Hello all!
I am looking for a high quality full range driver that can produce some good bass.
I don't intent to add a sub or a tweeter.
From what I've found over the internet, the Eikona 2 & the Alpair 10.3 /10P seems to be suitable for my requirements.
I could not find any direct comparison between these two. Hence some feedback from people who have actually listened to both of these would be highly appreciated.
My concerns are.
1. The Eikona 2 are claimed to have LF bass extension upto -3dB @ 27Hz in slim MLTL ( 100 x 20 x 24 cms > HxBxD )
How does the Alpair 10 compare to that?
( Bigger cabinet not an issue, but smaller are an obvious advantage )
2. How does the two driver compare in terms of HF extension & cone breakup?
3. How does the two drivers compare in terms of midrange clearity & detail ?
The Eikonas are costlier & have SPL lower by about 4dB compared to the A10 as per specs. I remember reading somewhere that the alpairs don't require BSC. Any input on real world speaker sensitivity comparison after baffle step correction (if reqd) would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance for your help
I am looking for a high quality full range driver that can produce some good bass.
I don't intent to add a sub or a tweeter.
From what I've found over the internet, the Eikona 2 & the Alpair 10.3 /10P seems to be suitable for my requirements.
I could not find any direct comparison between these two. Hence some feedback from people who have actually listened to both of these would be highly appreciated.
My concerns are.
1. The Eikona 2 are claimed to have LF bass extension upto -3dB @ 27Hz in slim MLTL ( 100 x 20 x 24 cms > HxBxD )
How does the Alpair 10 compare to that?
( Bigger cabinet not an issue, but smaller are an obvious advantage )
2. How does the two driver compare in terms of HF extension & cone breakup?
3. How does the two drivers compare in terms of midrange clearity & detail ?
The Eikonas are costlier & have SPL lower by about 4dB compared to the A10 as per specs. I remember reading somewhere that the alpairs don't require BSC. Any input on real world speaker sensitivity comparison after baffle step correction (if reqd) would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance for your help
I assume that you have looked at my MLTL simulation efforts with those drivers. Check out these links:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/265066-mark-audio-alpair-10-3-mltl.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/265994-jordan-eikona-2-designs.html
The Eikona 2 models a little better (lower bass F3 point and a slightly smoother response) than the Alpairs. But either driver will yield excellent performance. I ran the Eikona simulations for several different lengths (40", 35", and 30") so you can see that comparison. I suspect that similar results would be achieved if the Alpair drivers were modeled in shorter enclosures.
Jim
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/265066-mark-audio-alpair-10-3-mltl.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/265994-jordan-eikona-2-designs.html
The Eikona 2 models a little better (lower bass F3 point and a slightly smoother response) than the Alpairs. But either driver will yield excellent performance. I ran the Eikona simulations for several different lengths (40", 35", and 30") so you can see that comparison. I suspect that similar results would be achieved if the Alpair drivers were modeled in shorter enclosures.
Jim
I expect few people have heard both.
I have heard the JX92s (i've had 3 sets thru here), and the Alpair 10.x are definitely better, But word has it that the Eikona is much improved over the JX92 as well.
From the modeling the Alpairs give up some bass extention to the Jordans in exchange for higher efficency. Still, in FHXL, the Alpairs go pretty low.
The Alpairs are on the order of half the cost of the Jordans and i suspect they are neck & neck performance wise.
The old master versus his brilliant apprentise.
dave
I have heard the JX92s (i've had 3 sets thru here), and the Alpair 10.x are definitely better, But word has it that the Eikona is much improved over the JX92 as well.
From the modeling the Alpairs give up some bass extention to the Jordans in exchange for higher efficency. Still, in FHXL, the Alpairs go pretty low.
The Alpairs are on the order of half the cost of the Jordans and i suspect they are neck & neck performance wise.
The old master versus his brilliant apprentise.
dave
I own a pair of JX92S. There is no comparison to the Eikonas.
I've gotten the impression from everything written here, as well as the break-in instructions and warnings online, that the MarkAudio drivers are much more finicky and delicate than the Jordans. That's always been a concern of mine. The Eikonas can handle serious volume with finess.
Any thoughts on that, Dave?
And I tend to think of it as "The brilliant master vs the brilliant apprentice."
I've gotten the impression from everything written here, as well as the break-in instructions and warnings online, that the MarkAudio drivers are much more finicky and delicate than the Jordans. That's always been a concern of mine. The Eikonas can handle serious volume with finess.
Any thoughts on that, Dave?
And I tend to think of it as "The brilliant master vs the brilliant apprentice."
Last edited:
Thanks Jim, for your simulations. The Eikona2 seems to have an LF extension of around 10Hz over the A10.3 in MLTLs!
Dave, can you please comment on F3 the Alpair can afford in your FHXL?
I have got the impression too that the Alpair are indeed of delicate nature.
Mark has mentioned in the specs sheet that his drivers are not to be regarded as general purpose drivers.
Does he mean that his drivers are audiophile stuff only? Or does he mean that we should be very careful driving them given the ultra thin cone & weight optimized voice coil?! Maybe, I should ask Mark.
A little bit of robustness & tolerance for different types of music would be very helpful upto some decent SPL.
Dave, can you please comment on F3 the Alpair can afford in your FHXL?
I have got the impression too that the Alpair are indeed of delicate nature.
Mark has mentioned in the specs sheet that his drivers are not to be regarded as general purpose drivers.
Does he mean that his drivers are audiophile stuff only? Or does he mean that we should be very careful driving them given the ultra thin cone & weight optimized voice coil?! Maybe, I should ask Mark.
A little bit of robustness & tolerance for different types of music would be very helpful upto some decent SPL.
I can't find the sims. I'd guess response into the high 30s, low 40s.
It should be noted that F3 is an artifact of filter theory and is oflittle or no use in comparing extention. Look at F6 or better yet F10.
That is the impression Mark wants so you aeless likely to break them, but i have more dead Jordans here than Mark Audios, even thou i have had at least 100 times more MAs thru here.
dave
Without finding someone who has heard both Eikona 2 and the Mark Audio, it's going to be difficult for the OP to get a balanced assessment. Speculating on whether they're neck and neck is not particularly useful and there's the danger of a PC vs Mac style debate.
I haven't heard the Mark Audio but obviously I listen to the Eikona 2 every day. It's development, via the Eikona 1, took over two years and involved a number of iterations to provide a substantial jump above the performance of the JX92S. The manufacturing cost is over twice that of the JX92S, in part because of the return to production in Europe where Ted could get the quality and control he hadn't been getting elsewhere.
My best recommendation is to read the various reviews of both units and form your own judgment. Independent magazine reviews of Ted's Aurora 800 system (which uses the Eikona 2) are on the way but not scheduled for publication until later in the year.
I haven't heard the Mark Audio but obviously I listen to the Eikona 2 every day. It's development, via the Eikona 1, took over two years and involved a number of iterations to provide a substantial jump above the performance of the JX92S. The manufacturing cost is over twice that of the JX92S, in part because of the return to production in Europe where Ted could get the quality and control he hadn't been getting elsewhere.
My best recommendation is to read the various reviews of both units and form your own judgment. Independent magazine reviews of Ted's Aurora 800 system (which uses the Eikona 2) are on the way but not scheduled for publication until later in the year.
Last edited:
A few comments on my reliability experiences with Mark Audio and Jordan drivers over the years. With both the Jordan JX92S and Mark Audio drivers the metal cone drivers are very delicate and an accidental touch can cause a winkle or dent. The Mark Audio paper cone drivers would be slightly more forgiving for such contact issues.
In my experience the Mark Audio composite (plastic) driver frames/baskets are more rugged than the Jordan cast baskets. I'm not a big fan of the Mark Audio frames as they are larger and thicker than the Jordan cast frames. But the MA frames can accept more abuse than a cast metal frame. I suggest caution when you tighten the holding screws as you mount these drivers. I suspect that you can stress the webbing of the JX92S cast frame if you over tighten one side vs. the other side.
In an extreme test of frames I did receive one shipment of JX92S drivers a few years ago which was apparently dropped by the post office. One driver was completely destroyed while a second one had a cracked basket at one of the fine webs in its structure. Likely the same result would have be realized with either driver brand, so take care with those metal frame drivers.
Bottom line is that both brands have some common possible faults in their structure and materials. So care is necessary in handling and use of these drivers.
In my experience the Mark Audio composite (plastic) driver frames/baskets are more rugged than the Jordan cast baskets. I'm not a big fan of the Mark Audio frames as they are larger and thicker than the Jordan cast frames. But the MA frames can accept more abuse than a cast metal frame. I suggest caution when you tighten the holding screws as you mount these drivers. I suspect that you can stress the webbing of the JX92S cast frame if you over tighten one side vs. the other side.
In an extreme test of frames I did receive one shipment of JX92S drivers a few years ago which was apparently dropped by the post office. One driver was completely destroyed while a second one had a cracked basket at one of the fine webs in its structure. Likely the same result would have be realized with either driver brand, so take care with those metal frame drivers.
Bottom line is that both brands have some common possible faults in their structure and materials. So care is necessary in handling and use of these drivers.
Last edited:
The Eikona 2 uses a wider frame than the JX92S, based on a Scanspeak chassis. It should be more robust than the earlier Vifa frame but I must admit I haven't tried a drop test!
As Jim says, any alloy cone driver needs handling with care, especially when mounting the drive unit. And take great care when anyone under about eight years old comes to visit - bright, shiny cones attract them faster than ferrofluid.
As Jim says, any alloy cone driver needs handling with care, especially when mounting the drive unit. And take great care when anyone under about eight years old comes to visit - bright, shiny cones attract them faster than ferrofluid.
Exactly. I was really hoping someone would come along to my aid
Anyways, thanks a lot to everyone for your inputs.
All I feel I can add is that the Eikona comes from a long, continuous line of research and was designed to be versatile. I learnt recently that our cone maker also makes cones and domes out of more exotic materials like beryllium and titanium, which Ted researched years ago and rejected in favour of the specific alloy and profile used on the Eikona.
I only have experience with the 10.3p but can tell that in the right box it gives solid and low bass without a problem. I othen play dub trough my 10.3p's and it goes lower than a lot of high power scoop (hogs or superscoops) subs of friends . The volume is limited altough... Amateur measurenents brought the f3 in the lower 30's when i did it
I have settled on the Eikona 2's and have not been disappointed:
robust cone, credible power handling, fantastic transient response, great waterfall, smooth response, low modelling frequency, perfect imaging but expensive!
Have not used MA for a while since an earlier version (10.0 I think). They certainly looked good and were good value and well made but the main things I quickly noticed, having worked with Jordans for a while: Cone easily damaged, imaging not quite to my taste, waterfall not so good in side-by-side test, limited power handling, transients not so good. The top end at the time I think was slightly better than JX92 but the Eikona has overtaken it.
Horses for Courses!
robust cone, credible power handling, fantastic transient response, great waterfall, smooth response, low modelling frequency, perfect imaging but expensive!
Have not used MA for a while since an earlier version (10.0 I think). They certainly looked good and were good value and well made but the main things I quickly noticed, having worked with Jordans for a while: Cone easily damaged, imaging not quite to my taste, waterfall not so good in side-by-side test, limited power handling, transients not so good. The top end at the time I think was slightly better than JX92 but the Eikona has overtaken it.
Horses for Courses!
Last edited:
I've not had, nor likely will anytime soon have the opportunity the hear the Eikonas, but just as folks who've heard them have attested to improvements over the most recent 3 generations of Jordans, it should be said that Mark's designs have also advanced.
Even though $110 ea is not exactly entry level budget territory, I think the 10.3 s still offer great performance value
Edit: Colin, the Aurora is a very interesting concept indeed
Even though $110 ea is not exactly entry level budget territory, I think the 10.3 s still offer great performance value
Edit: Colin, the Aurora is a very interesting concept indeed
Last edited:
I'd worry if a driver didn'y need break-in. The mechanical parts will all change with initial use, so whether or not it is required it will happen. Careful breakin allows for optimum performance after this has happened.
Around here drivers spend at least 200 hrs on the break-in bench before we even look at them.
dave
Around here drivers spend at least 200 hrs on the break-in bench before we even look at them.
dave
I don't know any driver i use/used that didn't changed (getting better) with time playing.
Used a TB W3-316b in a little Horn/BR Mix and it sound terrible the first 100-120 hours. Every singer sounded very nasal. Harsh highs. That disappeared and after 150 hrs i was quite pleased with this loudspeaker.
And so were the two other TB speaker i used/use.
And as far as i know TB also don't give any break-in recommendation.
The MA Drivers i use (alpair 7G2, CHP70G1 G2, alpair 10g2, alpair 10p) were all enjoyable after 30 hrs of break-in.
They are like good wine, the older the better
Used a TB W3-316b in a little Horn/BR Mix and it sound terrible the first 100-120 hours. Every singer sounded very nasal. Harsh highs. That disappeared and after 150 hrs i was quite pleased with this loudspeaker.
And so were the two other TB speaker i used/use.
And as far as i know TB also don't give any break-in recommendation.
The MA Drivers i use (alpair 7G2, CHP70G1 G2, alpair 10g2, alpair 10p) were all enjoyable after 30 hrs of break-in.
They are like good wine, the older the better
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.