Norris - I think Jim's suggestion is an excellent way to go. From his description of the system, you'd get the best of both worlds. The 48" MLTL is a very cohesive sounding speaker, as you'd expect from something which runs from 35Hz up without crossovers or extra drivers.
BTW, Jim - what length port do you use in your slightly shorter 45" version?
Dumbass - the wider driver/directivity of the two drivers is something Ted mentioned in connection to the different imaging abilities. The 92 is supposed to mimic his linear array, so I guess I'd have to try four JXR6s to get the same effect in full. (One can only dream for now ...)
BTW, Jim - what length port do you use in your slightly shorter 45" version?
Dumbass - the wider driver/directivity of the two drivers is something Ted mentioned in connection to the different imaging abilities. The 92 is supposed to mimic his linear array, so I guess I'd have to try four JXR6s to get the same effect in full. (One can only dream for now ...)
Thanks Colin and Jim.
Colin, your comments:
"The 92 is supposed to mimic his linear array, so I guess I'd have to try four JXR6s to get the same effect in full. (One can only dream for now ...)"
This strikes another cord of level thinking, I can see your point.
My limited experience tells me to go with the JX92S in an 48" MLTL cabinet at first.
Like you, I can dream of one day building a set of JXR6 arrays.
Norris
Colin, your comments:
"The 92 is supposed to mimic his linear array, so I guess I'd have to try four JXR6s to get the same effect in full. (One can only dream for now ...)"
This strikes another cord of level thinking, I can see your point.
My limited experience tells me to go with the JX92S in an 48" MLTL cabinet at first.
Like you, I can dream of one day building a set of JXR6 arrays.
Norris
The JxR6 would be very hard to beat, and is one of my favorites since the 50mm module came out. I have crossed them with a JX125 at 450Hz with a series XO, and it was very good. The imaging is good and the sound is accurate with lots of detail. If you can avoid putting a cap in series with it, then don't use any caps. Resistors are okay, but if you do a series XO design, you probably won't need that either. Using something close to the performance of the JX125 or JX150 will give you such a low end that you can feel the organs vibrate.
Hi soongsc,
I am not sure if I will pursue the JXR6 at this time. I am leaning heavily towards the JX92S in a 48" MLTL due to its simplicity, and my lack of experience.
I would be very interested in your crossover design to study if you would be willing to share it?
I like the idea of a deatiled midrange driver. But, since I have not heard any of these Jordan drivers. I cannot imagine what the sonic trade offs could be of a passive crossover in the signal path bringing in the JXR6 from a mid-bass driver at 450Hz.
Say, versus a JX92S running full-range from 40Hz to 16kHz or so, without a crossover.
Have you had both of these drivers runing side by side where you have been able to evaluate these differences?
Since the Jordan 125 and 150 bass drivers have been discontinued. Do you have an alternative mid-bass woofer to mate with the JXR6?
I would think that the 125 would be an ideal match though.
Any further comments would be enlightning I'm sure, I am eager to hear them.
Thanks
Norris
I am not sure if I will pursue the JXR6 at this time. I am leaning heavily towards the JX92S in a 48" MLTL due to its simplicity, and my lack of experience.
I would be very interested in your crossover design to study if you would be willing to share it?
I like the idea of a deatiled midrange driver. But, since I have not heard any of these Jordan drivers. I cannot imagine what the sonic trade offs could be of a passive crossover in the signal path bringing in the JXR6 from a mid-bass driver at 450Hz.
Say, versus a JX92S running full-range from 40Hz to 16kHz or so, without a crossover.
Have you had both of these drivers runing side by side where you have been able to evaluate these differences?
Since the Jordan 125 and 150 bass drivers have been discontinued. Do you have an alternative mid-bass woofer to mate with the JXR6?
I would think that the 125 would be an ideal match though.
Any further comments would be enlightning I'm sure, I am eager to hear them.
Thanks
Norris
Hi Norris
Not to pre-empt Soongsc, but I used to run a system consisting of the JX53 and JX125 (the 53 is similar to the JXR6, but with high resonant freq, so needed a x/over at 450Hz or above). It used a parallel rather than series x/over and the 125 was loaded by a selaed enclosure. It gave a very good left-right image, with solid image placement when you were off the centre line. It was also a powerful system, giving great weight to the sound with the right amp. When I made the MLTL, I ran them together for a while. The JX92 MLTL had the same left-right imaging but suddenly the wall behind fell away and you had much greater depth. This extends down to the bass, which really grabs your attention on the right programme material. (GM's MLTL actually goes lower than the sealed system, without losing any tightness to the sound.)
The MLTL won't go as loud as the other system but it was the one I kept.
Like you, I regard designing passive x/overs as a black art, so I run the JXR6 as a small, bookshelf system for now, until I get round to building an active x/over kit and digging out the spare JX125s lurking in the loft.
Incidentally, the MLTL I've built is the triangular version on the Jordan site. I get the impression from one or two comments from other builders that this may be easier to tune (adjust the stuffing) than the rectangular cross-section design. But either of them are pretty straightforward.
Not to pre-empt Soongsc, but I used to run a system consisting of the JX53 and JX125 (the 53 is similar to the JXR6, but with high resonant freq, so needed a x/over at 450Hz or above). It used a parallel rather than series x/over and the 125 was loaded by a selaed enclosure. It gave a very good left-right image, with solid image placement when you were off the centre line. It was also a powerful system, giving great weight to the sound with the right amp. When I made the MLTL, I ran them together for a while. The JX92 MLTL had the same left-right imaging but suddenly the wall behind fell away and you had much greater depth. This extends down to the bass, which really grabs your attention on the right programme material. (GM's MLTL actually goes lower than the sealed system, without losing any tightness to the sound.)
The MLTL won't go as loud as the other system but it was the one I kept.
Like you, I regard designing passive x/overs as a black art, so I run the JXR6 as a small, bookshelf system for now, until I get round to building an active x/over kit and digging out the spare JX125s lurking in the loft.
Incidentally, the MLTL I've built is the triangular version on the Jordan site. I get the impression from one or two comments from other builders that this may be easier to tune (adjust the stuffing) than the rectangular cross-section design. But either of them are pretty straightforward.
Thanks soongsc for the recommendations.
In your previous post you stated that :
" The imaging is good and the sound is accurate with lots of detail. "
These are qualities that I would like to have in a speaker, a priority in fact.
Just out of curiosity, with your speaker and the use of a reflective lens.
How would you describe the directivity of the image. Would it be more like a point source, or more of an ambient reflective effect.
I have always found this type of design interesting. Especially the type that is trying to achieve a 360 degree dispersion patern.
Norris
In your previous post you stated that :
" The imaging is good and the sound is accurate with lots of detail. "
These are qualities that I would like to have in a speaker, a priority in fact.
Just out of curiosity, with your speaker and the use of a reflective lens.
How would you describe the directivity of the image. Would it be more like a point source, or more of an ambient reflective effect.
I have always found this type of design interesting. Especially the type that is trying to achieve a 360 degree dispersion patern.
Norris
Norris Wilson said:
I have not perfected this design yet, there are some things that are still being studied. One is the effect of the concaved portion of on the cone response, the other is the diffraction impulses as the waves reach the edge. So the image is good, but not as good as a direct radiation. This is designed for 180 primary radiation and the frequency does not vary much within this range. The purpose is to make the design as close to a horizontal point source on a wall as possible. This way the sound is open and relaxing, image shift is not so significant as you move from the sweet spot.
I think I would use 360 degree radiation if I wanted the speakers in a really large room positioned far way from any wall. If the 180 degree is used in a long room, one could just position them at center of two side walls and you can listen anywhere walking between them.
Colin said:
Yes, it is a challenge, this is why I am working on it between other projects. I agree with Ted that 360 degree radiation is not the best for the average listening room as I have mentioned in the previous post. I think 180 degrees is more practical and flexible so that speakers can be mounted out of the way as close to the walls as possible.
All light metal cone drivers are sensitive to things very close to it. I discovered that the surrounds that the JxR6 uses is that way for a good purpose. The radiation pattern from cones are such that it is going to be difficult to work with, but I would not use a dome of that size even though it's easier to work with (well, maybe a diamond dome if a wide range driver like that is possible).
With current material technology, I would not be surprised if Ted comes out with a 125mm full range better than the JX92S. The more I learn about speakers and drivers, the more I am amazed with the little details and the effort Ted has put into his designs. I really look forward to seeing more, also hope that there is a solid manufacturing team to work with him though. Lots of new ideas need changes in the production line which few manufacturers are willing to do.
I have just completed a pair of vertical linear arrays consisting of hexagonal sixteen liter enclosures using four each of the JXR6 HD drivers. They are designed as sealed acoustic suspension providing a system resonance of about 110 to 115 hz. No crossover or equalization components are used with the Jordans. A pair of TBI Magellen VI powered woofers are used set at 150 hz 18 dB crossovers. Currently a 30 watt EL84 push pull amp drives the system. Plans are to use a 15 watt SET integrated next. It is early but these drivers are clearly superior to most and the combination is fast and extended. These replaced a pair of QUAD ESL57's and are less directional, more detailed, more dynamic, more capable of musical reproduction and more acceptable in decor.
I have reservations about their longivity and reliability resulting from a lack of crossover and the driving of them below their resonance but they have not failed yet.
I have reservations about their longivity and reliability resulting from a lack of crossover and the driving of them below their resonance but they have not failed yet.
Hi - what enclosure volume have you used for the array?
Regarding longevity - when I last saw Ted, he gave me a demonstration of a JXR6 running at 1Hz (that's not a misprint), pumping away at high volume. Couldn't hear anything of course, but very impressive. (the unit had an experimental loading system known as 'hand held'). Ted also said he'd run a unit red hot once in an attempt to find out how much power it would take to get one to fail.
The loading you've used should protect the drivers to some degree but I doubt you'll destroy them with a SET amp.
Incidentally, if you've tried it, how did they sound over a single unit per side?
Regarding longevity - when I last saw Ted, he gave me a demonstration of a JXR6 running at 1Hz (that's not a misprint), pumping away at high volume. Couldn't hear anything of course, but very impressive. (the unit had an experimental loading system known as 'hand held'). Ted also said he'd run a unit red hot once in an attempt to find out how much power it would take to get one to fail.
The loading you've used should protect the drivers to some degree but I doubt you'll destroy them with a SET amp.
Incidentally, if you've tried it, how did they sound over a single unit per side?
Hi Colin,
The enclosure volume for each array is sixteen liters with "acoustical Magic" coating and two kilos of "acoustic Stuff" wadding modifying the actual starting volume.
Thank you for the description of your experience with Ted Jordan as I will worry less about the lack of crossover component protection.
There is little difference in the sound of one unit with the exception of the percieved attainable sound pressure level.
The linear array has the ability to sound louder. My previous experience with stacked QUAD ESL speakers would lead me to believe about six dB efficiency improvement is attained with four drivers in a stack.
The enclosure volume for each array is sixteen liters with "acoustical Magic" coating and two kilos of "acoustic Stuff" wadding modifying the actual starting volume.
Thank you for the description of your experience with Ted Jordan as I will worry less about the lack of crossover component protection.
There is little difference in the sound of one unit with the exception of the percieved attainable sound pressure level.
The linear array has the ability to sound louder. My previous experience with stacked QUAD ESL speakers would lead me to believe about six dB efficiency improvement is attained with four drivers in a stack.
Thanks for the info.
Incidentally, if you haven't tried it, the Sonic-T amp works well with the JXR6. Much better than the JX92, which makes the Sonic sound harsh. The JXR6's 4 ohm loading would give you around 9 watts (plus 6dB for the 4x drivers) and the use above 110Hz would get around any shortcomings in the T-amp's bass.
Incidentally, if you haven't tried it, the Sonic-T amp works well with the JXR6. Much better than the JX92, which makes the Sonic sound harsh. The JXR6's 4 ohm loading would give you around 9 watts (plus 6dB for the 4x drivers) and the use above 110Hz would get around any shortcomings in the T-amp's bass.
I did get carried away about my newest jordan 50mm system so I thought a further comment about Norris Wilson's original thread inquiry should make the point of using the TBI (Jan Plummer's) woofer Magellen VI which would obviate the need for mid bass enhancment with the JXR6HD. One low frequency driver with amplifier and a stereo pair of 50mm modules would be a fine place to begin. The Jordans require no crossover or equalization.
Later enhancement to stereo bass would be desirable when crossing over at 150hz but not immediately necessary. True 20hz to 30k hz coverage is attainable.
Later enhancement to stereo bass would be desirable when crossing over at 150hz but not immediately necessary. True 20hz to 30k hz coverage is attainable.
binkt said:
Hi,
can you post some fotos of yours speakers?
I had plan to buy QUAD ESL57 speakers, but i saw your post, i got better idea.
I have active sub from 100Hz down, should be OK.
Push pull amp is better than SE variant, has more dinamic. SE is usually too soft and slow. PP should be connected in triode, little less power, but better sound.
regards, Bostjan
Bostjan
Thanks for your interest. From my experience:
The 100hz cutoff is too low, you need 200 to 250 hz to make sure the JXR6 and the bass output sonically appear to come from the same source.
The QUAD57ESL are midrange speakers as are the JXR6 and respond to similar lower Mid frequency enhancement. I was using the same subs with the QUAD drivers as I now use with the JRX6.
I am still using a push-pull 30watt amp (RM-10) and like it.
I have lost this reply 4 times attempting to attach a picture file if you know how to make the "attach file" process function please tell me. the FAQ descriptive information results in a lost reply and I am burned out trying.
Sorry.
Thanks for your interest. From my experience:
The 100hz cutoff is too low, you need 200 to 250 hz to make sure the JXR6 and the bass output sonically appear to come from the same source.
The QUAD57ESL are midrange speakers as are the JXR6 and respond to similar lower Mid frequency enhancement. I was using the same subs with the QUAD drivers as I now use with the JRX6.
I am still using a push-pull 30watt amp (RM-10) and like it.
I have lost this reply 4 times attempting to attach a picture file if you know how to make the "attach file" process function please tell me. the FAQ descriptive information results in a lost reply and I am burned out trying.
Sorry.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.