Hi, I'm a new member (first post). I built a pair of Jordan Watts (Juliet enclosure) 25 years ago and they are still going strong.
Due to the reviews from Hi-Fi magazines I was persuaded to buy a pair of Acoustic Energy Evo 3's (and centre speaker) for my surround sound system, using the Jordans as surrounds. The AE's are very capable speakers but I soon noticed their limitations compared to the rear Jordans, notably the lack of intimacy and fluidity in the midrange compared with these speakers - the difference actually shouted out to me!
The obvious solution was to replace the mid-range in the AE units with a JS92s. In terms of sensitivity, power handling, size and cone material the Jordan is a perfect fit - I did have to drill 4 additional mounting holes and use a gasket to fill the slightly square shaped inset left when removing the AE unit (actually cut from the Jordan packing material).
I connected the JX92's directly to the input terminals to run them full range (the Evo 3 is actually a 2.5 way design).
I believe the AE bass unit cuts in at around 350 HZ and tweeter comes in around 330HZ. I also replace the mid-range unit in the centre speaker, similarly, and use a MJ Pro 50 subwoofer as recommended by Ted Jordan (the surround sound receiver is set to roll off frequencies below 100Hz to this). The crossover on the Pro50 is actually set to 40Hz as it actually rolls off gently and still produces appreciable output at 100Hz on this setting.
Well as for the result - success!! It seems to have it all - base punch and attack, beautiful and intimate sound, sparkling and wide-sounding treble, excellent imaging etc. I am exceedingly critical of sound systems but must say I can't think of any way to improve this setup (at the moment). The system will also play extremely loud without problems, but the major advantage of the Jordans is that they are still very satisfying at low volume.
The only problem is I am spending too much time just listening to it. My faithful Jordan Watts Juliets are still used as the surround speakers - I suppose I could upgrade these (but am unlikely to get much return for the effort/expense) - what do I do now??
Due to the reviews from Hi-Fi magazines I was persuaded to buy a pair of Acoustic Energy Evo 3's (and centre speaker) for my surround sound system, using the Jordans as surrounds. The AE's are very capable speakers but I soon noticed their limitations compared to the rear Jordans, notably the lack of intimacy and fluidity in the midrange compared with these speakers - the difference actually shouted out to me!
The obvious solution was to replace the mid-range in the AE units with a JS92s. In terms of sensitivity, power handling, size and cone material the Jordan is a perfect fit - I did have to drill 4 additional mounting holes and use a gasket to fill the slightly square shaped inset left when removing the AE unit (actually cut from the Jordan packing material).
I connected the JX92's directly to the input terminals to run them full range (the Evo 3 is actually a 2.5 way design).
I believe the AE bass unit cuts in at around 350 HZ and tweeter comes in around 330HZ. I also replace the mid-range unit in the centre speaker, similarly, and use a MJ Pro 50 subwoofer as recommended by Ted Jordan (the surround sound receiver is set to roll off frequencies below 100Hz to this). The crossover on the Pro50 is actually set to 40Hz as it actually rolls off gently and still produces appreciable output at 100Hz on this setting.
Well as for the result - success!! It seems to have it all - base punch and attack, beautiful and intimate sound, sparkling and wide-sounding treble, excellent imaging etc. I am exceedingly critical of sound systems but must say I can't think of any way to improve this setup (at the moment). The system will also play extremely loud without problems, but the major advantage of the Jordans is that they are still very satisfying at low volume.
The only problem is I am spending too much time just listening to it. My faithful Jordan Watts Juliets are still used as the surround speakers - I suppose I could upgrade these (but am unlikely to get much return for the effort/expense) - what do I do now??
The Jordan Watts are really nice speakers. The only thing I don't like about them are the holes in the middle of the cone. The rear suspension was one of the yearly innovations of linear suspension, if I recall correctly, consists of three copper rods. If anyone knows how to reshape deformed cones of these, it would be much appreciated.
Currently I too am listening to a pair of Jorden Watts in "Juno" style cabinets.,having put aside my more modern TL's for the moment. They stand up well against modern speakers of similar size. I have not been able to do a side-by-side comparison with the JX92, but a demo in a shop did not cause me to be dissatisfied with the JW's. I would be interested to know what differences you hear between the two.
I prefer these to my LS3 clones. However another pair of vintage speakers I have recently aquired, Leak Sandwich 600's, are better. In the 70's I was asked to arrange purchase of a pair of "large bookshelves" for a friend unable to access hifi shops himself. I thought these were the best I heard, sounding accurate if a little lean. The Goodmans equivalent (Magnum) were warm in comparison, but suited my friend's taste better, so I got him those.
Back to the J-W., the suspension is by three tangental berilium wires, (coated as berilium is poisonous). They are soldered to tags on the frame, which can move if the unit is mistreated, physically or electrically. I have to recentre the cones twice because of this. This requires removing the aluminium plate, (four screws), carefully lifting the rubber suspension surround which is glued to the frame, and inserting a slim soldering iron in the gap. Fiddly, but not difficult with care.
Note carefully the position, (depth) of the coil in the gap. You will need to duplicate this later.
Unsolder the wires from the tags on the frame, (two are used to feed the coil), then the cone will come out.
The cone is not linear, so take care if trying to smooth out bumps.
Assembly is the reverse. I used four long narrow lengths of thin paper to centre the coil in the gap, (a light interference fit), and to adjust the depth of cone in the gap. The paper will pull out after soldering the wires to the tags.
Re the hole in the cone, this is in the centre of the "dust cap" which actually is designed as a radiator to improve HF. To damping the edges, it has a small piece of foam glued across it. Without the foam the unit sounds "edgy". (This system also assists cooling).
I prefer these to my LS3 clones. However another pair of vintage speakers I have recently aquired, Leak Sandwich 600's, are better. In the 70's I was asked to arrange purchase of a pair of "large bookshelves" for a friend unable to access hifi shops himself. I thought these were the best I heard, sounding accurate if a little lean. The Goodmans equivalent (Magnum) were warm in comparison, but suited my friend's taste better, so I got him those.
Back to the J-W., the suspension is by three tangental berilium wires, (coated as berilium is poisonous). They are soldered to tags on the frame, which can move if the unit is mistreated, physically or electrically. I have to recentre the cones twice because of this. This requires removing the aluminium plate, (four screws), carefully lifting the rubber suspension surround which is glued to the frame, and inserting a slim soldering iron in the gap. Fiddly, but not difficult with care.
Note carefully the position, (depth) of the coil in the gap. You will need to duplicate this later.
Unsolder the wires from the tags on the frame, (two are used to feed the coil), then the cone will come out.
The cone is not linear, so take care if trying to smooth out bumps.
Assembly is the reverse. I used four long narrow lengths of thin paper to centre the coil in the gap, (a light interference fit), and to adjust the depth of cone in the gap. The paper will pull out after soldering the wires to the tags.
Re the hole in the cone, this is in the centre of the "dust cap" which actually is designed as a radiator to improve HF. To damping the edges, it has a small piece of foam glued across it. Without the foam the unit sounds "edgy". (This system also assists cooling).
The JX92s is noticeably more sensitive than the Jordan Watts module. It plays louder and seems to have improved response in the treble - apart from this I have noticed no other differences.
I think there is something special about all these Jordan designs that breathes a certain life into sound, making the difference between music that is pleasant and music that is really involving. I am thinking of getting a pair for my car.
I think there is something special about all these Jordan designs that breathes a certain life into sound, making the difference between music that is pleasant and music that is really involving. I am thinking of getting a pair for my car.
Ted Jordan is pretty much obsessed with resolving fine detail with his drivers. He's been pursuing metal cone approach for 40 odd years, so no surprise there's a family resemblance to the sound.
For car use, have a look at the new JXR6 when details are on the website. (Should be sometime in the next few days.) It's a 2" driver capable of going down to 100Hz or so.
For car use, have a look at the new JXR6 when details are on the website. (Should be sometime in the next few days.) It's a 2" driver capable of going down to 100Hz or so.
Keladrin,
I understand that you have connected the Jordan straight on the input. That is great now you have the full advantage of the using Jordans full frequenciespectrum. But in your AE system the tweeter comes in at about 3000Hz probably with a 2e order or 3e order filter. I think that is not necessary if you are running with a jx92s. Try connecting the tweeter between 12kHz - 16 kHz with a 1e order filter. A first order filter makes it possible to let the tweeter come in more fluent, it blends more with your Jordan. A specially in the sensitive mid frequencies it’s solo Jordan which does the job. Let the tweeter come in at about 15k. There is where the weakness of the jx92s starts and where your tweeter can support. If it start too early it is no support but interference. You will be rewarded with more stage depth and directness.
But you have to experiment with it tough. Try different frequencies where the tweeter comes in and it is also possible/necessary to weaken the tweeter a little.
This is not recommendable for the woofer because of avoiding resonance frequencies. But in spite of some forum members I am not impressed by the bass of the Jordan. I probably will tried weakening the low frequencies of the Jordan (not cutting it off) and let the more specialised woofer do the bass. Because you have build your Jordan in an existing casing it will not be tuned for the Jordan so there is a big change that the bass is not from good quality. Let that great MJ pro do the job.
How this can be done is in the next treat: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58565
Next step is a BSC to flavour it ?
I understand that you have connected the Jordan straight on the input. That is great now you have the full advantage of the using Jordans full frequenciespectrum. But in your AE system the tweeter comes in at about 3000Hz probably with a 2e order or 3e order filter. I think that is not necessary if you are running with a jx92s. Try connecting the tweeter between 12kHz - 16 kHz with a 1e order filter. A first order filter makes it possible to let the tweeter come in more fluent, it blends more with your Jordan. A specially in the sensitive mid frequencies it’s solo Jordan which does the job. Let the tweeter come in at about 15k. There is where the weakness of the jx92s starts and where your tweeter can support. If it start too early it is no support but interference. You will be rewarded with more stage depth and directness.
But you have to experiment with it tough. Try different frequencies where the tweeter comes in and it is also possible/necessary to weaken the tweeter a little.
This is not recommendable for the woofer because of avoiding resonance frequencies. But in spite of some forum members I am not impressed by the bass of the Jordan. I probably will tried weakening the low frequencies of the Jordan (not cutting it off) and let the more specialised woofer do the bass. Because you have build your Jordan in an existing casing it will not be tuned for the Jordan so there is a big change that the bass is not from good quality. Let that great MJ pro do the job.
How this can be done is in the next treat: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58565
Next step is a BSC to flavour it ?
planet10 said:
I'm pulling mine out to test the Jordan Watts recently. Never had the chance to do so in the earlier days. From what I recall, the highs were not as good and the lows were somewhat lacking, but it may have been my knowledge on these at the time. The glue material was not as good during those days is what I understand as well.
From Ted's graph of the JX92's response the frequency becomes much more directional abouve about 3.5K and this is where the AE tweeter start to kick in. Coming in at 15K would not do much for me as I tested my system with a frequency generator and I can't hear anything above 16K anyway (must be my 43 year old ears). The frequency spectrum is well balanced off-axis as verified by a sound pressure level meter. Maybe I will try adjusting the crossover frequency, however, as I would like to test this out - how do I do this? I have no idea how the AE tweeter crossover works.
In term of the bass: I find the combination of the AE bass unit rolling in and the Jordan's base very impressive - then the MJ Pro50 starts to take over below 100HZ (and the Jordan is saved from effects of maximum excursion at frequencies it cannot produce so well).
As another 40s-ophile, I'd suggest disconnecting the AE tweeter altogether and letting the JX92S do all the work. The beaming is deliberately engineering to produce a soundfield which mimics the jordan linear array.
Bass of these is very cabinet dependent. I've heard some which are ok and some which are terrific.
The Jordan Watts module was developed in the late 60s so the 92 is a very different beast.
Bass of these is very cabinet dependent. I've heard some which are ok and some which are terrific.
The Jordan Watts module was developed in the late 60s so the 92 is a very different beast.
Hi Colin,
Yes I tried this - it is achieved by simply removing the binding
posts connector (I can switch the tweeter in and out at will).
I must say I prefer the sound with it switched in, particulalry at high volume levels where the Jordan seems to compress the treble somewhat (and of course the beaming is sometimes a problem). This is still under research, however.
Yes I tried this - it is achieved by simply removing the binding
posts connector (I can switch the tweeter in and out at will).
I must say I prefer the sound with it switched in, particulalry at high volume levels where the Jordan seems to compress the treble somewhat (and of course the beaming is sometimes a problem). This is still under research, however.
I am working from memory of a few years back, so I just hope the following is right and I have not forgotten anything. Please note this is E&OE, all care no responsibility.
You work from the front. Carefully peel off the flat black rubber damping material, from memory a rubber foam material, to get at the flat Al plate, which is held in place by countersunk pk screws into the plastic housing. Before removing this plate, you also have to carefully peel off the roll suspension surround. The plate then comes off, by feeding the suspension roll gently through the hole in the plate. This leaves the cone and suspension in place, but rather flapping around, in the square plastic casing.
Do not under any circumstances undo the screws in the back, this holds the magnet assembly in place, and letting this free will damage things.
The roll surround remains on the cone.
By holding back the roll surround you can get at the tags that hold the beryillium wires at the housing end. Note carefully the depth the coil in the gap.
Assembly from this point is simply the reverse.
To disassemble further you have two options. Either undo the screws holding the tags, or unsolder the wires. Either is a bit frought with problems when reassembling.
If you unsolder the wires. take great care not to damage the roll surround with the hot iron. On reassembly the coil needs to be held by paper shims central in the gap, and at the right depth. I did this, and it worked out ok taking considerable care, but I'm not sure it is the best way.
The alternative is to leave the tags on the wires, but remove the screws holding them. The problem here is tightening the screws tends to twist the wires and displace the coil.
The magnet is very strong and it is difficult to use steel tools in the small space allowed between the rigid cone and the plastic housing.
It may pay to email Ted Jorden and ask his advice.
When reglueing the roll suspension and foam, I used a low strength silicone I knew I could peal off again if necessary.
The real question is why do you want to remove the coil and cone from the housing. If it is simply to recentre the cone it may not be necessary to disconnect the wires. Simply adjusting the tags may work. If it is to remove a minor ding in the cone, I suggest you leave well alone.
I would not recommend you dissassmble these units unless there is good cause, and you have played with other speakers in the past. However, with care, it is not impossible.
Email me if you need further info, Good luck.
You work from the front. Carefully peel off the flat black rubber damping material, from memory a rubber foam material, to get at the flat Al plate, which is held in place by countersunk pk screws into the plastic housing. Before removing this plate, you also have to carefully peel off the roll suspension surround. The plate then comes off, by feeding the suspension roll gently through the hole in the plate. This leaves the cone and suspension in place, but rather flapping around, in the square plastic casing.
Do not under any circumstances undo the screws in the back, this holds the magnet assembly in place, and letting this free will damage things.
The roll surround remains on the cone.
By holding back the roll surround you can get at the tags that hold the beryillium wires at the housing end. Note carefully the depth the coil in the gap.
Assembly from this point is simply the reverse.
To disassemble further you have two options. Either undo the screws holding the tags, or unsolder the wires. Either is a bit frought with problems when reassembling.
If you unsolder the wires. take great care not to damage the roll surround with the hot iron. On reassembly the coil needs to be held by paper shims central in the gap, and at the right depth. I did this, and it worked out ok taking considerable care, but I'm not sure it is the best way.
The alternative is to leave the tags on the wires, but remove the screws holding them. The problem here is tightening the screws tends to twist the wires and displace the coil.
The magnet is very strong and it is difficult to use steel tools in the small space allowed between the rigid cone and the plastic housing.
It may pay to email Ted Jorden and ask his advice.
When reglueing the roll suspension and foam, I used a low strength silicone I knew I could peal off again if necessary.
The real question is why do you want to remove the coil and cone from the housing. If it is simply to recentre the cone it may not be necessary to disconnect the wires. Simply adjusting the tags may work. If it is to remove a minor ding in the cone, I suggest you leave well alone.
I would not recommend you dissassmble these units unless there is good cause, and you have played with other speakers in the past. However, with care, it is not impossible.
Email me if you need further info, Good luck.
Thanks rjb,
I have a total of five of these, two have deformed cones with coils rubbing gainst something, and one seems to have a rubbing coil. Two are working fine, but I did a test and found the response to have s sudden drop at 10KHz, but the 10K to 20K portion seem quite flat, very weird.
I have a total of five of these, two have deformed cones with coils rubbing gainst something, and one seems to have a rubbing coil. Two are working fine, but I did a test and found the response to have s sudden drop at 10KHz, but the 10K to 20K portion seem quite flat, very weird.
Colin said:
Sounds like a good idea. I'm really interested in looking for different models that I currently don't have, and fix the ones I do. The various designs really provide lots of inspiration, especially when they are based on broad considerations. Most other designers really seldom take the time for overall understanding of sound reproduction which really involves electromechanical, material, structural, aerodynamics, and acoustic waves as well.
Keladrin
My ears are older than yours and still they benefit from adding frequencies far above my normal hearing range. Even if you can not hear anything above 16k you will notice a difference. I sometimes ask my wife to listen. Most of the woman can hear better then men (but not always responding).
You mentioned that the tweeter adds something and you miss it when disconnecting it. That is also my experience. The jx92s can benefit if you are adding a (super) tweeter. Still I recommend connecting it with a 1e order XO on the tweeter with a much higher cutting off point. In your AE the tweeter kicks in at 3k and probably goes to 22k. But your jx92s is producing the same frequencies. In this way you can expect phase disparities. It is now more difficult to get a direct more involved sound. Try cutting the tweeter with a simple 1e order filter. The sound from 100Hz to 12k is produced then solo by the Jordan.
How to do this. Simply disconnect the tweeter from the filter and connect it with a 3.0 uF cap from good quality (minimal MKP) straight to the input terminals (if it is a 4 ohm tweeter otherwise you have to calculate a different value of the cap). That’s it. So just a few penny’s for 1 cap. See also on post #58 on the previous referred thread.
It now kicks in at 13k. I have a more accurate graph of the frequencies response of the jx92s and there you’ll see that there is a 10dB reduce starting at 15k and getting back in line at 18k. The tweeter will fill that gap nicely and even flattens/adds some more at higher freqs. The roll of starting at 3,5k is not interesting to me because I have the best seat in the house just in the middle of the speakers and pointed straight to me.
What you will probably notice is that the sound has less mid and there is maybe less tremble. But there must be high enough because there is no cutting off from high frequencies. Its should be more in balance. But if you focus on the stage performance there must be a change. It is like the instruments and vocals appear on the right place you can pinpoint their place more accurate between and even outside your speakers.
Lets make things (even) better!
My ears are older than yours and still they benefit from adding frequencies far above my normal hearing range. Even if you can not hear anything above 16k you will notice a difference. I sometimes ask my wife to listen. Most of the woman can hear better then men (but not always responding).
You mentioned that the tweeter adds something and you miss it when disconnecting it. That is also my experience. The jx92s can benefit if you are adding a (super) tweeter. Still I recommend connecting it with a 1e order XO on the tweeter with a much higher cutting off point. In your AE the tweeter kicks in at 3k and probably goes to 22k. But your jx92s is producing the same frequencies. In this way you can expect phase disparities. It is now more difficult to get a direct more involved sound. Try cutting the tweeter with a simple 1e order filter. The sound from 100Hz to 12k is produced then solo by the Jordan.
How to do this. Simply disconnect the tweeter from the filter and connect it with a 3.0 uF cap from good quality (minimal MKP) straight to the input terminals (if it is a 4 ohm tweeter otherwise you have to calculate a different value of the cap). That’s it. So just a few penny’s for 1 cap. See also on post #58 on the previous referred thread.
It now kicks in at 13k. I have a more accurate graph of the frequencies response of the jx92s and there you’ll see that there is a 10dB reduce starting at 15k and getting back in line at 18k. The tweeter will fill that gap nicely and even flattens/adds some more at higher freqs. The roll of starting at 3,5k is not interesting to me because I have the best seat in the house just in the middle of the speakers and pointed straight to me.
What you will probably notice is that the sound has less mid and there is maybe less tremble. But there must be high enough because there is no cutting off from high frequencies. Its should be more in balance. But if you focus on the stage performance there must be a change. It is like the instruments and vocals appear on the right place you can pinpoint their place more accurate between and even outside your speakers.
Lets make things (even) better!
Soongsc
You have nothing to loose by taking one driver, (the worst damaged) apart. At least you will know how its put together, and with luck you should be able to fix. These drivers are very prone to coil rubbing because the tags fastening the suspension wires to the housing tend to shift.
Re adding a tweeter, in the original J-W info and cabinet designs, , the Jodrell and Jupiter designs used an MTM arrangement (16 ohm JWs in parl) with an 8 ohm "HF" unit (unspecified), fed by a 2mfd cap and 50 ohm series pot. The GT was similar, using one 8 ohm J-W. The recommended postioning of the cabinets is hard against the wall. The curve of the unit alone seems to droop above 10K, unlike the modern ones which rise. That was typical in those days to reduce the effects of clicks,pops and noise.
You have nothing to loose by taking one driver, (the worst damaged) apart. At least you will know how its put together, and with luck you should be able to fix. These drivers are very prone to coil rubbing because the tags fastening the suspension wires to the housing tend to shift.
Re adding a tweeter, in the original J-W info and cabinet designs, , the Jodrell and Jupiter designs used an MTM arrangement (16 ohm JWs in parl) with an 8 ohm "HF" unit (unspecified), fed by a 2mfd cap and 50 ohm series pot. The GT was similar, using one 8 ohm J-W. The recommended postioning of the cabinets is hard against the wall. The curve of the unit alone seems to droop above 10K, unlike the modern ones which rise. That was typical in those days to reduce the effects of clicks,pops and noise.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.