Hi all,
While reading Jim Griffin's thread on his Jordan in MTML with a ribbon, I could not help but notice that the crossover is at 3000Hz, which pretty much makes the speaker a standard two-way except perhaps for the MTML loading that was originally developed for getting some bass out of fullrange drivers. There is no reason why the MTML loading could not be used with a mid/bass driver, and I'd suspect that there are many good mid/bass drivers out there that could be used to get as good or better bass response than the Jordan and are capable of good midrage behavior for the 3KHz crossover point. If that is the case, one should be able to implement the MTML+ribbon design with a mid/bass driver to get as good or better results than using the Jordan, unless for some reasons the Jordan is just a better mid/bass driver than all the other mid-bass drivers available.
According to Jim, the Jordan MTML with ribbon sounds better than running the Jordan fullrange. Thus, such a design begs the question of why we even bother playing with expensive fullrange drivers, such as the Jordan, when a cone+tweeter two-way design with a 3KHz crossiver point sounds better. Are we fullranger-lovers going a full circle and back to where we started?
What do you think?
Kurt
While reading Jim Griffin's thread on his Jordan in MTML with a ribbon, I could not help but notice that the crossover is at 3000Hz, which pretty much makes the speaker a standard two-way except perhaps for the MTML loading that was originally developed for getting some bass out of fullrange drivers. There is no reason why the MTML loading could not be used with a mid/bass driver, and I'd suspect that there are many good mid/bass drivers out there that could be used to get as good or better bass response than the Jordan and are capable of good midrage behavior for the 3KHz crossover point. If that is the case, one should be able to implement the MTML+ribbon design with a mid/bass driver to get as good or better results than using the Jordan, unless for some reasons the Jordan is just a better mid/bass driver than all the other mid-bass drivers available.
According to Jim, the Jordan MTML with ribbon sounds better than running the Jordan fullrange. Thus, such a design begs the question of why we even bother playing with expensive fullrange drivers, such as the Jordan, when a cone+tweeter two-way design with a 3KHz crossiver point sounds better. Are we fullranger-lovers going a full circle and back to where we started?
What do you think?
Kurt
KCHANG said:
Kurt,
I agree that 3000 is in standard 2-way territory and the only reason I can think of for such a low crossover point would be to allow a 1st order crossover and still maintain a decent C-T-C distance. I am not a fan of Jordan drivers and to tell the truth haven't heard any that I cared for. With ribbon tweeters it's much the same case IMHO, at least the "affordable" ones. I've heard many Aurum Cantus tweeters that didn't impress me at all, but until I heard the RAW Acoustic HT-3 speakers it never occurred to me what the problem may have been. The HT-3 is a three way and uses a 4th order crossover on the tweeter which is crossed over on the high side. This is probably the first time that I've heard a ribbon that lives up to it's reputation (BTW: the HT-3 is a great speaker!). My point is that I think that fullrange or extended range drivers are fine with ribbons if the ribbon is crossed over using high order crossovers outside the "critical" range which I consider to be somewhere between 3500 and4000Hz. Any lower, like many 2-ways, and the ribbons virtues are compromised and the fullrange drivers strengths are sacrificed.
The other valid choice is to use a tweeter as a filler driver to offset the onset ( there's a phrase for you!) of beaming or treble rolloff. A 1st order crossover works here and I would think that for frequencies above 7000Hz or so, that you can probably get away with it and not encounter too many regrets.
There are experts that disagree, and usually do, but this works for me.
Best Regards,
TerryO
KCHANG said:
It's all about simplicity - lower cost, no crossover between the amp and the driver, phase coherency, closer to an ideal point source, no comb filtering, etc.
Some full range drivers (especially ones without a whizzer) just tend to sound congested when asked to reproduce frequencies up to 20kHz.
Kurt and Terry,
The Jordan with a ribbon design (either minimonitor or MLTL) was intended to help the JX92S above 3000 Hz where-in it starts to beam. The treble from the ribbon is smoother and more extended than the JX92S. However, crossing at 3000 Hz does maintain the magical coherency of the Jordan over the vocal frequency range. Now as I said you can live with the Jordan alone but don't listen to the ribbon version or you will want one of them.
Before deep sixing the Jordan JX92S for another driver, you really need to hear it in the MLTL configuration to hear its low end potential. In my opinion the CSS FR125S and WR125S don't have the high SPL output that the Jordan can do although they rival the JX92S on the bass extension side of the ledger. So I ask just what other extended range 5" class drivers can do what the Jordan does even with the crossover?
Not many 6 inch drivers can be crossed as high as 3000 Hz without some beaming. To cross lower you get into the critical vocal area. Now for the crossover to a tweeter one has to ask does the JX92S sound better above 3000 Hz than the A-C G2si ribbon tweeter?
Quite often a 'full range driver' winds up in a three way system as the user needs more bass so he adds a sub and then he realize the he is missing the highs so he adds a super tweeter. So it goes.
Jim
The Jordan with a ribbon design (either minimonitor or MLTL) was intended to help the JX92S above 3000 Hz where-in it starts to beam. The treble from the ribbon is smoother and more extended than the JX92S. However, crossing at 3000 Hz does maintain the magical coherency of the Jordan over the vocal frequency range. Now as I said you can live with the Jordan alone but don't listen to the ribbon version or you will want one of them.
Before deep sixing the Jordan JX92S for another driver, you really need to hear it in the MLTL configuration to hear its low end potential. In my opinion the CSS FR125S and WR125S don't have the high SPL output that the Jordan can do although they rival the JX92S on the bass extension side of the ledger. So I ask just what other extended range 5" class drivers can do what the Jordan does even with the crossover?
Not many 6 inch drivers can be crossed as high as 3000 Hz without some beaming. To cross lower you get into the critical vocal area. Now for the crossover to a tweeter one has to ask does the JX92S sound better above 3000 Hz than the A-C G2si ribbon tweeter?
Quite often a 'full range driver' winds up in a three way system as the user needs more bass so he adds a sub and then he realize the he is missing the highs so he adds a super tweeter. So it goes.
Jim
Jim Griffin said:
Jim,
As I haven't heard your Jordan/A-C combo, I really can't disagree, but my opinion based on those drivers, as used in the various systems that I have heard, still stands. The use of a "fullrange driver" or perhaps more realistically, a "wide range driver" in a three way system is, outside of a good horn system, about as good as it gets. I think we agree that staying outside of the 300 to 3000 or 3500Hz range with a crossover can yield an elegant solution if done with care.
Best Regards,
TerryO
I agree that the magic of the jX92s is it's ability in the 80 - 3000 hz range, which covers 99% of 'music'. Outside this we are mainly dealing with sound effects and either non-directional sounds (at the low end) or extremely directional whistles and hisses which behave and sound very differently.
To illistrate the benefit of the Jordan in a 3-way I run it as the 'mid' range of the acclaimed AE evo 3 floorstander. This does not cross over at all but the tweeter comes in at 3000hz and runs in parallel with a dedicated bass unit below 300hz (also aluminium). The transformation from the original is unbelievable - the standard commercial speaker loses out in all types of music across the whole perceivable frequency range compared with the modified version. The silk domed tweeter seems to add something intangible to the top end, even with the jordan running full-range, however. The top end I find slightly coloured and beamed without it.
Asking a speaker to perform as good as the Jordan between the extreme ranges it does is an extremely demanding requirement and I am always amazed at how well it does it. A dedicated mid-range would claim to perform from 300 to 3000 but I have never heard one that does it so convincingly, I suspect that no commercially available dedicated mid-range speaker will perform as well as a full range outside it's narrow sweet-spot of a few hundred hz.
To illistrate the benefit of the Jordan in a 3-way I run it as the 'mid' range of the acclaimed AE evo 3 floorstander. This does not cross over at all but the tweeter comes in at 3000hz and runs in parallel with a dedicated bass unit below 300hz (also aluminium). The transformation from the original is unbelievable - the standard commercial speaker loses out in all types of music across the whole perceivable frequency range compared with the modified version. The silk domed tweeter seems to add something intangible to the top end, even with the jordan running full-range, however. The top end I find slightly coloured and beamed without it.
Asking a speaker to perform as good as the Jordan between the extreme ranges it does is an extremely demanding requirement and I am always amazed at how well it does it. A dedicated mid-range would claim to perform from 300 to 3000 but I have never heard one that does it so convincingly, I suspect that no commercially available dedicated mid-range speaker will perform as well as a full range outside it's narrow sweet-spot of a few hundred hz.
Re: Re: Where does "fullrange" end and "two-way" start?
Lower cost?!
JX92s, last i checked, costs about 360USD for a pair...
So, for about 360USD (we aren't factoring in the money spent on wood for the jordan system either) in drivers you could get 4 dayton RS125S, 2 RS28AS, the parts for a crossover, and a dead sexy box...AND to top it all off a small sub...
I have a lot of trouble believing that a large (5+ inches dia) "full range" speaker can reproduce 20khz, even 8khz, accurately.
Even adding a "super tweeter" and "rolling it in" with a cap effectively creates a 2 way that could easily be outperformed by cheaper "conventional" drivers...
BWRX said:
Lower cost?!
JX92s, last i checked, costs about 360USD for a pair...
So, for about 360USD (we aren't factoring in the money spent on wood for the jordan system either) in drivers you could get 4 dayton RS125S, 2 RS28AS, the parts for a crossover, and a dead sexy box...AND to top it all off a small sub...
I have a lot of trouble believing that a large (5+ inches dia) "full range" speaker can reproduce 20khz, even 8khz, accurately.
Even adding a "super tweeter" and "rolling it in" with a cap effectively creates a 2 way that could easily be outperformed by cheaper "conventional" drivers...
The Jordan must be an excellent driver. Unfortunately I’ve never heard it and it became too expensive for me to buy a year or so ago. Besides, I’m too happy with my other drivers to justify buying the Jordan’s. That said… IMO the Fostex 127e, 168s and Radio Shack 1197 all have better treble than the B&W 1600 I have at home. The above drivers also have better treble than my old DIY kit using Dynaudio D290’s which cost about $150 each at the time. This is my opinion of course but the point is I feel wide range drivers can offer better treble than many multi-way designs regardless of price.
They also offer better midrange performance than many (or most) multi-ways regardless of price in normal sized rooms.
They don’t offer better bass tho and that’s where we sacrifice or supplement with powered subs.
As far as coming full circle and ‘realizing’ a two way crossed over around 3k is superior to running full range drivers ‘full out’ well, all I think we’ve realized here the Jordan is a terrific driver that can be used more than one way successfully. Other full range drivers could be mated with high quality tweeters as well. Besides, the demands placed on the Jordan in an MLTL may alter its hi frequency behavior (mo bettah bass may produce yuckier highs). Fact is, regardless of the drivers or their implementation, we are on a quest for the best. I applaud Jim for experimenting and sharing with us all on the forum!
Peace,
Godzilla
They also offer better midrange performance than many (or most) multi-ways regardless of price in normal sized rooms.
They don’t offer better bass tho and that’s where we sacrifice or supplement with powered subs.
As far as coming full circle and ‘realizing’ a two way crossed over around 3k is superior to running full range drivers ‘full out’ well, all I think we’ve realized here the Jordan is a terrific driver that can be used more than one way successfully. Other full range drivers could be mated with high quality tweeters as well. Besides, the demands placed on the Jordan in an MLTL may alter its hi frequency behavior (mo bettah bass may produce yuckier highs). Fact is, regardless of the drivers or their implementation, we are on a quest for the best. I applaud Jim for experimenting and sharing with us all on the forum!
Peace,
Godzilla
KCHANG said:
Just any cone and tweeter probably will not sound better.. there are *many* factors why a fullrange driver might be preferred over another "cone":
1. minimal "break-up" ringing (..as Scottmoose pointed out)
2. higher eff.
3. better material sound
4. fewer resonant cavities
5. lower xmax (..loading, diameter, and "gain" dependent)
6. lower mms
7. less driver dampening
8. greater bandwidth allowing better tonal integration with other drivers
etc.
Obviously off-axis behaviour is important to why Jim choose such a low point for his crossover.. BUT there could be numerous other reasons as well why he prefers this, many of which he (or anyone else) might not be completely aware of. Certainly the low mass/low internal loss of the ribbon will have an sonic effect beyond that of the "on" and "off" axis response horizontally.
Re: Re: Re: Where does "fullrange" end and "two-way" start?
They are expensive compared to cheap drivers that can't do what they can, regardless of size. The cost of wood won't be much since the enclosures will be alot smaller than for the system you outlined. If you use quality crossover parts for even a 12dB/octave type your system cost will easily surpass the cost of the Jordans.nerd of nerds said:Lower cost?!
JX92s, last i checked, costs about 360USD for a pair...
So, for about 360USD (we aren't factoring in the money spent on wood for the jordan system either) in drivers you could get 4 dayton RS125S, 2 RS28AS, the parts for a crossover, and a dead sexy box...AND to top it all off a small sub...
How do you know? Have you heard the Jordans? I haven't either, but have heard other full range drivers and there is a certain magic to them that isn't there with conventional 2-ways. Of course it all comes down to personal preference and the full range driver sound is appealing to many.nerd of nerds said:
Kurt,
I've been messing with "fullrange" drivers for the last 5 years or so and I think the same thing. Although, I'm still a sucker when it comes to the latest offering.
The trappings of the fullrange driver, to name a few are, simplicity, purity of sound (no xo), and coherence.
But it is a myth.
Wishful thinking seduces us into thinking that we can have it all with one driver. Then physics rears its ugly head. You listen and you realize you cannot have it all; deep bass, clear midrange, and airy top end. Bigger fullrangers break up at higher frequencies and smaller ones just cannot do satisfying bass.
Most so-called "fullrange driver" setups I've heard use a sub and/or supertweeter.
The two-way, if it is a compromise, offers a better chance of fullrange sound. I've a pair of JX92s and Aurum Cantus 3, so I'll try it in the GM transline.
So, the goal of fullrange driver falls short, but in reaching we have a better driver for two-way application.
I've been messing with "fullrange" drivers for the last 5 years or so and I think the same thing. Although, I'm still a sucker when it comes to the latest offering.
The trappings of the fullrange driver, to name a few are, simplicity, purity of sound (no xo), and coherence.
But it is a myth.
Wishful thinking seduces us into thinking that we can have it all with one driver. Then physics rears its ugly head. You listen and you realize you cannot have it all; deep bass, clear midrange, and airy top end. Bigger fullrangers break up at higher frequencies and smaller ones just cannot do satisfying bass.
Most so-called "fullrange driver" setups I've heard use a sub and/or supertweeter.
The two-way, if it is a compromise, offers a better chance of fullrange sound. I've a pair of JX92s and Aurum Cantus 3, so I'll try it in the GM transline.
So, the goal of fullrange driver falls short, but in reaching we have a better driver for two-way application.
OK, I'm going to say something very politically incorrect.
I do not believe a full range driver and a low powered tube amp can do the job. I do believe a full range driver, a correction circuit, and a high powered SS amp can get a lot closer then low powered tube or T amps. A simple elegant method of producing a balanced SPL response. Fast dynamics are maintained with a slight loss in efficiency. If you have not tried a SS amp and correction circuit I encourage you to give it a go and see what potential might exist.
While my Lowther ML TL does not produce the same bass as a bigger 10" or 12" diameter woofer driver, they do a very credible job down to 40 Hz. Not house shaking but very adequate for acoustic jazz. I don't feel they are lacking very much at the top end either, Lowthers are a big step up from the Fostex drivers I used in my previous designs.
I do believe that as a minimum an 8" full range driver is required to provide bass with some impact. A 6" full range driver might do a bit better up high but it will lack some of the weight down low compared to a similar 8" version. But even a 6" driver can do a very nice job using my nonpurist recipe.
And finally, a question. Is a driver with a whizzer cone a full range driver? There is a mechanical crossover in place to transfer from the main cone to the whizzer cone, you can see it if you look closely on the impedance plot. What is the difference between a driver with a whizzer cone and a coaxial?
I do not believe a full range driver and a low powered tube amp can do the job. I do believe a full range driver, a correction circuit, and a high powered SS amp can get a lot closer then low powered tube or T amps. A simple elegant method of producing a balanced SPL response. Fast dynamics are maintained with a slight loss in efficiency. If you have not tried a SS amp and correction circuit I encourage you to give it a go and see what potential might exist.
While my Lowther ML TL does not produce the same bass as a bigger 10" or 12" diameter woofer driver, they do a very credible job down to 40 Hz. Not house shaking but very adequate for acoustic jazz. I don't feel they are lacking very much at the top end either, Lowthers are a big step up from the Fostex drivers I used in my previous designs.
I do believe that as a minimum an 8" full range driver is required to provide bass with some impact. A 6" full range driver might do a bit better up high but it will lack some of the weight down low compared to a similar 8" version. But even a 6" driver can do a very nice job using my nonpurist recipe.
And finally, a question. Is a driver with a whizzer cone a full range driver? There is a mechanical crossover in place to transfer from the main cone to the whizzer cone, you can see it if you look closely on the impedance plot. What is the difference between a driver with a whizzer cone and a coaxial?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.