Looking for a 4" fullrange driver. Which ones are worth considering, performance is more important than price. Low motor ditortion as well as decent conebehaviour of course.
These will be used for PC game, small hometheater and possibly even hifi if the result turns out good enough. Main criteria is big good sound in a small package as far as physics allow. 3-6 liter reflex box would be nice.
Jordan or Tangband?
Thanks in advance
/Peter
These will be used for PC game, small hometheater and possibly even hifi if the result turns out good enough. Main criteria is big good sound in a small package as far as physics allow. 3-6 liter reflex box would be nice.
Jordan or Tangband?
Thanks in advance
/Peter
I build the solo 103s and am very pleased with the result.
Do not expect very high SPL though. It is sparkling and really nice for acoustical music reproduction.
http://home.hetnet.nl/~geenius/Solo103.html
DocLorren
Do not expect very high SPL though. It is sparkling and really nice for acoustical music reproduction.
http://home.hetnet.nl/~geenius/Solo103.html
DocLorren
Attachments
Fostex FE103E vs. Jordan JX92S
Any use of the FE103E in a vented box is a criminal act at best. Using the Fostex 103 in a vented box is a speaker that I would not recommend. It has Xmax= 0.35 mm, 5 watts rated power handling, and Fs of 80 Hz. In a 7 liter vented box you exceed its Xmax around 350 Hz with that 5 watts input. You have to like mid-range with this driver because it does not do bass, midbass, or far bass for that matter. Output SPL will be so low you'll have to use it nearfield or real close in my opinion.
In contrast the JX92S is rated at Xmax of 4.5 mm, 50 watts power handling, and Fs of 45 Hz. It works nicely down to an F3 of less than 60 Hz in a 7 liters box. It will do safely do bass without exceeding its Xmax at 50 watts and produce decent SPL while doing so.
The little Fostex needs a back horn or such enclosure and even then you need to be happy without any real bass impact. Bottom line: The JX92S kicks the FE103E back to Japan with more bass output in a small vented box.
Jim
Any use of the FE103E in a vented box is a criminal act at best. Using the Fostex 103 in a vented box is a speaker that I would not recommend. It has Xmax= 0.35 mm, 5 watts rated power handling, and Fs of 80 Hz. In a 7 liter vented box you exceed its Xmax around 350 Hz with that 5 watts input. You have to like mid-range with this driver because it does not do bass, midbass, or far bass for that matter. Output SPL will be so low you'll have to use it nearfield or real close in my opinion.
In contrast the JX92S is rated at Xmax of 4.5 mm, 50 watts power handling, and Fs of 45 Hz. It works nicely down to an F3 of less than 60 Hz in a 7 liters box. It will do safely do bass without exceeding its Xmax at 50 watts and produce decent SPL while doing so.
The little Fostex needs a back horn or such enclosure and even then you need to be happy without any real bass impact. Bottom line: The JX92S kicks the FE103E back to Japan with more bass output in a small vented box.
Jim
You can go as small as 4.5 L (actually smaller) with Jordan 92
which equates fairly closely with the size of the Eikos Speaker
I prefer around 6.0 L
If you want really small like 1.0 / 1.5 L but really high quality & bearing in mind you will envitably progress to a sub at some stage may as well bite the bullet & try the Jordan 53's with a small sub (or two)
Make things easy for yourself & use sealed
If your reasons / concerns are for a small discrete unobtrusive speaker you can try mounting just above the desk with rest of enclosure below desk. In which case you can have any size you want. Have Fun.
which equates fairly closely with the size of the Eikos Speaker
I prefer around 6.0 L
If you want really small like 1.0 / 1.5 L but really high quality & bearing in mind you will envitably progress to a sub at some stage may as well bite the bullet & try the Jordan 53's with a small sub (or two)
Make things easy for yourself & use sealed
If your reasons / concerns are for a small discrete unobtrusive speaker you can try mounting just above the desk with rest of enclosure below desk. In which case you can have any size you want. Have Fun.
I'm building a couple of TangBand 1052sa's into 7 liter bass reflex boxes (right now they're in bass reflex cardboard boxes for prototyping - I'll start the wooden ones this weekend). Good full-range response and bass extension to around 65Hz anechoic. They have neo magnet motors, too, so they're essentially self-sheilded for use near a CRT. I did MarkMck's cone and pre-filtering mods, and so far the performance is quite impressive.
Re: Fostex FE103E vs. Jordan JX92S
Put on the cuffs, officer. It's a fair pinch.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36305&highlight=
Jim Griffin said:
Put on the cuffs, officer. It's a fair pinch.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36305&highlight=
[sarcasm]You're right. Now I hate my speakers. I must have been deaf all along.[/sarcasm]
And I would expect the Jordans might sound a teensy bit better at their much higher price. The 103's are not going to shake the room - in any enclosure - but if he wants a small FR enclosure, the 103's in a BR are a legitimate consideration.
$23.07 at Parts Express: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=264-828Pan said:
Here's the thread about this driver and a link to the mods: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...4030&perpage=10&highlight=1052sa&pagenumber=7
As much as I love my fostex 108, I would have to agree that if your looking for a small fullrange design the fostex 4"ers just aren't happy. I've tried my 108's in quite a few enclosures and they deffienetly sound best either in a backloaded horn or in a two way design. I've even tried them in small sealed enclosures with subs, and unfortunatly they still don't have enough excursion to reach any kind of volume cleanly.
Having heard Jim Griffin's jordan design, I think that if effeciency wasn't an issue, you would be hard pressed to do better for a small fullrange design.
Joe
Having heard Jim Griffin's jordan design, I think that if effeciency wasn't an issue, you would be hard pressed to do better for a small fullrange design.
Joe
Thanks for your input J.
Yes as I said, performance is more important than a low price and I also want low motor distortion and good cone behaviour. That is not possible with 0.35mm and a paper cone in this case which is a toy IMO, no offense to those of you who use it and like it.
I looked at those Tangbands but the Jordans, even though slightly bigger and more costly than I´d like, seems so superior it might be the one.
The alternative would be a small two way with a Seas or Peerless 5" but we thought that it would be nice to try something new with a more simplistic approach and possibly smaller enclosure without sacrify to much of the bass extension.
Possibly a sub will be used so that could lead to the more "midrangy" of the Jordan drivers.
/Peter
Yes as I said, performance is more important than a low price and I also want low motor distortion and good cone behaviour. That is not possible with 0.35mm and a paper cone in this case which is a toy IMO, no offense to those of you who use it and like it.
I looked at those Tangbands but the Jordans, even though slightly bigger and more costly than I´d like, seems so superior it might be the one.
The alternative would be a small two way with a Seas or Peerless 5" but we thought that it would be nice to try something new with a more simplistic approach and possibly smaller enclosure without sacrify to much of the bass extension.
Possibly a sub will be used so that could lead to the more "midrangy" of the Jordan drivers.
/Peter
Pan said:Thanks for your input J.
Yes as I said, performance is more important than a low price and I also want low motor distortion and good cone behaviour. That is not possible with 0.35mm and a paper cone in this case which is a toy IMO, no offense to those of you who use it and like it.
/Peter
Well, offense taken anyways
. In the right configuration they are certainly more than toys and have a great sound when horn loaded or in a two way configuration. My "toy" which is just getting finished up:
Attachments
Eaglesbush said:
Here is a link to the design that people have been talking about. I guess you have to buy it to get all the details. I do know that it's a third order cross over at 3k. You could try and copy it, or just buy the kit, but I don't think the schematics are available publicly.
Joe
http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=J92R2KIT
Thanks for the link -
I was not expecting a 2 way design & I am immediately suspicious of crossovers in that kind of frequency range - which is also counter to the full range philosophy - Course I haven't heard Jim's speaker yet - but I can say I am more than happy with the JX92 on its own & that if improvements are to be made I would look first to adding / improving bass. The top end for me would be a lower priority.
As a matter of interest what category award was given to Jim's design & how was it given?
I was not expecting a 2 way design & I am immediately suspicious of crossovers in that kind of frequency range - which is also counter to the full range philosophy - Course I haven't heard Jim's speaker yet - but I can say I am more than happy with the JX92 on its own & that if improvements are to be made I would look first to adding / improving bass. The top end for me would be a lower priority.
As a matter of interest what category award was given to Jim's design & how was it given?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.