I might be able to get a pair of discontinued Jordan JX150 drivers. Is it really as good as some people say it is.
I suppose that closed enclosure is fool proof.
Bass reflex doesn't feel sensible as it needs about 120 litre enclosure for a nice output.
What other realistic enclosure types are there. ML-TL maybe?
I have several configurations in mind. I now have Jordan JX92S in ML-TL (fabulous). I could place it in a 4-5 litre closed box. I also have a few Dynaudio Esotar2 tweeters laying around.
I might also consider using Jordan JX53 (a new model coming up) or Tangband 3" line array.
I would be using JX150 as an active speaker.
The aim is to get JX92S type of sweet filterless full range sound but with more authority and slam and suitability for senseless home theater pounding. At the moment I listen to music using JX92S ML-TL and I have totally separate speakersystem for home theater. Convenient but not too pleasant to have a room filled with speakers
I have a subwoofer for the lowest octave. I suppose I can't expect miracles using a 4,5 mm x-max driver
I suppose that closed enclosure is fool proof.
Bass reflex doesn't feel sensible as it needs about 120 litre enclosure for a nice output.
What other realistic enclosure types are there. ML-TL maybe?
I have several configurations in mind. I now have Jordan JX92S in ML-TL (fabulous). I could place it in a 4-5 litre closed box. I also have a few Dynaudio Esotar2 tweeters laying around.
I might also consider using Jordan JX53 (a new model coming up) or Tangband 3" line array.
I would be using JX150 as an active speaker.
The aim is to get JX92S type of sweet filterless full range sound but with more authority and slam and suitability for senseless home theater pounding. At the moment I listen to music using JX92S ML-TL and I have totally separate speakersystem for home theater. Convenient but not too pleasant to have a room filled with speakers
I have a subwoofer for the lowest octave. I suppose I can't expect miracles using a 4,5 mm x-max driver
DIAR said:I might be able to get a pair of discontinued Jordan JX150 drivers. Is it really as good as some people say it is.
I suppose that closed enclosure is fool proof.
Bass reflex doesn't feel sensible as it needs about 120 litre enclosure for a nice output.
What other realistic enclosure types are there. ML-TL maybe?
I have several configurations in mind. I now have Jordan JX92S in ML-TL (fabulous). I could place it in a 4-5 litre closed box. I also have a few Dynaudio Esotar2 tweeters laying around.
I might also consider using Jordan JX53 (a new model coming up) or Tangband 3" line array.
I would be using JX150 as an active speaker.
The aim is to get JX92S type of sweet filterless full range sound but with more authority and slam and suitability for senseless home theater pounding. At the moment I listen to music using JX92S ML-TL and I have totally separate speakersystem for home theater. Convenient but not too pleasant to have a room filled with speakers
I have a subwoofer for the lowest octave. I suppose I can't expect miracles using a 4,5 mm x-max driver
The JX53 line array with JX150 is something I would also like to do. The new JX53 has a better looking face plate, and the mounting holes are at a different location.
There are many photos from various vendors. Google.
http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=JX53
http://www.welbornelabs.com/stuff.htm
Davey.
http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=JX53
http://www.welbornelabs.com/stuff.htm
Davey.
Aren't those the old JX53 drivers? New JX53 should become available in near future.
http://www.decibelhifi.com.au/prod173.htm
http://www.decibelhifi.com.au/prod173.htm
Thanks for clearing things up 
It's just that I really like JX92S and the whole design concept and now I've been reading Jordan website and Ted Jordans interview by TNT-audio. JX150 and JX53 linear array sounds like a dream...
It makes me wonder why JX150 is discontinued if it is really that good. Is it better than its competitors. JX150 is quite expencive and there are countless other drivers on the market. I wan't the best sounding driver...
It's just that I really like JX92S and the whole design concept and now I've been reading Jordan website and Ted Jordans interview by TNT-audio. JX150 and JX53 linear array sounds like a dream...
It makes me wonder why JX150 is discontinued if it is really that good. Is it better than its competitors. JX150 is quite expencive and there are countless other drivers on the market. I wan't the best sounding driver...
All Jordans use very light cones. Once you start using light cones in the bass, it seems to be necessary to go back to basic physics to figure things out instead of just plugging T/S parameters. Also lots of people prefer punchy and uncontrolled basses due to music preference. Of course, price is also an issue.
Good to see that Ted is winning with his propoganda ...
The JX150 (and 125) drivers are quite advanced and not easy to make. The original supplier was unable to continue with the relatively small quantities. I believe Ted is looking for alternative suppliers.
By coincidence, GM has supplied a MLTL design for the JX150 (and JX125) which should be on the Jordan website before too long, along with a reprise of the specs for the two drivers. The MLTL for the JX150 is:
L = 59.1"
CSA = 113.726"^2
driver down 21.33"
vent near/at the bottom
rp = 1.5"
Lp = 4.5"
density = ~0.2lbs/ft^3
Having built the 48" version of the JX92 MLTL, I would think the JX150 MLTL would be spectacular.
BTW, As far as I am aware, the new JX53s are still at the testing stage and not available until later this year. Double check that you're not chasing the current versions (not that there's anything wrong with the current units - they apparently sound identical above 200Hz).
Colin
The JX150 (and 125) drivers are quite advanced and not easy to make. The original supplier was unable to continue with the relatively small quantities. I believe Ted is looking for alternative suppliers.
By coincidence, GM has supplied a MLTL design for the JX150 (and JX125) which should be on the Jordan website before too long, along with a reprise of the specs for the two drivers. The MLTL for the JX150 is:
L = 59.1"
CSA = 113.726"^2
driver down 21.33"
vent near/at the bottom
rp = 1.5"
Lp = 4.5"
density = ~0.2lbs/ft^3
Having built the 48" version of the JX92 MLTL, I would think the JX150 MLTL would be spectacular.
BTW, As far as I am aware, the new JX53s are still at the testing stage and not available until later this year. Double check that you're not chasing the current versions (not that there's anything wrong with the current units - they apparently sound identical above 200Hz).
Colin
PS Just had a look at the various sites mentioned in previous posts - the units pictured are the current JX53s.
The new units will be the third version of this driver: Mk 1 had a fixed, cylindrical phase plug which was independent of the cone, Mk 2 (current model) has the pointed cap. They shared the same chassis design and technical parameters. The Mk 2 sounds smoother (I've used both in a JX125/JX53 speaker). The Mk 3 has a different chassis and magnet arrangement (I believe it's going to be fully sheilded).
Colin
The new units will be the third version of this driver: Mk 1 had a fixed, cylindrical phase plug which was independent of the cone, Mk 2 (current model) has the pointed cap. They shared the same chassis design and technical parameters. The Mk 2 sounds smoother (I've used both in a JX125/JX53 speaker). The Mk 3 has a different chassis and magnet arrangement (I believe it's going to be fully sheilded).
Colin
Colin said:
I must have mised Mk1 after the 50mm module.
Yes! I do believe I have an old brochure that shows a cone with something that looked like another small cone in the middle, I guess that must have been the phase plug.I think the Mk3 ones would be great for desktop application. The current ones are fantastic for two way crossovers.
Colin said:
I would not be surpised to even see further advancement in the JX150 and JX125 to make them production friendly.
For small rooms around 6X4 M, the JX125 produces bass that I feel equals subwoofers. If you have a larger room, the JX150 or two JX125's would be fantastic. This would provide better continuity of music down to the really low ranges.
I feel the sofa vibrate when it gets to the really low range.
With the bass capability of the JX125, I would drool for a full range that does that.
I have heard of the odd user who has run the JX125 full range. There was a driver on the USA eBay which had been 'treated' with something to run it like that - Ted wouldn't approve. It would be interesting to try one with a ribbon - something similar to the old Elite Townsend Glastonbury, which ran a JX125 in a BR enclosure, crossed to a ribbon of some sort.
My JX125 has the 'glue' cap and this sounded quite harsh in the upper registers when run full range. The pointed cap might run better. Have you tried it with yours?
Mind you, the JX92 doesn't do bad - GM's MLTL enclosure gets down to the mid-30s.
Colin
My JX125 has the 'glue' cap and this sounded quite harsh in the upper registers when run full range. The pointed cap might run better. Have you tried it with yours?
Mind you, the JX92 doesn't do bad - GM's MLTL enclosure gets down to the mid-30s.
Colin
Colin said:
It's hard to imagine treated JX125 could run that high, sound like black magic. I've seen the JX125 with small pointed cap (older design) Large pointed cap (current design) but not the "glue" cap. What does the glue cap look like?
The JX92 just seems a little to small move the amount of air necessary. I haven't tried boxing mine yet, but just running ree air with some compensation, I've got them up to 18K (well maybe 20K if you count some drop. Having used the Jordan Watts for many years, I think the JX92 dynamics would be good for chamber music, jazz, vocals, and easy listening, or surround speakers.
The JX92 does pretty well in the right cabinet. In GM's MLTL (48" version), the driver is pretty active down to around 70Hz, from there down to 35Hz, the driver motion is much less as the port-loaded line takes over. I guess for ultimate use, it would be best suited to being crossed over to a bass system below 100Hz. I have a couple of JX125s per side I intend trying some day in that role. They're 16 ohm versions so run parallel should match the 92s for impedence and sensitivity.
BTW, I tend to listen to world and orchestral music but don't run the system especially loud. The listening postion is about 9 feet from the speakers.
The glue cap JX125s have no cap as such, just a centre glue join where the suspension rod is attached. It looks a little unfinished but works ok. I've seen pics of the Jordan module which look similar. The new ones look much nicer, though.
Colin
BTW, I tend to listen to world and orchestral music but don't run the system especially loud. The listening postion is about 9 feet from the speakers.
The glue cap JX125s have no cap as such, just a centre glue join where the suspension rod is attached. It looks a little unfinished but works ok. I've seen pics of the Jordan module which look similar. The new ones look much nicer, though.
Colin
Jordans have always used unique suspension methods. I wonder how the JX92S would sound listening to the bit TAIKO drums, how it extends from the transients from the hit to the low wave following.
I've never been a fan of using TL BR type methods to get lower frequency because I could never figure out how to handle the transition regions properly. But I guess it would be the same with XO's. It would also be nice to see a design that does not look square.
I've never been a fan of using TL BR type methods to get lower frequency because I could never figure out how to handle the transition regions properly. But I guess it would be the same with XO's. It would also be nice to see a design that does not look square.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.