Their membranes are very different. My JX92S felt much thinner than any foil -- I learned by attempting to undo a tiny nick from behind (please don't try). Whereas, I rescued a mangled MAOP5 and simply massaged the somewhat springy thick/stiff cone to a shape that sounded pretty much just like its good mate. They also sounded quite different -- JX92S essentially flat-response throughout an extremely wide range top to bottom (except for a possible dip where hearing is most acute); whereas my few MA (metal A5.2/3, A10.3, MAOP5/7; not sure about paper CHP-90) have raised humps near both top and (not very deep) bottom end. One trait in common though, my Jordan and MAs: not as dynamic especially micro-dynamic articulation, but also bass bouncy-ness, compared to favorites like Axiom80 (Jordan), other vintage alnico, and so-called "drum-paper" (Michael Audio/hifi-bird/isred/MKhifi). A matter of taste I guess.
I have a set of JX92S, and had some Markaudio Alpair 2” drivers at the same time, so I haven’t compared to larger, more recent Markaudio drivers. An audiophile friend and I were experimenting with them and we liked certain performance aspects of both.
The JX92S is a good midrange, and on it’s own with a BSC throws a vivid image between the speakers; a three-dimensional sound that comes out of nowhere and sounds like a singer is standing in the listening space. It can also produce deep bass (with BSC, EQ and enclosure considerations) but is excursion limited. I was getting audible cone flex distortion around 6mm P-P vs the datasheet’s 10mm P-P Xmax, which is a shame, because the bass in a transmission line was quite excellent.
The JX92S benefits from a dedicated tweeter above 6kHz, as the treble isn’t exactly flat or uncolored sounding. The treble was the one thing I didn’t favor in this driver. I believe I crossed a ring radiator tweeter in about 3.5kHz, first order for time and phase alignment. I recommend splurging on Aurum Cantus ribbons, this driver is worth it. The combination of BSC and lowpass required a quasi third-order electrical filter and several notch filters to tame the rising response. The end result however was essentially a flat phase response from a few hundred Hertz to 20kHz.
The little Apairs basically were a bit like mid-tweeters, and were quite high resolution, too. My audiophile friend has them now and feels they’re quite special.
The JX92S is a good midrange, and on it’s own with a BSC throws a vivid image between the speakers; a three-dimensional sound that comes out of nowhere and sounds like a singer is standing in the listening space. It can also produce deep bass (with BSC, EQ and enclosure considerations) but is excursion limited. I was getting audible cone flex distortion around 6mm P-P vs the datasheet’s 10mm P-P Xmax, which is a shame, because the bass in a transmission line was quite excellent.
The JX92S benefits from a dedicated tweeter above 6kHz, as the treble isn’t exactly flat or uncolored sounding. The treble was the one thing I didn’t favor in this driver. I believe I crossed a ring radiator tweeter in about 3.5kHz, first order for time and phase alignment. I recommend splurging on Aurum Cantus ribbons, this driver is worth it. The combination of BSC and lowpass required a quasi third-order electrical filter and several notch filters to tame the rising response. The end result however was essentially a flat phase response from a few hundred Hertz to 20kHz.
The little Apairs basically were a bit like mid-tweeters, and were quite high resolution, too. My audiophile friend has them now and feels they’re quite special.
Addendum: My Mark Audio fullrange drivers with AlMg cone sounded rather like my Monitor Audio Studio 2-ways, which used anodized and/or ceramic coated Al/AlMg throughout, first order XO. The Alpairs more metallic sounding and not as "perfect" as the Moes. The MAOPs were certainly not metallic but like the Alpairs lost a bit of resolution in their polished smoothness of sound. The Moes' signature "gold dome" tweeters were quite special: a burnished edge-rounded sound especially on brass instruments, warm mellifluous soprano voices, steely strings with ample sheen, superb resolution and soundstage, ultra-fi with limited bass -- until the WAW-ish Studio 60 whose mids ran without HPF. My (Beijing) Studio 2 is currently used port-plugged, with Mo 8" woofers to assist.
Last edited:
We went thru 3 JX92 and 1 set of Eikona.
3 of the first, it was hard to believe what we were hearing given their stellar rep. All 4 had a top end that was such that i could not live with them. The first Alpair 10 was similar but not quite as bad. With the Alpair 7 and 10.2 MA made a big jump in quality. A7.3 and A10.3 took that
The metal cones (silver & copper, not grey and gold, those colours only happened in Gen 1) have varying amounts of loss of HF control.
Seems we missed listening to much of this as we listened almost exclusively to EnABLed drivers, and it seems that part of that treatment had a positive effect on control of the HF resonances: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-tweak-and-other-metal-cone-markaudio.409632/
We also have people doing notch filters (@waxx), or the comming situation, given the age of many here, the HF ringing is happening above what they can hear.
Listening off axis also goes a way to alleviating the issues with the audiability of the ringing.
The paper cone Alpairs do a good job of controlling the top. Too good in the opinion of some. The A10p was a favourite among many, i sold at leats 2 to 1, paper to metal. The A6.2p had simialr voicing but these A6s were underappreciated and disappeared. The paper cone Alpair 7p is a good counter example to the stereotype of metal cones. It sounds like a stereotype metal cone driver, whereas the A.7.3 was muxh better behaved. Puzzlekoat and a LOT of break-in did a lot to take the A7p.
dave
3 of the first, it was hard to believe what we were hearing given their stellar rep. All 4 had a top end that was such that i could not live with them. The first Alpair 10 was similar but not quite as bad. With the Alpair 7 and 10.2 MA made a big jump in quality. A7.3 and A10.3 took that
The metal cones (silver & copper, not grey and gold, those colours only happened in Gen 1) have varying amounts of loss of HF control.
Seems we missed listening to much of this as we listened almost exclusively to EnABLed drivers, and it seems that part of that treatment had a positive effect on control of the HF resonances: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-tweak-and-other-metal-cone-markaudio.409632/
We also have people doing notch filters (@waxx), or the comming situation, given the age of many here, the HF ringing is happening above what they can hear.
Listening off axis also goes a way to alleviating the issues with the audiability of the ringing.
The paper cone Alpairs do a good job of controlling the top. Too good in the opinion of some. The A10p was a favourite among many, i sold at leats 2 to 1, paper to metal. The A6.2p had simialr voicing but these A6s were underappreciated and disappeared. The paper cone Alpair 7p is a good counter example to the stereotype of metal cones. It sounds like a stereotype metal cone driver, whereas the A.7.3 was muxh better behaved. Puzzlekoat and a LOT of break-in did a lot to take the A7p.
dave
I have owned the JX92 and many of its metal cone descendants, including: Jordan Eikona 1&2, MA10.3, and EAD E100MKII. The JX92 is eclipsed by all of them.
That said, they're all excellent. Here are my impressions.
The summary:
The EAD is the most neutral/cleanest sounding of the bunch
The Eikona has more midrange character than the others
The MA10.3 is similar to the EAD, but with more "edge"
The Details:
The EAD's Distortion is very low and well controlled. Its response is quite flat up until it starts a steady climb at ~3.5K that peaks at ~15K. This makes the driver bright, but only right on-axis. Move slightly off-axis and it's the most neutral sounding of the bunch (though you do lose some "air"). I think this one is underappreciated, but it's also expensive, and some might find it cold sounding compared to what they know/prefer.
The Eikona has the waviest midrange response of the bunch, a hump/plateau around 10kHz, and doesn't quite reach 20kHz. Off-axis listening mitigates the hump, but at greater expense to "air" and sense of attack than with the EAD or MA. Distortion is very low except for a hump in 2nd and 3rd order distortion right around 3K which coincides with a hump in the response. Equalizing the driver causes the 2nd order to normalize, but the 3rd stays constant. How much you notice its effect (if at all) will really depend on volume. This driver definitely has more character than the EAD, but not in a bad way. It sounds lovely, and is more laid back. I have no doubt many would prefer its sound.
The 10.3's distortion is equal to any. Midrange is very flat, while the very high end is quite elevated and somewhat jagged. This gives the sound a lot of edge and sheen. I wouldn't say harsh (I quite like it) but some may. Moving off-axis reduces this, but it's still got a crisper, edgier character compared to the others. Again, this is not a bad thing. The driver sounds quite excellent, and I have no doubt many may find this driver to be their favorite of the bunch (it also costs considerably less than the others).
That said, they're all excellent. Here are my impressions.
The summary:
The EAD is the most neutral/cleanest sounding of the bunch
The Eikona has more midrange character than the others
The MA10.3 is similar to the EAD, but with more "edge"
The Details:
The EAD's Distortion is very low and well controlled. Its response is quite flat up until it starts a steady climb at ~3.5K that peaks at ~15K. This makes the driver bright, but only right on-axis. Move slightly off-axis and it's the most neutral sounding of the bunch (though you do lose some "air"). I think this one is underappreciated, but it's also expensive, and some might find it cold sounding compared to what they know/prefer.
The Eikona has the waviest midrange response of the bunch, a hump/plateau around 10kHz, and doesn't quite reach 20kHz. Off-axis listening mitigates the hump, but at greater expense to "air" and sense of attack than with the EAD or MA. Distortion is very low except for a hump in 2nd and 3rd order distortion right around 3K which coincides with a hump in the response. Equalizing the driver causes the 2nd order to normalize, but the 3rd stays constant. How much you notice its effect (if at all) will really depend on volume. This driver definitely has more character than the EAD, but not in a bad way. It sounds lovely, and is more laid back. I have no doubt many would prefer its sound.
The 10.3's distortion is equal to any. Midrange is very flat, while the very high end is quite elevated and somewhat jagged. This gives the sound a lot of edge and sheen. I wouldn't say harsh (I quite like it) but some may. Moving off-axis reduces this, but it's still got a crisper, edgier character compared to the others. Again, this is not a bad thing. The driver sounds quite excellent, and I have no doubt many may find this driver to be their favorite of the bunch (it also costs considerably less than the others).
I'll throw a wrench in this thread and introduce you to the SBAcoustics SB65WBAC25-4, if you like small metal cones.
That little driver renders woodwind and stringed instrument like crazy. Its dispersion pattern is closer to a tweeter, and it doesn't ring in the mid-high range like some metal cone drivers out there. Of course, it needs support in the low end, which you say you have already.
It impressed Jim Griffin so much that he made line arrays out of them.
Something to add to your list of 2.5" stellar drivers.
Please do dave's Gloss coat and let us know!I'll throw a wrench in this thread and introduce you to the SBAcoustics SB65WBAC25-4, if you like small metal cones.
That little driver renders woodwind and stringed instrument like crazy. Its dispersion pattern is closer to a tweeter, and it doesn't ring in the mid-high range like some metal cone drivers out there. Of course, it needs support in the low end, which you say you have already.
It impressed Jim Griffin so much that he made line arrays out of them.
Something to add to your list of 2.5" stellar drivers.
Below 2 kHz they're champs, flat response and low distortion. Higher the response goes haywire. Best used in a 2 way IMO.
Do the SB65 "furrowed" narrow annulus cone and black finish dustcap (?) reduce Gloss necessity or effect?
I wrote about coating and transforming 4" AlMg here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ther-metal-cone-markaudio.409632/post-7683601
This seller/maker also sent me an earlier Al cone version; I coated it and sent it back for him to listen and study. In short, (coated) Al extended both ends a little more/flatter than (coated) AlMg, but was less dynamic/realistic/detailed, a bit metallic, cooler sounding. For a system that needed such a sound.
I wrote about coating and transforming 4" AlMg here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ther-metal-cone-markaudio.409632/post-7683601
This seller/maker also sent me an earlier Al cone version; I coated it and sent it back for him to listen and study. In short, (coated) Al extended both ends a little more/flatter than (coated) AlMg, but was less dynamic/realistic/detailed, a bit metallic, cooler sounding. For a system that needed such a sound.
Last edited: