I have bought a pair of Jordans, influenced heavily by past threads and contributions by members of this forum. Initially the Jordan VTL cabinet was the intended design and then the GM 31" MLTL and then the Jim Griffin version of the MLTL with the future option of adding the Aurum Cantus ribbon tweeter.
The more I read the deeper I get in to the mire of indescision.
As an explanation, my present speakers are the Jim Rogers JR149 - lovely, but not quite right, my speaker of choice would be the Quad 57's, with their glorious midrange but alas too large for my listening room of only 16 x 14 feet.
I have owned B&W, Audio Physic, Kef and the ubiquitous Wharfedale and Goodmans of yesteryear and quite a few others. So quite a few of not quite rights.
My musical tastes are not too loud middle of the road ( eg Beatles, Bread, Female vocals and some classical and jazz etc ad infinitum ).
The larger cabinets for the Jordans would descend to about 50hz, the lower registers could be filled by my subwoofer if required.
However, although the Jordan has a large xmax, would a smaller cabinet be beneficial by not reproducing the lower register and freeing up the speakers midrange to advantage ?. Again the bottom end being supplemented by a subwoofer. Or should I go with the proven designs already mentioned ?.
My reference is the Quad 57 and hope that one of the designs will come closer than the speakers I have owned over the years - the alternative is to move home and buy the Quads. 🙂
Amplifier is the Sugden A21a - 25 watts per channel, class A, this drives my 83db Jr's to more than acceptable sound levels.
I have never owned a single driver unit before and don't really know what to expect but the enthusiasm in this forum is contagious and it has become a must do. But I have become bogged down with my own ifs and buts to the point of inaction.
Any guidance would be most gratefully received - I appear to be dissapearing up my own existence at the moment - and at my age it isn't funny.
Regards
John
The more I read the deeper I get in to the mire of indescision.
As an explanation, my present speakers are the Jim Rogers JR149 - lovely, but not quite right, my speaker of choice would be the Quad 57's, with their glorious midrange but alas too large for my listening room of only 16 x 14 feet.
I have owned B&W, Audio Physic, Kef and the ubiquitous Wharfedale and Goodmans of yesteryear and quite a few others. So quite a few of not quite rights.
My musical tastes are not too loud middle of the road ( eg Beatles, Bread, Female vocals and some classical and jazz etc ad infinitum ).
The larger cabinets for the Jordans would descend to about 50hz, the lower registers could be filled by my subwoofer if required.
However, although the Jordan has a large xmax, would a smaller cabinet be beneficial by not reproducing the lower register and freeing up the speakers midrange to advantage ?. Again the bottom end being supplemented by a subwoofer. Or should I go with the proven designs already mentioned ?.
My reference is the Quad 57 and hope that one of the designs will come closer than the speakers I have owned over the years - the alternative is to move home and buy the Quads. 🙂
Amplifier is the Sugden A21a - 25 watts per channel, class A, this drives my 83db Jr's to more than acceptable sound levels.
I have never owned a single driver unit before and don't really know what to expect but the enthusiasm in this forum is contagious and it has become a must do. But I have become bogged down with my own ifs and buts to the point of inaction.
Any guidance would be most gratefully received - I appear to be dissapearing up my own existence at the moment - and at my age it isn't funny.
Regards
John
>>> would a smaller cabinet be beneficial by not reproducing the lower register and freeing up the speakers midrange to advantage?
If you intend to use your subwoofer than i would agree that building something smaller will allow the mids and highs to come thru the Jordan's cleaner. If you are using the sub i would build one of the smaller Jordan designs.
If you intend to use your subwoofer than i would agree that building something smaller will allow the mids and highs to come thru the Jordan's cleaner. If you are using the sub i would build one of the smaller Jordan designs.
John,
I'll toss you another option. Consider my earlier mini-monitor version of the JX92S. Origiinally, I used the Jordan in a 7 liters cabinet full range but just a baffle step compensation network. You can use a ported version to get into the mid 50 Hz area for the 3 dB low end roll off or stuff the port so that the 'sealed' rolloff is about 20 Hz higher. My next version of the mini-monitor combined the JX92S with the Aurum Cantus G2si ribbon and it really makes for a magical pairing.
Later I developed the Jordan with a ribbon MLTL version which used the 48" MLTL and the same crossover as for the mini-monitor with a ribbon version. Using the same crossover is OK as I specify the same baffle width so the baffle comp is invariant between the mini-monitor and the MLTL versions.
You can read the threads on this forum on both the mini-monitor and MLTL versions with the ribbon tweeter.
Even though you will be using a subwoofer, I'm partial to the MLTL versions (you can use the 31" or up to 48" length) and you will have roughly the same footprint as the mini-monitor. In effect the MLTL just makes for built-in speaker stands. I would suggest the same width cabinets as I used so you can grow into a ribbon version in the future.
Have fun.
Jim
I'll toss you another option. Consider my earlier mini-monitor version of the JX92S. Origiinally, I used the Jordan in a 7 liters cabinet full range but just a baffle step compensation network. You can use a ported version to get into the mid 50 Hz area for the 3 dB low end roll off or stuff the port so that the 'sealed' rolloff is about 20 Hz higher. My next version of the mini-monitor combined the JX92S with the Aurum Cantus G2si ribbon and it really makes for a magical pairing.
Later I developed the Jordan with a ribbon MLTL version which used the 48" MLTL and the same crossover as for the mini-monitor with a ribbon version. Using the same crossover is OK as I specify the same baffle width so the baffle comp is invariant between the mini-monitor and the MLTL versions.
You can read the threads on this forum on both the mini-monitor and MLTL versions with the ribbon tweeter.
Even though you will be using a subwoofer, I'm partial to the MLTL versions (you can use the 31" or up to 48" length) and you will have roughly the same footprint as the mini-monitor. In effect the MLTL just makes for built-in speaker stands. I would suggest the same width cabinets as I used so you can grow into a ribbon version in the future.
Have fun.
Jim
The 31 MLTL would be my choice - in fact it is the one I'm on with now. I've used the 48" version but find it can sound a little full in the bass at times. Like you, I have a sub so I'm drawn by GM's description of the 31 as more accurate. I think that will be easier to match with the sub.
Another consideration is BSC. The 48 needed it to balance the sound, as do the smaller bookshelf designs. According to GM and reports I've read here, the 31 doesn't need this. An advantage for me as my amp is relatively low powered at 30w.
So my Reading is that the 31 seems ideal for the JX92. Hope this is of some help.
If I get time over Xmas, I hope to finish the speaker and will report back. Meanwhile, let us know what you decide and how you get on.
Another consideration is BSC. The 48 needed it to balance the sound, as do the smaller bookshelf designs. According to GM and reports I've read here, the 31 doesn't need this. An advantage for me as my amp is relatively low powered at 30w.
So my Reading is that the 31 seems ideal for the JX92. Hope this is of some help.
If I get time over Xmas, I hope to finish the speaker and will report back. Meanwhile, let us know what you decide and how you get on.
BTW I've also built the VTL. Nice design and definitely doesn't require BSC but it doesn't go as low as the 48 MLTL. Be interesting to see how it compares to the 31.
Many thanks for your very speedy replies to my query.
I had previously settled on the GM 31" MLTL design using Jim Griffins baffle and depth dimensions with the view to incorporating the Aurum Cantus ribbon at a later date if required.
I then read about cone excursion possibly interfering with the midrange reproduction and got round to thinking that a smaller cabinet may reduce this possibility. However, small speakers in my experience, well, sound small. The use of a subwoofer to extend and fill and extend the lower register was appealing.
I think the only way forward - unless you know better, is to build both the 31" and the mini monitor design, again using the Aurum Cantus at a later date if I feel the need for improvement from 3kz upwards. I can only buy Birch Ply in 8foot x 4foot sheets so out of one sheet can have both, without too much waste of material or extra work.
The goal remains to get as near to the Quad Electrostatic as is possible, a truly magical loudspeaker and if anyone knows how to achieve this I would again be grateful.
However, anyone who plods on against the tide of popular opinion for so many years and receives such glowing testimony from the diy community must be on to something and with these factors in mind I opted for the Ted Jordan JX92s.
Thank you once again for your time and trouble in replying - of course alternative views are very welcome, even if they throw up further indescision on my behalf.
Regards
John
I had previously settled on the GM 31" MLTL design using Jim Griffins baffle and depth dimensions with the view to incorporating the Aurum Cantus ribbon at a later date if required.
I then read about cone excursion possibly interfering with the midrange reproduction and got round to thinking that a smaller cabinet may reduce this possibility. However, small speakers in my experience, well, sound small. The use of a subwoofer to extend and fill and extend the lower register was appealing.
I think the only way forward - unless you know better, is to build both the 31" and the mini monitor design, again using the Aurum Cantus at a later date if I feel the need for improvement from 3kz upwards. I can only buy Birch Ply in 8foot x 4foot sheets so out of one sheet can have both, without too much waste of material or extra work.
The goal remains to get as near to the Quad Electrostatic as is possible, a truly magical loudspeaker and if anyone knows how to achieve this I would again be grateful.
However, anyone who plods on against the tide of popular opinion for so many years and receives such glowing testimony from the diy community must be on to something and with these factors in mind I opted for the Ted Jordan JX92s.
Thank you once again for your time and trouble in replying - of course alternative views are very welcome, even if they throw up further indescision on my behalf.
Regards
John
>>> The goal remains to get as near to the Quad Electrostatic as is possible, a truly magical loudspeaker and if anyone knows how to achieve this I would again be grateful.
I read some feel the Eminence 12lta full range driver with helper tweeter reminds them of the Quad sound.
>>> of course alternative views are very welcome, even if they throw up further indescision on my behalf.
LOL, don't look for trouble. Part of the fun this hobby brings IS re-thinking everything and building something else. In some ways speaker building reminds me of martial arts because there are many different styles, many different answers to the same questions and personal preference cannot be disputed. Oftentimes bigger is better while smaller and faster can win the day. Being well rounded is also very important. Both are great hobbies imho!
Godzilla
I read some feel the Eminence 12lta full range driver with helper tweeter reminds them of the Quad sound.
>>> of course alternative views are very welcome, even if they throw up further indescision on my behalf.
LOL, don't look for trouble. Part of the fun this hobby brings IS re-thinking everything and building something else. In some ways speaker building reminds me of martial arts because there are many different styles, many different answers to the same questions and personal preference cannot be disputed. Oftentimes bigger is better while smaller and faster can win the day. Being well rounded is also very important. Both are great hobbies imho!
Godzilla
I am perhaps guilty of 'much wanting more ' - I am sure (ish ) that I will be pleased with the Jordans and with so many designs to keep me busy, its a game of buiding blocks - one leading to another. What I have been impressed with is that in all designs the end product appears to be greater than the sum of the parts.
I have a great respect for the people who design on this forum and share their designs for the benefit of people like myself. In 35 years of speaker buiding ( others designs ) you would have thought a little bit of knowledge would have rubbed off onto me - alas no. If its more intense than an L-pad then forget it.
Regards
John
An advantage of the MLTL is that the port should restrict excursion below 100Hz. But let us know what you think when you have the designs to compare. Fwiw I've heard the Quad ESL63 and the Jordan is close.
Thank you Colin for your reply. I am familiar with the '57, but as the '63 is from the same stable I would imagine that there will be a 'family signature' to the balance and tonal quality.
For too many years I have listened to loudspeakers that analyse and emphasise certain frequencies that initially are impressive but quickly irritate, as the music is lost behind these traits.
I don't think that I have actually listened to music for many years and recently realised that I hadn't had that pleasure since my old 'dansette' days or even listening to the car radio - I've been too busy listening to 'detail'.
I believe the Jordans are very musical and with a good and even balance, especially if toed in correctly.
So, I will post again upon completion and give my verdict as to their proximity to the Quads - not that I am an expert in these areas, but - if it sounds right, then it is right.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.