Jordan JX92s - Supravox 165 GMF - Veravox 7x - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th July 2006, 09:26 AM   #11
Colin is offline Colin  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
The Jordans in the MLTL sound quite natural in the lower registers but no, you're not going to get explosive bass. The BIB design might give more bass power. Otherwise you need to go the route of an additional sub or follow ScottG's recommendations. Having done it in the past, I wouldn't spend too much energy adding additional options - it's all less time listening to music.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2006, 10:28 AM   #12
dezzz is offline dezzz  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
After several more hours of searhing for listening impressions and measurements. I decided to temporarily decide on the Supravox. I think a 6" will satisfy me more in the lower regions. And the fostex was put out in the cold due to the lower xmax, it hurts a little though, it seems to be extremely well built. Would still like to see some more measurements on the fostex though: CSD would be nice, but it seems very few people even use this driver, so even fewer would measure it.
The Veravox is still in the run, but I haven't been able to find any measurements on that driver at all. Frequency response and CSD would be very nice, I saw this being requested in another thread about 1 year ago :0) So my hopes are quite low.

So onto the Supravox. It looks to be an absolutely amazing driver. That CSD, if it really says anything, looks absolutely spectacular. I never really understod, have you heard a Supravox 165 GMF yourself ScottG? If so I would really like to know much you love it :0) Or if you have moved on to even better and more expensive units. I really like your idea of the Aperiodic Venting, seems to be the perfect invention, any drawbacks? I will start designing and simulation to my best ability today, and that is not really good, but I will post my temporary design when I have them. The bigger the better, also when it comes to boxes with aperiodic venting right? Or do I need to take the vent into account somehow? First of I will design for a tweeter less box, because I fear that I won't hear a difference anyway. But I will leave room for two neo3's...
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2006, 10:54 AM   #13
Colin is offline Colin  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Let us know how you get on. You could try posting here and on other forums (particularly fullrangedriver.com) to see if there is anyone near you using the drivers. Measurements can only tell you so much and other people's listening impressions are based on their ears/taste.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2006, 11:11 AM   #14
dezzz is offline dezzz  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Yes I agree, actually listening to it would be much nicer. It is after all a quite expensive driver. But I am one of those that enjoy researching almost as much as actually listening, so what I am trying to do, is buy something that seems just a little ultimate, then my mind will surely affect my ears enough for me to actually enjoy them. It is sad, and hopefully these will be the ones that make sit down and never again visit the DiyAudio Fullrange section, other than to tell others how fantastic I find this particular driver... But that is probably not how it is gonna go :0)

But I must say that sofar, the things I have read on these boards, have guided me to drivers that I really like.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2006, 06:49 PM   #15
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by dezzz
After several more hours of searhing for listening impressions and measurements. I decided to temporarily decide on the Supravox. I think a 6" will satisfy me more in the lower regions. And the fostex was put out in the cold due to the lower xmax, it hurts a little though, it seems to be extremely well built. Would still like to see some more measurements on the fostex though: CSD would be nice, but it seems very few people even use this driver, so even fewer would measure it.
The Veravox is still in the run, but I haven't been able to find any measurements on that driver at all. Frequency response and CSD would be very nice, I saw this being requested in another thread about 1 year ago :0) So my hopes are quite low.

So onto the Supravox. It looks to be an absolutely amazing driver. That CSD, if it really says anything, looks absolutely spectacular. I never really understod, have you heard a Supravox 165 GMF yourself ScottG? If so I would really like to know much you love it :0) Or if you have moved on to even better and more expensive units. I really like your idea of the Aperiodic Venting, seems to be the perfect invention, any drawbacks? I will start designing and simulation to my best ability today, and that is not really good, but I will post my temporary design when I have them. The bigger the better, also when it comes to boxes with aperiodic venting right? Or do I need to take the vent into account somehow? First of I will design for a tweeter less box, because I fear that I won't hear a difference anyway. But I will leave room for two neo3's...

Haven't heard it, but I do have other drivers with good linear decay behaviour.. The 166ESR is pretty good below 1kHz in comparison to most drivers. . Conversly my Audax pro areogels are excellent above 1kHz.. Good linear decay ='s "transparency". The problem with the low x-max drivers that have low fs's means that unless the driver is highpass filtered OR is in "enclosed" in a small volume then the x-max is easily exceeded and the non-linear character, and more importantly the linear character turns to cr@p - resulting in less "transparency" and a "muddled" soundstage and imaging. For instance my 166ESR's have this problem with an fs near 50 Hz, but my Audax's don't with an fs near 150 Hz. (..and they have similar x-max's).

youngyoung is the only one I'm aware of here that has used the 165 GMF:
"Best" extended midrange driver below $200 ?

as the the aperiodic venting..

Yes bigger is better, particularly the space around the driver.. BUT at the same time don't forget about exterior diffraction effects. Also try for as rigid and dense a baffle coupling as you can get.. mdf is poor in this regard. (..and this is part of the reason fostex makes those hideously expensive brass ring couplings for their sigma drivers.) Again however, be wary of the baffle's thickness and the small cavity resonance it can create right next to the driver.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2006, 07:50 PM   #16
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Here is a commercial loudspeaker with the scan-speak aperiodic vents and the Visaton B200:
http://www.redwineaudio.com/Omega_B200_Aperiodic.html

IMO it would be better if the box was *more* than twice that volume - approaching something more like an infinit baffle. Also that box's baffle will have some nasty diffraction effects and serious spl loss near the baffle-step loss region. (..looks nice though.)

Remember, the purpose of the volume is NOT to increase bass response, instead its to reduce pressurization in the cabinet and reflections. The aperiodic venting further alters pressurization and system compliance allowing more signal related current from the amplifier to control the driver near its resonance (..as opposed to normal back emf *trying* to control the driver).

Note that the 2 scan speak vents should work well for your driver, and they are not costly. (..I've used them and they work well.) BUT, you don't need to use them.. you could always make your own.

Here is box size and configuration that should work fairly well (..and its an otherwise excellent design, excepting the bass driver, - particularly well documented):
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/PMS.htm
based on this (though much smaller):
http://www.sonusfaber.com/index_altri.html

..notice that the baffle "curves".. and also notice how he has achieved that curve. ..of course you wouldn't have that interior box enclosure (that he has for the midrange), and the venting he has would instead be two of the scanspeak vents placed near the driver similarly to the omega loudpeaker. (..also his "finish" certainly isn't attractive in its current state.)

..additionally the full-on mdf baffle isn't a good idea for driver coupling - instead consider making something similar to the fostex rings but perhaps out of cement.

This is the stuff I recomend for internal dampening of the box AND the driver frame and magnet:
http://www.hytechsales.com/prod150.html
or make your own with latex primer and their filler:
http://www.hytechsales.com/insulatin...additives.html
(..but double their formula and 3 times the recomended coating)

..anyway, just some thoughts.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2006, 06:05 PM   #17
dezzz is offline dezzz  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Thank you very much once again Scott!

I really like the design of the Stradivari, but my woodworking skills are quite limited. And that project might be a little too advanced... About the Bafflestep. I bought some PC noise damping sheets a while ago, they consist of two quite dense layers of fibers, that absorb sound. I have tried them on loudspeakers before, the result has been quite surprising. The loudspeakers seems to disappear completely, which I like very much. I plan on trying this on these new speakers as well, but would this help to some degree diminishing the baffle step effect? Currently I don't have a lot of space for the loudspeakers, so a limited width would be nice. But would this help me?

I will definately be buying the aperiodic vents, looking very much forward to trying those out. I will be aiming for a minimum of 65 Liters of cabinet volume.

Regarding the coupling to the cabinet, I have some baltic birch available, would that be a lot better than MDF. Cement would also be possible for me.

Now I just have to find the cheapest place to buy this driver. Any of you know of a good place. Ordering from the outside Europe wouldn't be a problem for me...

Thank you all!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2006, 06:16 PM   #18
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally posted by dezzz
Thank you very much once again Scott!

I really like the design of the Stradivari, but my woodworking skills are quite limited. And that project might be a little too advanced... About the Bafflestep. I bought some PC noise damping sheets a while ago, they consist of two quite dense layers of fibers, that absorb sound. I have tried them on loudspeakers before, the result has been quite surprising. The loudspeakers seems to disappear completely, which I like very much. I plan on trying this on these new speakers as well, but would this help to some degree diminishing the baffle step effect? Currently I don't have a lot of space for the loudspeakers, so a limited width would be nice. But would this help me?

I will definately be buying the aperiodic vents, looking very much forward to trying those out. I will be aiming for a minimum of 65 Liters of cabinet volume.

Regarding the coupling to the cabinet, I have some baltic birch available, would that be a lot better than MDF. Cement would also be possible for me.

Now I just have to find the cheapest place to buy this driver. Any of you know of a good place. Ordering from the outside Europe wouldn't be a problem for me...

Thank you all!
If I remember correctly.. Hornet was the least expensive (but not by much) - so you might want to email them:

http://www.hornet.hr/Hornet.asp?sPage=Company

Baffle-step is a loss in sound pressure level becuase lack of boundry (the baffle) reinforcement. Damping sheets have nothing to do with this, only baffle size (particularly width).

This is one area where you can't compromise without adding another midbass driver (and it isn't as simple as that) or having a response that is lower in spl in the mids/lower mids (..or eq. it).

If you do go with a narrow baffle (say 9 inches in width), then there will be an increase in response starting around 900 Hz on-axis - and the sound on axis will be "forward". Again, the solution (if you think you would like it) then would be the 40 degree axis and Neo3s with cap as I mentioned previously.

Plywood is better than mdf if its void free (though its a little more difficult to finish). Another possibility is to make the entire front baffle from cement - but that requires you to make a form from wood (as a negative of the baffle) or with some commercial form "agent" that would still require you to make the baffle (..only one though).

Finally.. If you can't make the box you want get some help, even if its paid help. You will likely save yourself a lot of money in the long run if you get it done once and correctly at a greater expense than doing it over multiple times until you are satisfied (..and there can be a LOT of dissapointment until you get something you are happy with).

Note that the only machine tool needed for the poorman's strad, or indeed most loudspeaker cabinet making, is a router and a couple of bits. Making some inexpensive "guides" for cutting allows for fairly precise machine work.
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2006, 12:11 AM   #19
dezzz is offline dezzz  Denmark
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Denmark
Just a tiny update on what happened.

While looking for the Supravox 165 GMF, that I thought I had decided on. I stumbled across a pair of jordan JX92s & JX53 at a reasonable price. So I went a bought these instead :0) The Supravox and Veravox are still haunting my mind. But now I will stick with the Jordan's for a while, to see what they are like.

So far I have been pleasantly surprised, and this even with all the fantastic experiences with the Jordan that I read about. The level of details in the mid tones, is the best I have heard up until now. And the decay is very nice, even though I am currently running them in a box I had around, 15 Liters with a bass reflex tuned to 55hz. Not ideal at all.
As Colin says, they can be a bit harsh, even when you are off axis. But currently I have no bafflestep compensation, so the reason might just be that I have to turn it up too loud, to really get those amazing mid detail to grow. This said, I am still positively surprised about the high frequencies, and how natural they perform, as long as you don't have a passage in the music with few instruments, where one suddenly hits one of the peaks. And becomes overly loud and agressive.
The bass output is stunning!!! At least in these vented cabinets. It is not deep but you feel it. It almost seems unnatural :0)

Now I will be building the VTL cabinets, hopefully they will take out a little of the punchy bass and extend it a little further down instead. Really looking forward to putting these slim VTL's up against the back wall.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2006, 12:36 AM   #20
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Thats good!

I would NOT use baffle step compensation and instead make the Jordan Horn (..which effectivly does that acoustically - as well as reduced excursion).

http://www.mhsoft.nl/MySystem/HiFi.asp

__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for Jordan JX92S oshifis Swap Meet 5 28th December 2013 12:26 AM
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 TL box pstephenson Full Range 3 26th October 2004 12:56 PM
Jordan JX92S impedance EC8010 Full Range 13 22nd February 2004 11:40 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2