It's obviously a complex subject, and also very subjective - subject to taste for one. Something that sounds good to one person can sound bad to another, plus differences in the way people listen, what kind of music they listen to and are used to hearing. Specs are not the final answer either. Speakers that spec fantastic can sound like junk. For me, good speakers don't just sound good, they feel good, lol.
Will speakers that produce higher sound more realistic? Don't know... It takes you near the realm of the sampling rate debate, where some claim to be able to hear the difference between 96k and 48k or even 192k and 96k. I'm sure I can hear the difference between 48k and 44k, and certainly the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit sampling. The higher sampling rates seem to produce better sounding recordings if the dithering is good, and the mics and pres were good and if the engineer was good, etc. etc... so many variables.
There's the question of combination tones too, where the interference patterns of high frequencies produce pitches that are the remainder of the lower frequency taken from the higher, so for example two notes sounding as an interval at 4600 and 4500 produce and audible combination tone, under the right circumstances, of 100hz. These tones generally produce major and minor triads and so support diatonic harmony. The funny thing is that they are a phenomenon of the ear drum. that is, they are resonances of the tympanum or ear canal and do not exist in the air!! Some claim that frequencies above the limit of hearing can produce combination tones within the audible spectrum, but again that's in the ear of the beholder - quite litterally and so very subjective, even physically. If that does happen you would need a speaker that can produce the super sonic frequencies to induce combination tones in the audible spectrum. I don't know...
It seems like its getting into an area so subtle that it may be hype. Take these ultra-linear tube high-end tube amps that people pay $60,000 for and that are flat to 50k or whatever.
Most of the people who can afford those are old enough so that I doubt their hearing is very good anymore. An expensive hobby - it smacks of status conciousness and snakeoil salesmen.
Maybe a system that is a "little of both" using say a wide range driver like a JX53, FF85, JX92, FE103/107 supported by a bass unit upto say 300-500Hz might be the "best" option."
That's basically what I do with Jordan 92xs and stereo subs, after some years of trying different setups. To my ear the crossoverless sound in the high end is best. I'm much less sensitive to cossovers in the low end. And realism, subjective but judgeable qualities like imaging and sound stage, the ability to distinguish distinct timbres in a complex mix, all work best for me in this kind of setup. Ted Jordan talks about the problems of isolating overtones from fundamentals that you get with mid-range crossovers where the bass/mid driver would produce a fundamental and many of its overtones would be carried by the tweeter. Some people call that nonsense, but it explains what I hear.
Yes, good tweeters produce off-axis much better than fullrange speakers do, so if you are trying to cover a bigger sweet spot like auditioning at a distance in a larger room that can be a factor. Personally, I go for nearfield because of the way I work.
Will speakers that produce higher sound more realistic? Don't know... It takes you near the realm of the sampling rate debate, where some claim to be able to hear the difference between 96k and 48k or even 192k and 96k. I'm sure I can hear the difference between 48k and 44k, and certainly the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit sampling. The higher sampling rates seem to produce better sounding recordings if the dithering is good, and the mics and pres were good and if the engineer was good, etc. etc... so many variables.
There's the question of combination tones too, where the interference patterns of high frequencies produce pitches that are the remainder of the lower frequency taken from the higher, so for example two notes sounding as an interval at 4600 and 4500 produce and audible combination tone, under the right circumstances, of 100hz. These tones generally produce major and minor triads and so support diatonic harmony. The funny thing is that they are a phenomenon of the ear drum. that is, they are resonances of the tympanum or ear canal and do not exist in the air!! Some claim that frequencies above the limit of hearing can produce combination tones within the audible spectrum, but again that's in the ear of the beholder - quite litterally and so very subjective, even physically. If that does happen you would need a speaker that can produce the super sonic frequencies to induce combination tones in the audible spectrum. I don't know...
It seems like its getting into an area so subtle that it may be hype. Take these ultra-linear tube high-end tube amps that people pay $60,000 for and that are flat to 50k or whatever.
Most of the people who can afford those are old enough so that I doubt their hearing is very good anymore. An expensive hobby - it smacks of status conciousness and snakeoil salesmen.
Maybe a system that is a "little of both" using say a wide range driver like a JX53, FF85, JX92, FE103/107 supported by a bass unit upto say 300-500Hz might be the "best" option."
That's basically what I do with Jordan 92xs and stereo subs, after some years of trying different setups. To my ear the crossoverless sound in the high end is best. I'm much less sensitive to cossovers in the low end. And realism, subjective but judgeable qualities like imaging and sound stage, the ability to distinguish distinct timbres in a complex mix, all work best for me in this kind of setup. Ted Jordan talks about the problems of isolating overtones from fundamentals that you get with mid-range crossovers where the bass/mid driver would produce a fundamental and many of its overtones would be carried by the tweeter. Some people call that nonsense, but it explains what I hear.
Yes, good tweeters produce off-axis much better than fullrange speakers do, so if you are trying to cover a bigger sweet spot like auditioning at a distance in a larger room that can be a factor. Personally, I go for nearfield because of the way I work.
my present systems are the traditional multiway systems (ScanSpeak 8546/9900 + Audio Concepts DV12 for audio and Vifa TC series based system for 5.1).
However both of these system though very transparent etc.... left me wanting and so have many other multi way system (WATT - Puppy, large floor standing B&W with 3 6" drivers and a tweeter, etc.). The one system that left an impression was a Manger 2 way using a 8" Vifa woofer and a Manger in a box that was about 20" tall. this led me to investigate fullrange drivers that were within my budget.
Now I am narrowing my choices
1. JX92 in MLTL a la GM and abpea
2. FF85 + small paper woofer that would work in a box not larger than 15 liters XOed at say 300Hz 1st order. The box i have in mind look something like the TOOBZ from Planet 10's website.
this system would do double duty. HT and audio. I am considering a 4.2 system with phantom center as a center speaker would distract from the plasma TV.
I intend to tuck one sub under a sofa and another behind a coffee table.
However both of these system though very transparent etc.... left me wanting and so have many other multi way system (WATT - Puppy, large floor standing B&W with 3 6" drivers and a tweeter, etc.). The one system that left an impression was a Manger 2 way using a 8" Vifa woofer and a Manger in a box that was about 20" tall. this led me to investigate fullrange drivers that were within my budget.
Now I am narrowing my choices
1. JX92 in MLTL a la GM and abpea
2. FF85 + small paper woofer that would work in a box not larger than 15 liters XOed at say 300Hz 1st order. The box i have in mind look something like the TOOBZ from Planet 10's website.
this system would do double duty. HT and audio. I am considering a 4.2 system with phantom center as a center speaker would distract from the plasma TV.
I intend to tuck one sub under a sofa and another behind a coffee table.
I recommend the JX92s highly. Would also recommend you go with stereo subs and active crossover. Marchand Electronics has good kits. Regardless of conventional wisdom about directionality not being an issue for subs, I have found that for mixing audio, it is. I messed with a mono sub in various locations and was very unsatisfied. Here's my system: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23208&perpage=10&pagenumber=50
There's a picture there. If you use the 92s don't try to get them to produce the lows for you, you won't do them any favors. Here's a more detailed description:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38755&perpage=10&pagenumber=2
NNK
There's a picture there. If you use the 92s don't try to get them to produce the lows for you, you won't do them any favors. Here's a more detailed description:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38755&perpage=10&pagenumber=2
NNK
GM's MLTL is what og me interested in the JX92 or shjould i say reinterestred.
i was gonna try the JX92 but 2 friends (one in the UK) warned me about it's top end response. they felt it was too hot.
i live in india now and there is no place i can get to listen to the JX92. only one DIYer has them in India and he lives on the other end of the city (it would take me 2 hrs + to one way to get to his place). I have a better chance of getting to listen to them in the UK, Germany or US on my travels.
At close to $600 for a set of 4 it is a lot of money. The per capita income here is about $300 per year!
So I looked around and ran into the FF85k. It is limited at the low end sort like the JX53 and is 1/4th the cost. However usig a midbass to cover the midbass (80-300hz) makes the system cost the same as the JX92.
BTW why do you do such near field monitoring? from the looks of things you play a few instruments and maybe you sample them on to your PC and loop the samples???
When I did this in the 80s i sued a pair of JBL Pro III.
One last question.
My AVR is a Marantz SR7000. I cannot afford to replace it. Will this AVR mate well with the JX92? I am building a stereo EL84 PPP (parallel push pull) that will deliver 20-25W rms. I could use this for the front channels. Does this make sense?
i was gonna try the JX92 but 2 friends (one in the UK) warned me about it's top end response. they felt it was too hot.
i live in india now and there is no place i can get to listen to the JX92. only one DIYer has them in India and he lives on the other end of the city (it would take me 2 hrs + to one way to get to his place). I have a better chance of getting to listen to them in the UK, Germany or US on my travels.
At close to $600 for a set of 4 it is a lot of money. The per capita income here is about $300 per year!
So I looked around and ran into the FF85k. It is limited at the low end sort like the JX53 and is 1/4th the cost. However usig a midbass to cover the midbass (80-300hz) makes the system cost the same as the JX92.
BTW why do you do such near field monitoring? from the looks of things you play a few instruments and maybe you sample them on to your PC and loop the samples???
When I did this in the 80s i sued a pair of JBL Pro III.
One last question.
My AVR is a Marantz SR7000. I cannot afford to replace it. Will this AVR mate well with the JX92? I am building a stereo EL84 PPP (parallel push pull) that will deliver 20-25W rms. I could use this for the front channels. Does this make sense?
Not sure about the Marantz but the tube amp should be plenty of power for moderate volumes.
I listen in the near field to mix audio - I produce music in a variety of styles; trying to break into film work. A lot of it is classical using mixed sampled and live recorded material - no loops, ew! Pretty standard project studio production techniques and setup.
The Jordans are strong up top, or rather direct on top, but you can solve it either by adding the little filter circuit that Ted designed or by listening off axis a bit. Since I got my stereo subs rigged and the system balanced I listen to them straight out, no filter, about 5 deg. off axis. My hearing is still ok to at least 15k. The clarity of the high end when well balanced with strength in the low end can be really exciting. You ought to hear orchestral tuttis with brass and percussion through these things. I don't tire listening to them either. Good fullrange drivers actively crossed to stereo subs in the near field has to be heard to be believed. The speakers spread and auditioned from greater distance still shine as well, though the room gets into it more then (that's a whole other ball of wax).
Sorry, I don't know about the FF85k, but the 53s are cheaper than the 92s and you could cross those to subs at 200 and get a real good result, I'm sure. Their sensitivity is similar to the Peerless subs http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/show...&St3=-85497067&DS_ID=3&Product_ID=16242&DID=7 I use (great speakers BTW, no kidding - they go subsonic with ease in the right size closed cab) and would match well with them. For that matter the FF85k could be crossed with the Peerless at 300 and you'd still probably be ok. Bottom line - Joirdan speakers are worth the money. The subs are a steal.
I just looked at the specs for the FF85k. They look hot above 10k alot like the Jordans. Nice flat phase reponse. Their sensitivity is lowish at 88db, like many full range drivers, so they would match ok with the Peerless subs. Looks to me like they are flat enough down to 200 to cross there.
See, I'm a bit of an odd man out here about this, a voice crying in the wilderness, since DIY speaker builders love to fuss with cabinets to see how much low end they can get from single drivers by designing cabinet shapes and ports etc. I just don't like the sound of ported speakers - about as much as I dislike the sound of midrange passive crossovers. They all sound hyped to me. (BTW, fullrange drivers aren't meant to go low; they're meant to go from low-mid to high without crossover - that's the point).
I'm a musician who does audio as an occupational hazard - I want simplicity, absolute clarity and balance, and I go by my classically-trained ears. It's really hard to get balanced response from ported speakers. You either build a thousand cabinets till you get the perfect one (if you ever do) or you end up equalizing if you want honesty, which IMO is a slippery slope and inevitably leads to degraded sound. This style of system beats most I've heard for low to moderate level auditioning. It's not for PA level sound. As Ted Jordan quotes Te Tao Ching: "The Great Way is very level but people greatly delight in tortuous paths"
Cheers, NNK
I listen in the near field to mix audio - I produce music in a variety of styles; trying to break into film work. A lot of it is classical using mixed sampled and live recorded material - no loops, ew! Pretty standard project studio production techniques and setup.
The Jordans are strong up top, or rather direct on top, but you can solve it either by adding the little filter circuit that Ted designed or by listening off axis a bit. Since I got my stereo subs rigged and the system balanced I listen to them straight out, no filter, about 5 deg. off axis. My hearing is still ok to at least 15k. The clarity of the high end when well balanced with strength in the low end can be really exciting. You ought to hear orchestral tuttis with brass and percussion through these things. I don't tire listening to them either. Good fullrange drivers actively crossed to stereo subs in the near field has to be heard to be believed. The speakers spread and auditioned from greater distance still shine as well, though the room gets into it more then (that's a whole other ball of wax).
Sorry, I don't know about the FF85k, but the 53s are cheaper than the 92s and you could cross those to subs at 200 and get a real good result, I'm sure. Their sensitivity is similar to the Peerless subs http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/show...&St3=-85497067&DS_ID=3&Product_ID=16242&DID=7 I use (great speakers BTW, no kidding - they go subsonic with ease in the right size closed cab) and would match well with them. For that matter the FF85k could be crossed with the Peerless at 300 and you'd still probably be ok. Bottom line - Joirdan speakers are worth the money. The subs are a steal.
I just looked at the specs for the FF85k. They look hot above 10k alot like the Jordans. Nice flat phase reponse. Their sensitivity is lowish at 88db, like many full range drivers, so they would match ok with the Peerless subs. Looks to me like they are flat enough down to 200 to cross there.
See, I'm a bit of an odd man out here about this, a voice crying in the wilderness, since DIY speaker builders love to fuss with cabinets to see how much low end they can get from single drivers by designing cabinet shapes and ports etc. I just don't like the sound of ported speakers - about as much as I dislike the sound of midrange passive crossovers. They all sound hyped to me. (BTW, fullrange drivers aren't meant to go low; they're meant to go from low-mid to high without crossover - that's the point).
I'm a musician who does audio as an occupational hazard - I want simplicity, absolute clarity and balance, and I go by my classically-trained ears. It's really hard to get balanced response from ported speakers. You either build a thousand cabinets till you get the perfect one (if you ever do) or you end up equalizing if you want honesty, which IMO is a slippery slope and inevitably leads to degraded sound. This style of system beats most I've heard for low to moderate level auditioning. It's not for PA level sound. As Ted Jordan quotes Te Tao Ching: "The Great Way is very level but people greatly delight in tortuous paths"
Cheers, NNK
i dont like ported speakers per se but I do believe they have their uses. since you do a lot of near field work you will notice port noise a lot more.
The FF85K have one severe disadvantage and that is their power handling. 5W only! hence XOing them above 300Hz is required for higher levels. For near field work however 200hz will do just fine.
I really I wish I could afford both the JX92 and the FF85 and H333/297 - the woofer I am looking to mate with the FF85 are the SEAS 8" paper cone H333 and H397.
The FF85K have one severe disadvantage and that is their power handling. 5W only! hence XOing them above 300Hz is required for higher levels. For near field work however 200hz will do just fine.
I really I wish I could afford both the JX92 and the FF85 and H333/297 - the woofer I am looking to mate with the FF85 are the SEAS 8" paper cone H333 and H397.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.