Hi Navin
my Jordan JX92S(I dont use the little Jordan) are mounted in the front of a Porcelain pot on a baffle 2"thk with a 2"R corner This reshapes the pot into a vestigial "egg" shape The inside of the baffle has a 5" concave R To make the inside egg shaped as well. The pots are damped with carpet felt, stuffed, and are totally INERT. This is important and why they sound so good. There is NO coloration from the "cabinet". They are 8 L vol, 9"dia & 10" high and lay on thier side, they are sealed, small, and just flat create pure music.
Per GM, they model MAX flat to 100 HZ. The Jordans are run FR per Jordans instructions, that is with no XO. THE 8L cabinet rolls them off and protects them as Jordan intended. There is a PLLXO only on the woofers @ 100 HZ. the sats are 20" from the front wall to CL of speakers. The front wall is covered with carpet, again per Jordan, (but he only says soft covering) only mine is 6'H x 18' wide , set out from the wall 2" and forms a bass trap as well . The integration with the sealed woofers is neigh perfect! The image is real, huge and pure music. Im in the near field, 44" from the drivers. The sats are toed in to cross in front of my face, again per Jordan. JORDAN KNOWS JORDANS
In my 50 years of DIY speakers this is the most pure music i ever had .
Do the Jordans need a tweeter? To sound like hi fi, yes. To sound like music, no. In fact, on axis there is a little too much top end .Jordan designed it this way, which is why you cross them slightly.
HT: I dont use it, but have built some for clients and used Tang Band 3" 871s for surrounds, in 3 L pots standing up , not laying down like the Jordans. They are adequit if the mix dosent require more power. they are great little speakers and bennifit from being in eggs.! integration is excellant thru the sig processor in the 5.1 amp. regards
my Jordan JX92S(I dont use the little Jordan) are mounted in the front of a Porcelain pot on a baffle 2"thk with a 2"R corner This reshapes the pot into a vestigial "egg" shape The inside of the baffle has a 5" concave R To make the inside egg shaped as well. The pots are damped with carpet felt, stuffed, and are totally INERT. This is important and why they sound so good. There is NO coloration from the "cabinet". They are 8 L vol, 9"dia & 10" high and lay on thier side, they are sealed, small, and just flat create pure music.
Per GM, they model MAX flat to 100 HZ. The Jordans are run FR per Jordans instructions, that is with no XO. THE 8L cabinet rolls them off and protects them as Jordan intended. There is a PLLXO only on the woofers @ 100 HZ. the sats are 20" from the front wall to CL of speakers. The front wall is covered with carpet, again per Jordan, (but he only says soft covering) only mine is 6'H x 18' wide , set out from the wall 2" and forms a bass trap as well . The integration with the sealed woofers is neigh perfect! The image is real, huge and pure music. Im in the near field, 44" from the drivers. The sats are toed in to cross in front of my face, again per Jordan. JORDAN KNOWS JORDANS
In my 50 years of DIY speakers this is the most pure music i ever had . Do the Jordans need a tweeter? To sound like hi fi, yes. To sound like music, no. In fact, on axis there is a little too much top end .Jordan designed it this way, which is why you cross them slightly.
HT: I dont use it, but have built some for clients and used Tang Band 3" 871s for surrounds, in 3 L pots standing up , not laying down like the Jordans. They are adequit if the mix dosent require more power. they are great little speakers and bennifit from being in eggs.! integration is excellant thru the sig processor in the 5.1 amp. regards
Re: Hi Navin
Then again, I believe SL says one should be careful about using steep slopes in low freq regions because phase shifts are audible there, IIRC... ? In that case, it begins to become confusing...
Thanks for an interesting design. Is the sub xo'd with a first-order xo (one R, one C type thing)? I believe Jordan says this is the way to go, at 116Hz or something like that, but I worry that with such a shallow slope the sub will be audible at much higher frequencies like 200-300Hz, and may colour the mids (after all, most sub drivers may not be the best for reproducing mids accurately). Do you feel any such problem, or do you feel such problems are at all likely?THOR said:
Then again, I believe SL says one should be careful about using steep slopes in low freq regions because phase shifts are audible there, IIRC... ? In that case, it begins to become confusing...
Re: Hi Navin
I've tried listening to my JX92S ported FR bookshelf boxes for many hours at a stretch, and the mids seem to sound most clear and real if you're close to on-axis. But after half an hour of listening at that position, the listening fatigue can be tremendous. I once got put off music for days! I believe the Jordans don't just accentuate the highs, they probably add a lot of distortion. Therefore, if you use the JX92S in any design, you should either be certain that the listener will never listen to them closer than 20-deg on-axis, or you should bring in a tweeter. Even a super-tweeter, a planar or ribbon or any other such thing, xo'd at 5K or 6K, or even higher, will be just perfect. (Note: these comments apply only to the JX92S, not to the rest of the Jordan drivers.)
This design is an excellent implementation of what I'm talking about, it seems.
Just adding my ten paise here...THOR said:
I've tried listening to my JX92S ported FR bookshelf boxes for many hours at a stretch, and the mids seem to sound most clear and real if you're close to on-axis. But after half an hour of listening at that position, the listening fatigue can be tremendous. I once got put off music for days! I believe the Jordans don't just accentuate the highs, they probably add a lot of distortion. Therefore, if you use the JX92S in any design, you should either be certain that the listener will never listen to them closer than 20-deg on-axis, or you should bring in a tweeter. Even a super-tweeter, a planar or ribbon or any other such thing, xo'd at 5K or 6K, or even higher, will be just perfect. (Note: these comments apply only to the JX92S, not to the rest of the Jordan drivers.)
This design is an excellent implementation of what I'm talking about, it seems.
Jordans , distortion and woofer Xo
Navin ,I dont use the jordan woof so mine is 12DB/oct @100 hz. Jordan said what he did cause the Jordan woof goes flat to beyond 1 KHZ! You have got to stop reading all this **** and build something ! no matter what you read , you prob wont get it perfect the first time! this is about the 25th system ive built over the last 55 years)
TO TCPIP: what you describe is so far beyond reality for me and the 50 or so other people that have heard the jordans in extended sessions, that i can only conclude that what you expierienced was not the Jordans but something VERY wrong earlier in the chain of equiptment. I personally am very susceptable to this listening fatigue and my longest session was6 hours straight with NONE of the effects you(eroniously?) ascribe to the Jordan! they ARE revealing and show the faults of other equiptment! upon hearing my system many have commented that it is very exceptional. I used solid state for years with them but now use tubes
Navin ,I dont use the jordan woof so mine is 12DB/oct @100 hz. Jordan said what he did cause the Jordan woof goes flat to beyond 1 KHZ! You have got to stop reading all this **** and build something ! no matter what you read , you prob wont get it perfect the first time! this is about the 25th system ive built over the last 55 years)
TO TCPIP: what you describe is so far beyond reality for me and the 50 or so other people that have heard the jordans in extended sessions, that i can only conclude that what you expierienced was not the Jordans but something VERY wrong earlier in the chain of equiptment. I personally am very susceptable to this listening fatigue and my longest session was6 hours straight with NONE of the effects you(eroniously?) ascribe to the Jordan! they ARE revealing and show the faults of other equiptment! upon hearing my system many have commented that it is very exceptional. I used solid state for years with them but now use tubes
Re: Jordans , distortion and woofer Xo
I may not have an array of fifty people to corroborate, but such opinions are not that unheard of on this forum either. This post (stokessd, Dec 2003) and this one (rljones, Oct 2002) are two examples of builders who have complained that the highs of the JX92S, above about 5-6K, are not at all clean.
BTW, did these fifty listeners listen to your speakers on-axis or properly and thoroughly off-axis the way Ted Jordan's website recommends? You seem to have set up your speakers (correctly, AFAIK) to listen strongly off-axis. If all your listening sessions have been done that way, then you won't know what I'm talking about, because this harshness doesn't make itself felt so much, or even at all, in that case. All you see then is a rolled-off treble. Try listening on-axis, as I'd described in my earlier post, and perhaps your assessment may change?
In a similar vein, I had a very interesting experience with the JX92S boxes the other day. Your mention of shifting to valves reminded me of it --- not that your valve amps give you a similar experience or anything. The other day a friend who has borrowed my Jordans for the last few months obtained a set of Quad II amplifiers. This amp system is apparently a 1940's classic, and comes as a set with a preamp and two monoblock power amps, with proprietary interconnects and wiring connecting all three. We set it up and played Clapton MTV Unplugged on a (low-end) Yamaha CDX-396 CD player. The sound was astonishing, mesmerising, whatever you may call it. I've never heard the Jordans sound so good, the harshness of the highs had all gone, the sound was like good chilled beer on a hot day, the kind that makes you lick your lips and guzzle. The guitar strumming had such incredible impact! Man!!!
Later Iearned that the Quad II, being a very early amp design, rolled off the top end at about 12KHz. I believe part of the reason why the Jordans sounded so mind-blowingly good was because of this. If you can't xo the highs, just remove them, and then the JX92s really can sing even on-axis. (Incidentally, we were listening practically on-axis, or maybe less than 10-deg off-axis, when we tried out the Quads.) So, after the Quad experience, I'm 100% convinced that the JX92S is at its best if it is not allowed to reach above about 5-8K (take your pick); I'd choose 5K over 8K any day.
In case you're curious what box I've put the JX92S in, they're the standard 15L (or is it 18L?) ported box described in the Jordan Website. 25mm MDF, no bracing (the walls are really dead because of the small size and thick MDF), corners/edges not rounded at all (maybe the sharp edges add a bit to the HF edge?), front ported. Nothing unusual or innovative about it. One mistake I made: no BSC.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, except for that one point, where you said that my observations are very unusual.THOR said:
I may not have an array of fifty people to corroborate, but such opinions are not that unheard of on this forum either. This post (stokessd, Dec 2003) and this one (rljones, Oct 2002) are two examples of builders who have complained that the highs of the JX92S, above about 5-6K, are not at all clean.BTW, did these fifty listeners listen to your speakers on-axis or properly and thoroughly off-axis the way Ted Jordan's website recommends? You seem to have set up your speakers (correctly, AFAIK) to listen strongly off-axis. If all your listening sessions have been done that way, then you won't know what I'm talking about, because this harshness doesn't make itself felt so much, or even at all, in that case. All you see then is a rolled-off treble. Try listening on-axis, as I'd described in my earlier post, and perhaps your assessment may change?
In a similar vein, I had a very interesting experience with the JX92S boxes the other day. Your mention of shifting to valves reminded me of it --- not that your valve amps give you a similar experience or anything.
The other day a friend who has borrowed my Jordans for the last few months obtained a set of Quad II amplifiers. This amp system is apparently a 1940's classic, and comes as a set with a preamp and two monoblock power amps, with proprietary interconnects and wiring connecting all three. We set it up and played Clapton MTV Unplugged on a (low-end) Yamaha CDX-396 CD player. The sound was astonishing, mesmerising, whatever you may call it. I've never heard the Jordans sound so good, the harshness of the highs had all gone, the sound was like good chilled beer on a hot day, the kind that makes you lick your lips and guzzle. The guitar strumming had such incredible impact! Man!!!Later Iearned that the Quad II, being a very early amp design, rolled off the top end at about 12KHz. I believe part of the reason why the Jordans sounded so mind-blowingly good was because of this. If you can't xo the highs, just remove them, and then the JX92s really can sing even on-axis. (Incidentally, we were listening practically on-axis, or maybe less than 10-deg off-axis, when we tried out the Quads.) So, after the Quad experience, I'm 100% convinced that the JX92S is at its best if it is not allowed to reach above about 5-8K (take your pick); I'd choose 5K over 8K any day.
In case you're curious what box I've put the JX92S in, they're the standard 15L (or is it 18L?) ported box described in the Jordan Website. 25mm MDF, no bracing (the walls are really dead because of the small size and thick MDF), corners/edges not rounded at all (maybe the sharp edges add a bit to the HF edge?), front ported. Nothing unusual or innovative about it. One mistake I made: no BSC.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.