navin said:
These are different products. The JX6 would only possibly be good for lower SPL, possibly small desktops. The JX92 is a good full range for average rooms and delivers lower frequencies at higher SPL.
soongsc said:
what about the top end i assumethe JX6 is smoother and does not need a tweeter as some claim the JX92 does.
navin said:
I have been using the JX53 for quite a long time, and never found it necessary to add a tweeter. These go up to almost 30K as it is.
I suspect that people whom think the JX92 needs a tweeter may not like the rough response beyond 10K. I believe that is caused by the VC cap resonance. Very slight change in the shape should smooth it out. If they think there's a lack of high end, some simple equalization using a BSC type circuit would provide slightly better balance.
soongsc said:
wonder why Ted Jordan and co have not worked this out. anyway cant this resonace be damped some way?
navin said:
I haven't tried because adding anything would change the response. Nobody wants to put dents in such a beautiful cone either.
I thinks it's really lots of work to get that one figured out. The VC caps of Jordan drivers have changed many times, it seems to serve many purposes.
With all due respect, I am skeptical that a "Very slight change in the shape should smooth it out." I'm also skeptical that people can even make out that unevenness in the 10K to 20K range.navin said:
AFAIK the JX92 was an attempt to size up the 50mm module, thus making a "full" range driver instead of merely a "wide" range driver. Well, you get tradeoffs.
Ted Jordan dogma is that adding supertweet to JX92S takes away from the driver's inherent strengths:
It is often claimed that super-tweeters improve detail and definition. For a conventional system this might possibly be true. However, the exceptional detail and phase coherency provided by JORDAN Wide Band Single Cone drivers could only be impaired the intrusion of a spatially displaced high frequency radiator having characteristics totally incompatible with those of a wide band cone driver. This argument also holds true for the JX53, which has a transient response and resolving capability beyond that of most commercially-available tweeters.
Jim Griffin says his decision to add the ribbon supertweet was based on a niggling doubt about a "roughness" in the highs of the JX92. (Dammit, wish I could find that writeup of the project.)
On the other hand, there is the idea (Zaphaudio) that ribbon tweets have a perhaps euphonic "sheen", but aren't necessarily accurate.
I suspect it is a matter of taste.
I remember seeing a photo of a JX92 with phase plug installed. Cutting up the driver took some moxy, I'd say. No comment on whether it improved sound or not.
the link to my Jordan JX92S with the Aurum Cantus G2si ribbon design is as given below. A great sounding speaker indeed!
Jordan JX92S with Aurum Cantus G2si Design
Jordan JX92S with Aurum Cantus G2si Design
Dumbass said:
I don't think adding a tweeter to the JX92 makes sense either. I recall that ribbon tweeters don't have good spectraly decay characteristics due to the basic structure. Dome tweeters are realy out of the question. Laminated foil ribbons might work, but have some other issues involved.
With 6mm Xmax, the JX6 is really good for the size. I really hope I can get the latest ones to try out soon.
I think lots of people like phase plugs because you can get higher FR due to reduced effective mass. However, if you really consider how the comppresson waves expand, you will find that the true transient characteristics are altered, so the sound might be good, but will be a little further way from being right. Well, if you had a 1 meter Penokio nose as a phase plug, it might work.
Jim Griffin said:the link to my Jordan JX92S with the Aurum Cantus G2si ribbon design is as given below. A great sounding speaker indeed!
Jordan JX92S with Aurum Cantus G2si Design
Any phase response plots available?
I might be moving to Birmingham this year . . . you be willing to audition those puppies if I drove up?Jim Griffin said:the link to my Jordan JX92S with the Aurum Cantus G2si ribbon design is as given below. A great sounding speaker indeed!
Jordan JX92S with Aurum Cantus G2si Design
Dr Jim,
When you were voicing the JX92+G2Si minimonitors may I know which amplifier did you use ?
thanks.
When you were voicing the JX92+G2Si minimonitors may I know which amplifier did you use ?
thanks.
Above 200Hz or so, the JXR6 is supposed to be very similar in sound to the JX53. That makes it smoother and more electrostatic in character than the 92.
The 92 is a development of Ted's work in the 60s and 70s on fullrange drivers, which began with the old Jordan Watts module. I'm sure he's aware the 92 can be improved but he is limited by what his suppliers can provide - the unconventional nature of his bass units meant that the suppliers weren't willing to get involved in production and they are no longer being manufactered.
FWIW, I agree the 92 sounds a little forward. To some extent you can mitigate that by toe in. I've got hold of a pair of JXR6s and am fiddling with boxes for them. I'll post when I've got them up and running. One of the things I'll be trying is running them with the 92s as bass units in their MLTLs. (The JXR6s are closer in sensitivity to the 92s than the 53s were.)
I should stress that I haven't heard Jim's ribbon/92 combo and would imagine that it sounds very good. I think adding a tweeter is really a matter of personal taste - you choose your trade-offs.
Colin
The 92 is a development of Ted's work in the 60s and 70s on fullrange drivers, which began with the old Jordan Watts module. I'm sure he's aware the 92 can be improved but he is limited by what his suppliers can provide - the unconventional nature of his bass units meant that the suppliers weren't willing to get involved in production and they are no longer being manufactered.
FWIW, I agree the 92 sounds a little forward. To some extent you can mitigate that by toe in. I've got hold of a pair of JXR6s and am fiddling with boxes for them. I'll post when I've got them up and running. One of the things I'll be trying is running them with the 92s as bass units in their MLTLs. (The JXR6s are closer in sensitivity to the 92s than the 53s were.)
I should stress that I haven't heard Jim's ribbon/92 combo and would imagine that it sounds very good. I think adding a tweeter is really a matter of personal taste - you choose your trade-offs.
Colin
Colin said:
I intend to use the JX92 in a HT/AV application powered by a Maratz SR7000. Bass will be manged by seperate subs.
I hear the JX92 has been improved a few times. Fortunately this HT project has been delayed for some time and might allow me to obtain a later more refined incarnation (I will probebly look to purchase sometime in Q3 or Q4 of this year).
Colin said:
I think it's not just the suppliers. I'll bet that Ted will want to improve them some more before letting them out on the market again. I had offered to help several times, it would even be easier now than a year or two ago.
I had a brief listen to the very tiny JXR6 line arrays at Brian's place.
I can say that the highs are certainly better than the JX92 that I have but still can't say it was really really outstanding (need more listening).
My opinion is that if u want a top quality simple full range in a near field or very smaill room, this would be a good choice, but for the price of the line array (8 driver in total!!) to get near full range sound, I believe there are better choices.
I can say that the highs are certainly better than the JX92 that I have but still can't say it was really really outstanding (need more listening).
My opinion is that if u want a top quality simple full range in a near field or very smaill room, this would be a good choice, but for the price of the line array (8 driver in total!!) to get near full range sound, I believe there are better choices.
And furthermore can be used singly, not necessarily in the array.Colin said:
With the correct bass driver, they can be used with 1st order passive xover (there is a project online), and the new version would allow a lower xover freq.
Colin (and anyone else), just throwing this out there:
You think the JX53 or new JXR6 used, say, 200Hz and above give sufficient SPL for "typical domestic use" (medium sized living room, say) used in simple stereo pair (not linear array)?
Or would JX92S work better in this respect?
You think the JX53 or new JXR6 used, say, 200Hz and above give sufficient SPL for "typical domestic use" (medium sized living room, say) used in simple stereo pair (not linear array)?
Or would JX92S work better in this respect?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.