Narrow baffle!
It may be small by DIY OB design standards but that is still an utterly enormous baffle by 99.999999% of Hi-Fi speakers standards.
Jamo's product has an extremely small market potential precisely because it is extremely wide. Very hardcore enthusiasts with dedicated rooms need only apply.
It is commendable that they have produced a speaker like this. As passive OB's go this is a good looking speaker.
Let's be realistic though, I highly doubt any one Hi-Fi retailer sells more than one or two pairs of these a year, save perhaps in the richest neighborhoods around say London and New York. Little to do with price, simply size.
I would not be all that surprised if sales for these number in the low hundreds, worldwide.
Last edited:
If the weather outside is too bad to invite your guests to a short ride in your latest Lambo, the Jamo will be a handy ersatz. You can play with the throttle too, making deafening noise. You can talk about the mirror laquer finish and put your hands on some cool and well designed magnesium details. You can show off your superior intelligence by explaining the complicated innards of the motors.
Those speakers have to be eye catchers - not ear soothers.
Rudolf
If the weather outside is too bad to invite your guests to a short ride in your latest Lambo, the Jamo will be a handy ersatz. You can play with the throttle too, making deafening noise. You can talk about the mirror laquer finish and put your hands on some cool and well designed magnesium details. You can show off your superior intelligence by explaining the complicated innards of the motors.
Those speakers have to be eye catchers - not ear soothers.
Rudolf
They were £7.5k. Current price to clear new Jamo R909 £2840 a pair. Your Lambo man is going to want something with a price at least Kef Blade level, cos it's the latest. Perhaps with an article or two in the lads mags.
Jamo R 909 Reference Series Speaker 85253
Incidently I doubt many diy designs compare favourably to either speaker in the right environment. The likes of Jamo do design speakers to sound appealing, whether or not we like the design is another thing.
Hi,
The wealthiest are that because they are not vulgar. They pay big
prices for stuff (e.g. furniture) that is an investment and doesn't
lose value. The vulgar are the pretend wanabees, the nouveau
riche, who don't understand being rich is not about ostentation.
If high-end audio depended on the filthy rich it wouldn't exist.
It exists because of those who don't want to be "mass-market",
and spend money trying to get out of something rather than in.
The really rich don't buy a new supercar, they buy 3 classics.
rgds, sreten.
Hi,
They still seem to be around £10,000 a pair in the UK, though some places
disingenuously price them for each speaker for a little more than half that.
I severely suspect £2.8K is actually each.
A beer budget version is going to get nowhere near close, but as I've
described it the mid and treble would not be too far behind, the bass
as said before, the main compromise, for a massively smaller budget.
The £10K a pair retail price is simply made up, it is a price point.
Best price in the US is $7,000 each, again simply made up.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
I have looked again, they are probably priced each, £5680 still isn't the mega bucks territory.
Of course retail prices are made up, they have to fit market expectation, also they have to work out a price that will take a decent profit for investment. This is not based solely on material value, no one works like that in business, at least not selling complex machines.
Strange as it sounds price something too low people will not look at it, especially something large like this.
Non of this takes away from the general worthiness of DIY design.
I agree, high quality bass is usually the most expensive part of the equation to do well.
Of course retail prices are made up, they have to fit market expectation, also they have to work out a price that will take a decent profit for investment. This is not based solely on material value, no one works like that in business, at least not selling complex machines.
Strange as it sounds price something too low people will not look at it, especially something large like this.
Non of this takes away from the general worthiness of DIY design.
I agree, high quality bass is usually the most expensive part of the equation to do well.
Why do you say that?
I think you can get very close for a fraction of the cost. Don't under estimate the DIY route or over estimate Jamo's engineering. There is no tricky cabinet, I don't believe the drivers are anything exotic, it is just a good impementation of some moderately priced hardware. With simulations and measurements you can get real close. No magic required.
Martin
Clearly the advantages of the ported enclosure for output, but i guessed the designer would have opted for the smoothe bass response with less interaction with the room that only OB/Dipole can give you.
I agree with Martin. The reason I posted the design I am working on is that it uses drivers I purchased from retailers, DIY materials and is easily beer vs. scotch budget compared to the 909. The 909 was the entire inspiration for my project. I posted the simulated response from PCD based on actual measurements of my drivers on the baffles. Something like mine can be built for less than $1,000USD. I can tell you this much. My speakers do not lack bass at all. The main difference between mine and the 909 is the monopole tweeter on the 909.
Blair
Blair
Hi, its not just ported, baffle loss chucks away driver excursion, rgds, sreten.
Hi,
Because I think the Jamo bass drivers are relatively very exotic compared
to what I'm suggesting, with far lower distortion and far higher Xmax.
The mid/treble drivers are not too far behind the Jamo drivers for sure.
I might be underselling my suggestion but I haven't built it or simmed it.
Its not developed with experience, the bass could still be 3dB out,
hence the suggestion of the line level EQ circuit for flexibility.
e.g. for your Alpha / Fostex passive you assume the Alpha peak is off
the radar. However with a dirt cheap small capacitor and possibly a
small resistance across the bass inductor you could usefully supress
the Alpha's peak for next to nothing, its not going to be worse ....
The technique is used for the mid driver, and might be apposite for
the GRS or GW drivers, but we don't have any frequency responses.
Similarly i don't think the passive bass/mid c/o is optimum, its not
too far off, but I'm pretty sure what I've said is only a starting point.
I do agree with what you said earlier though, the dynamics of 2x15"
bass drivers are going to be something else compared to the usual.
I'm just saying : look you can do this and it makes sense.
Whether its actually for you or not I don't know.
Fully developed / simmed / measured I might agree more.
rgds, sreten.
I'm no real fan of the practicalities of OBs, you do need big bass drivers,
but I can see the resulting bass quality may be well worth the effort.
Last edited:
The Jamo frequency response is 50 Hz - 20 KHz with a sensitivity of 89dB.
Seems to me Martin has his reasons for liking the GW and says the GRS would work too. Two of these would probably go lower and with a higher sensitivity for starters with your beer budget. Add a U frame and that would be something to hear.
If real measurements for these drivers were published it would be nice.
Brad
Martin's right here. When you buy a pair of speakers that cost you 2000 euros, you don't get very exotic drivers. Usually, the driver cost for a pair like that - when bought at retail prices - would be around 200-300 euros a pair. Maybe even less. What you pay for is research and development. The Jamo OB is no different from that. They've had to do maybe hundreds of man hours of development work to arrive at a point where they can sell you that thing. The component cost is just marginal in that 10k you're paying for the speaker. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Having built these things myself from basically scratch, I have some sense of how many hours of work you need to arrive at a specific point. And I believe many others here have even a better sense of that too. But sometimes I feel not everybody understands, that the customer has to pay for the R&D too. These things are sold in very small volumes, thus the cost of R&D per unit is increased compared to usual off-the-shelf-stuff. I also have the tendency of not counting the cost of my work when I evaluate how cheaply I've arrived at some result. That's the folly of working for yourself.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.