Any enclosure ideas for the "new" JX92S? - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th February 2008, 04:16 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Madison, WI
Default Any enclosure ideas for the "new" JX92S?

Hi folks -

I just got a pair of the Jordans from the Brian group buy (thanks, Brian) and was thinking of the Jim Griffin designs, with G2Si.

It appears, however, that the measured T-S specs of the drivers doesn't match the specs on the Jordan site. Brian came up with some numbers on his own, and Zaph has come up with some different numbers on his site:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html

I ran these in WinISD last night, and came up with, as Zaph suggested would be the case, some pretty large enclosures for a vented box. I'm guessing that the MLTL design is also going to be significantly different, and that even a sealed box is going to be quite different with these driver specs.

I am a total neophyte with regard to box modelling, so this is a bit of a reality check with you folks who can do this in your sleep. Any recommended box sizes/alignments/configurations, especially those that dovetail, so to speak, with the new Parts Express box choices? I do plan to use a subwoofer for the bottom end, and can comfortably cross over in the 80-100hz range.

Thanks in advance for any help - Pat
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2008, 07:06 PM   #2
bluegti is offline bluegti  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
I implemented the Jim Griffin mini-monitor design using a .25 cu. ft. PE box. My drivers are most likely the "new" version. I received them in December and they have the white boxes as shown in the group build thread.

I have not felt they are lacking in bass considering the size of the enclosure. I have no way to perform any measurements, but at a recent audio meet everyone made comments to the effect of, "its hard to believe how much bass those speakers have".
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 01:46 AM   #3
CSS/XBL is offline CSS/XBL  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Hi,

I have it on good authority that there may be some QC issues with the JX92S. It is also open to speculation as to where on- going production will be done.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 02:42 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Madison, WI
Hmm, well it looks like the pair that Zaph tested are very high quality drivers, based on the tests he did, but they are definitely different in regard to the T-S specs, especially Qts, than the specs on the Jordan site.

If there is a concern that there are quality problems within this run of drivers, I'd certainly be willing to run my pair, presumably randomly selected from the batch, up to Zaph to test them. (He's about two hours away from me.)

I'm really just looking for suggestions on how to implement these drivers, insofar as they differ from previous Jordans, and as those earlier enclosure designs thus depart from optimum. - Pat
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 12:47 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
gmilitano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Zaphs results show a nice on-axis FR. If Q is now ~ 0.58, you may want to adjust enclosures designed for Q ~ 0.4. With the higher Q, you may want to consider an Aperiodic Speaker Enclosure.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 01:18 PM   #6
BWRX is offline BWRX  United States
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Reimer
I have it on good authority that there may be some QC issues with the JX92S.
Hi Bob. When you say quality control, do you mean in terms of parameter variation? Because although I trust Zaph's numbers much more than the ones I came up with, the 20 that I measured were all pretty close to each other.

Here's a comparison of the numbers I came up with using new out of box drivers versus what Zaph measured after breaking them in well for 8 hours. Another member said he would measure his pair using WT2 as well. I will remeasure the drivers when I get them back from Zaph to see how much the numbers change.

Code:
    BWRX        Zaph
DCR 5.2 ohms    5.2 ohms
Fs  58.6107 Hz  53.070 Hz
Qms 1.0726      2.1890
Qes 0.3645      0.7826
Qts 0.2720      0.5765
Vas 10.2355 L   11.01 L
__________________
Brian
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 02:07 PM   #7
Corloc is offline Corloc  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Corloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Michigan / Indiana border
I noticed that Zaph program says SD of 75.43, and Jordan says 78.54. Does the program need SD to work correctly?
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th February 2008, 04:08 PM   #8
Colin is offline Colin  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
According to Ted (I asked last week when Brian's results were up, so the authority is pretty good here too), there is no 'new' JX92S - it hasn't changed and quality control has never been an issue.

The spec differences may be due to different measurement methods. Try the established specs first for enclosure design.

Ted tends to go for a belt and braces method on measurement, using traditional methods to verify what the computer measurements are telling him (ditto on enclosure and crossover design), so I'd be inclined to trust his results.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2008, 08:21 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CA
my two from the group buy measured (WT3)

at


QTS 0.591/0.598
QES 0.7984/0.8027
QMS 2.276/2.355
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th February 2008, 11:18 AM   #10
cs is offline cs  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: .
Quote:
Originally posted by Colin
According to Ted (I asked last week when Brian's results were up, so the authority is pretty good here too), there is no 'new' JX92S - it hasn't changed and quality control has never been an issue.

The spec differences may be due to different measurement methods. Try the established specs first for enclosure design.

Ted tends to go for a belt and braces method on measurement, using traditional methods to verify what the computer measurements are telling him (ditto on enclosure and crossover design), so I'd be inclined to trust his results.
Could the measurements reported be due to the fact that the drivers haven't been 'run-in' ?

That is, will they loosen up with use, which would tend to lower fs and Qt, probably closer to the spec values ?
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for phase plug ideas for horn loaded 10" and 12" drivers Eva Multi-Way 10 11th December 2011 05:17 PM
Using a standard pentode-tetrode as output "space-charge tube" any ideas-experiences? bembel Tubes / Valves 12 11th March 2010 05:56 AM
Charcoal "Supreem" hi-density foam "enclosure" IG81 Multi-Way 0 23rd April 2009 01:34 PM
2x18" + 8x8" = any ideas? Happy New Year! Jezz-the-Fezz Subwoofers 0 31st December 2007 08:04 AM
"Power Tracking" in supply, ever heard, DIY ideas? Cradle22 Solid State 19 4th June 2003 09:02 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:25 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2