Anyone use Jordan JX92S with low-powered SET

bluegti · 9th November 2005, 07:33 AM

Still deciding about building my first speaker. I have low-powered 2A3 based SET amps. I'll be listening near-field and don't require much volume since I'm listening at work. Also, I would like it to be a bookshelf sort of design because of space limitations - will really be on my desk.

I haven't found anyone using the Jordan's with SETs. I would like to know what people think if they are out there. Would this be a waste of time and I should look at something else.

Another option... that could possibly work in my environment would be the smaller JX53 drivers. Any opinions on this?

soongsc · 9th November 2005, 04:19 PM

The Jordan drivers are probably best if you consider low listening levels because of the resolution it provides. It might be possible to get the JX53 below 100Hz for close listening, but I haven't seen a project like that working yet. Hope I can get mine to work.

The JX92S has much better bass capabilities, and probably is best for your application.

one1speed · 9th November 2005, 04:27 PM

There was a site at one time in which someone had built the TL speakers with the wide baffle and ran them with 2a3s. They said they sounded good, but couldn't get a lot of volume. In the end, they ended up adding a sub and relieving the Jordans of the lowere frequencies and were much happier with the outcome.

For your use, I'd think you'd be fine at lower volumes. Or, you could try the Fostex FE108E Sigma, as they are a little more efficient. The 168 is even more so.

9th November 2005, 07:33 AM	#1
bluegti diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Northern Virginia	Anyone use Jordan JX92S with low-powered SET Still deciding about building my first speaker. I have low-powered 2A3 based SET amps. I'll be listening near-field and don't require much volume since I'm listening at work. Also, I would like it to be a bookshelf sort of design because of space limitations - will really be on my desk. I haven't found anyone using the Jordan's with SETs. I would like to know what people think if they are out there. Would this be a waste of time and I should look at something else. Another option... that could possibly work in my environment would be the smaller JX53 drivers. Any opinions on this?

9th November 2005, 04:19 PM	#2
soongsc diyAudio Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Taiwan	The Jordan drivers are probably best if you consider low listening levels because of the resolution it provides. It might be possible to get the JX53 below 100Hz for close listening, but I haven't seen a project like that working yet. Hope I can get mine to work. The JX92S has much better bass capabilities, and probably is best for your application. __________________ Hear the real thing!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Looking for Jordan JX92S	oshifis	Swap Meet	3	26th September 2011 12:44 PM
FS Jordan JX92S	JohnnyBoy	Swap Meet	0	17th October 2006 10:58 PM
Jordan JX92S	Gaffer74	Full Range	11	31st May 2006 09:42 PM
Jordan JX92s - one unit only	JohnnyBoy	Swap Meet	10	25th May 2006 08:53 PM
jordan jx92s TL box	pstephenson	Full Range	3	26th October 2004 12:56 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

9th November 2005, 04:27 PM	#3
one1speed diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio	There was a site at one time in which someone had built the TL speakers with the wide baffle and ran them with 2a3s. They said they sounded good, but couldn't get a lot of volume. In the end, they ended up adding a sub and relieving the Jordans of the lowere frequencies and were much happier with the outcome. For your use, I'd think you'd be fine at lower volumes. Or, you could try the Fostex FE108E Sigma, as they are a little more efficient. The 168 is even more so.