Having dealt with Jordan directly I can only praise their service and am with Scottmoose about Wilmslow Audio.
A couple of years ago I drove a considerable distance to Wilmslow Audio to buy some speakers clearly advertised on their website.On arrival they had not had them in months and seemed to think it was funny.I suppose it was rather naïve of me to expect a company to hold stock of an advertised item.
They seem to think they are the only game in town and they are not.
I have had cheaper,faster and far more courteous service from a certain North American supplier who frequents this forum.
There are also many better,cheaper and more knowledgable British suppliers.
I have not tried the Eikona 2 yet but look forward to it and although it seems fairly expensive for what could be a full range,very high quality speaker system compared to a manufactured British Hifi speaker system is actually very cheap.
Have you seen the price of KEF LS 50's lately.
A couple of years ago I drove a considerable distance to Wilmslow Audio to buy some speakers clearly advertised on their website.On arrival they had not had them in months and seemed to think it was funny.I suppose it was rather naïve of me to expect a company to hold stock of an advertised item.
They seem to think they are the only game in town and they are not.
I have had cheaper,faster and far more courteous service from a certain North American supplier who frequents this forum.
There are also many better,cheaper and more knowledgable British suppliers.
I have not tried the Eikona 2 yet but look forward to it and although it seems fairly expensive for what could be a full range,very high quality speaker system compared to a manufactured British Hifi speaker system is actually very cheap.
Have you seen the price of KEF LS 50's lately.
The Eikona 2 frequency response and other curves are up on Ted's site at
Jordan loudspeaker drive units
Jordan loudspeaker drive units
They appear to be taken with a 40dB dynamic range / scale (65dB - 105dB), so they look worse at first glance relative to some others than they likely are in practice. With that accounted for, I'd say those are realistic / representative of the breed, with the only small disappointment from my end being that it doesn't get quite as high as I'd like. As usual with the Jordan units, it looks like it's intended for slightly off-axis listening -that's why there's a peak in the on-axis HF response. Makes it a bit more useable. Same applies to the Mark Audio drivers & probably the handful of metal cone Tang Band units also.
Hi Steve - What updates do you require? The Eikona 2 is in stock and has been selling well. If you've any specific questions, send an email to the sales address on the Jordan website and I'll do my best to answer them.
Regarding using the G2si tweeter; The JX92S had a rising response which made the units sound sharp, especially on-axis. The Eikona has a much better response at HF and sounds a lot smoother, on and off-axis. During initial testing, we ran a unit with a Jordan JXR6 for HF. There wasn't a lot of difference with or without the JXR6 and the JXR6 has a very good HF performance. On that basis, you probably won't need the ribbon tweeter.
Regarding using the G2si tweeter; The JX92S had a rising response which made the units sound sharp, especially on-axis. The Eikona has a much better response at HF and sounds a lot smoother, on and off-axis. During initial testing, we ran a unit with a Jordan JXR6 for HF. There wasn't a lot of difference with or without the JXR6 and the JXR6 has a very good HF performance. On that basis, you probably won't need the ribbon tweeter.
Hi Steve,
I have been running the Eikons 2's for a few weeks now and the top-end response is actually very good and seems stronger than the Eikona 1's. There is also no noticeable resonance but the result is slightly on the bright side. I would say it is even stronger than the jx92 up to 15KHz and also seems better off-axis. An additional tweeter is certainly a matter of taste but I would not add a dedicated ribbon without some adjustment for taste.
I have been running the Eikons 2's for a few weeks now and the top-end response is actually very good and seems stronger than the Eikona 1's. There is also no noticeable resonance but the result is slightly on the bright side. I would say it is even stronger than the jx92 up to 15KHz and also seems better off-axis. An additional tweeter is certainly a matter of taste but I would not add a dedicated ribbon without some adjustment for taste.
Somewhat inspired by Kevin's comments, I set up a comparison at the weekend, swapping out a pair of JXR6s with the Eikona 2s. Both were in sealed cabinets and the matching sub adjusted to compensate for the higher bass rolloff of the JXR6.
The JXR6 may have had slightly more treble but it was a close call. The balance was very similar and instruments like cymbals sounded very similar. This wasn't the case when I tried the same experiment with the JX92 and JXR6. The 92 sounded much more forward and less extended at HF. When I used them regularly, the JX92 was very fussy about amps and didn't playing nicely with Tripath class-D amps. I haven't had the same problem with JXR6 or Eikonas.
On the basis of that (admittedly very impromptu) experiment, I wouldn't add the complexity of a treble unit to the Eikonas.
The JXR6 may have had slightly more treble but it was a close call. The balance was very similar and instruments like cymbals sounded very similar. This wasn't the case when I tried the same experiment with the JX92 and JXR6. The 92 sounded much more forward and less extended at HF. When I used them regularly, the JX92 was very fussy about amps and didn't playing nicely with Tripath class-D amps. I haven't had the same problem with JXR6 or Eikonas.
On the basis of that (admittedly very impromptu) experiment, I wouldn't add the complexity of a treble unit to the Eikonas.
Yes would agree with colin. The only possible advantage of a tweeter would be enhanced off-axis response, not for any other reason. If listening is nearly always in the sweet area then leave the tweeter out or use very wide dispersion at low gain.
I have been demoing the Eikonas some more over the last few days (finally had a few days off work) and I must say they are noticeably much better than Eikons 1's and they continue to impress. I had very similar designs running in parallel and was able to switch between the two - these are the improvements I found with E2:
Noticeably more bass, partiularly bottom end. More 'punch'. The difference was obvious.
Noticeably more top-end but still smooth - again very obvious
More natural sounding overall
I did a similar comparison with E1 and JX92 and this is what I found with E1:
Less top-end but much smoother, resonance had gone. Probably not quite enough to justify no tweeter.
Lowest bass probably about the same, although a slight air leak noise was noticeable around the cone centres under controlled test
Overall more natural and convincing, particularly at volume.
These tests were done with two units in a vertical line in a narrow port-loaded TL with considerable BSC correction.
Kevin
I have been demoing the Eikonas some more over the last few days (finally had a few days off work) and I must say they are noticeably much better than Eikons 1's and they continue to impress. I had very similar designs running in parallel and was able to switch between the two - these are the improvements I found with E2:
Noticeably more bass, partiularly bottom end. More 'punch'. The difference was obvious.
Noticeably more top-end but still smooth - again very obvious
More natural sounding overall
I did a similar comparison with E1 and JX92 and this is what I found with E1:
Less top-end but much smoother, resonance had gone. Probably not quite enough to justify no tweeter.
Lowest bass probably about the same, although a slight air leak noise was noticeable around the cone centres under controlled test
Overall more natural and convincing, particularly at volume.
These tests were done with two units in a vertical line in a narrow port-loaded TL with considerable BSC correction.
Kevin
Eikonas Vs BMR 4.5 inch Neo with silk surround
Hi Kevin,
I used to use both Jordan and Manger drivers and have fond memories of the silver cones....!
l would really like to compare the latest 5 inch Eikonas driver with my 4.5 inch BMR drivers....I live about 35 mins away from Milton Keynes and I would be happy to bring over a few pairs of speakers to compare.
I have various types of BMR's but I think the Neo motor rubber surround is the nearest in performance.
I have a new double roll silk surround BMR which is a bit special, but it needs to be crossed over around 80Hz to 160Hz so is not really full range.
I have attached a waterfall plot of a prototype version of the silk driver, the production versions will be even better.
I should have enough drivers installed in test cabinets in about 4 weeks if you have some time to do a comparison.
Thanks in advance and all the best
Derek.
PS You are welcome to come hear any time and hear various BMR loudspeakers, mostly the rubber surround drivers at the moment but I have got a pair of the silk surround drivers running in and they do sound fab!
Hi Kevin,
I used to use both Jordan and Manger drivers and have fond memories of the silver cones....!
l would really like to compare the latest 5 inch Eikonas driver with my 4.5 inch BMR drivers....I live about 35 mins away from Milton Keynes and I would be happy to bring over a few pairs of speakers to compare.
I have various types of BMR's but I think the Neo motor rubber surround is the nearest in performance.
I have a new double roll silk surround BMR which is a bit special, but it needs to be crossed over around 80Hz to 160Hz so is not really full range.
I have attached a waterfall plot of a prototype version of the silk driver, the production versions will be even better.
I should have enough drivers installed in test cabinets in about 4 weeks if you have some time to do a comparison.
Thanks in advance and all the best
Derek.
PS You are welcome to come hear any time and hear various BMR loudspeakers, mostly the rubber surround drivers at the moment but I have got a pair of the silk surround drivers running in and they do sound fab!
Attachments
Hi Overkill,
Sure, would like to compare. Send me a private message and we will arrange.
Waterfall- hm, very compressed timescale so not so sure. Eikona2 seems to decay all within around 1ms judging from Jordan's plot. The bass ovarhang is due to his measurement practice - I have seen him measure them in boxes on the floor!
Kevin
Sure, would like to compare. Send me a private message and we will arrange.
Waterfall- hm, very compressed timescale so not so sure. Eikona2 seems to decay all within around 1ms judging from Jordan's plot. The bass ovarhang is due to his measurement practice - I have seen him measure them in boxes on the floor!
Kevin
Fab...Comparison will be fun!
Nice one Kevin, it will be great to compare the two drivers.
Comparing different software measurements & time scales is always tricky...Its not just the time taken to settle, its the frequency at which a driver resonates (stores energy) that's vital.
The lower the resonance the more energy involved ie a 10dB high ridge at 500Hz to 1,000Hz contains over 10 times the energy that a 10dB high ridge at 2,000Hz to 2,500 Hz ridge contains.
In the Eikonas there is significant resonant energy all the way from the starting 500Hz point (what does it do at 300Hz?) to beyond 1,000Hz and it extends off the 3 millisecond graph....It would have been interesting to see how long the driver continues to ring at those frequencies?
The reason I asked Tymphany (they carried out all the tests in their labs) to show a full 8 millisecond time frame was to allow exact comparisons with the early rubber surround BMR drivers....I have attached a graph from one of the "off the shelf" 4.5 inch Neo BMR's (cant say which one!) but as you can see its settling time is over 6 times longer than my silk surround driver.
The best possible vocal performance was a major design goal & as a lot of vocals start down in the 300Hz range we needed to ensure the driver stayed "clean" all the way down.
Waterfall graphs are the most severe test of any driver and also the most revealing, but the devil is in the detail and looking for the right clues is important!
But ultimately its how the driver sounds that counts...
Graphs and measurements are just design tools to help one focus on the right areas of design.
Looking forward to meeting you and doing the driver comparison.
All the best
Derek.
Nice one Kevin, it will be great to compare the two drivers.
Comparing different software measurements & time scales is always tricky...Its not just the time taken to settle, its the frequency at which a driver resonates (stores energy) that's vital.
The lower the resonance the more energy involved ie a 10dB high ridge at 500Hz to 1,000Hz contains over 10 times the energy that a 10dB high ridge at 2,000Hz to 2,500 Hz ridge contains.
In the Eikonas there is significant resonant energy all the way from the starting 500Hz point (what does it do at 300Hz?) to beyond 1,000Hz and it extends off the 3 millisecond graph....It would have been interesting to see how long the driver continues to ring at those frequencies?
The reason I asked Tymphany (they carried out all the tests in their labs) to show a full 8 millisecond time frame was to allow exact comparisons with the early rubber surround BMR drivers....I have attached a graph from one of the "off the shelf" 4.5 inch Neo BMR's (cant say which one!) but as you can see its settling time is over 6 times longer than my silk surround driver.
The best possible vocal performance was a major design goal & as a lot of vocals start down in the 300Hz range we needed to ensure the driver stayed "clean" all the way down.
Waterfall graphs are the most severe test of any driver and also the most revealing, but the devil is in the detail and looking for the right clues is important!
But ultimately its how the driver sounds that counts...
Graphs and measurements are just design tools to help one focus on the right areas of design.
Looking forward to meeting you and doing the driver comparison.
All the best
Derek.
Attachments
Hi Derek,
Thanks for the useful info. Would be interested to see your test results on Eikona 2 for comparison.
Sure more energy is stored in lower frequencies but also decay time represents fewer number of whole wavelengths. For instance 1/2 wavelength at 40 Hz would represent hundreds of waves at 20Hz and at lower wavelengths you are realsitically hearing the room/cabinet response.
Nice graphs all the same and very impressive.
Thanks for the useful info. Would be interested to see your test results on Eikona 2 for comparison.
Sure more energy is stored in lower frequencies but also decay time represents fewer number of whole wavelengths. For instance 1/2 wavelength at 40 Hz would represent hundreds of waves at 20Hz and at lower wavelengths you are realsitically hearing the room/cabinet response.
Nice graphs all the same and very impressive.
On the right R&D road
Hi Kevin,
You are welcome & I think the whole time domain / waterfall plot area is one that holds great promise for the advancement of all types of drivers.
I spent years chasing the perfect frequency response and got nowhere!
In the last few years I have been focused on the best time domain performance I can achieve and now there is a strong correlation between good measurements and great sound quality.
I am not sure I understand your point " For instance 1/2 wavelength at 40 Hz would represent hundreds of waves at 20Hz ...."
Do mean 20KHz?
Thanks
Derek.
Hi Kevin,
You are welcome & I think the whole time domain / waterfall plot area is one that holds great promise for the advancement of all types of drivers.
I spent years chasing the perfect frequency response and got nowhere!
In the last few years I have been focused on the best time domain performance I can achieve and now there is a strong correlation between good measurements and great sound quality.
I am not sure I understand your point " For instance 1/2 wavelength at 40 Hz would represent hundreds of waves at 20Hz ...."
Do mean 20KHz?
Thanks
Derek.
Hi Derek,
Yes that is what I meant of course - so you are paying attention!
I also believe waterfall is very revealing but there are several other important features:
Harmonic distortion
Inter-modulation distortion
impulse response
frequency response of course
dynamic ability
behaviour at very low volume (background detail)
All these things are important to the realistic experience and are severly limited by the loudspeaker, not the amplifier, cabling or necessarily source.
Yes that is what I meant of course - so you are paying attention!
I also believe waterfall is very revealing but there are several other important features:
Harmonic distortion
Inter-modulation distortion
impulse response
frequency response of course
dynamic ability
behaviour at very low volume (background detail)
All these things are important to the realistic experience and are severly limited by the loudspeaker, not the amplifier, cabling or necessarily source.
Waterfall is a "three in one" test
Hi Kevin,
Thanks, I understand your point now!
I agree both frequency related distortions (Harmonic distortion and Inter-modulation distortion) are important, the lower the better for sure.
A correctly measured Waterfall plot will tell you a lot about the other 4 points you correctly list as important :
" impulse response
frequency response of course
dynamic ability
behaviour at very low volume (background detail) "
A waterfall plot is effectively a "full range impulse" response ie an impulse signal covering 300Hz to 20KHz instead of a single 1KHz ( typical frequency) impulse.
If the waterfall is taken using good software the definition and resolution will show the full frequency response over the bandwidth used ie 300Hz to 20 KHz in the BMR case. Looking along the "top line" shows the frequency response.
Dynamic ability is governed by the " start / stop " time of a driver. It is not a 50 50 split though...How fast a driver stops is far more important than how fast it starts.
This is a Huge point and is all about efficiency and energy decay... (please see attached for more detail) but in summary:
A heavy cone on a big fat heavy surround will be very low in sensitivity (ultra low efficiency) but it can show an equally fast impulse acceleration (rise times are always quoted by marketing departments) compared to a light coned high sensitivity driver if you blast it with enough power....
A man hole cover can accelerate pretty damn fast if you detonate a big enough bomb below it!
But a heavy cone and rubber surround must dissipate all this energy....It takes a long time and bounces around like the "mass on a spring" that it is, just how the laws of physics dictate....
The waterfall is the best test of start stop times.....
Its not how fast a driver starts that counts its how fast it stops....!!!
Low level performance is again all about low energy ( sensitivity / efficiency) start stop times dynamics...Waterfall plot to the rescue!
Hope this helps and all the best
Derek.
Hi Kevin,
Thanks, I understand your point now!
I agree both frequency related distortions (Harmonic distortion and Inter-modulation distortion) are important, the lower the better for sure.
A correctly measured Waterfall plot will tell you a lot about the other 4 points you correctly list as important :
" impulse response
frequency response of course
dynamic ability
behaviour at very low volume (background detail) "
A waterfall plot is effectively a "full range impulse" response ie an impulse signal covering 300Hz to 20KHz instead of a single 1KHz ( typical frequency) impulse.
If the waterfall is taken using good software the definition and resolution will show the full frequency response over the bandwidth used ie 300Hz to 20 KHz in the BMR case. Looking along the "top line" shows the frequency response.
Dynamic ability is governed by the " start / stop " time of a driver. It is not a 50 50 split though...How fast a driver stops is far more important than how fast it starts.
This is a Huge point and is all about efficiency and energy decay... (please see attached for more detail) but in summary:
A heavy cone on a big fat heavy surround will be very low in sensitivity (ultra low efficiency) but it can show an equally fast impulse acceleration (rise times are always quoted by marketing departments) compared to a light coned high sensitivity driver if you blast it with enough power....
A man hole cover can accelerate pretty damn fast if you detonate a big enough bomb below it!
But a heavy cone and rubber surround must dissipate all this energy....It takes a long time and bounces around like the "mass on a spring" that it is, just how the laws of physics dictate....
The waterfall is the best test of start stop times.....
Its not how fast a driver starts that counts its how fast it stops....!!!
Low level performance is again all about low energy ( sensitivity / efficiency) start stop times dynamics...Waterfall plot to the rescue!
Hope this helps and all the best
Derek.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.