JX6r HD cut off ???

[soongsc]

I suspect you are right. The funny thing is that in a HT-AV application like I was planning it may work since there are 5 speakers. however even if one was to limit it is 2 drivers per speaker it becomes 10 drivers at $150 each that is $1500 only on drivers. Expensive right? :-(

In a stereo application since the needs are a bit more stringent Steve's system would still cost $1200 for drivers alone.

Depends on how you categorize speaker pricing. For example if you categorize them into cheap, low, mid, high, top, I would say they are in the mid range.

 

[Colin]

JXR6 pricing for N. America and Asia is on the Mark Audio site.

 

[_henry_]

anyone tried jx92s with jrx?

i've been using jx92s, i think they are good without tweeter, or any x-over.

i wonder if the jx6r can make them sound even better with series x-over with 6 db slope, maybe 2,2 mf cap and 1,5 mH

i think if we are using thiel approach to their speakers, with 3,5" widerange driver(like jx92s) with an extra woofer let say 6.5"-8" alum/mag woofer to match their speed, we will have an excellent speaker won't we?

what do u all think?

 

[Dumbass]

i've been using jx92s, i think they are good without tweeter, or any x-over.

i wonder if the jx6r can make them sound even better with series x-over with 6 db slope, maybe 2,2 mf cap and 1,5 mH

i think if we are using thiel approach to their speakers, with 3,5" widerange driver(like jx92s) with an extra woofer let say 6.5"-8" alum/mag woofer to match their speed, we will have an excellent speaker won't we?

what do u all think?

I've been mulling over the idea of using the JX6R in a sealed three-way system, say down to 500Hz, with a mid-bass down to 80-100Hz, then a subwoofer. I think your idea has merit, although it's certainly not a cheap-o proposition.

 

[soongsc]

For a powerfull 3-way system, I would use the JX92 as the mid and a really large woofer. The high I would use something that goes up to at least 40K.

For a less powerfull system, the JX6r would be the high with a 6.5" or 8: woofer in a two way system.

 

[_henry_]

the idea of pairing the jx2s and jx6r is that, the jx6 can go to 30khz, that can help jx92 less extension, but at the same time it has the same property of the sound that makes them less trouble in finding the right x-over, i think , don't u think?

it's like linear array, but with 2 drivers only, because the jx92 can handle the midbass really well, than the midrange to mid hi, and then the jx6 can handle the rest.

and then maybe the 8"woofer can handle the 20-70hz bass for more complex setup, or and an extra active sub.

the setup:
1. jx6r sealed
2. jx92s sealed or ported
3. maybe a sub or extra woofer

 

[soongsc]

I'm sure Jordan suppliers like the idea. It would work, but too much performance overlap really is a waste. But hey, some people like the idea, why not give it a try?

 

[ScottG]

Comb filtering isn't the only issue with a normal array.. you'll also experience a gain (4+ drivers) in the midrange. IF you have enough drivers the gain will be substantial.

However, comb filtering on a 2 inch driver really isn't an audible problem.

See the effects here:

http://www.partsexpress.com/projectshowcase/Kuze3201/Kuze3201.html

Note that there is about 11 db of gain between 4kHz and the driver's lower limit (due to the massive array here). A 4 driver array will have some increase in the midrange - but no where near this.

The "hashy" high freq. behaviour is the comb filtering. If this was a real concern for someone a 5 driver bessel array could be substituted (at the increased cost of an additional pair of drivers over the 4 driver array).

The Jordan driver (single driver per speaker) could easily be paired with 2 Bandor 150's per side (8 ohms paralleled to 4), where the sealed chamber on the Jordan provides the high pass character. These drivers will not only match the Jordan's tonally but have 2 important things going for them you'll not find elsewhere (..3 really):

1. Like Jordan's drivers, there is minimal breakup (or "ringing"). This of course is MOST *unlike* other metal drivers. Its also HIGHLY advantageous in a minimalist crossover (i.e. just an inductor).
2. These drivers already have baffle step compensation effectivly "built-in". (i.e. no crossover eq.ing needed.)
3. (bounus) - The fs is quite low for such a small driver.

http://www.bandor.com/products_frame.htm

Another alternative design is using the driver as a "filler" driver a'la B&O. (..look at the frd consortiums calculators created by member JohnK) Frankly though I wouldn't recomend it.. in fact the only design I'd really recomend is the Jordan/Bandor as outlined above - with possible a pizeo added - "filled" in above 15kHz to add "air" off-axis.

 

[FlorianO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JX6r HD cut off ???

The flying cone was referring to open baffle implementation.

Well, how about using it on a Visaton NoBox open baffle XOed 2nd order @ 200 Hz to smth like a Silver Iris Augie 15 in woofer or the (more damped) VISATON BGS-40 15 incher ? IOW smth like Dick Olsher did here:
http://www.blackdahlia.com/html/tip_59.html

He even mentions this unit in this OB context...

 

[navin]

A 4 driver array will have some increase in the midrange - but no where near this.

The "hashy" high freq. behaviour is the comb filtering. If this was a real concern for someone a 5 driver bessel array could be substituted (at the increased cost of an additional pair of drivers over the 4 driver array).

The Jordan driver (single driver per speaker) could easily be paired with 2 Bandor 150's per side (8 ohms paralleled to 4),

I built a 4 driver array using 4 3" drivers similar to say the Tangband 871 and found that this broad midrange peak was more disconcerting than the effects of comb filtering.

The only real problem with Bessel arrays is that using traditional 8 ohm drivers one really cant get a decent impedance. One way around this could be an active Bessel array where each driver has it's own chip amp.

Lastly any reason to suggest 2 Bandor 150s per side? Would not one be adequate and it could be used as a tradictional MT or TM configuration. Given that Bandor drivers have a freq curve that compesates for baffle step I dont see why we need 2 (unless 1 wont provide adequate SPLs - in fact if this is the case an active subwoofer below 50-60Hz would be a nicer solution).

 

[Volvo_Victim]

I considered using the JXR6 as mid-range in a multi-way system, but was unable to find any graphs which show it's 30 degree off-axis response.

I have emailed Jordan a few weeks ago requesting more info on the JXR6 off-axis response but haven't received a reply as yet.

The JXR6 is a 3.5-4ohm nominal driver, so parallel arrays are difficult to achieve for an average amplifier which are usually only stable to 3.5 ohms.

The Peerless 830984 (http://www.tymphany.com/830984) is an 8ohm nominal driver more suitable to parallel arrays and appears virtually identical to the Jordan in most respects, incorporating a very similar design for a fraction of the price. The frequency response actually appears more stable and the low end response is almost the same- and it's only US$25 from Madisound if my memory is correct.

The Peerless' square frame is also smaller than the Jordan (69mm compared with 77mm) so combing problems won't be so apparent, as well as allowing more flexible implementation in multi-way systems.

I plan to use the Peerless in a Transient Perfect 2nd order/first order filler-driver D'Appolito configuration (WWmmTmmWW) which should have the same benefits of a liner-array without the vertical combing problems (which are definitely noticeable)

 

[soongsc]

Considering the cone might not be so different from the ealier JX53, I would expect the off axis response to be similar. It seem Ted has probably spent more time working on the motor since the impedance is changed. The smooth top end of the frequency response seems much improved. I would expect a better surround/cone match which will provide even cleaner sound than before. Measurement of the earlier versions indicate that taking away the spider resulted in a very linear suspension characteristic.

So, I doubt the Peerless drivers can come close to the fidelity performance that the Jordans can provide. Based on my collection of Jordan drivers, each generation has significant improvement over the previous.

There is one thing that people using spiderless Jordan drivers should be aware of is that they are very good within it's Xmax range. However, the louder you will be playing them, you don't want to use them at two low frequency. They will play very well up over 20KHz. I can't wonder why one would want a tweeter unless up to 40+KHz is desired.

 

[Volvo_Victim]

The Jordan is indeed a 'pretty' driver, but both the Peerless and Jordan both have 2" cones and single piece aluminum spider-less cone and voice-coils. The Peerless has a Neodymium motor structure and 1 inch VC, quite substantial for a 2" driver. The Jordan's magnet system is not specified, nor is it's VC specifications. Peerless/ScanSpeak are known to have relatively honest and reliable specifications. Their unit-to-unit consistency is also world-renowned. I would think Tymphany/Danish Sound Technology proprietary R&D, quality control and manufacturing tolerances would rival that of any boutique dealer, and at a much better price. The Jordan website shows relatively little detail, especially in their FR graphs, which, although difficult to read, appear to show significant dips and peaks up to 4db regardless.

 

[Volvo_Victim]

It seem Ted has probably spent more time working on the motor since the impedance is changed.

With the risk of appearing cynical, it seems Ted has adjusted the voltage sensitivity to make the JXR6 appear more efficient than the JX53 which it replaces. If anything, this has made the JXR6 less versatile than the JX53 and many other full-range drivers, as a 4 ohm nominal impedance limits parallel applications due to such low impedance.

 

[soongsc]

Here is an SPL comparision brought to comparible scale.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

I think voltage sensitivety makes more sense in home aplications because it will give you a direct perspective how loud it will sound using the same amplifier gain and volume settings. Most amplifiers are voltage source devices.

I could not find what the Xmax of the peerless driver is. Can you find it?

4Ohm drivers are very common I really don't see that as a limitation, just a difference in design topology.

One advantage that the Jordan drivers always had over the majority of similar drivers is a fast decay time. This gave them very accurate sound reproduction. The major issue with that kind of performance is that any other small difficiencies in the system will stand out, and for the average DIYer, it is very difficult to determine what is causing the problem and easily blames on the last thing to change.

 

[Volvo_Victim]

Most amplifiers are voltage source devices.

Indeed, most amplifiers are voltage sources, not current sources, that's why an 8ohm nominal impedance is more versatile.

4ohm drivers draw twice as much current from an amplifer for the same SPL as an 8ohm driver, and since, as you say, most home amplifiers are not high-current, they struggle to not only control, but deliver high power to 4 ohm systems. Rather, as you correctly noted, they draw their power from voltage swing.

You may notice one mark of a good amplifier is it's ability to double power output with every halving in impedance. Most home amplifiers don't do this. They struggle to achieve the type of current draw required, not only affects damping, but can increase risk of clipping, and subsequent damage to your system.

Many 'common' 4 ohm driver units come from manufacturers which also make drivers for use in car hi-fi systems, where voltage (12VDC usually) is at a premium. Being able to market drivers to this market automatically increases market penetration, without having to re-tool or re-design manufacturing processes.

For linear arrays, multiple 16 ohm drivers would be even better than 8 ohm, although few manufacturers make these. Just because something is common doesn't imply that it is well designed for it's intended application, especially when this application is non-standard, which is the case for for linear arrays.

Linear arrays wired in series mean that each driver doesn't have a straight line back to the amplifer. In series, each driver is effectively 'looking back' and 'sees', not the amplifer, but other reactive loads.

The amplifier has the most control over individual drivers when each driver has a direct line back to the amplifier source, un-impeded by other drivers or reactive loads in the signal path.

 

[soongsc]

I think the Jordan drivers were pretty much designed with a four driver array. I really don't see a problem, but I'm not going to go through the design aspects in detail. Basically if the amp sees resistive load, it really isn't too bad. If the amp does not see resistive load, then no matter how you connect them, the performance is just not going to be as good due to back EMF from the drivers. The drivers have to see reactive loads so as to dump back EMF. This is why the Zobels.

I see using multiple drivers primarily as a way to obtain maximum disired SPL. The less drivers you can get by with, the better it is.

Hmm, line array, I think properly designed line arry horns might be interesting.

 

[mightyd]

I've now ordered 8 Alpair 6 rectangle basket drivers to make my line arrays. I've listened to my friend's system. Tom's put 2 pairs of these Alpairs mated together in 8 litre sealed cabs, stunning detail coming from this set up with a Monolilth 200 Sub doing the low range. Tom's set the sub's gain fairly low so the Alpairs are doing most of the work. We notice how much excursion there is on the Alpairs. They really move well. The downer is power handling, they get a bit raggy in driven hard but still impressive for dinky drivers. His room size is 12' x 15' which works OK at comfort listening level.

I'm going to experiment with sealed and ported, see what happens. I don't have a sub yet so I want to listen and get a feel for what the Alpairs can deliver in a 4 by 4 set up.

I couldn't get the Jordan and even if they were available, the last price I saw would kill my budget. I got the job lot from Markaudio for £330 including the shipping so bargin with these guys. I guess like everyone else, jobs are on the line.

Any box suggestions?

 

[norman bates]

I'm using a pair of vertical stacked 4" (5" frame) tang band bamboo drivers.

The highs go away when you stand up seated 12' away..................

I bet you can use four 2" drivers so long as you are on the correct vertical plane....................... sweet spot may be a foot tall at 12' away.......... That's fine for me................

I too am seriously contemplating getting 4 of the 2" peerless to try it............... I'd want it in a 18" wide baffle (-3db baffle step 250hz when baffle 18" wide) and would need to cross at 200 or 250hz, the steeper the better. But remember 4 x 2" only has the area of 1 x 4" (4 x 13cm2 vs. 1 x 57 cm2).


Good to see I'm not the only one thinking on the peerless...........

Madisound was sold out of the 830970 (they got some in this week), but no one here seems to talk about them ?
I don't expect them to be as good as a bandor or jordan but if they are close.....................

Norman

 

[kristleifur]

The JXR6 is a 3.5-4ohm nominal driver, so parallel arrays are difficult to achieve for an average amplifier which are usually only stable to 3.5 ohms.

I love Class D amps, and Class D amps love low impedance, and they're cheap. To me, the low impedance of these drivers is very interesting and beneficial.

...

What does the lack of rear suspension mean when this driver is put in a BIB?