Hi - thanks for the comments. They were a test enclosure and I haven't decided how to finish them yet.
Yes, the other speakers are the JX53/JX125 combo. Also very good but with some interesting plus and minus compared to the JX92 MLTL. The 92s aren't quite as smooth or electrostatic in nature in the HF but have a certain enthusiasm which appeals. The 125 are in a sealed enclosure - I could probably have got lower with a ported box. Good though they are, the triangular boxes suit me better at the moment so the black ones will, sadly, be going on eBay. (It's either that or find a larger house.)
Yes, the other speakers are the JX53/JX125 combo. Also very good but with some interesting plus and minus compared to the JX92 MLTL. The 92s aren't quite as smooth or electrostatic in nature in the HF but have a certain enthusiasm which appeals. The 125 are in a sealed enclosure - I could probably have got lower with a ported box. Good though they are, the triangular boxes suit me better at the moment so the black ones will, sadly, be going on eBay. (It's either that or find a larger house.)
Only one enclosure in a corner at present, which does give a slight imbalance in the bass (though not noticable in everyday listening). I've also used them away from the corners, but still against a wall, which sounds better. And still no need for BSC.
GM has mentioned elsewhere that this design gives a slight lift in the bass, whereas the original 30" MLTL is flatter, possibly more accurate.
GM has mentioned elsewhere that this design gives a slight lift in the bass, whereas the original 30" MLTL is flatter, possibly more accurate.
Here some reaction on the subject of adding a (super)tweeter to the Jordan jx92s.
I use the Cantare Super Slim for about half a year with great satisfaction. I use it in a centerspeaker and it gives a very realistic image of voice and instruments. It is just sensation. With a good DVD (DTS) it’s like the microphone is straight plugged in to the center. Unbelievable!
I found the Jordan jx92s a wonder. But it has it’s limitations:
-the high is a bit messy (see its graphics)
-the low is from a bad quality
-it lacks a bit overall speed
But with a good design it acts so natural and in balance. I think it is mostly because it is almost a point source. Gone is the bit diffuse sound normal systems have.
After a while using a bare Jordan and later on with a BSC I discovered the Cantare SS. And with the help from Soongsc I developed a new BSC. So yes Landroval I have changed the BSC it based on the FlexoNotch see on forum. I can not find the JPG file on my computer and I don’t have time to search or make en new one, maybe Soongsc has it and can put it on the forum.
The switches are still in because I find it fun to let people hear the difference and let them go to the their own conclusion. The SS gives joy and sparkle to the Jordan. Do not expect firework it just is there, enough to do its job without sharp s and t sounds.
Why this particular tweeter
The Canatare Super Slim was my choice because of the following:
-it has a almost flat graphic from 7k to almost 40k
-it is fast (magnostat)
-it is so small you can place it close to the jx92s
-the price
-the simplicity to join it with the jx92s without complex XO
About some reactions:
-Colin: the super tweeter does not give more kHz. On DTS DVD it stops at about 22kHz. It just flattens the high frequencies of the Jordan.
-Audio bomber: I find it unbelievable to suggest a jx53 as a Supertweeter. The jx53 is top, but use it for what it is mend to a WIDE RANGE. Just add a good bass driver to the jx53 in a two-way system (xo at 150-200) and you also have sensation. There are better supertweeters to join the jx92s. And there are much better bass drivers than the jx92s to join the jx53!
-Do not cut the Jordans anyway it is a FULL RANGE! Use it like one. The super tweeter is added just with a first order XO on the tweeter no XO on the jx92s.
-Taste are different but I find a BSC is needed to give the jx92s more balance. This is also depending from the box you use (I use a TML) But for a more realistic sound a specially for vocals I find a BSC is essential. I also temper the low on the jx92s because of the bad quality (but I do not cut it).
I only can say if you do want to try to improve your jx92s design try the Cantare super slim. It is cheap, easy to attach and small. You can stick it with double sided tape close to the jx92s. Close is also a must to get the best results.
About using high quality and expensive parts on the XO or BSC. Of course high quality parts give a better result, but you have to accept that the jx92s has its limitations. No top quality capacitors or coils or clever designed XO or BSC can bring it over its limits just on its limits. If you still are not satisfied with it you have to do something different, that can mean adding something like a (super) tweeter.
Enjoy
I use the Cantare Super Slim for about half a year with great satisfaction. I use it in a centerspeaker and it gives a very realistic image of voice and instruments. It is just sensation. With a good DVD (DTS) it’s like the microphone is straight plugged in to the center. Unbelievable!
I found the Jordan jx92s a wonder. But it has it’s limitations:
-the high is a bit messy (see its graphics)
-the low is from a bad quality
-it lacks a bit overall speed
But with a good design it acts so natural and in balance. I think it is mostly because it is almost a point source. Gone is the bit diffuse sound normal systems have.
After a while using a bare Jordan and later on with a BSC I discovered the Cantare SS. And with the help from Soongsc I developed a new BSC. So yes Landroval I have changed the BSC it based on the FlexoNotch see on forum. I can not find the JPG file on my computer and I don’t have time to search or make en new one, maybe Soongsc has it and can put it on the forum.
The switches are still in because I find it fun to let people hear the difference and let them go to the their own conclusion. The SS gives joy and sparkle to the Jordan. Do not expect firework it just is there, enough to do its job without sharp s and t sounds.
Why this particular tweeter
The Canatare Super Slim was my choice because of the following:
-it has a almost flat graphic from 7k to almost 40k
-it is fast (magnostat)
-it is so small you can place it close to the jx92s
-the price
-the simplicity to join it with the jx92s without complex XO
About some reactions:
-Colin: the super tweeter does not give more kHz. On DTS DVD it stops at about 22kHz. It just flattens the high frequencies of the Jordan.
-Audio bomber: I find it unbelievable to suggest a jx53 as a Supertweeter. The jx53 is top, but use it for what it is mend to a WIDE RANGE. Just add a good bass driver to the jx53 in a two-way system (xo at 150-200) and you also have sensation. There are better supertweeters to join the jx92s. And there are much better bass drivers than the jx92s to join the jx53!
-Do not cut the Jordans anyway it is a FULL RANGE! Use it like one. The super tweeter is added just with a first order XO on the tweeter no XO on the jx92s.
-Taste are different but I find a BSC is needed to give the jx92s more balance. This is also depending from the box you use (I use a TML) But for a more realistic sound a specially for vocals I find a BSC is essential. I also temper the low on the jx92s because of the bad quality (but I do not cut it).
I only can say if you do want to try to improve your jx92s design try the Cantare super slim. It is cheap, easy to attach and small. You can stick it with double sided tape close to the jx92s. Close is also a must to get the best results.
About using high quality and expensive parts on the XO or BSC. Of course high quality parts give a better result, but you have to accept that the jx92s has its limitations. No top quality capacitors or coils or clever designed XO or BSC can bring it over its limits just on its limits. If you still are not satisfied with it you have to do something different, that can mean adding something like a (super) tweeter.
Enjoy
soongsc, a jpg of the new BSC would be welcome 
if you have it that is. it is nice that using a foil cap can eliminate the need for a cap. it makes the design simpler still.
since in my application the bass of the JX92 will be supported by 12" woofers wont corner loading be a bit unnessacary?
Triumph, what subwoofers are you useing to support the JX92 in the bass. At what frequency?
if you have it that is. it is nice that using a foil cap can eliminate the need for a cap. it makes the design simpler still.since in my application the bass of the JX92 will be supported by 12" woofers wont corner loading be a bit unnessacary?
Triumph, what subwoofers are you useing to support the JX92 in the bass. At what frequency?
I can not find the BSC anywhere. I have to screw open my center and look. But I am sorry I do not have the time for this at the moment.
Soongsc I send you a report of my test (I tested about 12 BSC on the Jordan and Cantare) do you still have this and can you put it on the forum?
Soongsc I send you a report of my test (I tested about 12 BSC on the Jordan and Cantare) do you still have this and can you put it on the forum?
Attachments
navin said:soongsc, a jpg of the new BSC would be welcome
since in my application the bass of the JX92 will be supported by 12" woofers wont corner loading be a bit unnessacary?
Triumph, what subwoofers are you useing to support the JX92 in the bass. At what frequency?
BSCs are cabin and specific IMO. In addition, it might be necessary to take driver impedance into consideration. I don't have one specifically for the JX92S yet, just some findings playing around with a smaller speaker. Original design used a cap to do some compensation, however, when I swapped a foil inductor in it's place, it seemed the phase change was such that the cap was not necessary, and may actually change some other areas as well since I'm sure the impedance has changed, but forgot to test it in the last run.
I recommend the BSC published at the Jordan site when you find out you need one, and use a foil inductor on those. Amazingly my current test configuration has the same values as the VTL configuration pluse some stuff for impedance compensation.
Should be trying some Solen Litz soon and see what comes out. Then I will be trying a smaller gauge foil inductor of a different brand and see what happens.
I have also tried keeping the plain inductor and using an Mcap silver oil, the phase lead was even more. I was really amazed to see such differences. The foil inductor change sounded better than the cap change, and cheaper.
Triumph said:
This was one flexible configuration what I worked up for testing and analysis purposes. Additional impedance compensation would be necessary in the end. But the components are really too much. But feel free to play around with it until the tone balance is about right, then fine tune using less components. We call this configuration the FlexoNotch.
The word file won't upload, if you want, I can send it back and maybe you know how to convert it somehow?
I have got it, the test report from several BSC's (almost half year old).
Now its time to build and test new projects, so you won't hear for me for a while.
_______________________________________________
Soongsc,
Last Saturday I had some time to buy the components for your filter. Of course I was very curios and built right away.
Your filter (with a little difference of resistor value)
2 mH
Amp. 18Ù 3,3Ù 5,6Ù JX92S
1µF
My experience:
First of all I had to turn the volume up from +4 to +9. What I noticed immediately was that the sound was very smooth. This is because it is a bit weak in the middle frequencies, around 3000-6000Hz. The low/mid is a bit too strong between 40-500Hz. The high is smooth but there is an accent on the very high tones +16.000Hz. That is a bit too much especially because it isn’t a beautiful, pure, clear high.
Sum. I think it is a too strong filter in the low and upper high, it makes it too smooth and therefore I miss the direct contact with male and female voice the Jordan can produce.
But you inspired me and I changed the filter many times. I think this is because you are running in open air and my Jordan is placed in a cabinet witch produces more mid. The cabinet is tuned at about 70Hz.
The following report is not complete but the most important changes I did.
1
2 mH
Amp. 6Ù 3,3Ù 5,6Ù JX92S
1µF
A bit more live comes in but also too much high.
2
2 mH
Amp. 6Ù 5,6Ù 3,3Ù JX92S
1µF
Not much difference a bit more on the lower end. Still sounds smooth.
3
0,68 mH
Amp. 6Ù 3,3Ù 5,6Ù JX92S
1µF
More bass and more mid. Balance gets better. The smooth sound is total gone although. There is more live in it now.
I did not like the extreme high from the Jordan so I changed the cap from 1 to 22µF
4
0,68 mH
Amp. 6Ù 3,3Ù 5,6Ù JX92S
22µF
Now we are getting somewhere there is more live in it again.
5
0,68 mH
Amp. 3,3Ù JX92S
22µF
This my original BSC. And I think it is not bad at all. We have contact with the singers and actors again. But still I miss the clarity in the high region the supertweeter can bring. I connected the supertweeter again with a switch and tried it for several ours in on and off position.
6
0,68 mH
3,3Ù JX92S
Amp. 22µF
3,3µF Surface Slim
For me it is clear the supertweeter adds so much more clarity and detail which the Jordan alone can not give. It makes the sound more transparent and even a bit more dynamic also for the mid. Now after I have experimented with different BSC’s I am more and more convinced of the quality and value of this supertweeter.
But still I was not satisfied, the bass and the mid are a bit too strong even with the supertweeter.
7
0,68 mH
3,3Ù 0,82Ù JX92S
Amp. 22µF
3,3µF Surface Slim
For me this is the perfect filter. It weakens the lower bass a little the mid is in balance with the high and the supertweeter adds just enough. I also experimented with a 4,3µF cap instead of 3,3µF but it was too much high, and the sound is getting more diffused (getting more like a normal 2 way system). A 2,2µF cap also can do the trick.
George,
Remember I use the Jordan as a center and I focus more for voice, and a bit for solo instruments like sax. The Jordan is a Full range that gives a point source I like very much. It can give a very realistic reproduction of the human voice. And it does after the latest modifications with the BSC and the supertweeter. I never have heard a center that does this better than my Jordan.
What I don’t like of the JX92S is the following
-the high isn’t of the best quality
-the low isn’t of the best quality
-there is a bit lack of dynamics (it just isn’t fast enough).
For me the supertweeter has proven its value for adding high and even adding more dynamics. Now I really can not understand why anyone can say the Jordan does not need it. It adds so much to it, and I am not the only one to say. Because I added a switch I let others listen to the difference and they noticed the supertweeter right away. The Jordan just can not compete against this fast magnetostat, maybe the JX53 can. And I bet what this magnestat does to the Jordan it also does to almost any full range driver. What surprised me is that adding the supertweeter won’t give too much high. It just adds what isn’t there. And you still remain the point source effect, if you choose the cap right.
The low has to come from a subwoofer and I think he has to come in at about 60Hz.
Without your BSC I never had come with the idea of adding an extra resistor for not only the mid but also for the low. I thank you for that. I think my BSC is perfect in my configuration. The cabinet I have build gives a strong mid. In a different setting a different BSC is needed. I liked this experimenting very much but I am not changing anything from now on. I have the feeling I have got the most of the Jordan, it won’t go better. This is it! This is perfection.
Regards,
Triumph
Now its time to build and test new projects, so you won't hear for me for a while.
_______________________________________________
Soongsc,
Last Saturday I had some time to buy the components for your filter. Of course I was very curios and built right away.
Your filter (with a little difference of resistor value)
2 mH
Amp. 18Ù 3,3Ù 5,6Ù JX92S
1µF
My experience:
First of all I had to turn the volume up from +4 to +9. What I noticed immediately was that the sound was very smooth. This is because it is a bit weak in the middle frequencies, around 3000-6000Hz. The low/mid is a bit too strong between 40-500Hz. The high is smooth but there is an accent on the very high tones +16.000Hz. That is a bit too much especially because it isn’t a beautiful, pure, clear high.
Sum. I think it is a too strong filter in the low and upper high, it makes it too smooth and therefore I miss the direct contact with male and female voice the Jordan can produce.
But you inspired me and I changed the filter many times. I think this is because you are running in open air and my Jordan is placed in a cabinet witch produces more mid. The cabinet is tuned at about 70Hz.
The following report is not complete but the most important changes I did.
1
2 mH
Amp. 6Ù 3,3Ù 5,6Ù JX92S
1µF
A bit more live comes in but also too much high.
2
2 mH
Amp. 6Ù 5,6Ù 3,3Ù JX92S
1µF
Not much difference a bit more on the lower end. Still sounds smooth.
3
0,68 mH
Amp. 6Ù 3,3Ù 5,6Ù JX92S
1µF
More bass and more mid. Balance gets better. The smooth sound is total gone although. There is more live in it now.
I did not like the extreme high from the Jordan so I changed the cap from 1 to 22µF
4
0,68 mH
Amp. 6Ù 3,3Ù 5,6Ù JX92S
22µF
Now we are getting somewhere there is more live in it again.
5
0,68 mH
Amp. 3,3Ù JX92S
22µF
This my original BSC. And I think it is not bad at all. We have contact with the singers and actors again. But still I miss the clarity in the high region the supertweeter can bring. I connected the supertweeter again with a switch and tried it for several ours in on and off position.
6
0,68 mH
3,3Ù JX92S
Amp. 22µF
3,3µF Surface Slim
For me it is clear the supertweeter adds so much more clarity and detail which the Jordan alone can not give. It makes the sound more transparent and even a bit more dynamic also for the mid. Now after I have experimented with different BSC’s I am more and more convinced of the quality and value of this supertweeter.
But still I was not satisfied, the bass and the mid are a bit too strong even with the supertweeter.
7
0,68 mH
3,3Ù 0,82Ù JX92S
Amp. 22µF
3,3µF Surface Slim
For me this is the perfect filter. It weakens the lower bass a little the mid is in balance with the high and the supertweeter adds just enough. I also experimented with a 4,3µF cap instead of 3,3µF but it was too much high, and the sound is getting more diffused (getting more like a normal 2 way system). A 2,2µF cap also can do the trick.
George,
Remember I use the Jordan as a center and I focus more for voice, and a bit for solo instruments like sax. The Jordan is a Full range that gives a point source I like very much. It can give a very realistic reproduction of the human voice. And it does after the latest modifications with the BSC and the supertweeter. I never have heard a center that does this better than my Jordan.
What I don’t like of the JX92S is the following
-the high isn’t of the best quality
-the low isn’t of the best quality
-there is a bit lack of dynamics (it just isn’t fast enough).
For me the supertweeter has proven its value for adding high and even adding more dynamics. Now I really can not understand why anyone can say the Jordan does not need it. It adds so much to it, and I am not the only one to say. Because I added a switch I let others listen to the difference and they noticed the supertweeter right away. The Jordan just can not compete against this fast magnetostat, maybe the JX53 can. And I bet what this magnestat does to the Jordan it also does to almost any full range driver. What surprised me is that adding the supertweeter won’t give too much high. It just adds what isn’t there. And you still remain the point source effect, if you choose the cap right.
The low has to come from a subwoofer and I think he has to come in at about 60Hz.
Without your BSC I never had come with the idea of adding an extra resistor for not only the mid but also for the low. I thank you for that. I think my BSC is perfect in my configuration. The cabinet I have build gives a strong mid. In a different setting a different BSC is needed. I liked this experimenting very much but I am not changing anything from now on. I have the feeling I have got the most of the Jordan, it won’t go better. This is it! This is perfection.
Regards,
Triumph
> I also temper the low on the jx92s because of the bad quality
Hm, I've not found the bass on the JX92s at all bad. In fact, in the enclosure I use them it's cleaner than the sealed box JX125s. The MLTL also manages to reach 35Hz without any effort and it sounds very clean and alive.
Ref the supertweeter, I know there are various opinions on this, so it's probably better to use the driver without for a while and see what your preferences are. It is important to get the toe in right. I can accept the JX92s slightly brash response as a trade off for the knockout imaging. (Also, I'm kind of a purist about this fullrange thing, otherwise I could have stuck a ribbon with the JX125 and gone that route.)
Hm, I've not found the bass on the JX92s at all bad. In fact, in the enclosure I use them it's cleaner than the sealed box JX125s. The MLTL also manages to reach 35Hz without any effort and it sounds very clean and alive.
Ref the supertweeter, I know there are various opinions on this, so it's probably better to use the driver without for a while and see what your preferences are. It is important to get the toe in right. I can accept the JX92s slightly brash response as a trade off for the knockout imaging. (Also, I'm kind of a purist about this fullrange thing, otherwise I could have stuck a ribbon with the JX125 and gone that route.)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.