Material - affects mid frequencies
Double wound - less box volume needed (for a closed box). Important with 150mm module.
I prefer low inductance (single wound).
Active shelving high-pass filter?
jzagaja said:
for His linear array of four drivers EJJordan recommends simple passive shelving high-pass, looks like reverse of popular baffle step compensation circuit
best,
graaf
What lobing there is on the 4 unit array is only noticable if you are close to the array and get above the height of the array. In other words, they are quite directional vertically. In which case, the HF tails off a bit.
The Jordan filter is to compensate for multiple units at mid frequencies and below, to stop the sound getting too tubby.
The Jordan filter is to compensate for multiple units at mid frequencies and below, to stop the sound getting too tubby.
Jordan off-axis vs. Bandor
The Jordan drivers are usually better off-axis because of the rising response, as are a lot of other full-rangers. Are the Bandors similar in this respect, or are they better aimed at the listener?
I ask because one of the virtues (for me, anyway) of the Jordan array is the wide sweet spot when set up as recommended.
berm
The Jordan drivers are usually better off-axis because of the rising response, as are a lot of other full-rangers. Are the Bandors similar in this respect, or are they better aimed at the listener?
I ask because one of the virtues (for me, anyway) of the Jordan array is the wide sweet spot when set up as recommended.
berm
According to my friends' response Bandor is too shy at HF - it is consistent opinion so for sweet spot one has to pay twice as much for Jordans.
Thanks.
It's nice that they are slightly different in this respect. Each will have its own best application where the other will not work so well.
berm
It's nice that they are slightly different in this respect. Each will have its own best application where the other will not work so well.
berm
Tomorrow I'll send a FAX about this matter to Doreen. Personally next time I would buy Bandors for myself. There's something very appealing in them - they remembering me wonderful hours with Daniela Manger. Unfortunately I work now on my own ribbons an wait for Bandor 150.
Your ribbon? As in building your own ribbon. By the way wht is the Danniela manger?
Why do you prefer the bandor, is it the bass? Than you can hear more, or is it the mids? Seems like the jordan is a bit better at the highs, more even, I suppose?
Oon
Why do you prefer the bandor, is it the bass? Than you can hear more, or is it the mids? Seems like the jordan is a bit better at the highs, more even, I suppose?
Oon
Ribbons are significantly cleaner, down to 36dB or even more, performs well at low levels, have wide dispersion horizontally so highs are naturally very good, cheaper self made but much larger though. Easy to build with LR4 crossover - transformer inductance as a part of xo inductance leg. I still learn how make them good. Main problem is efficiency.
Daniela Manger is head of Manger-msw.de. They both share bending conception but Manger is a whole bending transducer, also has those mid frequency dips and I've got impression that both sounds somehow similar, especially imaging and little dark sounding.
I prefer Bandor because sounds is plastic, gentle and give me more pleasure. In room response is also more linear on mids. Jordan is a only a bit better on highs.
Daniela Manger is head of Manger-msw.de. They both share bending conception but Manger is a whole bending transducer, also has those mid frequency dips and I've got impression that both sounds somehow similar, especially imaging and little dark sounding.
I prefer Bandor because sounds is plastic, gentle and give me more pleasure. In room response is also more linear on mids. Jordan is a only a bit better on highs.
jzagaja said:
Ms Bance will certainly answer that You have a typical audiophile taste for unrealistic nasty excessively bright sound 😉
and probably she will be right 😉
I've not heard them, just came across them on eBay. I imagine they would be as good or better than conventional drive units. It's a long time since I've heard the Bandors (mid-1990s), having used Jordans since then.
Impedance plot for different VC connections:
Single
Fs = 25.92 Hz
Re = 7.20 ohms[dc]
Le = 1886.43 uH
L2 = 683.03 uH
R2 = 11.21 ohms
Qt = 0.70
Qes = 0.97
Qms = 2.48
Parallel
Fs = 25.75 Hz
Re = 3.97 ohms[dc]
Le = 1766.56 uH
L2 = 721.27 uH
R2 = 11.89 ohms
Qt = 0.43
Qes = 0.52
Qms = 2.45
Series
Fs = 25.72 Hz
Re = 16.28 ohms[dc]
Le = 7326.46 uH
L2 = 2802.40 uH
R2 = 46.48 ohms
Qt = 0.43
Qes = 0.53
Qms = 2.43
Single
Fs = 25.92 Hz
Re = 7.20 ohms[dc]
Le = 1886.43 uH
L2 = 683.03 uH
R2 = 11.21 ohms
Qt = 0.70
Qes = 0.97
Qms = 2.48
Parallel
Fs = 25.75 Hz
Re = 3.97 ohms[dc]
Le = 1766.56 uH
L2 = 721.27 uH
R2 = 11.89 ohms
Qt = 0.43
Qes = 0.52
Qms = 2.45
Series
Fs = 25.72 Hz
Re = 16.28 ohms[dc]
Le = 7326.46 uH
L2 = 2802.40 uH
R2 = 46.48 ohms
Qt = 0.43
Qes = 0.53
Qms = 2.43
Attachments
just spotted this old thread, anyone tried the Bandor 50s ported? I was thinking for near field computer use only
winisd in 3 litres the response is insane
winisd in 3 litres the response is insane
- Status
- Not open for further replies.