I´ve seen JX92S in closed, br, horn and probably some more enclosures i cant remember right now. But i have never seen this driver used with a passive radiator. How come ? Is it just due to the added cost or would there be no benefits from such a design ?
Just curious.
Regards // Mattias S
Just curious.
Regards // Mattias S
That sounds interresting. Have you tried other enclosures before deciding on pr and in that case what was your conclusion regarding possible benefits from that design ?
Also, if you would´nt mind, could you descibe the sound from your speakers ?
Do you have any pictures i can look at ? mail: grypthon at hotmail.com
Regards / Mattias S
That should´nt be nessary. Seas makes nice pr:s like the ones JohnR probably uses.
Regards // Mattias S
Regards // Mattias S
No, haven't tried any others. I am building a set of three sealed Jordans now. I figure you need a sub for the Jordans anyway, it's only a small driver.Mattias S said:
If I had more energy I'd try one of the transmission line designs.
Here's a pic:
http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php
🙂
Hi Mattias, I should clarify that as long as not too much bass volume is desired they work very well. In a smallish and well-damped room and with some baffle-step compensation, and on small-scale music, they are very good.
JohnR said:
does this mean that you would NOT recomend the JX92 for rock or HT use? I was hoping to use it with a sub (100Hz) in say a 12 liter box for audio and HT use.
navin said:
Sorry for rushing in to the discussion
Jordan JX92s is OK for audio and HT if you use sub and cross them from apr. 100 Hz. The cabinets for JX92s don’t need to be 12 litres either then, half the volume will do nicely. I have them actually in 3 litre enclosure and support them with two 10" aluminium (sub)woofers.
Argo
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
argo said:
1. I am not looking for OK sound. I am looking for sound that will compete with any commercial speaker under $200 per channel. The application is HT (50%) and audio (50%). Audio is 65% rock, 20% jazz, 10% rock, 5% world music and stuff like Buddha bar.
2. the cabinets I would like to build will be thin tall and wall mounted to mate with a 55" plasma TV. so I had expected the cabients to be 26-30" tall, 4.75" deep, 6.25" wide (internal). Obviously if a smaller cabinet will do it would be great.
My HT amp is a Marantz SR7000. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
navin,
with OK I meant, that JX92-s are as good for HT as any other Hi-End 5” drivers would be.😉
Actually I consider them even better than most because they offer excellent speech intelligibility, an important factor for quality HT.
Jazz, lounges, small scale classical and instrumental are great with them. 😎
For (hard) rock and large scale classical any driver less than 10” is too small IMO.
Jordans will only benefit from wall mounting, because you don’t need to correct the baffle loss and maintain Spl (JX92 is rather inefficient)
In case of very shallow boxes, it would be good to align the drivers antiparallel with the enclosure’s back wall or to use other means to avoid straight sound wave reflections through the very light and thin JX92’s cone.
Argo
with OK I meant, that JX92-s are as good for HT as any other Hi-End 5” drivers would be.😉
Actually I consider them even better than most because they offer excellent speech intelligibility, an important factor for quality HT.
Jazz, lounges, small scale classical and instrumental are great with them. 😎
For (hard) rock and large scale classical any driver less than 10” is too small IMO.
Jordans will only benefit from wall mounting, because you don’t need to correct the baffle loss and maintain Spl (JX92 is rather inefficient)
In case of very shallow boxes, it would be good to align the drivers antiparallel with the enclosure’s back wall or to use other means to avoid straight sound wave reflections through the very light and thin JX92’s cone.
Argo
What argo said 😉
I'm (slowly!) building a sealed set of three JX92s speakers for HT use. Actually I think they work well for HT, within their (not very high) power/volume limits.
I'm (slowly!) building a sealed set of three JX92s speakers for HT use. Actually I think they work well for HT, within their (not very high) power/volume limits.
argo said:navin,
with OK I meant, that JX92-s are as good for HT as any other Hi-End 5” drivers would be.😉 ...For (hard) rock and large scale classical any driver less than 10” is too small IMO.
...Spl (JX92 is rather inefficient)
In case of very shallow boxes, it would be good to align the drivers antiparallel with the enclosure’s back wall or to use other means to avoid straight sound wave reflections through the very light and thin JX92’s cone.
Argo
ok. here is my plan.
i hope to make my boxes in 2 sections. (a) a slightly curved baffle made from wood and (b) a U shaped cabinet made from 6mm aluminum. Hopefully they will look like KEF's KHT 9000. I plan to pad the aluminum with 1.5mm lead sheet and 20-25mm of open cell foam.
most AV amps allow one to choose "small" speakers for the 5/6/7 "fullrange" channels. this will limit the LF to the JX92. Assuming the JX92 is fed only signal above 100hz can they be expected work well.
the subs will use 4 12" woofers. I am still to decide if these should be 4 woofers near the front and rear left and right channels or 2 x 2 or one large box with all 4 woofers. I intend to build this after i find places to hide them.
Thanks.
I would definitely prefer stereo subs to single box, especially when crossing @100Hz and higher.
I haven’t tried led but bitumen sheet covered with felt (the stuff used in cars) on a 5mm aluminum actually seemed to be more dead than 15mm braced plywood !!!
For front L&R boxes I would reserve a space to add a ribbon tweeter later as a very rewarding option.
I haven’t tried led but bitumen sheet covered with felt (the stuff used in cars) on a 5mm aluminum actually seemed to be more dead than 15mm braced plywood !!!
For front L&R boxes I would reserve a space to add a ribbon tweeter later as a very rewarding option.
argo said:
1. Is not bitumen very diffucult to handle? I have seen this stuff (felt/bitumen) in India.
2. what ribbon tweeter would you recomend? wont it make sense to have the same tweeter for all 5 channels? and if we cross the tweeter at say 8k and the JX92 is operated fullrange wont it cause interpolar interfereence? If one feels the JX92 is not fullrange enough does it make sense to use a fullrange/widerange like the JX53 or Fosex's FF85K and use a small midbass driver between 100Hz and 400Hz? at 400Hz the effect of interpolar interference will not be so bad as the wavelength is longer than at 8000Hz or even 4000Hz.
The JX53 costs about $120-125. Adding a matching woofer like the JX125 or Seas Aluminum woofers will add to the system cost and bring the cost to about $250 (the Seas requires a more complex XO than the JX125 so the cost of adding either is almost the same).
The FF85K is a lot cheaper ($35) but it handles only about 5W rms. Besides I dont know of a 5" woofer that is cheap (under $100) and can mate well with the FF85K. A larger woofer (like the SEAS H333 or Vifa M21) would require a box that is larger than 10-12liters (WAF limit).
In fact if I were to use this technique (FF85K or JX53) it would make sense to use the woofer (JX125 etc....) without any XO and only use one coil on the 2/3" widerange to protect the widerange from over excursion and thermal damage.
1. There are various kinds of bitumen sheets. Most of them are self-sticking or self-gluing (I don’t know the exact word for that) for some you need to apply glue. It’s not difficult to handle bitumen, if you use hot air blower to heat it up. You can get these various sheets at a car shop or car sound installation shops.
2. I have personally used Aurum Cantus G2 ($179ea) but if I were to buy new ribbons now I would think Aurum Cantus G2Si ($99ea) would give same results. I bought G2 for another project, which needed very low xover point. Then I tried them on top of JX92 with various crossovers and ended up using JX92 only with zobel filter and G2 with first order apr @ 7k Hz. I didn’t measure the combo for interference but to my ears I didn’t find any problems.
To add ribbons or not is a matter of taste. I wouldn’t say that JX92 is not enough fullrange itself and adding a supper tweeter is just an nice option. You wouldn’t lack any highs with just a JX92 but the ribbons add some high-end extension and thrill to some instruments. I wouldn’t bother to add them to all 5 channels, just for stereo listening.
I cannot comment on JX53 or Fostex because I haven’t heard them but if you think you need more highs on rear speakers and want to try out JX53 why not use them for rear channels – you can make these boxes really small with JX53. I have read somewhere though, that its low sensitivity makes it somewhat unsuitable for individual use and is more suited for mid/treble line arrays
2. I have personally used Aurum Cantus G2 ($179ea) but if I were to buy new ribbons now I would think Aurum Cantus G2Si ($99ea) would give same results. I bought G2 for another project, which needed very low xover point. Then I tried them on top of JX92 with various crossovers and ended up using JX92 only with zobel filter and G2 with first order apr @ 7k Hz. I didn’t measure the combo for interference but to my ears I didn’t find any problems.
To add ribbons or not is a matter of taste. I wouldn’t say that JX92 is not enough fullrange itself and adding a supper tweeter is just an nice option. You wouldn’t lack any highs with just a JX92 but the ribbons add some high-end extension and thrill to some instruments. I wouldn’t bother to add them to all 5 channels, just for stereo listening.
I cannot comment on JX53 or Fostex because I haven’t heard them but if you think you need more highs on rear speakers and want to try out JX53 why not use them for rear channels – you can make these boxes really small with JX53. I have read somewhere though, that its low sensitivity makes it somewhat unsuitable for individual use and is more suited for mid/treble line arrays
- Status
- Not open for further replies.