I was very eager to work with this new driver and have been corresponding with Mr Jordan over some time during its development. Finally I have a working model to replace the VS.
The driver does address the obvious shortcomings of the old 92. The most noticeable difference is a complete lack of HF sibilance, noticeable as a slight brittleness/harshness to the quality of the 92 top end. The bass also plays louder without any distortion as you would expect from doubling the max excursion.
They allow a 7Hz additional bass extension although I have not had to retune the VS cabinet from 30 Hz. There is a slight drop in efficency but they suit my design as I use 2 in parallel. The top end seems to mate alot better with the additional tweeter I deployed and there has been no change in my design in this respect. With the VS I over-conpensated a bit on the baffle-step to try and counteract some of the upper mid brightness but now I don't need to do this. The sound is overall more balanced and refined, cleaner and just about electrostatic in quality. Imaging seems to have improved a bit more. There is still the off-axis limitation and the new driver does not try and compensate for this as did the 92, probably because many designs out there use additional HF support.
Conclusion: This driver is a definite improvement over the 92. Quite a bit more expensive but very probably class-leading. I am quite satisfied with it and I have managed to extract 25Hz to 37Khz from the pair! More than enough bass to satisfy the closet rocker in me!
Kevin
Acoustic Insight
The driver does address the obvious shortcomings of the old 92. The most noticeable difference is a complete lack of HF sibilance, noticeable as a slight brittleness/harshness to the quality of the 92 top end. The bass also plays louder without any distortion as you would expect from doubling the max excursion.
They allow a 7Hz additional bass extension although I have not had to retune the VS cabinet from 30 Hz. There is a slight drop in efficency but they suit my design as I use 2 in parallel. The top end seems to mate alot better with the additional tweeter I deployed and there has been no change in my design in this respect. With the VS I over-conpensated a bit on the baffle-step to try and counteract some of the upper mid brightness but now I don't need to do this. The sound is overall more balanced and refined, cleaner and just about electrostatic in quality. Imaging seems to have improved a bit more. There is still the off-axis limitation and the new driver does not try and compensate for this as did the 92, probably because many designs out there use additional HF support.
Conclusion: This driver is a definite improvement over the 92. Quite a bit more expensive but very probably class-leading. I am quite satisfied with it and I have managed to extract 25Hz to 37Khz from the pair! More than enough bass to satisfy the closet rocker in me!
Kevin
Acoustic Insight
Last edited:
Some 20 years ago, along with Be Yamamura, I visited Ted Jordan's home in South West Londonfor a demonstration of his speakers. All I can say is that we were totally astounded at the quality and general capabilities of his work. At much the same time we visited Doreen Jordan, Ted's former wife, to investigate her Bandor metal cone drivers. Again, it was apparent that these could hit far heavier and deeper than their weight.
I can well understand the fascination with these units.
I can well understand the fascination with these units.
My aim was not necessary for substantial sub 30Hz bass and that is why the cabinets are tuned at 30 Hz. I certainly get 23 Hz measured in my room -6db. Very close field its around 29 Hz. It is really relying on the room at sub-30's values which is actually quite a good decision for a largish room. My advise would be to 'work with the room' and don't just sacrifice all for extension. Extension has to go hand-in-hand with volume capability to some extent. You will see exactly what I mean if you try doubling up on such drivers in an array of 2 (or more). I chose just 2 at it allows perfect coherence, at least at the mid-point between drivers.
One point - the overall diameter is about a cm larger than the 92 and the central region. although fixed is much smaller than the old dust cap. The effective diameter is therfore the same. The rubber surround seems to be one key to this driver - extended and very flexible. I will try and get some graphs to post.
Kevin
One point - the overall diameter is about a cm larger than the 92 and the central region. although fixed is much smaller than the old dust cap. The effective diameter is therfore the same. The rubber surround seems to be one key to this driver - extended and very flexible. I will try and get some graphs to post.
Kevin
Last edited:
Another favourable review
The necessary chopping and drilling are now complete; the Eikonas are in the sealed boxes that once housed JX92s.
I can agree with Kevin's initial impression of a smoother top end. These will be much more relaxing when played loud. Massed violins are less screechy; the trebles of the Tallis Scholars have been subdued; and organs sound more full bodied.
I'm in a non-resonant phase at present, so the Eikonas are crossed over at 100Hz to a pair of Monacor SPH-275Cs in an H_Frame.
These drivers are a definite step forward, and still reasonably priced.
Andy
The necessary chopping and drilling are now complete; the Eikonas are in the sealed boxes that once housed JX92s.
I can agree with Kevin's initial impression of a smoother top end. These will be much more relaxing when played loud. Massed violins are less screechy; the trebles of the Tallis Scholars have been subdued; and organs sound more full bodied.
I'm in a non-resonant phase at present, so the Eikonas are crossed over at 100Hz to a pair of Monacor SPH-275Cs in an H_Frame.
These drivers are a definite step forward, and still reasonably priced.
Andy
I can hear up to 10.5kHz these days, and the Jordan does that very nicely.
I have to ask: SQ?
There have been many discussions on the forum about the new shape of the Jordan driver and the problem of fitting it in old cabinets. I think this is an information useful not just for me
Northernsky
The Eikona needs a larger diameter hole than the JX92.
The mounting holes are on a larger diameter circle.
The mounting flange is a different shape.
Hence chopping and drilling.
I was able to make these adjustments; they are a short term measure as I intend to create new cabinets in the foreseeable future.
Rebating the new driver into a panel will be less easy than a simple circular cutout.
Andy
The mounting holes are on a larger diameter circle.
The mounting flange is a different shape.
Hence chopping and drilling.
I was able to make these adjustments; they are a short term measure as I intend to create new cabinets in the foreseeable future.
Rebating the new driver into a panel will be less easy than a simple circular cutout.
Andy
My one issue with the previous version was the top end breakup and metallic sound in that region. The midrange was it's own flavor but was very good. The Alpairs are quite poor in regard to their top end metallic sound. My question regarding the new version from Ed is why did he change the round basket?
There was something about the change on the site - it needed a bigger chassis for the surround. Probably also practicalities of manufacture.
There is a drawing and set of sizes for the Eikona on the Jordan drivers page
Jordan loudspeaker drive units
There is a drawing and set of sizes for the Eikona on the Jordan drivers page
Jordan loudspeaker drive units
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.