Dumbass said:
The line array for JXR6 would get my vote. Total cone area is larger and should be able to give higer SPL for that range.
Bcherry - yes, that's the spec sheet I got.
Ted told me bass is usable to 90hz but the graph on his website shows -2dB at 90hz so I don't know where Ted is coming from that one.
-35dB H-D is about 2% and about 1% H-D for most of the F-R.
I was told elsewhere:
76dB = 80 hz bass ext.
88dB = 160 hz bass ext.
100dB = 320 hz bass ext.
What gets me concerned about the JX-6? As people start posting here problems with the JX-92 which I've never heard before, you never really know until you hear it and superlatives are a dime a dozen. For $250 vs. my $35/pr Tang-Band W3-871s I don't see much better in many ways:
1) JX6 is HF is smooth compared to JX92?? Huh? Have you seen bcherry's link? The JX6 is as rough as my 871s. And brighter above 10K to boot.
2) Rolloff at 160hz? Same as my 871s.
3) BL vs. m-m seems about the same (2.0 / 1.2g vs. 3.5 / 2g).
4) 4 ohm load is less gainclone / tube friendly. 871s is 8 ohm.
5) Sealed speakers I have heard (ATC passive) sound constipated to me.
6) Can metal's ringing ever be totally damped? Interesting thread at A-A a while back with Jeff Joseph getting invloved. Apparently even his infinite slope designs have residual ringing present.
On the plus side, I think the clean waterfall, sealed design's low distortion, lack of phase plug, and consistency between drivers would make this a better drivers than my 871s. But by how much? And what about the tradeoffs I list above?
For $250, I would want a money back guaranty before I'd give these a try. BTY I'd much rather see a 3-4" driver with 3mm Xmax that 2" driver. Or a pair of 2" drivers either.
Sorry about being a downer but I've been burned too many times.
Ted told me bass is usable to 90hz but the graph on his website shows -2dB at 90hz so I don't know where Ted is coming from that one.
-35dB H-D is about 2% and about 1% H-D for most of the F-R.
I was told elsewhere:
76dB = 80 hz bass ext.
88dB = 160 hz bass ext.
100dB = 320 hz bass ext.
What gets me concerned about the JX-6? As people start posting here problems with the JX-92 which I've never heard before, you never really know until you hear it and superlatives are a dime a dozen. For $250 vs. my $35/pr Tang-Band W3-871s I don't see much better in many ways:
1) JX6 is HF is smooth compared to JX92?? Huh? Have you seen bcherry's link? The JX6 is as rough as my 871s. And brighter above 10K to boot.
2) Rolloff at 160hz? Same as my 871s.
3) BL vs. m-m seems about the same (2.0 / 1.2g vs. 3.5 / 2g).
4) 4 ohm load is less gainclone / tube friendly. 871s is 8 ohm.
5) Sealed speakers I have heard (ATC passive) sound constipated to me.
6) Can metal's ringing ever be totally damped? Interesting thread at A-A a while back with Jeff Joseph getting invloved. Apparently even his infinite slope designs have residual ringing present.
On the plus side, I think the clean waterfall, sealed design's low distortion, lack of phase plug, and consistency between drivers would make this a better drivers than my 871s. But by how much? And what about the tradeoffs I list above?
For $250, I would want a money back guaranty before I'd give these a try. BTY I'd much rather see a 3-4" driver with 3mm Xmax that 2" driver. Or a pair of 2" drivers either.
Sorry about being a downer but I've been burned too many times.
This looks like the Linkwitz site SPL calculator data I recommend you do the calculation yourself with the data presented at the Jordan website. The new Xmax of 6mm p-p probably will give it more than previously calculated. Note that 6mm is just a number, if a driver reacts gracefully beyond Xmax, then you have a little more potential.chuck55 said:
The data of the JX92S was there for decades, people just get more picky as more products are available. Choosing a proper driver for a particular design just takes some effort an understanding of the technology. Currently there is no standard that will allow direct comparison yielding conclusive results. The less talked about drivers might not worth much discussion anyway.chuck55 said:
I would call Jordan drivers to be more accurate in general if the bandwidth are similar, some people don't like that and tend to like specific tone signatures.
I have used the JX53 as a single speaker for some time, with some appropriate baffle compensation and other tuning, they sound quite well for easy listening. My final design resulted in impedance between 6 to 8 ohms if I remember correctly. Just some skill needed to make a good design. Most of my designs are expected to be toed in to provide correct response and imaging, which is too much to explain here.
Jordan drivers have less ringing than the majority of drivers that I have come across.
chuck55 said:
If you are looking for detail resolution and sound accuracy, the Jordans are much better than the 871 which isn't even TBs best 3" IMO. Just as a full range, if you are looking for a small design but very good performance for desktop listening, the JXR6 would probably be among the best. If you are looking for listning at a little more distance, the you are right, probably larger drivers are better. I think all full rangers need compensation of some sort to have the proper sound balance, other people may think otherwise.
Dumbass said:
How high can the JX6 be safely be crossed over if used in an average (300-400sq. ft) living room?
Our Test Line Array
Hi Chuck. What you heard heard at my place was the line array with no compensation applied so line array bloom was quite audible as well as suppressed high frequencies; overall quite plummy sounding. Today I spent the morning measuring and puttering around with R and C. With 14R/2u2 things are much more balanced. Sound stage has opened up and the silky high frequencies even more audible. It's very much like a good ribbon overall and notably smoother than the '92. There is absolutely no metallic colouration so resonances must be very well controlled. Still waiting for the 'official' compensation R/C values to come from Jordan; I started with the values used for the JX53.
300B SET drives the line array quite nicely.
Brian
Hi Chuck. What you heard heard at my place was the line array with no compensation applied so line array bloom was quite audible as well as suppressed high frequencies; overall quite plummy sounding. Today I spent the morning measuring and puttering around with R and C. With 14R/2u2 things are much more balanced. Sound stage has opened up and the silky high frequencies even more audible. It's very much like a good ribbon overall and notably smoother than the '92. There is absolutely no metallic colouration so resonances must be very well controlled. Still waiting for the 'official' compensation R/C values to come from Jordan; I started with the values used for the JX53.
300B SET drives the line array quite nicely.
Brian
Chuck raises some interesting questions. I have a quality TB 871 system that I'd like to upgrade to the JXR6. The 871 does a good job in my setup with a sealed enclosure with an active cross over @ 120Hz to a quality linkwitz transform sub. From reading the JXR6 specs it looks like I can use a similar setup as a computer desktop system (which is where I do most of my listening).
I too am wondering what the actual difference is between the 871 and the JXR6, and if it is significant enough worth changing. If someone who has heard both could comment I'd appreciate it.
I'm assuming that you can't tell the difference by looking at the spec sheets, its the effort that has gone into the fine tuning of this driver (compared to the mass produced 871) that will show the difference. I'd expect this difference to be in the detail, smoothness and low distortion.
Regards,
Dean
I too am wondering what the actual difference is between the 871 and the JXR6, and if it is significant enough worth changing. If someone who has heard both could comment I'd appreciate it.
I'm assuming that you can't tell the difference by looking at the spec sheets, its the effort that has gone into the fine tuning of this driver (compared to the mass produced 871) that will show the difference. I'd expect this difference to be in the detail, smoothness and low distortion.
Regards,
Dean
I haven't heard the Tangband so can't comment on that but would say that I think the JXR6 would be wasted as a computer speaker - it's much better than that.
Reganding ringing of metal drivers, Ted has written about this in the past and given that he's been working with metal cones since the early 1960s, he should know what he's on about (virtually everybody else leapt onto the bandwagon in the late 70s and even then concentrated on making the cones as stiff as possible). Ted makes great play of working with the physics of the materials and his aim is always to maximise resolution, particularly in the mid and treble.
FWIW, I firts heard a Jordan system in the early 90s and was thrilled at how natural it sounded and the depth of the imaging. The only system I'd heard at the time to compete was the newer Quad electrostatic. The one I heard was the old J51/J125 system and current Jordans are markedly better (in particular, better resolution at HF).
Re JX92 vs a JXR6-bass combo - the two way will go louder and, given the appropriate bass sytem, lower and handle more power. I think the 92 does fine in Greg's 48MLTL but those with larger rooms than me and different music tastes (rock or loud orchestral) will probably want greater power handling.
Re the line array - I tried a JX53 array without compensation network and it does need it. Without it, the extra efficiency below 4kHz (from using 4 drivers) starts to show up and unbalance the sound. But that would be the same with any multiple driver array covering the same bandwidth. Once the appropriate compensation is in place, it balances out, sensitivity is the same as a single driver but power handling is 4x.
Finally, I'm not sure what all the graphs are but presumably the ones on site are the current, up-to-date ones. In any case, I usually listen to my speakers rather than admire their graphs.
Colin
Reganding ringing of metal drivers, Ted has written about this in the past and given that he's been working with metal cones since the early 1960s, he should know what he's on about (virtually everybody else leapt onto the bandwagon in the late 70s and even then concentrated on making the cones as stiff as possible). Ted makes great play of working with the physics of the materials and his aim is always to maximise resolution, particularly in the mid and treble.
FWIW, I firts heard a Jordan system in the early 90s and was thrilled at how natural it sounded and the depth of the imaging. The only system I'd heard at the time to compete was the newer Quad electrostatic. The one I heard was the old J51/J125 system and current Jordans are markedly better (in particular, better resolution at HF).
Re JX92 vs a JXR6-bass combo - the two way will go louder and, given the appropriate bass sytem, lower and handle more power. I think the 92 does fine in Greg's 48MLTL but those with larger rooms than me and different music tastes (rock or loud orchestral) will probably want greater power handling.
Re the line array - I tried a JX53 array without compensation network and it does need it. Without it, the extra efficiency below 4kHz (from using 4 drivers) starts to show up and unbalance the sound. But that would be the same with any multiple driver array covering the same bandwidth. Once the appropriate compensation is in place, it balances out, sensitivity is the same as a single driver but power handling is 4x.
Finally, I'm not sure what all the graphs are but presumably the ones on site are the current, up-to-date ones. In any case, I usually listen to my speakers rather than admire their graphs.
Colin
Colin said:
Just think of computer speakers as the "Mini Modern Hi Fi System", at least some people are willing to listen to good music while they work at the computer.😉
Colin, you should do more reading about using PCs for high end audio systems. Accurate CD rips for perfect reads, Lossless compression, bit accurate software players and pro-audio soundcards for no jitter with the best DACs will give any high end system a run for its money.
Which is why I think pairing such a system with a high quality driver is worth the effort, especially if like me you spend more time in front of a computer instead of the TV or stereo. The JXR6 seem especially suitable for a PC desktop monitor system.
Regards,
Dean.
Colin, you should do more reading about using PCs for high end audio systems. Accurate CD rips for perfect reads, Lossless compression, bit accurate software players and pro-audio soundcards for no jitter with the best DACs will give any high end system a run for its money.....
wow thats a sweeping statement
ive yet to find a best dac unless latest means best,also i think that most whould agree that when you listern to your hifi,amps,cd player etc your listerning alot to the power surplies,also alot of bennifits of solid enclosures,vibration control,power surply isolation etc etc.so even if you have the best
of every thing(if that exists),the fact that its all thrown into one lump with no thought for noise,isolation etc and all powered off a run of the mill sm power surply is going to have some serious issues on the overall sound!
i totally agree with collin teds drivers would be wasted on it....but hey its your money,your ears,if it works for you then GAME ON!
smithie
wow thats a sweeping statement
ive yet to find a best dac unless latest means best,also i think that most whould agree that when you listern to your hifi,amps,cd player etc your listerning alot to the power surplies,also alot of bennifits of solid enclosures,vibration control,power surply isolation etc etc.so even if you have the best
of every thing(if that exists),the fact that its all thrown into one lump with no thought for noise,isolation etc and all powered off a run of the mill sm power surply is going to have some serious issues on the overall sound!
i totally agree with collin teds drivers would be wasted on it....but hey its your money,your ears,if it works for you then GAME ON!
smithie
Hi Dean
I realised after I'd posted that I was writing from a Mac perspective, where the DACs etc are built in and tend not to get upgraded to something high end. I'd be interested to read any comparisons between a high end PC and high end CD player on audio quality. Any of the magazines done anything like that or is that a bit too novel for them?
It's worth pointing out that if you have something like a monitor or box TV in the soundfield between Ted's drivers, the image collapses back into the speakers.
I realised after I'd posted that I was writing from a Mac perspective, where the DACs etc are built in and tend not to get upgraded to something high end. I'd be interested to read any comparisons between a high end PC and high end CD player on audio quality. Any of the magazines done anything like that or is that a bit too novel for them?
It's worth pointing out that if you have something like a monitor or box TV in the soundfield between Ted's drivers, the image collapses back into the speakers.
Colin said:
A mac mini or iBook is an excellent transport... here are DACs that make it possible. I'm eagerly awaiting diy clones so that i can actually afford to upgrade the cheap *** one i have...
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com/usbdac.html
dave
I dont want to turn this into a p***ing match, all I'm suggesting is that if you dont realise that a properly setup PC can do high end audio that you do further research if it interests you. I appreciate its a new area and not everyone knows about it.
A couple of points:
- This approach is only appropriate for digital audio, if you are into analog (eg. records) look elsewhere.
- Ripping a CD with the right software (not iTunes!) like ExactAudioCopy can do a better job than a high end transport. The PC does not need to read the bits in real time like a transport has to which can be prone to mistakes, the PC ripping software will go back and re-check many times that the digital information stored on disk is as accurate a copy as possible, and can be much smarter about handling a scratched or dirty disk than a CD player.
- Some CD PC drives do a better job at ripping than others. The aim with the ripping process is to get the bits as accurately as possible from the CD to the hard disk and in my experience the quality of the drive determines the time it takes to accurately extract the bits not the accuracy itself.
- The raw WAV files should be processed with lossless compression to save disk space. lossless compression reduces the file size without losing any quality like you do with MP3, as a lossless file is a 100% accurate representation of the original WAV file (think PKZIP for audio files).
- You also need to run player software that does not corrupt the audio (eg. bypassing Windows audio mixer) and allows high quality processing (eg. upsampling) if needed. Foobar is popular.
- With audio accurately ripped to hard disk and using a pro-audio soudcard avoids all jitter. This has to be a good thing.
- Having all my 400 odd CDs on a hard disk, catalogued with powerful search facilities makes the music much more accessable that previously. I can now instruct the software to do things like "play me all my favourite Jazz tunes that I have not heard for 3 months" or "play soft music that my wife likes". This adds a whole new dimension to my music collection that was not possible with my manual CD collection.
- Effort needs to go into making the PC silent to avoid cooling fan noise. Unfortunately this is not quite as easy as it should be and requires replacing fans and applying soundproof material to the inside of a PC.
- A high proportion of all the music produced in the last 10 years has been processed by a digital audio workstation (DAW) PC using PC setups and soundcards like what I'm discussing in this post. If its good enough for the creating the source material, its good enough to be in the playback chain.
I agree in the analog domain. See my notes above about how a PC can do a better job in the digital domain without being affected by these points. You could argue that the D/A conversion should be done outside the PC with a high quality standalone DAC, using the PC as a transport. If you dont use the top end pro-audio soundcards then an external DAC is a better option.
A card like the Lynx 2 has extensive power supply filtering on the board and excellent PCB layout to minimise noise induction from the rest of the PC, and suffers from NO jitter that you would have to address with an external DAC. Another option is to use a pro-audio soundcard like the EMU 1820M which has an external breakout box and uses proprietary signalling between the breakout box & a card in the PC to avoid jitter.
I modify all my soundcards to remove output capacitors and upgrade the power supply and op amp buffers, which makes a difference. The audio community with the most critical listening requirements is the high end headphone community, and there is a big following for using a PC as a source, and this community has done extensive evaluation of pro-audio soundcards for high end listening, with a number of them DIY modifying the soundcard to get the most out of them (and there can be a considerable difference with mods). Check out this forum for soundcards:
Head-Fi Computer as a source
Soundcard DIY modding
Stereophile did a review of a Lynx 2 soundcard a couple of years back. It had a favourable review however using PC for high end audio is still seen as a fringe area. Another link:
Audio Asylum PC as a Source
For the PC I want to use the JXR6s with I use an EMU 0404 proaudio card with bypassed output caps and deleted output buffer, and Panasonic FM caps for the DAC & analog stages. These mods make a big difference and this particular card has a very dynamic sound when coupled with my Tripath Class D amplifier (hey - I'm a digital guy!) and active filter for the TB monitor speakers I use now.
I'm happy to post further (in a different thread) about how to setup a PC as an audiophile device. I have struck similar comments like what smithie & colin have posted from others and its obviously an area that not everyone knows about, as its assumed that the c**p that Creative & Logitech push for consumer PC audio that gives this option a bad wrap.
Colin, this is interesting. My TB speakers have an LCD monitor inbetween and the imaging is excellent. Sometimes while working and listening I turn around thinking that someone is beside me because with the right track the image surrounds me. Do you have any suggestions how this problem can be overcome with this driver (eg. push the speakers forward, adjust the front baffle etc?)
Maybe its just me, but wouldn't all you guys reading this thread like to be browsing/working while enjoying the same high end audio experieces you get in your listening room? Unfortunately many people spend lots of time in front of the PC these days. Seems to me like there might be a market for a high end PC audio system but it is difficult to get it right.
The JXR6 on paper looks to be perfect for this application (size, near field monitor, reasonable cost as a pair, quality) with subwoofer help.
Regards,
Dean
deandob said:
I firmly believe that PC as storage mechanism & transport is the future of high end digital replay.
What's wrong with iTunes? It does all those things. You end up with a perfect copy (big deep scratches or serving bowl shaped CDs excepted)
Is there anything else?
But the developers are in bad need of going to UI school.
The DAC needs to be out of the box. Firstly it is the only way the device has any chance of being free of the noise & RF in the box, and secondly, it is difficult to put a proper cathode follower on the card inside the box.
No fans in a MacMini, iBook is pretty quiet too (drive noise is the biggest issue)
That is a spurious argument. By the same arguement, you can say many cascaded cheap op-amps are OK too.
dave
Colin said:
Do yuo sugggest that the JX92 will not fully satisfy a person who listend to rock? my room is about 300sq. ft. and I intend to get the JX92 or similar fullrange supported by a subwoofer for a HT/AV system (wall hung speakers).
If one has a sub below 100Hz is the JX92 or JX6 more suitable for this sort of application?
planet10 said:
Some months back I was gifted an ipod 60. it got me interested in Mp3. Anyway to cut a long story short after reading up on hydrogenaudio.org and freedb.org i ripped my 600+CD collection using
a) Exact Audio Copy
b) WACK 0.46
c) LAME 3.96.1 (alt present extreme) and Wavpack 4.2
d) Accurate Rip and Wave gain
In this process I got about 60GB of MP3 about about 170GB of .wv files.
My wife's brother ripped his CD using Windows Media Player (lossless) and iTunes (what ever the lowest compression ratio is).
A second friend ripped his CDs using 256k and 320k CBR
On comparing the MP3's made using LAME v/s any of the rips made by my brother in law or friend we all 3 agreed the the LAME versions were much better.
We heard the MP3 on a number of sources (ipod via Senheisser 580 headphones, from the PC hard disk via 2 PC based stereo systems, from ipod via 2 Alpine car stereo systems, and from ipod via a dock to my brother in law's mid fi stereo).
The fact that LAME used less space (about 224kbps) and produced better sound leads me to believe that whatever procesing LAME is doing is nicer than Windows Media Player or iTunes. Sorry I cannot explain this but only know what i heard.
If you so desire I can post the LAME 3.96.1 settings used but i feel that might be outdated (LAME 3.97 is now current) and material for another thread.
Also as far as using a hard disk for replay I am tending to agree with this. Hard disks seem to be more stable (physically) than CD drives. They spin faster and hence can offer much better/faster error correection. I have seen one manufacturer who's CD player rips the CD to a internal 250Gb hard drive and plays the CD off the hard drive althought i have not heard the same to comment on the sound quality.
If iTunes can make perfect copies then its a candidate for high end audio. I like Exact Audio Copy as it goes to extreme lengths to ensure the copy is as "exact" as possible.
Agreed - for the highest quality although you have to ensure you can deal with the jitter.
Navin,
I'd really recommend lossless compression over MP3 for several reasons:
- You know the lossless file is an exact copy of the original. LAME even at its best settings drops quality (even if slightly). If you put so much effort / cost into the amps & speakers they deserve the best source possible.
- Lossless can transcode to other formats (eg. MP3 for portables) without any quality loss as many times as you want.
- Disk is cheap. My 450 CD collection takes up 160Gb.
- The effort to rip this much music is considerable, you only want to do it once - so you might as well use the best format possible, lossless. I have had a couple of friends regret ripping to MP3 and have since re-ripped their collection which was a major PITA
- Due to the point above, you want to backup your music on disk. Easiest way is buy another hard disk and install it on another machine and copy the music across.
Today I just upgraded the PS on the Tripath AMP3 for the desktop monitors with 1,000uF x 3 Panasonic FM caps + snubber gainclone style (close to the amp module), it definitely adds more clarity and dynamic range to this setup. The Tang Bands are good enough to pickup the difference but its at the point where any extra improvement will require a better driver.
I'm still wondering how much better the JXR6's will be compared to the Tang Band 871 - worth the extra investment?
Regards,
Dean
deandob said:
You can set iTunes to do the same thing... when ripping into Apple Lossless for my collection, it would often take 2 1/2 to 4 times thru to get everything off the CD
Agreed. With a 60GB iPos you can still store a HUGE amount of music at full rez... more than you can listen to in quite a while. You know what they say "friends don't let friends listen to MP3s"
dave
deandob said:
I agree. I never said I did not rip lossless. I ripped a MP3 and lossless at one rip using WACK.
I have 60GB+ of MP3 and 170-180GB of lossless. Using WavPack i got about 600CDs of Lossless in 180GB. Compression is about 1:2.
My Lossless does sound better than MP3 but my MP3 LAME rips sounded better to me and 2 others than Windows Media Player lossless.
When they come out with a 200GB ipod I will port my lossless version to the ipod till then I got 2 copies (one backup) and am waiting.
planet10 said:
Dave, I have the highest regard for you and iTunes but you gotta try LAME/EAC or WAVPACK/EAC or FLAC/EAC etc... EAC does do a nice job. really. esp with accurate rip and wavegain.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.