Re: The far side
NICE!
It appears to be an AER MD1 (which is a good bit more eff. than even a Lowther DX4).
This driver requires a "horn" to get an even response, and simply looking at it - it is a waveguide (though not a true horn) that should boost the response from around 300 Hz to a bit above 1 kHz. Because its also a dipole it doesn't need the outer edge "roll" that most horns need for diffraction reduction.
Note that the shape is not round but elliptical - rather like Acapella's LaCampanella.
As good as dipole bass is I'd bet that the dipoles were the "weak" link with this design in an effort to increase extension at the expense of transient fidelity.
Calvin said:Hi,
oh boy, was this combination a pleasure to listen to and it was for the very first time that I thought on giving up on building electrostatsThat´s the high end of dynamic FR that shows You how far You could come
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
FR-driver AER in a kind of ´horny´ open baffle, without any EQing between the AER and the fabulous KR VA320 SET (~20W). Accompanying dipole-bass with a quad of 10" per side. Active crossover @150Hz and a high power stage for the bass. As vinyl source the big MusicalLife with an Koetsu Urushi.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
when You´ve heard this driver, You´ll never again waste any thought on Lowther crap
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This baffle looks like a horn but doesn´t give any funktion other than that of an open baffle. But surely optics and stability are worth the effort
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Driving a high-SPL FR with such babies (and cutting bass off) can be a fantastic sounding solution.
jauu
Calvin
NICE!
It appears to be an AER MD1 (which is a good bit more eff. than even a Lowther DX4).
This driver requires a "horn" to get an even response, and simply looking at it - it is a waveguide (though not a true horn) that should boost the response from around 300 Hz to a bit above 1 kHz. Because its also a dipole it doesn't need the outer edge "roll" that most horns need for diffraction reduction.
Note that the shape is not round but elliptical - rather like Acapella's LaCampanella.
As good as dipole bass is I'd bet that the dipoles were the "weak" link with this design in an effort to increase extension at the expense of transient fidelity.
To my way of thinking the fundamental difference between "most" multi-driver designs and a fullrange design is where the crossover points are.
Multi-driver designs are happy to attempt to cross over within the critical human voice range of hearing. This makes any failings in the crossover very audable because the human brain is specifically tuned to listen to this range.
The fullrange with helpers approach specifically attempts to crossover the helpers outside of this critical human voice range. In this way the brain is less able to spot anomalies. It is possable to achieve this with both a helper tweeter and a helper subwoofer in the same setup - but it is usually achieved with one and not both.
Both methods have shortcomings - but I think the potentail shortcomings of the conventional approach are more difficult to overcome and more expensive to get right. I think where the conventional multi driver approach wins out is where massive SPL levels required. In this case it is more difficult for the fullrange to combine both large cone excursion and high frequency reproduction. Few metalheads or hard rockers would be happy with a fullrange setup.
Horses for courses - I know I could never go back to a multi driver setup.
Shoog
Multi-driver designs are happy to attempt to cross over within the critical human voice range of hearing. This makes any failings in the crossover very audable because the human brain is specifically tuned to listen to this range.
The fullrange with helpers approach specifically attempts to crossover the helpers outside of this critical human voice range. In this way the brain is less able to spot anomalies. It is possable to achieve this with both a helper tweeter and a helper subwoofer in the same setup - but it is usually achieved with one and not both.
Both methods have shortcomings - but I think the potentail shortcomings of the conventional approach are more difficult to overcome and more expensive to get right. I think where the conventional multi driver approach wins out is where massive SPL levels required. In this case it is more difficult for the fullrange to combine both large cone excursion and high frequency reproduction. Few metalheads or hard rockers would be happy with a fullrange setup.
Horses for courses - I know I could never go back to a multi driver setup.
Shoog
To each his own... what compromises can you put up with....
Me i think crossovers are evil, but if you need true full-range you need one or 2 of them. I agree with Shoog here, push the XOs out to where they are less objectionable, say <200 Hz & above 6-8 kHz.
I like a speaker where just the midrange by itself allows me to enjoy the music (and in my mellow old age, that tends towards jazz althou i find myself listening to more classical of late).
And, as much as i respect what Martin is saying, i've yet to hear a SS amp that gives me the satisfaction of the little tube amps.
In the end, can you sit down & enjoy the music.
dave
Me i think crossovers are evil, but if you need true full-range you need one or 2 of them. I agree with Shoog here, push the XOs out to where they are less objectionable, say <200 Hz & above 6-8 kHz.
I like a speaker where just the midrange by itself allows me to enjoy the music (and in my mellow old age, that tends towards jazz althou i find myself listening to more classical of late).
And, as much as i respect what Martin is saying, i've yet to hear a SS amp that gives me the satisfaction of the little tube amps.
In the end, can you sit down & enjoy the music.
dave
Hi,
I actually don´t know which one it was exactly. As far as I remember it was a driver specifically made for Opera Audio, but I don´t know what mods were made. It has indeed a very high efficiency in the 100dB-range, so You might guess to which volumes the SET could drive the AER
OA also manufactures the baffle. They claim it to be a horn and even patented it(!), but it hasn´t a classical contour but rather a conical shape to app half the diameter of the baffle and a flat part from half-diameter to the outer rim. Seems to me as if the contour is just a matter of the manufacturing process and not of calculation. At least showed the measurements as well as simulations no difference to a flat baffle. The two dentists that run OA sure know more about teeth and marketing than acoustics
To add a dipole bass to dipolar mid-highs makes sense to me. And to my taste the bass wasn´t a weak link. Admittantely the bass was the limiting element for SPLmax, but You could reach quite high and for most cases sufficient levels or had to play extreme music material. Anyhow, You could play with larger sized drivers, or even more drivers and compared to other FR-solutions it was miles ahead
With the quad of 10"er bass extended down to ~25Hz which is very ok for such a compact system.
jauu
Calvin
I actually don´t know which one it was exactly. As far as I remember it was a driver specifically made for Opera Audio, but I don´t know what mods were made. It has indeed a very high efficiency in the 100dB-range, so You might guess to which volumes the SET could drive the AER
OA also manufactures the baffle. They claim it to be a horn and even patented it(!), but it hasn´t a classical contour but rather a conical shape to app half the diameter of the baffle and a flat part from half-diameter to the outer rim. Seems to me as if the contour is just a matter of the manufacturing process and not of calculation. At least showed the measurements as well as simulations no difference to a flat baffle. The two dentists that run OA sure know more about teeth and marketing than acoustics
To add a dipole bass to dipolar mid-highs makes sense to me. And to my taste the bass wasn´t a weak link. Admittantely the bass was the limiting element for SPLmax, but You could reach quite high and for most cases sufficient levels or had to play extreme music material. Anyhow, You could play with larger sized drivers, or even more drivers and compared to other FR-solutions it was miles ahead
With the quad of 10"er bass extended down to ~25Hz which is very ok for such a compact system.
jauu
Calvin
Its ultimately about the music
and not expressly the accuracy of the speaker. I don't think one needs to be married to either camp. Every speaker will sound different/better in different environments. Sometimes I listen to a single driver speaker, and sometimes I listen to a two or three-way set up. In audio, it ok to keep a harum.
But ultimately, I listen to music, not gear. I'd rather listen to my favorite music on the worst piece of garbage clock radio than to do without for lack of accurate presentation.
and not expressly the accuracy of the speaker. I don't think one needs to be married to either camp. Every speaker will sound different/better in different environments. Sometimes I listen to a single driver speaker, and sometimes I listen to a two or three-way set up. In audio, it ok to keep a harum.
But ultimately, I listen to music, not gear. I'd rather listen to my favorite music on the worst piece of garbage clock radio than to do without for lack of accurate presentation.
Colin said:
Was the JX53 mated to a JX125?
How about the Jx6R? I know it has no low end and must be XOed at about 200Hz to really rock but how would you compare it (along with a woofer) to teh JX92 or JX53+woofer?
MJK said:
What about beaming? Wont large driver beam or has Lowther solved this?
Colin said:
I was tossing between the JxR6 and JX92 for my fullrange. I cant afford 4 JxR6 per channel (I got 5 channels) and even 2 per channel will get expensive.
My room is about 400-450 sq. ft. (12-12.5x32x9) The walls are not exactly square (Indian builders). I was first thinking of using 5 JX92 mated to 4 x 12" subwoofers. Then looked at the Fosex 108 Sigma but was told that the Fostex is a cultivated taste and might not mate well with my Maratnz HT/AV SR7000 reciever then looked at a 2 way using a Seas L12 woofer and Seas tweeter (from Zaphaudio's website) but was cautioned against using it againt the wall as it would severly change the sound of the system designed by John K.
Can the JxR6 drive a room this large if I XO at 120Hz or so. I dont want to XO much higher as the Subs are not very near the Sats.
AJinFLA said:
I disagree with this statement completely - think a full-range has a definite place in the hi-fi market. If you look at most popular standmounts they rarely go below 45Hz. This is well within the -3db range of a good full-range such as Jordan. The performs well up to 15KHz (the limit of most people's hearing) and offers imaging second only to headphones. I have lived with full-range drivers for 26 years, periodically reverting to 2 or 3 way systems for comparison - these just don't offer the 'natural' sound.
The Jordan manages to 'bend' the rules of physics because of its tailored flex, presenting an 'optimum' diameter for each frequency and easily outperforming standard cone speakers at all frequencies above 45hz.
Even my 3-way system needs bass-support below 35 Hz and this is what a sub-woofer is for. The only alternative is reverting back to the days of massive cabinets with 12 inch woofers - they would not even fit in most modern rooms.
I will be looking at the JX6/subwoofer combination next - agreed the treble will be slightly clearer (but maybe not the imaging).
Hi
I have for some time now thought of skipping my BLH with FE168EZ and try using the FE168EZ with a Front horn and using a dipole (sub)woofer for covering the low end.
Is it possible to place a subwoofer dipole close to a back wall? (and offcourse have a good result )
Best regards
Kim Olesen
I have for some time now thought of skipping my BLH with FE168EZ and try using the FE168EZ with a Front horn and using a dipole (sub)woofer for covering the low end.
Is it possible to place a subwoofer dipole close to a back wall? (and offcourse have a good result
) Best regards
Kim Olesen
keladrin said:
Dont most fullrange drivers need some help at either extreme (below 100hz or above 10kHz)? I'm told that Jim Griffin in fact crosses over the JX92 to a G2Si as low as 3kHz.
Other than Jordan (JX92 etc...), Fostex (FE167, 108/103, etc..) I dont know of many widely accepted (can the Manger and Lowther be considered as widely accepted) fullrange drivers ither than the 3" HiVi, Tangband, or Aura drivers.
The Jordan JX6 too could have the same limitations of other 3" fullrange drivers esp when it comes to bass response.
Which drivers of the ones you have used you find offer the most natual sound?
I am leaning towards using a fullrange with a helper such as the JX92 with the G2si (or maybe even a FE167 mated to a FT96H) and a 12" woofer to cover evreything below 60Hz.
In my opinion, if a driver goes substantially below 80Hz (the limit of directional bass) then it is sufficient. Using a small to medium driver also offers the advantage of sensible cabinet sizes.
The JX6 just makes this figure, but cutting it this fine may mean you lose some bass dynamics/impact.
The Jordan easily competes with many small woofers out there, usid in medium/small enclosures. Take a look at the Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo 1, for instance - this is a renouned standmount but the spec at 45Hz is worse than the Jordan in a similar box.
Regarding the top end - I think the only question is concerning the sharper dropoff from axis compared to others. This does afford remarkable imaging but also a less splashy top end, that can be an acquired taste if you are used to domed tweeters. With the correct toe in and preamplifier adjustments this is not really a problem, and could be considered an advantage. The ribbon tweeters do offer a smoother, cleaner response at the expense of imaging - you are getting full dispersion again, rather than controlled dispersion. The top end is really a matter of taste.
The JX6 just makes this figure, but cutting it this fine may mean you lose some bass dynamics/impact.
The Jordan easily competes with many small woofers out there, usid in medium/small enclosures. Take a look at the Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo 1, for instance - this is a renouned standmount but the spec at 45Hz is worse than the Jordan in a similar box.
Regarding the top end - I think the only question is concerning the sharper dropoff from axis compared to others. This does afford remarkable imaging but also a less splashy top end, that can be an acquired taste if you are used to domed tweeters. With the correct toe in and preamplifier adjustments this is not really a problem, and could be considered an advantage. The ribbon tweeters do offer a smoother, cleaner response at the expense of imaging - you are getting full dispersion again, rather than controlled dispersion. The top end is really a matter of taste.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.