15'' guitar speaker enclosure
I have 2 DAI-1CHI speakers,Nom 150W ..100 amp. Could somebody give me dimensions & construction ideas for minimal sized enclosure you have built. I have tried to calculate from design program entering speaker specs. NO suprise! the box is too damn BIG .I need to occupy my 15 yo son by playing his guitar and keep him off the streets..
Would appreciate lots
I have 2 DAI-1CHI speakers,Nom 150W ..100 amp. Could somebody give me dimensions & construction ideas for minimal sized enclosure you have built. I have tried to calculate from design program entering speaker specs. NO suprise! the box is too damn BIG .I need to occupy my 15 yo son by playing his guitar and keep him off the streets..
Would appreciate lots
Things were confusing enough with just the Jordan drivers ...
The triangular enclosure I mentioned is the MLTL for the JX92.
Time for a cup of tea and a lie down ...
Colin
The triangular enclosure I mentioned is the MLTL for the JX92.
Time for a cup of tea and a lie down ...
Colin
I've been designing a speaker enclosure which has JX150 MLTL (by GM) for bass/bass+mid region. For upper frequencys I have a special enclosure which enables me to change easily between Jordan JX92S, Dynaudio Esotar2 tweeter, Jordan JX53 single/linear array or Tangband W3-871S. The enclosure has a changeable front plate and large volume which can be of cource filled or even used as BR.
Can I fold an MLTL enclosure or should I stick with the tall version?.
Have you thought about MLTL enclosure size. CSA is 289 cm^2 which is 15.3 cm * 18.9 cm. That is exactly how much JX150 needs room (all sides are touching the cabinet walls. Tight spot...
Should the space around the driver be wider so that CSA is 289 cm^2 + CSA of the driver?
What do you think of this?
Can I fold an MLTL enclosure or should I stick with the tall version?.
Have you thought about MLTL enclosure size. CSA is 289 cm^2 which is 15.3 cm * 18.9 cm. That is exactly how much JX150 needs room (all sides are touching the cabinet walls. Tight spot...
Should the space around the driver be wider so that CSA is 289 cm^2 + CSA of the driver?
What do you think of this?
Attachments
Greets!
Yes, you can fold it.
?! The info I mailed you listed 113.726"^2 (733.7147cm^2) or ~3.5596x Sd, which equates to a golden ratio of ~13.56" (34.45cm) x 8.38" (21.29cm). Plenty of room. 😉 If it had been so little though, then yes, the width should be increased, with the magnet up against the back wall if need be.
If you build it this size it would have an F3 ~10Hz higher, though Fb would only rise a few Hz, with transient response slightly degraded due to the too 'tight' a CSA. Increasing stuffing density would cure this though, making it more like a 'classic' TL.
The proposed layout is fine assuming the distance between the array's and woofer's acoustic centers are <1WL of the XO point, and preferably < WL/pi, though vent output will be rolled off ~3dB due to lack of floor boundary loading, and of course the too small CSA for max LF gain.
GM
Yes, you can fold it.
?! The info I mailed you listed 113.726"^2 (733.7147cm^2) or ~3.5596x Sd, which equates to a golden ratio of ~13.56" (34.45cm) x 8.38" (21.29cm). Plenty of room. 😉 If it had been so little though, then yes, the width should be increased, with the magnet up against the back wall if need be.
If you build it this size it would have an F3 ~10Hz higher, though Fb would only rise a few Hz, with transient response slightly degraded due to the too 'tight' a CSA. Increasing stuffing density would cure this though, making it more like a 'classic' TL.
The proposed layout is fine assuming the distance between the array's and woofer's acoustic centers are <1WL of the XO point, and preferably < WL/pi, though vent output will be rolled off ~3dB due to lack of floor boundary loading, and of course the too small CSA for max LF gain.
GM
oh... I miscalculated CSA. Embarrasing 
I haven't got any mail from you 😕
Could you send it again, please:
hifisti (at) hotmail (dot) com
I'll have to post a new design later today. I'll try to concider all the pointers you gave 😀
I haven't got any mail from you 😕
Could you send it again, please:
hifisti (at) hotmail (dot) com
I'll have to post a new design later today. I'll try to concider all the pointers you gave 😀
Greets!
I replied to your email the same day using the hotmail address. Anyway, you've got mail. FYI, I use this little program to do my conversions: http://www.joshmadison.com/software/convert/
GM
I replied to your email the same day using the hotmail address. Anyway, you've got mail. FYI, I use this little program to do my conversions: http://www.joshmadison.com/software/convert/
GM
JX150 box
I used JX150's for a number of years in a two way 150/53 paring.
The JX150's were in a 70 liter sealed box - and they gave a wonderfully accurate and tonally correct bass end
The only problem with them is that they are kinda fragile - and when using them as subwoofers for a pair of electrostsatic panels they got a turn-on thump that dfamaged one..
Details of the two way can be found on my site at:
http://www.vacuumstate.com/newsletter_2001.htm
on Page 3 of the PDF download.
The reason such a large box was choosen was to allow either a sealed box config, or a vented alaignment - but the sealed sounded so good the vented was never tried.
Allen
I used JX150's for a number of years in a two way 150/53 paring.
The JX150's were in a 70 liter sealed box - and they gave a wonderfully accurate and tonally correct bass end
The only problem with them is that they are kinda fragile - and when using them as subwoofers for a pair of electrostsatic panels they got a turn-on thump that dfamaged one..
Details of the two way can be found on my site at:
http://www.vacuumstate.com/newsletter_2001.htm
on Page 3 of the PDF download.
The reason such a large box was choosen was to allow either a sealed box config, or a vented alaignment - but the sealed sounded so good the vented was never tried.
Allen
Here's a few designs. All based on JX150 MLTL by GM and Jordan JX92S, JX53; TB W3-871S or tweeter.
Largish closed enclosure doesn't "sound" bad either. It would be conciderably smaller than MLTL but max spl level will not be very high...
Largish closed enclosure doesn't "sound" bad either. It would be conciderably smaller than MLTL but max spl level will not be very high...
It was pretty loud - a 200watt amp and a turn on transient from something up line.
No excuses - brain fade on my part.
But they are not real rugged - I know Ted Jordan and have often used speakers from him across 30 years - and none were what could be called reliable - although they often sounded spectacular!
Allen
No excuses - brain fade on my part.
But they are not real rugged - I know Ted Jordan and have often used speakers from him across 30 years - and none were what could be called reliable - although they often sounded spectacular!
Allen
AW said:
I still have quite a few of his Jordan Watts drivers that I didn't know how to bring the full potential out of back in those days. Wonder what others one would need to collect to have a museum of his aluminum cone drivers? I already have the Jordan Watts, the 50mm module, JX53, JX92S, JX125, JX150. I somehow got a feeling there are quite a few variations even of these models.
DIAR said:
It does look pretty bad! Is that a loose VC cap I see?
Where did you get these from? How much did they cost?
I bought them from a hifi store. They were the last three that they had so I didn't have much to choose from I'm not sure yet how much they will cost (i haven't paid anything yet). Maybe max 300€ for two + one dented. I will do some measurements and if there are some abnormalities, I will take them back. 
There is still one another shop which has a few drivers left.
The cap is not loose. Just glued carelessly. They have smeared the cone with glue and even used different kinds of glue. One is glued with epoxy and the other with contact adhesive. Other than the cones the drivers look very convincing.😎
There is still one another shop which has a few drivers left. The cap is not loose. Just glued carelessly. They have smeared the cone with glue and even used different kinds of glue. One is glued with epoxy and the other with contact adhesive. Other than the cones the drivers look very convincing.😎
Attachments
I accidentally touched one of my JX125 with a srewdriver, and there was a permanent mark. If the resonance frequency is good, then they should perform well.
The JX150s and 125s were hand-made, so tend to vary in quality. The JX92S, fortunately, is made by (I think) Vifa and much more consistant. The new JX53 is also being manufactured as opposed to hand-made.
Trouble with the Jordan drivers is they are unconventional and sell in relatively small numbers. Most driver manufacturers aren't interested in tooling up unless it's for hundreds of units - and even then I think the bass driver's odd suspension would put them off.
Colin
Trouble with the Jordan drivers is they are unconventional and sell in relatively small numbers. Most driver manufacturers aren't interested in tooling up unless it's for hundreds of units - and even then I think the bass driver's odd suspension would put them off.
Colin
Colin said:
If the tools are designed properly, quality could still be more consistent. The rear suspension is a little bit tricky if you do it by hand. Especially when you are trying to align the cap, axle, rear suspension which is a 3 point alignment going through the center. Plus manufacturing tolorances of the components.
How do I figure out how wide by baffle should be. I know Ted Jordan recommends as wide baffle as possible (e.g. IB). I would much rather have as narrow baffle as possible.
If I use e.g. Tangban W3-871S linear array with JX150, should I choose narrow or wide baffle or possibly a curver baffle to minimize corner diffraction. Do I get better imaging with narrow baffle or is that only a myth. A wider baffle enhances lower midrange but I don't know if it is a good or a bad thing.
If I use e.g. Tangban W3-871S linear array with JX150, should I choose narrow or wide baffle or possibly a curver baffle to minimize corner diffraction. Do I get better imaging with narrow baffle or is that only a myth. A wider baffle enhances lower midrange but I don't know if it is a good or a bad thing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.