CSS fr125 vs jordan jx92s

[marchel]

Dear all,

After my long search for a FR speakers that would/should sound good, I've come to two choices at this moment.

Css fr125 vs. jordan jx92s.

If I were to buy the jordan , I could only afford to buy a pair, which cost $360-. But the Css I could buy 4 of them as a bipole kit, which includes everything ecxept the box, for $240-

My question to those who have experienced FR speakers, Would you rather have a pair of jordans than a bipole pair of CSS? Are the jordans good enough to choose it over a bipole CSS?

Thank you.

[Bluto]

Marchel -

Would be nice for all of us to know where you're from in the event we wanted to work or communicate with you.

I like the comparison but you make it unfair. Some of us think Jordan no better than CSS in many applications.

Why, in your mind, would it take 2 CSS dipole to give you whatever sound you're after vs. a Jordan single in an unidentified application?

Configurations?

Would love to hear your reasoning .

Bluto

[marchel]

Bipole not dipole.

Both designs should be in a ported box and floor standing.


I always place my speakers almost half way into the room , So the radiation pattern of the bipole should pose no problem.

The quesiton is , Is the jordan so much better in sound quality than the bipole CSS? Could the bipole Css go much louder?


Which should I buy?

[planet10]

I can tell you that so far, based on what i've heard of the JX92 i got in the group buy, i'd rather have a set of EnABLed FR125s. Stock FR125s no,

In your situation a bipole would have advantages. Keep in mind that the work Svante has done shows that you want a bipole to be at least 3.5 times wider than it is deep.

dave

[maxro]

Originally posted by planet10
Keep in mind that the work Svante has done shows that you want a bipole to be at least 3.5 times wider than it is deep.

Dave, where might one find this work?

[planet10]

Deep in one of the threads here.... A bipole has perfect baffle step compensation if you listen to it from the side. But because you listen form the front the extra distance the rear driver signal travels causes a dip. Svante used his software to sim a wide shalllow baffle placed against a wall (equivalent to a bipole twice as deep) and at about 3.5:1 the dip became small enuff that i figured it was a no care.

(ie. you had the right idea when you did yours)

dave

[tubesguy]

Dave -

I've been wondering about this for a while, and without starting a new thread, haven't really had a logical place to ask. This thread seems tailor-made.

If one has FE127eN drivers for the front of a bipole, could stock 127s be used for the rear? I'm unclear about the ultimate sound quality required of the rear drivers, and unclear about the benefits of bipole operation, aside from eliminating the need for BSC and (therefore, or additionally) increased efficiency.

Still looking for a good design for these drivers. Thanks in advance - Pat

[hm]

Hello,

my experience with TUBA and JX92S in comparison
to my new bipol Kornett shows a lot of advantages,

the KORNETT is half a size of the TUBA, more tighter bass,
better soundstage, invers of the back driver reduce K2 and no HF problems, driver near as your ears no localisation effekts, cheaper.

FR125 and Jordan not useful for the Kornett, better a driver
which needs support below 1 kHz, TB W4-1320.

The reflexion problem is small, near a wall you get a plateau peak ~1,5 kHz, more distance to wall eliminates it but the bass get a bit weaker.