macmeech said:
I couldn't find the email with the series XO values... the volume he is using is 71.25 litres though
dave
Re: 2 Jordan Drivers
The JX53 requires a sealed box of it's own - it is a mid-range/treble driver, not a tweeter. Hence also the 500Hz crossover. (It's the whole point of the JX53 - to avoid crossovers at higher frequencies.)
I used a sealed enclosure on the JX125 as I'd heard similar and thought it sounded good. The Jordan website gives recommended enclosure sizes for the JX150 - go to the systems page. It also has vented enclosure sizes for this driver as well as the JX125.
Colin
macmeech said:
The JX53 requires a sealed box of it's own - it is a mid-range/treble driver, not a tweeter. Hence also the 500Hz crossover. (It's the whole point of the JX53 - to avoid crossovers at higher frequencies.)
I used a sealed enclosure on the JX125 as I'd heard similar and thought it sounded good. The Jordan website gives recommended enclosure sizes for the JX150 - go to the systems page. It also has vented enclosure sizes for this driver as well as the JX125.
Colin
If you have a look at this thread
3-way Jordan
Chris describes his experiences using the JX53 OB. He felt it sounded better in a sealed enclosure. He's also using the JX150.
Colin
3-way Jordan
Chris describes his experiences using the JX53 OB. He felt it sounded better in a sealed enclosure. He's also using the JX150.
Colin
Re: Re: 2 Jordan Drivers
loses at one point, it wil gain with the blend of the two drivers. I saw the
enclosures on the webpage, but I was looking for some plans in inches(lazy)
and it seems everyone is building these, these days, so I thought that I could find a cabinet and XO already done by Murphy or Griffin. Thanks for your help.
I do not believe there would be significant difference if both drivers were in the same sealed (or vented) box. Any speaker experts have an opinion one way or the other? I am missing your point about the difference between a tweeter and a midrange driver as far as crossover point. What series XOColin said:
loses at one point, it wil gain with the blend of the two drivers. I saw the
enclosures on the webpage, but I was looking for some plans in inches(lazy)
and it seems everyone is building these, these days, so I thought that I could find a cabinet and XO already done by Murphy or Griffin. Thanks for your help.
Re: Re: Re: 2 Jordan Drivers
If the JX53 is not in its own box, the JX150 will use it as a (little) PR -- not a good thing.
A well documented JX150/JX53 TL. Uses active XO thou.
dave
macmeech said:
If the JX53 is not in its own box, the JX150 will use it as a (little) PR -- not a good thing.
A well documented JX150/JX53 TL. Uses active XO thou.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
dave
What does PR mean?
Why wouldn't you build the separate sealed box inside the speaker box?
What you have shown, with all due respect, looks amateurish.
The lack of crossover is nice, but there are excellent speakers with excellent crossovers.I still think a XO could deal with whatever the problem was.
Of course, I don't know how to build them. But two drivers from the same company like the 53 and the 150 can't be that hard to blend.
There is always the "Revelator" and Excel W18 in a bookshelf cabinet.
Why wouldn't you build the separate sealed box inside the speaker box?
What you have shown, with all due respect, looks amateurish.
The lack of crossover is nice, but there are excellent speakers with excellent crossovers.I still think a XO could deal with whatever the problem was.
Of course, I don't know how to build them. But two drivers from the same company like the 53 and the 150 can't be that hard to blend.
There is always the "Revelator" and Excel W18 in a bookshelf cabinet.
Re: What does PR mean?
Sure you can... go read the article and you can see wht Rune did it the way he did...
And there is a crossover, just not a passive crossover -- if you want the very best out of these drivers and active XO is a good idea, especially if you are going to cross them low (ie 500Hz)
dave
macmeech said:
Sure you can... go read the article and you can see wht Rune did it the way he did...
And there is a crossover, just not a passive crossover -- if you want the very best out of these drivers and active XO is a good idea, especially if you are going to cross them low (ie 500Hz)
dave
Unacceptable Design
<<"An alternative solution was thought out. What if a higher order filter was placed a little lower in frequency? This will allow a better alignment to the 500Hz 1st order response around crossover. In Figure 7.7 we see the filter effects the off-axis response rather evenly. This might sound good, but the filter remains to be tried out.">>
I don't buy it. First of all, I don't want a floorstanding TL, because I prefer a subwoofer/monitor model. Second of all, the obsession with no crossover is nice, but the right crossover for a sealed or vented model hasn't been done
yet, because they are Jordan full range speakers.
Ironically, thinking out of the box has prevented thinking inside the box.
There are too many excellent two way designs with invisible XO to assume that
this is the only way to make the Jordans sing. I think we should return to a MTM
size box with two drivers and a 2nd order Bessel? crossover. If we have trouble we can add a supertweeter.
<<"An alternative solution was thought out. What if a higher order filter was placed a little lower in frequency? This will allow a better alignment to the 500Hz 1st order response around crossover. In Figure 7.7 we see the filter effects the off-axis response rather evenly. This might sound good, but the filter remains to be tried out.">>
I don't buy it. First of all, I don't want a floorstanding TL, because I prefer a subwoofer/monitor model. Second of all, the obsession with no crossover is nice, but the right crossover for a sealed or vented model hasn't been done
yet, because they are Jordan full range speakers.
Ironically, thinking out of the box has prevented thinking inside the box.
There are too many excellent two way designs with invisible XO to assume that
this is the only way to make the Jordans sing. I think we should return to a MTM
size box with two drivers and a 2nd order Bessel? crossover. If we have trouble we can add a supertweeter.
Re: Unacceptable Design
There is a crossover... it is just active, generally better than passive.
dave
macmeech said:
There is a crossover... it is just active, generally better than passive.
dave
Re: Unacceptable Design
Dave what about PLLXO. I was thinking of a 125/53 combo as a reference speaker. with 1st order PLLXO. a EL84PPP feeding the 53 and a SS feeding the 125. If only these Jordan driver weren't so damn expensive. Initially I had thought of using the 53 in an OB but after reading posts on this forum I am rethinking that. any ideas? and lastly given that i dont need much below 42Hz (Low E on the bass guitar) what is my best WAF sensitive option with the 125?
BTW Vandersteen also does what Rune has done and for good reason.
1. are u suggesting a MTM+sub using the MTM as a monitor all built with Jordan drivers?
2. There are many ways to skin this cat. 2 most popular ways seem to be using a 1" tweeter above 3k and a "midbass" below that and the other is to go fullrange/widerange. The 125/53 or 150/53 combo is a variation of the second method.
Fullrange drivers like the Fostex FF85/FE103/107/206/207/208/FW108, Jordan 92/53/125/150 and various TBs are built to different idealogy than say the SS Revelators/SEAS Excel/Focal/Audax 5",6" and 1" drivers atleast this is true for the premium models.
i dont think we can compare the 2. there are adequate good speakers using both techniques. it is just that for DIY I feel that a widerange/fullrange system is often easier as the XO is virtually eliminated.
BTW I would love to hear which 2 way designs "with invisible XO" you are refering to. Of the DIY ones I have heard the ACI Jaguar and North Creek Rhythm.
planet10 said:
Dave what about PLLXO. I was thinking of a 125/53 combo as a reference speaker. with 1st order PLLXO. a EL84PPP feeding the 53 and a SS feeding the 125. If only these Jordan driver weren't so damn expensive. Initially I had thought of using the 53 in an OB but after reading posts on this forum I am rethinking that. any ideas? and lastly given that i dont need much below 42Hz (Low E on the bass guitar) what is my best WAF sensitive option with the 125?
BTW Vandersteen also does what Rune has done and for good reason.
macmeech said:
1. are u suggesting a MTM+sub using the MTM as a monitor all built with Jordan drivers?
2. There are many ways to skin this cat. 2 most popular ways seem to be using a 1" tweeter above 3k and a "midbass" below that and the other is to go fullrange/widerange. The 125/53 or 150/53 combo is a variation of the second method.
Fullrange drivers like the Fostex FF85/FE103/107/206/207/208/FW108, Jordan 92/53/125/150 and various TBs are built to different idealogy than say the SS Revelators/SEAS Excel/Focal/Audax 5",6" and 1" drivers atleast this is true for the premium models.
i dont think we can compare the 2. there are adequate good speakers using both techniques. it is just that for DIY I feel that a widerange/fullrange system is often easier as the XO is virtually eliminated.
BTW I would love to hear which 2 way designs "with invisible XO" you are refering to. Of the DIY ones I have heard the ACI Jaguar and North Creek Rhythm.
Re: Re: Unacceptable Design
If you only need 1st order (which you do in this case) PLLXO makes the most sense, and if you are building your own amps it makes sense to build it right in (ie use a smaller coupling cap between the phase splitter and the EL84s to give you the appropriate high-pass.
dave
navin said:
If you only need 1st order (which you do in this case) PLLXO makes the most sense, and if you are building your own amps it makes sense to build it right in (ie use a smaller coupling cap between the phase splitter and the EL84s to give you the appropriate high-pass.
dave
my thoughts exactly! now dave any ideas about how to use teh JX53 and 125. I was hopiong to use teh 53 in OB but most others do not recomend that. for the 125 I need a box that will go to 42Hz an fit in with WAF (as small as possible pref. under 25 liters).
am i asking for too much.
BTW an alternate i am considering is a Fostex FF85K with a paper 6-7" woofer as yet undecided. Oneoption was teh SEAS CA21 8" but it requires a slightly bigger box than i can get away with.
would be much obliged if you offered me your valued opinion.
am i asking for too much.
BTW an alternate i am considering is a Fostex FF85K with a paper 6-7" woofer as yet undecided. Oneoption was teh SEAS CA21 8" but it requires a slightly bigger box than i can get away with.
would be much obliged if you offered me your valued opinion.
Catching up on the last few posts...
Two sealed boxes - I mis-described what I did in my system. The JX53 is in it's own sealed box within the main enclosure. The whole system looks like one box. The JX53 needs it's own acoustic loading and needs the back pressure from bass kept well away from it in order to function at it's best. (It's a very lightweight driver cone.)
The JX53 and 125/150 are not designed as fullrange. The JX92 fulfills that design aim (within its limits at either end of the spectrum). The JX53 and it's predecessors were designed as tweeter/mid-drivers, in order to keep the x/over as low as possible. This, among other things, keeps the acoustic centres relatively closer together. It works well, to my ears. They sound quite different to traditional speaker systems, more akin to an electrostatic or panel driver like the Magnaplanar. To some extent, the low crossoverr point negates the need to use the Jordans in a MTM configuration.
The drivers are more expensive than some drivers but are virtually hand-made and are far from the most expensive on the market. (No, I'm not on commission.) I remain astonished that the rest of the market is so far behind.
JX125 box - shouldn't be too tricky to work out the extension of a sealed box at 25litres, for a given Q. Alternatively, if a larger box is acceptable, maybe someone could have a look at the Martin King ML tables and see what pops out. (They weren't around when I did my enclosure.)
JX53 box - probably best to stick with the recommended 1.5 litre sealed box (you can half that volume if running to 500Hz). It's worth experimenting with the shape of the enclosure though to reduce parallel surfaces.
Hope this is of help.
Colin
Two sealed boxes - I mis-described what I did in my system. The JX53 is in it's own sealed box within the main enclosure. The whole system looks like one box. The JX53 needs it's own acoustic loading and needs the back pressure from bass kept well away from it in order to function at it's best. (It's a very lightweight driver cone.)
The JX53 and 125/150 are not designed as fullrange. The JX92 fulfills that design aim (within its limits at either end of the spectrum). The JX53 and it's predecessors were designed as tweeter/mid-drivers, in order to keep the x/over as low as possible. This, among other things, keeps the acoustic centres relatively closer together. It works well, to my ears. They sound quite different to traditional speaker systems, more akin to an electrostatic or panel driver like the Magnaplanar. To some extent, the low crossoverr point negates the need to use the Jordans in a MTM configuration.
The drivers are more expensive than some drivers but are virtually hand-made and are far from the most expensive on the market. (No, I'm not on commission.) I remain astonished that the rest of the market is so far behind.
JX125 box - shouldn't be too tricky to work out the extension of a sealed box at 25litres, for a given Q. Alternatively, if a larger box is acceptable, maybe someone could have a look at the Martin King ML tables and see what pops out. (They weren't around when I did my enclosure.)
JX53 box - probably best to stick with the recommended 1.5 litre sealed box (you can half that volume if running to 500Hz). It's worth experimenting with the shape of the enclosure though to reduce parallel surfaces.
Hope this is of help.
Colin
Bingo!
So if I take a 25 litre box, seal the JX53 in the top1.5 litres, and the JX150
centered in the remainder with a minimal XO, I am in business. Thank you ever so much.
Colin said:
So if I take a 25 litre box, seal the JX53 in the top1.5 litres, and the JX150
centered in the remainder with a minimal XO, I am in business. Thank you ever so much.
Navin,
Colin is using his JX125 in 25 litres... whether it goes to 42 Hz i don't know.
The other alternative would be cheaper i'm sure, but it is hard to beat the Jordans on quality.
dave
Colin is using his JX125 in 25 litres... whether it goes to 42 Hz i don't know.
The other alternative would be cheaper i'm sure, but it is hard to beat the Jordans on quality.
dave
Re: Bingo!
The JX150 is going to need a bigger box than the 25 litres used for the JX125.
dave
macmeech said:
The JX150 is going to need a bigger box than the 25 litres used for the JX125.
dave
Meech's Folly
This is a .75 cu. ft Parts Express speaker cabinet at $90.00 per in gloss black.
I am going to seal off the 53 in the top and use the remainder for the 150.
Where do I go for the best software to delineate the two internally sealed spaces proportionately? Madisound provides the service. I have MacSpeakerz
software, which is the only one for Mac, and I have no idea whether to trust it.
I would rather pay for good commercial software evaluation. Any thoughts?
This is a .75 cu. ft Parts Express speaker cabinet at $90.00 per in gloss black.
I am going to seal off the 53 in the top and use the remainder for the 150.
Where do I go for the best software to delineate the two internally sealed spaces proportionately? Madisound provides the service. I have MacSpeakerz
software, which is the only one for Mac, and I have no idea whether to trust it.
I would rather pay for good commercial software evaluation. Any thoughts?
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.