dezzz,
Let me inject a suggestions (or second Colin's suggestion in his first post in this thread): Build the GM MLTL (48" or 31" version) for the JX92S instead of the VTL. The MLTLs are very simple to build and yield very good results. You would attain more bass than your bass reflex cabinents and be very satisfied with the results.
In most any configuration you'll need baffle step compensation to improve the balance of the JX92S.
Jim
Let me inject a suggestions (or second Colin's suggestion in his first post in this thread): Build the GM MLTL (48" or 31" version) for the JX92S instead of the VTL. The MLTLs are very simple to build and yield very good results. You would attain more bass than your bass reflex cabinents and be very satisfied with the results.
In most any configuration you'll need baffle step compensation to improve the balance of the JX92S.
Jim
My intention with the VTL was to put it right up against the back wall, to create the illusion of a almost infinate baffle. But maybe the cabinet is not shallow enough to achieve this effect?
I did come across that Jordan Horn, and it looks very nice. But that rather large peak around 150 Hz's doesn't look good. The CSD on the other hand, compared to the CSD Klang + Ton published on their take on the VTL, look almost too good to be true.
I had a second look at Colin's recommended enclosure yesterday. It sounds nice, but bass reflex? I typically don't like these designs. I prefer a closed design, where you can still sense the lowest bass frequencies, maybe it is the not so steep rolloff that makes them sound much better. And the improved transients. That is why I thought that a Transmission line of some sorts might be the best choice for me... I really would prefer a design that favours transients over bass.
But please tell me more on those MLTL designs. What version would suit be best considering what I said above. And in what areas would this design beat the VTL's? Again how would I fight baffle step. I would hate to put any electrical components in front of the JX92s.
Thank you once again for your fast replies!
I did come across that Jordan Horn, and it looks very nice. But that rather large peak around 150 Hz's doesn't look good. The CSD on the other hand, compared to the CSD Klang + Ton published on their take on the VTL, look almost too good to be true.
I had a second look at Colin's recommended enclosure yesterday. It sounds nice, but bass reflex? I typically don't like these designs. I prefer a closed design, where you can still sense the lowest bass frequencies, maybe it is the not so steep rolloff that makes them sound much better. And the improved transients. That is why I thought that a Transmission line of some sorts might be the best choice for me... I really would prefer a design that favours transients over bass.
But please tell me more on those MLTL designs. What version would suit be best considering what I said above. And in what areas would this design beat the VTL's? Again how would I fight baffle step. I would hate to put any electrical components in front of the JX92s.
Thank you once again for your fast replies!
I was looking at the MLTL-31, and read that as long as I keep the cross section around the 195cm², and the height of 31" I guess, I can change the shape as I see fit. This is very close to the 184cm² cross section and 32,5" height of the VTL. When I construct my loudspeakers I almost always keep it all together with screws so I can go back on my decisions, I am never quite sure that I am making the right decision :0)
So this fact, that the two are potentially quite like each other, might prove to be exactly what I need. This way I could start of with a closed box, then test the MLTL by adding a vent to the bottom, and finally I could if not satisfied yet try the VTL. And ofcause the backplate would be bolted on, so that I could always remove that and compare to an open baffle solution.
I would most likely be going for a very shallow design with a depth of 11cm and a width of 40cm(external measurements), with a curved front baffle. And the height around those 31" internal.
So this fact, that the two are potentially quite like each other, might prove to be exactly what I need. This way I could start of with a closed box, then test the MLTL by adding a vent to the bottom, and finally I could if not satisfied yet try the VTL. And ofcause the backplate would be bolted on, so that I could always remove that and compare to an open baffle solution.
I would most likely be going for a very shallow design with a depth of 11cm and a width of 40cm(external measurements), with a curved front baffle. And the height around those 31" internal.
I'd ask Nelson Pass what his take on the audible difference is between the J-Low and other designs.
(he sometimes is around here, but you can almost certainly "ping" him on his forum section)
http://www.passdiy.com/speakers.htm
Of course the Jordan Horn isn't a J-Low.. but it isn't bad either..
Here is another subjective source on differences - including the addition of corrective networks. They are not your drivers.. but it should give you a general impression..
http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/lowtherpm2a_e.html
Also note that neither horn uses mdf - however here is a horn that does use mdf, BUT notice what the manufacturer mentions about making mdf "work"..
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/gemmeaudio/108.html
(he sometimes is around here, but you can almost certainly "ping" him on his forum section)
http://www.passdiy.com/speakers.htm
Of course the Jordan Horn isn't a J-Low.. but it isn't bad either..
Here is another subjective source on differences - including the addition of corrective networks. They are not your drivers.. but it should give you a general impression..
http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/lowtherpm2a_e.html
Also note that neither horn uses mdf - however here is a horn that does use mdf, BUT notice what the manufacturer mentions about making mdf "work"..
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/gemmeaudio/108.html
The original VTL design on the Jordan site allowed for building as a closed, vented or TL box. From recent comments by GM, the 31 MLTL would give you an accurate sound, slightly less full in the bass than the 48 but the 48 is an excellent speaker. The MLTLs aren't exactly reflect enclosures - there is more about them on MJK's site
You could use the JX92 and JX53 together, which would reduce the forwardness of the 92. The crossover point would be first order 500Hz but the 92 would need reducing in output level to match the 53. It's not easy and personally I don't think it's worth all the bother.
You could use the JX92 and JX53 together, which would reduce the forwardness of the 92. The crossover point would be first order 500Hz but the 92 would need reducing in output level to match the 53. It's not easy and personally I don't think it's worth all the bother.
Yes I thought about using the JX92s and the JX53 together at first, but the break in has really started to do wonders on the JX92s. They are no longer as rough, and the imaging seems to grow larger and larger :0)
I must say that I am very drawn to the shallow design, both because of the baffle step, but mostly because of the remark I read on the Jordan site, adressing wether the shallow depth of the cabinet would have a bad influence on standing waves, and waves exiting back through the cone. The reply was, on the contrary. I have a few sheets of PC noise dampening sheets that I think would do an excellent job just behind the driver. Also considered the deflex panels, but I have read very different reviews of them, so they can wait.
I must say that I am very drawn to the shallow design, both because of the baffle step, but mostly because of the remark I read on the Jordan site, adressing wether the shallow depth of the cabinet would have a bad influence on standing waves, and waves exiting back through the cone. The reply was, on the contrary. I have a few sheets of PC noise dampening sheets that I think would do an excellent job just behind the driver. Also considered the deflex panels, but I have read very different reviews of them, so they can wait.
You might try the 53 as an ambiance "filler" in a reflective horizontal omni design..
see the "Klang und Kunst" photo:
http://www.ennemoser.com/user.html
see the "Klang und Kunst" photo:
http://www.ennemoser.com/user.html
Ahh yes that looks interresting :0) Much better than keeping the driver on a shelf in a box.
And even if the result is disappointing, it would still be very nice if it had a switch, so you could turn it on when leaving the sweetspot, enabling a low frequency crossover. I will definately try this when I finish the new cabinets. Thank you Scott! Now if only I enjoyed working with wood as much as I enjoy reading about doing it...
And even if the result is disappointing, it would still be very nice if it had a switch, so you could turn it on when leaving the sweetspot, enabling a low frequency crossover. I will definately try this when I finish the new cabinets. Thank you Scott! Now if only I enjoyed working with wood as much as I enjoy reading about doing it...
Don't start slooshing C37 or any other treatment on the Jordan cones or you'll muck them up.
The shallow profile cabinets work quite well - the triangular ones work even better. But the shallow profile, wide panel boxes do look very smart. Felt or BAF wadding behind the drivers is all that is needed with either. I've heard varying opinions on the Deflex panels.
Regarding the 53 - I don't think these are needed with the Jordan JX92 designs; there isn't a sweet spot - you can move about without losing imaging (that's the reason for the rising HF response, which compensates for the extreme toe-in). In any case, the 53 is about 3dB less sensitive, so I'm not sure you'd hear it. With care, and a good filter, you could use them as very small speakers on their own for nearfield use.
The shallow profile cabinets work quite well - the triangular ones work even better. But the shallow profile, wide panel boxes do look very smart. Felt or BAF wadding behind the drivers is all that is needed with either. I've heard varying opinions on the Deflex panels.
Regarding the 53 - I don't think these are needed with the Jordan JX92 designs; there isn't a sweet spot - you can move about without losing imaging (that's the reason for the rising HF response, which compensates for the extreme toe-in). In any case, the 53 is about 3dB less sensitive, so I'm not sure you'd hear it. With care, and a good filter, you could use them as very small speakers on their own for nearfield use.
Depends on output. JX53 run fullrange rolls off below 250Hz, JXR6 manages 100Hz and has audible output at 80Hz. This is based on computer-generated test tones with drivers in 2L boxes at moderate output levels. Not a very scientific test but gives you an idea. Double those frequencies if using high power in a system, crossing over to a bass unit. I guess type of crossove (first order etc) would also change things.
There's more on the Jordan site and the JX53 is still listed under legacy drivers on the links page.
There's more on the Jordan site and the JX53 is still listed under legacy drivers on the links page.
Colin said:
or double the number of drivers?
I saw a system from Ariston a few days back and what entered my mind was (if money was not an object) using the JX92 + Ribbon for left and right, using 2 JxR6 each for dual mono center and dipole/bipole surrounds. Yeah it is expensive 6x JxR6, 2 x JX92 + ribbons but I can dream cant I?
Greets!
FYI, in recent years there's been a growing shift back to the majority of the basic cinema soundtrack emanating from the center channel like W.E.'s original three channel 'stereo' and RCA's later five channel surround sound systems, with the L/R 'mains' relegated to little more front 'surround' channels, so DVDs that have a ~direct transfer don't sound nearly as good to me when no CC is used.
As always though, YMMV.
GM
FYI, in recent years there's been a growing shift back to the majority of the basic cinema soundtrack emanating from the center channel like W.E.'s original three channel 'stereo' and RCA's later five channel surround sound systems, with the L/R 'mains' relegated to little more front 'surround' channels, so DVDs that have a ~direct transfer don't sound nearly as good to me when no CC is used.
As always though, YMMV.
GM
Greets!
Yeah, this ~mimics a demo I went to some years ago where surround speakers were placed between the CC and L/R mains to offset the audio problems with 2.35:1 format movies, but in the end went back to what works best, once again driving home the old adage that 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.
GM
Yeah, this ~mimics a demo I went to some years ago where surround speakers were placed between the CC and L/R mains to offset the audio problems with 2.35:1 format movies, but in the end went back to what works best, once again driving home the old adage that 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.
GM
Something similar was actually done and patented by a Finnish audio guru called Tapio Köykkä back in the 60's. This three-speaker system was called Ortoperspekta and was described to have much better imaging than a two-speaker system. Realistic music reproduction was the fundamental driving force for this guy. If I've understood correctly, he tried (and consequently succeeded) to reproduce the same sort of "cross-waved" sound field as concert halls have.
GM said:
I think the difference here is that the 3 channel stereo or 5 channel surround systems did not have 3 or 5 discrete channels of information. Granted for stereo listening nothing more than 2 speakers are required becuase that is how the CDs are mastered but for DVD playback having atleast 4 (phantom center) speakers would allow all the information on the DVD to be provessed and heard.
My idea is to build a system that can be used for both CD and DVD playback.
Greets!
You sure about that? http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/stereo1940.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/Fantasound1.htm
Both had three discrete channels, with Fantasound's surrounds being derived since there wasn't room on the film strip for five channels.
Regardless, I don't see why it matters since today's are all discrete and in the movies that use the L/R primarily as 'fill'/surrounds, then IMO a phantom CC doesn't sound 'right'.
GM
You sure about that? http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/stereo1940.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/Fantasound1.htm
Both had three discrete channels, with Fantasound's surrounds being derived since there wasn't room on the film strip for five channels.
Regardless, I don't see why it matters since today's are all discrete and in the movies that use the L/R primarily as 'fill'/surrounds, then IMO a phantom CC doesn't sound 'right'.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.