Big fan or Mark Audio drivers. I've had quite a few come through my doors and have kept my 7.3 now for quite a long time. Having had the Alpair 10.2 and 10.3 before (loved them) I was wondering if anyone here could weigh in on how the Alpair 11 MAOP (KJF Audio) and the Jordan Eikona 2 might do head to head. Plan is to have them in bookshelf enclosures for the time being but may eventually put them in larger floor standing cabinets.
Any help would be appreciated. Especially curious if someone can let me know if they've heard the Alpair 11 MAOP compared to the rest of the MA lineup.
Cheers,
Steven
Any help would be appreciated. Especially curious if someone can let me know if they've heard the Alpair 11 MAOP compared to the rest of the MA lineup.
Cheers,
Steven
I doubt anyone here has compared any of those drivers to the MAOPs. I almost pulled the trigger on a pair 10 MAOPs a year ago, but never did. That said...
I can highly recommend the Eikona 2 as one of the finest drivers in its class. I compared it to the the 10.3M and found it to be its superior in terms of bass extension, an neutrality. I also found it to have a cleaner high end, though less of it than the 10.3M.
If you are interested in the Eikona II, you might also want to check out the EAD E100HD MK II. It doesn't get much love on these forums, but it's at least the equal of the Eikona II, in my opinion.
The Eikona II is smoother sounding, in part, I'm sure, due to the fact that it has less rise in the high end (and less extension in general) than the EAD. The EAD has a raised high end similar to the Alpairs, but with better cone control; or at least that's what I assume makes its high end sound so much cleaner.
In any case, while I'm very skeptical of the "cone treatments" some people tout for full range drivers, the MAOP seems to have some serious science behind it. I remember reading -- from EJ Jordan and others -- that a crystalline structure the likes of which MAOP is supposed to create is ideal for reproducing tiny details in sound, as other more elastic materials/structures (like paper) tend to smudge details. Someone who knows better can probably explain that a lot better than I.
I can highly recommend the Eikona 2 as one of the finest drivers in its class. I compared it to the the 10.3M and found it to be its superior in terms of bass extension, an neutrality. I also found it to have a cleaner high end, though less of it than the 10.3M.
If you are interested in the Eikona II, you might also want to check out the EAD E100HD MK II. It doesn't get much love on these forums, but it's at least the equal of the Eikona II, in my opinion.
The Eikona II is smoother sounding, in part, I'm sure, due to the fact that it has less rise in the high end (and less extension in general) than the EAD. The EAD has a raised high end similar to the Alpairs, but with better cone control; or at least that's what I assume makes its high end sound so much cleaner.
In any case, while I'm very skeptical of the "cone treatments" some people tout for full range drivers, the MAOP seems to have some serious science behind it. I remember reading -- from EJ Jordan and others -- that a crystalline structure the likes of which MAOP is supposed to create is ideal for reproducing tiny details in sound, as other more elastic materials/structures (like paper) tend to smudge details. Someone who knows better can probably explain that a lot better than I.
There's a brief explanation on their web page: Markaudio MAOP 11 Full Range Speaker Driver | KJF Audio
jeff
I have compared the Alpair 11MS and the Eikona 2 extensively and they are very similar in my opinion. The Eikona being a little smoother with a bigger soundstage. The Alpair 11 has more dynamics and has a more forward presentation. If money were not a consideration I might choose the Eikona 2 but value for money the Alpair 11 wins every time! Overall the Eikona 2 does have a better build quality and looks more robust.
Steve,
(i have your email sitting here to answer)
I have not heard the A11ms MAOP, but in the experience i do have, (A7.3/A7 MAOP) the MAOPs take the Mark Audio a notch higher.
I have directly compared the A11ms (stock) in SeaStack ML-TL vrs Jordan Eikona (stock) in Hawking Memorial Obelisk ML-TL and the (much less expensive) A11ms came out clearly ahead. I expect the A11ms MAOP would smke th eJordan (i don’t know the price of the new MAOP, but any MAOP is hard to get as yeild is very small). If you can get a pair outside of Japan, go for it.
You have to use a large box and some effort to get the bass of the A11ms to match the EIkona.
dave
(i have your email sitting here to answer)
I have not heard the A11ms MAOP, but in the experience i do have, (A7.3/A7 MAOP) the MAOPs take the Mark Audio a notch higher.
I have directly compared the A11ms (stock) in SeaStack ML-TL vrs Jordan Eikona (stock) in Hawking Memorial Obelisk ML-TL and the (much less expensive) A11ms came out clearly ahead. I expect the A11ms MAOP would smke th eJordan (i don’t know the price of the new MAOP, but any MAOP is hard to get as yeild is very small). If you can get a pair outside of Japan, go for it.
You have to use a large box and some effort to get the bass of the A11ms to match the EIkona.
dave
I have the advantage of being familiar to some extent with all the drivers mentioned. I don't propose to get involved in a 'x is "better" than y' because that assumes they all have the same design objectives etc., which is not the case. However:
The EAD unit is, to the best of my knowledge, essentially the old Jordan JX92S with some relatively minor modifications, dating from the time when Ted sold the company (latterly reviving it with the first generation Eikona). The Eikona is a descendent of this unit, albeit relatively distantly. The main cone may be the same or closely related, but that's about it. The MAOP 11 on the MA website is actually based on the Pluvia 11, not the Alpair 11MS, albeit with a few other changes beside the cone, or it was the last I heard. As far as I know there is an MAOP unit based on the 11MS coming, but I'm not sure if it's been released yet. The oxidised surface of the cone (in effect it converts the surfaces of the alloy cone into a form of ceramic) alters the stiffness / damping profile of the substrate, so they typically do sound a little different, but the details of this vary depending on the unit in question. Typically they're a little more linear. All are very good drivers, so it rather depends what you want and how much you have to spend.
The EAD unit is, to the best of my knowledge, essentially the old Jordan JX92S with some relatively minor modifications, dating from the time when Ted sold the company (latterly reviving it with the first generation Eikona). The Eikona is a descendent of this unit, albeit relatively distantly. The main cone may be the same or closely related, but that's about it. The MAOP 11 on the MA website is actually based on the Pluvia 11, not the Alpair 11MS, albeit with a few other changes beside the cone, or it was the last I heard. As far as I know there is an MAOP unit based on the 11MS coming, but I'm not sure if it's been released yet. The oxidised surface of the cone (in effect it converts the surfaces of the alloy cone into a form of ceramic) alters the stiffness / damping profile of the substrate, so they typically do sound a little different, but the details of this vary depending on the unit in question. Typically they're a little more linear. All are very good drivers, so it rather depends what you want and how much you have to spend.
The differences between the EAD E100HD MKII and the JX92s are not slight.
The cone, cap, and surround are very close, but they were refined. The magnet/motor is entirely different, redesigned from the bottom up.
The redesign made a *very* noticable difference. The response is much smoother, and without even a hint of the harshness and ringing that were the JX92's great weaknesses.
I should also add: I had a JX92, Eikona, Eikona 2, Alpair 10.3M, and EAD E100HD MK II all on hand at once to compare. I didn't compare based on memory. I did it side by side. There is no comparison between a JX92 and E100HD MKII.
Congratulations. I did too; alas, I didn't find the profound changes that you did, nor did I note any equally significant functional changes to the structure; some, to be sure. Just goes to show though, one person's 'minor modifications' is another person's 'no comparison'. And also, possibly, that batch variation played a role toward the end of the JX92S's life.
Last edited:
I know it’s probably considered sacrilege to mention Tang Band in the same breath as the title subject drivers. But before spending the kind of money this class of drivers ask for, I would take a hard look at the W5-2143. Well made cast aluminum frame, nice cone and phase plug. It has a very flat-smooth response and great bass extension. 90dB sensitive and 19L vas, Qts of 0.38. Very suited to compact vented designs. The top end is also very impressive. $60
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-958--tang-band-w5-2143-spec-sheet.pdf
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-958--tang-band-w5-2143-spec-sheet.pdf
Yes, I've only heard the Eikona so can't comment. It would be nice hear from other than the usual suspects.
If your "congratulations" at the beginning with sarcastic/snide, (I strongly suspect it was, but you never know via text) then I apologize if you got the impression from my comment about testing all the drivers at once that I was bragging or suggesting you and others hadn't.
I often see people make comparisons based on listening done months or years apart rather than side-by-side, and since the products we're talking about were separated by decades, it seemed important to point out how I drew my conclusions. A side-by-side is much more valid than "with 8 years between listenings."
I heard the differences easily, and was also able to measure them. Flawed measurements, for sure, but since everything was equal except the drivers, at least good enough for a basic comparison, no?
My JX92S were the pre-EAD white label units, so yeah, maybe they were part of an off batch?
In any case...
I don't consider redesigning the entire magnet structure of a speaker to be minor. But yes, all in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe I'm falling for marketing exaggeration? According to Anders over at EAD:
The magnet is still a t-yoke design, but with a copper cap and "sculpted" with the help of VIFA to reduce distortion and even the response. The cone/spider/surround were also tweaked to help iron out the response and reduce resonances in the extreme upper treble and mid-range.
These changes are only present in the newest version of the driver: the "HD MKII." And Ted Jordan had nothing to do with them.
Last edited:
Not at all, life's too short for that. It was a literal remark; not many have that opportunity, so you are very fortunate in being able to do so.
Just so, and having passed away a few years ago (and having brought Jordan as a company back subsequent to the EAD sale / arrangement) it would certainly have been a mite tricky for him to have done, at least in a direct sense. Actually, as far as I'm aware, Ted himself was more of a theoretician than a practical engineer -plenty of the latter of course, & far more than most of us could ever aspire to, but that wasn't his real specialism per se, & he would often allow others to handle some of the implementation while he focused on other things.
The JX92S batch I suspect you're referring to (it sounds likely) was notorious for having some issues; Dave found the same, as did a few others on this forum, including myself I when a pair briefly passed through here. Be that as it may, the EAD units that also passed though here were excellent drivers which I'm happy to recommend, but I didn't see many major differences in fundamental principle from the older JX92S units I also had present at the time. Variations as noted of course, & none the worse for it (likely better in a technical sense), but the baseline T/S wasn't all that far off, nor their general FR, cone etc. I can't comment on HD levels as I didn't have time to measure it, although I'd expect the motor changes to lower it. Sonically however, to me they were decently close to the JX92S (as in good examples of the latter) which makes them a very good driver indeed; I wish they had a higher profile here.
Just so, and having passed away a few years ago (and having brought Jordan as a company back subsequent to the EAD sale / arrangement) it would certainly have been a mite tricky for him to have done, at least in a direct sense.
Actually, as far as I'm aware, Ted himself was more of a theoretician than a practical engineer -plenty of the latter of course, & far more than most of us could ever aspire to, but that wasn't his real specialism per se, & he would often allow others to handle some of the implementation while he focused on other things. The JX92S batch I suspect you're referring to (it sounds likely) was notorious for having some issues; Dave found the same, as did a few others on this forum, including myself I when a pair briefly passed through here. Be that as it may, the EAD units that also passed though here were excellent drivers which I'm happy to recommend, but I didn't see many major differences in fundamental principle from the older JX92S units I also had present at the time. Variations as noted of course, & none the worse for it (likely better in a technical sense), but the baseline T/S wasn't all that far off, nor their general FR, cone etc. I can't comment on HD levels as I didn't have time to measure it, although I'd expect the motor changes to lower it. Sonically however, to me they were decently close to the JX92S (as in good examples of the latter) which makes them a very good driver indeed; I wish they had a higher profile here.
Last edited:
Why on earth have someone to spend so much money for a driver like Jordan E100HD MKII (not at all impressed by the frequency response above 8Khz) or MAOP 11 ? Both of them 4 Ohms (I hate/avoid 4 Ohms). I haven't heard "live" any of the two. For the last one (MAOP 10) there are in "YouTube" some very impressive live recordings by "spc.jpn.org" at 2,5 meters distance on a TWTD-13.5T speaker box. I like very much the box but I'll try it with a "scanspeak" or a "vifa" and if the sound "image" suits my tastes maybe I'll try a tangbang W4-xxxx or W5-xxxx as xrk971 suggests
Last edited:
I doubt there is any single reason shared by all buyers. Whether you as an individual are impressed with the EAD or MA's FR is of course your take; objectively speaking, it presumably it isn't shared by those who buy them.
Well, if you don't like 4ohm units for some reason, then fair enough: we all have our preferences, but I'm afraid you are mistaken in calling either of these drive units 4ohm units. The EAD is rated as 5.76ohm Re, placing it in the 6ohm category, and the MAOP 11 is in fact an 8ohm nominal, with a rated Re of 7.2ohms. Both of these are clearly stated on their data sheets / published information:
EAD: https://cdn.abicart.com/shop/17596/art89/35947689-6b6ca3-E100HD_MKII_HQ_v1.5_large.pdf
MA: Markaudio MAOP 11 Full Range Speaker Driver | KJF Audio