to replace my JX92s, but then remembered Jim’s bipole design for the FR125S plus WR125S., and I saw the other bipole designs by Planet 10 and others. I wondered if it it might be possible to integrate the JX125 into the JX92 MLTL. Because of the pentagonal shape it would be possible to have the125 firing into a corner (or even upwards.)
Is this a non-starter because of the differences beween the drivers?
Can I simply double the CSA of the MLTL since both drivers use the same CSA in the MJK worksheets on the JordanUSA site?
How much leeway do I have in the height in the MLTL at which I fit the JX125 given the height of the JX92 and the ribbon cannot be altered?
I am keen to keep the pentagonal shape and rebuild the cabinets since they sound and look nice, have a reasonable WAF, can be increased in CSA without looking too enormous and, lastly, I know what mistakes I made first time out and this time can get it all done to a better standard in half the time.
(GM I quite understand that you may not want to answer this at all)
Nardis,
The marriage of a JX92S and the JX125 in a single volume bipolar likely isn't what I would do. Of course you need to double the cross sectional area but the ports are different between the two drivers. If you wish to do this, what I would do is to have JX92S on the front baffle and the JX125 on the rear but have a siamese panel that would separate the two volumes so that you could have separate ports for each partition of the enclosure.
I did a similar partitioning for my offset bipolar speaker that uses the CSS EL70 and it worked out quite well. There is a separate thread on this design which dates back to this summer. You add the separating panel but otherwise there is a single box with both drivers. The offset bipolar speaker was essentially two MLTLs with one turned upside down.
Of course the bipolar design handles the baffle step compensation but you would need a crossover if you use a tweeter. One way to go is to attenuate (a series inductor would do the job) the JX125 above the baffle step point (you have gotten bass and baffle step comp capability so it is not needed beyond that frequency point). You can offset the rear driver as you can achieve better coupling to the floor for more in-room bass support. Then the crossover between the JX92S and the tweeter would be straight forward.
Jim
The marriage of a JX92S and the JX125 in a single volume bipolar likely isn't what I would do. Of course you need to double the cross sectional area but the ports are different between the two drivers. If you wish to do this, what I would do is to have JX92S on the front baffle and the JX125 on the rear but have a siamese panel that would separate the two volumes so that you could have separate ports for each partition of the enclosure.
I did a similar partitioning for my offset bipolar speaker that uses the CSS EL70 and it worked out quite well. There is a separate thread on this design which dates back to this summer. You add the separating panel but otherwise there is a single box with both drivers. The offset bipolar speaker was essentially two MLTLs with one turned upside down.
Of course the bipolar design handles the baffle step compensation but you would need a crossover if you use a tweeter. One way to go is to attenuate (a series inductor would do the job) the JX125 above the baffle step point (you have gotten bass and baffle step comp capability so it is not needed beyond that frequency point). You can offset the rear driver as you can achieve better coupling to the floor for more in-room bass support. Then the crossover between the JX92S and the tweeter would be straight forward.
Jim
Last edited:
Jordan USA contacted me several days ago, but for a variety of reasons didn't respond until a few hours ago where I told them that for now I wanted any of their offerings that are even remotely based on any of my designs removed, Jordan or otherwise. IOW, until/if I decide otherwise, the only acceptable marketing of any of my designs and any of its variants by anyone is as plans with full credit given to me same as Jim originally did for his and as done by Colin for Jordan's main site and what they now offer in a pdf format.
Anyway, thanks for the thought and of course your prerogative, but whether it gets resolved to my satisfaction or not, I'm not comfortable with any form of boycotting beyond any of their offerings that can in any way be traced back to any of my designs if they choose to continue to market them for profit or not.
WRT some folks ~accusing me of cheating others ability to buy kits based on my designs and worse, maybe helping Jordan into closing its doors at least here in North America thanks to my current (implied selfish) attitude.......... this is so ridiculous I find it downright insulting. I mean there's qualified cabinet makers in all but the smallest towns and if Jordan USA is banking on making enough profit off my simple designs to grow into a sustainable long term business venture, then even in a good economy I doubt they'd last any longer than the dozens of other failed audio speaker ventures since I got on-line in '96.
GM
The old JX125 was a good driver that went very low in a properly tuned box, but both it and the new NG are not full range drivers. If a crossover below 2Khz or so is possible it could be a winner, but they are not a good match for a ribbon tweeter, except possibly the bigger Raals. Come to think of it a JX125NG/ Raal 70-20 or 140-15 in an MLTL would probably be wonderful...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.