Hi mdikovics,
I hadn't seen the E60 until just now. That is now on my shopping list
Me too for next year.
I agree with the taming and peakness 100%. But, lets flip the coin over. I am looking at building around a peaky driver because its a challenge. I am working on a box that I have put a peaky drive in to and I hear no peakyness so far brand new not ever broken it straight out of the box and plug and play. I have built the boxes and already I am played the fostex fe126en in it. Very nice speakers. I have am using the ff125wk drivers right now very nice sounding.I have not had issues with a peak at 7khz? Also I think you can build a box around the drivers so it helps and smooths out any peakness if it has any. I don't think filters or caps should be used in fullrange driver unless its a super tweeter at 10 khz and beyond. That is why its a fullrange to not use with a crossover and cause phase and shift problems and not allowing the music to come thru straight with out any blocking of the current if I said it right. Also on the other hand I am thinking now why did the speaker company make this driver this way were and has allowed the driver to have a shout or brightness from 1,000khz and in between 20,000 it depends on the drivers. There is always a answer to everything in life and hi-fi is no different. My thinking is to build a cabinet around the driver and ajust the box to the driver so you are able to fix the peakness or the brightness in the drivers sound. I am looking at getting 100% out of the drivers I am using even if it takes a along time to get it right. Just my thought. Jm
Last edited:
I have a pair of JX92S which really rock out. There are small, medium and large cabinet options which is great. Mine ended up in a BiB which had gobs of bass (I used them as 2-channel home theater).
When I got re-interested in jazz and (small-scale) classical, I went back to small paper-coned drivers. For me, metal cones are great at clarity and bass, but don't quite do (e.g.,) the attack on a cello, or violin, or strings generally (for my particular ears). So you have to own a pair of each (metal and paper).
In terms of new vs. old, personally, I think it's fun to have the new stuff. But if you get a great bargain on the old ones, you have a lot of proven designs to consider. We are spoiled with some excellent choices right now. Chances are you'll end up buying them all eventually
What small paper cones do you have? Just wondering? jm
It is still not clear to me why you chose to make statements about me which are totally un-true. I am clearly not one of the people here that behaves in such an unprofessional fashion. Though there are those that do, I will never be one of them.
Hi natural sound,
I listened to peaky drivers for years, and it didn't bother me at first, because I loved all the positive qualities. But now I -also- want the flat response for some reason, perhaps the novelty of it.
A peaky response is a form of distortion, and taking that away with a highest quality filter is doing nothing bad Although I resisted a filter at first, nowadays my ears just say "ahhhh" when I hear that smoother, flatter, balanced response. It sounds more natural, though less "forward".
But a purist approach would be to use digital EQ on your computer as a source. Then you can use whatever driver and flatten it out without passive parts. I've done both, and each approach has excellent merits (and tradeoffs).
I listened to peaky drivers for years, and it didn't bother me at first, because I loved all the positive qualities. But now I -also- want the flat response for some reason, perhaps the novelty of it.
A peaky response is a form of distortion, and taking that away with a highest quality filter is doing nothing bad
Although I resisted a filter at first, nowadays my ears just say "ahhhh" when I hear that smoother, flatter, balanced response. It sounds more natural, though less "forward".But a purist approach would be to use digital EQ on your computer as a source. Then you can use whatever driver and flatten it out without passive parts. I've done both, and each approach has excellent merits (and tradeoffs).
All of them. (Okay, not all, but dozens. I was naively searching for a "silver bullet," and recently settled on a small-driver sat-sub approach. I don't have a specific recommendation but will be starting a design/build thread within a couple weeks.)
I started off with a pair of 21L infinite baffle columns with JX92S speakers. Never liked them from the start - the sound was hard and peaky in the upper mid/treble.
Replaced them with Alpair 10.1 and immediately the sound was smooth and musical. I sold the Jordans and was glad to see them go. They may be OK in a 2-way system with a good ribbon tweeter or something. But I wanted a fullrange speaker and got a good one in the Alpair 10. No contest for me. Really like it. No doubt the new version is a bit better as well.
Replaced them with Alpair 10.1 and immediately the sound was smooth and musical. I sold the Jordans and was glad to see them go. They may be OK in a 2-way system with a good ribbon tweeter or something. But I wanted a fullrange speaker and got a good one in the Alpair 10. No contest for me. Really like it. No doubt the new version is a bit better as well.
It is still not clear to me why you chose to make statements about me which are totally un-true. I am clearly not one of the people here that behaves in such an unprofessional fashion. Though there are those that do, I will never be one of them.
First off I wanted to say if I offend you I am sorry
. I really don't know what or were I said something about you in my post. Also what statement did I say that was un-true? I never said you acted unprofessional? Please explain so I can correct my mistake I am here to have fun not offend people. Jm
Last edited:
Hi natural sound,
I listened to peaky drivers for years, and it didn't bother me at first, because I loved all the positive qualities. But now I -also- want the flat response for some reason, perhaps the novelty of it.
A peaky response is a form of distortion, and taking that away with a highest quality filter is doing nothing bad
But a purist approach would be to use digital EQ on your computer as a source. Then you can use whatever driver and flatten it out without passive parts. I've done both, and each approach has excellent merits (and tradeoffs).
Yes true indeed. A EQ I forgot about that. I agree with you on using a EQ. Thanks for your post it helps and is very helpful. Jm
Thats good to know. The alpairs look like a great driver. Thanks for posting and sharing. Jm
I've heard the Jordans, though only for a few days. Then I got a pair of Alpair 10.2's with damaged cones, yet they were superior in every aspect from bottom to top. The Alpairs just blew away the Jordans. Too bad the cones are so fragile. If you touch the cones while playing, there will be a permanent dent there.
Thats why I was looking at the jordans because of thier long diy followers and all the post and box plans. If I buy apair it will be next feb. but, I have kids around so I would have to have my speakers in a place were the little fingers will not beable to touch the cones. I have already delt with that. Kids pushing in cones and poking fingers at the drivers. jm
You have to touch them pretty hard to dent them this way. I've yet to injure a set this way. Drop something on the cone it is a different story. But i've killed more Fostex than Mark Audio.
dave
Should we just say, you liked 10.2 more? Superiority of one driver over another is a subjective choice, unless objective data, considering intended use is compared. I've measured both, 10.2 and various xj-92 versions. Really don't see the area where 10.2 would "blow away" 92. May be build in BSC? But then again, there are other aspects of performance such as ability to handle power at different voltage aka produced SPL or harmonic content.
Last edited:
I appreciate what you are saying, but do you appreciate what we are saying? These are full range drivers, and roughly equivalent in size, so it's not a stretch of the imagination to simply compare what they sound like. If you listen to one for a few days and then listen to the other for a few days and your findings are "The Alpair 10s were superior in every aspect from bottom to top. The Alpairs just blew away the Jordans" then that's pretty much a straight A-B comparison. I found exactly the same and I'd have used exactly those words. I used identical cabinets and identical listening material and that's what I found.
It may of course be true that with OTHER parameters like BSC or 2-way use with tweeters or whatever you'd get a different set of results. But that's saying the Jordan's have the potential to deliver other things. I've heard Jordans sounding good with ribbon tweeters etc. But in a straight A-B full-range comparison in the same boxes, I can only agree that the Alpairs were top to bottom better sounding, and it wasn't subtle.
I've owned 3 pair of JX92. Each successive pair an effort to make sure the ones before were an anomoly. I found the Alpair 10 better, but with some of the character of the JX92 -- the part that rubbed me the wrong way. The Alpair 10.2 is a great leap forward... i could happily live with them, just don't directly compare them to Alpair 7.x.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.