I do not understand why Ted wants to put the JX92S in only 3 liters, aside from the fact that a small box is desirable. When I plug the driver into some software, I get around 7 liters for a Q of .707. How important is this considering I will have the JX150 for the bottom end. In other words, I know the larger sealed boxes are better for lows, but I will have the lows taken care of by the separate woofer, so will the smaller box work better for the mids, or is Q of .707 more desirable either way you look at it. By the way, the JX150 will be in 53 liters sealed, with a G2si or maybe a G2 coming in at 6 kHz. All slopes are TBD, but I am sure there is a huge amount of flexibility here.
The above 3 drivers seem like a perfect match, especially at 6 Ohms each. One could slam together 6 identical gainclones, without worrying about which one will go where (unless you want to fuss about capacitance banks, but I say give allot to all, and do not worry about it).
I read somewhere on this forum that 2 of the JX125 are preferable to a single JX150, but the space requirements would increase from 53 liters to 90 liters for the same Q! This is not acceptable for this project. Further I would need 2 additional gainclones, if the 1 amp /1 driver strategy is to be followed (not to mention two 6 Ohm loads in parallel are way to low and in series way high).
Please comment, as I have little experience with the sound of different Q's of sealed enclosures. Thanks!
The above 3 drivers seem like a perfect match, especially at 6 Ohms each. One could slam together 6 identical gainclones, without worrying about which one will go where (unless you want to fuss about capacitance banks, but I say give allot to all, and do not worry about it).
I read somewhere on this forum that 2 of the JX125 are preferable to a single JX150, but the space requirements would increase from 53 liters to 90 liters for the same Q! This is not acceptable for this project. Further I would need 2 additional gainclones, if the 1 amp /1 driver strategy is to be followed (not to mention two 6 Ohm loads in parallel are way to low and in series way high).
Please comment, as I have little experience with the sound of different Q's of sealed enclosures. Thanks!
Total Q is a consideration if the driver is run to the Fb, which usually means the woofer only. The JX92 in 3L will have a 4dB response peak at 150 Hz, but if crossed over at 300 Hz or higher it doesn't matter. You could go to 7L if you wanted to crossover at 150 Hz, since the response peak would be 1.5 dB at 100 Hz. Any driver will work best in the smallest enclosure possible that places the response peak outside of its passband.
It all depends how you're using the JX92. If it is a satellite/subwoofer system, a larger enclosure allows you to crossover lower. Thor on the fullrange forum recommends an 8 litre sealed enclosure for the JX92, with a filter on the sub only (the JX92 is allowed to roll off naturally). He uses it without a ribbon super-tweeter.
Alternatively, if you're building a single enclosure per side, the JX53 is the way to go - it will go higher (on its own, no need for an additional tweeter) and be a better match for the JX150. The recommended crossover at 500Hz is pretty simple to implement too.
Colin
Alternatively, if you're building a single enclosure per side, the JX53 is the way to go - it will go higher (on its own, no need for an additional tweeter) and be a better match for the JX150. The recommended crossover at 500Hz is pretty simple to implement too.
Colin
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.