Jordan jx92s fullrange drivers vs other fullrange drivers?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Dave -

Your experience is invaluable here. I have the Mk 1 version of the Alpair 10. I do all my listening on these speakers - I don't have any other choices so getting my speakers right is hugely important to all the building I do with amplifiers.

What would you do if you were to go one better than the Mk 1s? Get the 10.2 or get a pair of Alpair 7s? What would I gain from each choice? Be as subjective as you like here!

Just one consideration - how much bass would I lose with the Alpair 7s? It's just about OK right now with the 10s.

If anyone else has views here by all means express them!

andy
 
Unlike Dave, I liked the original A10. Different strokes for different folks. The MAOP model of the current unit is also rather good; I prefer it to the stock driver, but that's very much a matter of taste & some will probably prefer the regular 10.2.

The A7 goes higher than the 10.2 & being a smaller unit it has superior off-axis performance. The tradeoff is the larger unit beats it on the bottom end, both in extension and outright dynamic range. That's just the laws of physics. The A7 is very good for a 4in driver in this respect, but it can't shift as much air for obvious reasons.

I've heard the JX92S sound very good, but more recent ones have left me cold, why, I don't know. Possibly a change in manufacturing; without inside information or the ability to measure a large batch, it's difficult to know. The forthcoming development looks interesting; it seems to be the old cone with new suspension, motor & central plug / whatever in a C45 frame, or something similar. Hopefully I'll get chance to hear a pair at some point.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting you talk about changes in later models. I tried out a later model. I had fond memories of the older models - I even went to Tenby at one point and talked to Ted and listened to his home system. He was a real pioneer.

So when I heard marked differences with the A10 I was a bit taken aback. I didn't remember the JX92 being hard and peaky but that was what I was hearing, and it really grated on my nerves. The A10 sounded smooth and balanced - it was something of an instant relief. Maybe quality control issues?
 
I've read this a few times about Tymphany drivers when they switched production from Europe (not just the Jordans). I haven't heard the later production 92s so can't comment on them but continue to use my earlier, Vifa-manufactured JX92s in GM's 31" MLTL on a daily basis.

btw, Ted is still working away in Tenby, developing new ideas.
 
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.

And I bet you did your comparison blind with matching SPL.
You used 92 and 10.2 in the same box even tho the motors are not the same?
Well, as far as subjective experience goes, I recently listened to 10.2 in MLTL and compared it to 92s in MLTL and found that 92 blows away 10.2 top to bottom. Much cleaner and life like sounding driver without bloated muddied up low end but yet with crispy and resolute upper end unlike tizzy sound of 10.2. I found 92 to be far superior to 10.2 in every aspect.
Fair enough?
 
Last edited:
I'd have to agree with Zaph Audio guy that around 3 inches is the optimum size for a metal FR driver.
I've never designed and built a drive unit, but I imagine its a bit like brewing beer; the analogy being you can put all the finest ingredients in the mix but you never know the final result until its tried.
 
Last edited:
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Dave -

Your experience is invaluable here. I have the Mk 1 version of the Alpair 10. I do all my listening on these speakers - I don't have any other choices so getting my speakers right is hugely important to all the building I do with amplifiers.

What would you do if you were to go one better than the Mk 1s? Get the 10.2 or get a pair of Alpair 7s? What would I gain from each choice? Be as subjective as you like here!

Just one consideration - how much bass would I lose with the Alpair 7s? It's just about OK right now with the 10s.

Andy,

Start with the last question 1st: Ignoring Mark's 1 bass driver, the Alpair 10.2 goes lower than any other Mark Audio driver. Next closest is the EL70 and it is not far behind. If the bass is important, and you are not able or willing to add helper woofers (the best solution) then what the A10.2 gives up in mid range DDR will usually be an acceptable trade-off. It is only in direct comparison with the A7.x that what is missing is revealed.

As to A10 vrs A10.2, A10.2 has a multiform cone -- a technique borrowed from car manufacture that gives Mark the capability to get 10x the tolerances as the method used for 1st gen MA metal cones (and for th e Jordans). It has a Goto voice coil, some of the finest made, it has a slick Matsubara-san progressive spider, it has a new, better dustcap shape. All these give a more refined driver, eliminating the HF hash that i asociate with the 1st gen Alpairs, and that makes the JX92s i've had unbearable. The driver is smoother and has greater DDR, digging deeper into the music revealing those subtle clues that give more subtlty to voices, instruments, and the information that provides the illusion of sound space/imaging (EnABL takes this last to another level). It is this last where the A7 has the edge over A10.2.

Now let me throw a can of worms at you. Bernie borrowed the well broken in stranded bamboo ply dMar-Ken7 with A7eN*. When he brought them back on Sunday he said that they had a bit better top but overall preferred his EL70eN.So for the price of a pair of A10.2 one could have 2 pair of EL70 (EnABLed or not). That said, A10.2 is close enuff to A10 that it will work in A10 enclosures (althou cabinet tweaks can yield some small gains)

* (since the question will be asked, in listening tests we feel gains that the A7.3 makes do not catch it up to A7eN)

dave
 
Hi Dave,

Thanks for taking time to respond - your experience and expertise are much appreciated as always.

Now, to throw a can of worms back at you - I read about how great the EL70 is and - urmmmm - bought 2 pairs of CHP 70 in natural colour. Yes, I know.... I bought them about a year ago - not sure what Gen that would make them.

I haven't put them into an enclosure yet - I think it was the Micro Tower that inspired me. Am I going to get anything like the bass of the EL70 with the CHP 70s? I read they were quite good after they had loosened up, though I did read that without a subwoofer the EL70 was preferable. Mind - they should have nice mids and top?

Andy
 
Hi Dave,

Thanks for taking time to respond - your experience and expertise are much appreciated as always.

Now, to throw a can of worms back at you - I read about how great the EL70 is and - urmmmm - bought 2 pairs of CHP 70 in natural colour. Yes, I know.... I bought them about a year ago - not sure what Gen that would make them.

I haven't put them into an enclosure yet - I think it was the Micro Tower that inspired me. Am I going to get anything like the bass of the EL70 with the CHP 70s? I read they were quite good after they had loosened up, though I did read that without a subwoofer the EL70 was preferable. Mind - they should have nice mids and top?

Andy


my guess is probably what we're now calling "gen1", and perhaps Zia could pipe in with his impressions / prognostications of the differences between them and the EL70s might be - IINM, he's one the few (if not only one) who's heard both

and it's not clear if you've chosen an enclosure design for the two pair - but I'd proselytize for the Castle MicroTowers ;)
 
Andy,

We are OT - it's dangerous to extol too much about MA paper on Jordan thread. :D

Also from your post gathered that you have 2 pairs of MA CHP-70 (gen 1, right?). As I said in another post today, EL-70 has an edge on both top and LF and will go a bit louder with less excursion, but that doesn't make the CHP-70.1 bad. Quite similar sonic signature, the EL-70 more dynamic, the CHP-70 gen 1 is more laid back and delicate.
 
I actually worked on a few line arrays based on 92. Using a 3 way array myself now. ;)
Roman, is it?

My assertion was not that no member posting her heard the "new 92" (apparently you have?) but that few have heard all the drivers mentioned earlier, much less had opportunity to compare any combinations - so that any postulations on differences would be purely that

If that's not the case as of this writing, I stand corrected


and as Zia noted, it's poor form at least to get too sidetracked riding our own favorite hobby horses
 
Last edited:
Hi Chris,

I take your point about hobby horses. On the other hand, this thread did start by saying

"I was wondering how the jordan fullrange drivers stack up next to the mark audios and fostex and tang band drivers? I was wondering about reviews and testing?"

Requests for comparisons are inevitable. As audio builders were are time and time again in the position where we have a limited sum of money and we want to spend it on the best available option. We haven't heard (or measured) the choices we want to make and are relying on the experience of those who have. Fortunately on this forum we have some great guys - including yourself - who can help with this.

Hobby horses are difficult, though. Over time a lot of us can become polarised in one kind of solution, one kind of product, and see that as a solution. It just happens. It would be good to think that we all have the goal of remaining open minded so we can carry on moving onwards and upwards.

Best

Andy
 
Last edited:
Roman, is it?

My assertion was not that no member posting her heard the "new 92" (apparently you have?) but that few have heard all the drivers mentioned earlier, much less had opportunity to compare any combinations - so that any postulations on differences would be purely that

If that's not the case as of this writing, I stand corrected


and as Zia noted, it's poor form at least to get too sidetracked riding our own favorite hobby horses

It is and I agree with you on the subject of sidetracking.
Nobody in US has the NEW 92 that was mentioned in another thread. I think that the driver is in development stage at this point.
As far as original question goes, it's hard to compare 92 to other drivers because they are all different animals, respond differently to the loading. Motors offer different advantages and disadvantages. Some people will like MA and other will prefer 92 or Fostex. So, IMO it would all come down to particular design, driver implementation and designer behind it.
I can certainly set up a controlled test next NY DIY if anyone is serious about it.
 
Last edited:
It is and I agree with you on the subject of sidetracking.
Nobody in US has the NEW 92 that was mentioned in another thread. I think that the driver is in development stage at this point.
As far as original question goes, it's hard to compare 92 to other drivers because they are all different animals, respond differently to the loading. Motors offer different advantages and disadvantages. Some people will like MA and other will prefer 92 or Fostex. So, IMO it would all come down to particular design, driver implementation and designer behind it.
I can certainly set up a controlled test next NY DIY if anyone is serious about it.


I'll take this reference as the "old / original" JX9S, which at the risk of pulling off a scab, was a driver that in its last couple of years of production with that moniker was subject to some suspect QC - that's something I definitely heard for myself - of two pairs that I've heard, one definitely had some damage, and one was from the group buy of a few years ago - so the question should include the qualification "which 92?"

To a lesser extent, the same could be said about the evolution of Mark's Alpairs and CH series - i.e. "which exact generation?" .

And certainly the point is valid about driver comparisons being predicated on each being installed in an appropriate (and potentially different) enclosure load - but that of course is never guaranteed. As anyone exposed to or having worked in the retail audio trade is aware - never underestimate the potential for listening comparisons to be distorted by either unwitting mistake or intentional manipulation.


The bottom line is we can't compare the current driver yet, but it will sound different without the dust cap.


From what can be deduced (read wild a$$ guessing based on the one photo) from the current Jordan website, there appears to be rather more to the redesign than just the open pole piece - perhaps there have been further technical data or listening tests released?
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.