or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Official JTR speaker thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official JTR speaker thread - Page 427

post #12781 of 18478
There is a train of thought that having full range speakers for movies is ideal so the sub can actually only be assigned to the Dolby Digital or DTS .1 channel unique content rather than trying to reproduce a mesh of every channel. I've never had the capability or opportunity to test that idea because I never have owned true full range mains and surrounds.

People who have tried it, seem to say they enjoy it. I personally have not tested and I'm aware of no documented blind testing.

True 95 dB speakers are still easily be driven to reference (0) by a THX rated AVR. That is still significantly more sensitive than THX standard minimum specs (85 dB minimum with 20dB of headroom) allow for a certified THX AVR to hit reference levels in the given size room. (based on THX certification level. THX Ultra is good for a 3,000 cubic foot room at 85dB for instance).

http://www.thx.com/consumer/thx-technology/thx-reference-level/

http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/thx-certification-performance-categories/
Edited by Archaea - 11/20/13 at 6:18am
post #12782 of 18478
The 24" depth could make placement difficult. Perhaps the JBL cinema approach (wide and shallow) would be easier for room integration. Wide baffles are not a negative for SQ based on my limited knowledge.
post #12783 of 18478
Also, in typical JTR style, stating your design goal to play to 20hz REALLY means means playing to 20hz. Jeff said on his JTR page that three of these towers (L/R/C) would be the about the equivalent of two orbit shifters. (in that case I doubt he's talking about using an AVR to power them wink.gif -- but an AVR should easily get the pair in full range output to reference based on THX Ultra certified spec in a 3500 cubic foot room.)

Name one other L/C/R in existence that could claim that? There maybe something, but I've not heard of it!

Flagship it is!
Edited by Archaea - 11/20/13 at 6:19am
post #12784 of 18478
^^^^^ Perhaps the new name should be: JTR Dominator 215

biggrin.gif
post #12785 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIEGAR View Post




For those fortunate enough to be attending Gorilla83's speaker GTG in January... I wonder if Jeff has a "big" debut in the back of his mind??? Hmmm...
If he does, he will not be going home with them, I will buy them smile.gif
post #12786 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

Sounds like one of them might be and as a full range speaker, and if they are 95db efficiency, then it will be needing a pretty good amp to drive it. That argument is already being made for the 101db Noesis 212. smile.gifwink.gif
In thinking about this I seriously doubt there will be many (if any) folks selling the Noesis to jump at what will certainly be (at least in the case of the 215) a much more expensive speaker. Archaea called it a "Flagship" loudspeaker for JTR and I think that is right on. The issues that Doc brought up are also valid so using the 215 as LCR in a HT environment would be a risky proposition without a lot of planning and forethought. It appears to be a true 2 channel monster flat to 20hz incorporating that amazing CD that we Noesis owners have come to love. I can see the 215 as incredible in a two channel music priority system (sans subs).

I suppose a pair of the 215's along with the 212HT as center and some additional sub woofage might give someone the ultimate movie/2 channel music system and I guess that's where my mind went at least initially. Honestly, I was thinking the 210 might be the answer for such a system but as others have stated only reaching down to 38Hz might make the 210 a non-starter.

I see developments like this as good for the brand and Jeff is clearly listening to comments about the need for a full range capable loudspeaker. I don't think there is any Noesis owner who wouldn't want to hear what Jeff could do with a speaker like the 215. That doesn't mean that we are ready to scrap our 212's (or even 228's) and jump ship. It is just another interesting alternative in a growing line of products and I for one can't wait to hear it. cool.gif

As far as a price increase goes, it is I'm sure it's going to be nominal and directly related to an increase in material costs. I remember Mark Seaton telling me (and this was a few years ago) that Jeff's margins were too low. I believe that this is like all of his price increases over the years. It isn't Jeff moving to higher profit margins, but rather maintaining those relatively lean margins by offsetting costs.
If I had to guess on pricing, I would say we are looking at around $2800 to $3500 a piece, ball park of course. We really no nothing of the speaker so hard to say, but this would be my guess.
post #12787 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

Jeff said on his JTR page that three of these towers (L/R/C) would be the about the equivalent of two orbit shifters.
WOW..I had not read that before. That would be brutal..in an awesome kind of way smile.gif
post #12788 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

There is a train of thought that having full range speakers for movies is ideal so the sub can actually only be assigned to the Dolby Digital or DTS .1 channel unique content rather than trying to reproduce a mesh of every channel. I've never had the capability or opportunity to test that idea because I never have owned true full range mains and surrounds.

People who have tried it, seem to say they enjoy it. I personally have not tested and I'm aware of no documented blind testing.

True 95 dB speakers are still easily be driven to reference (0) by a THX rated AVR. That is still significantly more sensitive than THX standard minimum specs (85 dB minimum with 20dB of headroom) allow for a certified THX AVR to hit reference levels in the given size room. (based on THX certification level. THX Ultra is good for a 3,000 cubic foot room at 85dB for instance).

http://www.thx.com/consumer/thx-technology/thx-reference-level/

http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/thx-certification-performance-categories/

Can't wait for the T-Amp test of the 215 ... tongue.gifsmile.gif
post #12789 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefdvr27 View Post

If I had to guess on pricing, I would say we are looking at around $2800 to $3500 a piece, ball park of course. We really no nothing of the speaker so hard to say, but this would be my guess.

i have a feeling that it will be WAY more. Saying that 3 speakers will have equivalent bass output to 2x OS, could very possibly mean that these speakers would be active to a certain extent.
post #12790 of 18478
Im gonna be these will retail for 3k each.
post #12791 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

Im gonna be these will retail for 3k each.

Hard to speculate on price but I agree. We know they would be more than the Noesis 212. Likely bigger cabinet, different crossover, and beefed up woofers. The tricky part is when you head north of 3K, there is a lot of competition. The Seaton Cat12s for example have built in amps and retail for 3.6K (not saying they are better or worse...just giving an example of what else is available in that price range).

Knowing nothing about speaker design (so hopefully this doesn't sound ignorant), I wonder if using the Noesis 212 body and compression driver and just upgrading the 12 woofer and crossover would be the sweet spot between performance and cost?
Edited by Frohlich - 11/20/13 at 8:15am
post #12792 of 18478
Very interested to see how this pans out. I love the concept of a full range speaker that can kick you in the teeth with awesomeness. I definitely have the amp power to make them sing, now only if I had the $$ to buy them to begin with :-p
post #12793 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

Im gonna be these will retail for 3k each.

Speculation is fun ... I'm guessing more like three and a half K ea for the 15. Those will not be PE drivers and this speaker should perform well beyond anything being discussed here ... smile.gif
Edited by RMK! - 11/20/13 at 8:17am
post #12794 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

Only thing I can figure is maybe he would prefer not to compete directly with his friend Mark Seatons 12c and 8c in his choice of using 15s and 10s???

Meh....The self-powered or "active" approach is Mark's forte. The passive double brutal SPL approach is Jeff's. Sticking to that, neither will step on each other's toes and remain in their own realms. Simply offering a more full range design is not as huge of a deal as two speaker designs slowly but surely coming together to something way to similar that it breaks off each other's market share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by countryWV View Post

Full range fronts with 15" woofers XO at 40hz to a Pair of Cap S2s should cover the frequency range from 10hz up with Authority. Seven of them would be even better.smile.gif

I doubt anyone will complain about Not enough Mid-bass.
Chris

No im sure they wouldn't.

I want to just put in my little .02 here. When I went about designing the SEOS TD12x combo, my main objective was to have them flat to at least one octave below the intended crossover point. I have always argued this is a huge benefit. Going even further, the design ended up yielding a dead flat response to somewhere just a shade above 20hz, with no EQ. I have to say there was really a WHOLE lot of times where I would want to listen to music after the Fiance/roommates had gone to sleep and didn't feel like engaging the subs. I would then just set the AVR to direct mode and enjoy the full range-ness of the SEOS builds, and it was fantastic! The ability to run full range, or cross your mains even lower to your subs is a definite advantage in more ways than one IME. Clearing up headroom on your subs where they may not do quite as well up top is one thing, but when your mains are perfectly capable of that space without any BS specs claiming things they really CANT do? It is quite wonderful.

This also provides a better and more seamless transition at crossover point. I do believe that some of the benefit carp was seeing in his response by raising his XO was due to the fact he was setting an XO at the same(ish) rolloff point of the speaker, and it was having negative consequences. I at least experienced similar with my old T-12's where the XO needed some massaging in my particular room to sound right.
post #12795 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIEGAR View Post


For those fortunate enough to be attending Gorilla83's speaker GTG in January... I wonder if Jeff has a "big" debut in the back of his mind??? Hmmm...

He does know his audience...

For those that were at my place in October 2012 for the subwoofer shootout - the Noesis 212HT made their debut. Just sayin. biggrin.gif
post #12796 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla83 View Post

For those that were at my place in October 2012 for the subwoofer shootout - the Noesis 212HT made their debut. Just sayin. biggrin.gif
2 months from initial design to production speaker, hope Jeff makes it in time.

I'll buy a set depending on the review thread that will spawn from your gtg =)
post #12797 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Meh....The self-powered or "active" approach is Mark's forte. The passive double brutal SPL approach is Jeff's. Sticking to that, neither will step on each other's toes and remain in their own realms. Simply offering a more full range design is not as huge of a deal as two speaker designs slowly but surely coming together to something way to similar that it breaks off each other's market share.
No im sure they wouldn't.

I want to just put in my little .02 here. When I went about designing the SEOS TD12x combo, my main objective was to have them flat to at least one octave below the intended crossover point. I have always argued this is a huge benefit. Going even further, the design ended up yielding a dead flat response to somewhere just a shade above 20hz, with no EQ. I have to say there was really a WHOLE lot of times where I would want to listen to music after the Fiance/roommates had gone to sleep and didn't feel like engaging the subs. I would then just set the AVR to direct mode and enjoy the full range-ness of the SEOS builds, and it was fantastic! The ability to run full range, or cross your mains even lower to your subs is a definite advantage in more ways than one IME. Clearing up headroom on your subs where they may not do quite as well up top is one thing, but when your mains are perfectly capable of that space without any BS specs claiming things they really CANT do? It is quite wonderful.

This also provides a better and more seamless transition at crossover point. I do believe that some of the benefit carp was seeing in his response by raising his XO was due to the fact he was setting an XO at the same(ish) rolloff point of the speaker, and it was having negative consequences. I at least experienced similar with my old T-12's where the XO needed some massaging in my particular room to sound right.

Great post! Now your making me want them, lol

To your point, the reason I went with the vented Noesis was to gain as much ground below crossover as I could. I just haven't considered anything below an f3 of 60 Hz beneficial for my bass management scheme. But keep talking, you're winning me over smile.gif
Edited by Gooddoc - 11/20/13 at 8:50am
post #12798 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

Speculation is fun ... I'm guessing more like three and a half K ea for the 15. Those will not be PE drivers and this speaker should perform well beyond anything being discussed here ... smile.gif

Just one man's opinion, but at 3.5K he would be up against a lot of competition. I know Jeff's margins are thin so this isn't a comment on profit margins at all, just that would limit his customer base both from a pure cost standpoint and also from competition standpoint point. You are starting to play in Legacy, Aerial, Paradigm Signature space.
post #12799 of 18478
^^^^^Exactly!

And I say to Jeff: Bring it!

The Noesis SQ can compete with the best. Only thing is that Jeff has to consider aesthetics a high priority as that is important to that demographic.
post #12800 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

^^^^^Exactly!

And I say to Jeff: Bring it!

The Noesis SQ can compete with the best. Only thing is that Jeff has to consider aesthetics a high priority as that is important to that demographic.

looking at Jeffs speakers, i can tell that the Full range will be a big rectangular box =p
Veneer probably still optional
post #12801 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

Im gonna be these will retail for 3k each.
This is a good guess. With the 10% frequent buyer discount maybe as low as $2700. Of coarse $2999 may be the introductory/10% discounted price with a $3299 Regular price.
The cabinet has to be bigger but those full range 15" woofers will be around $300 each.
I would guess they are going to weigh 180 to 200 pounds.
Chris
Edited by countryWV - 11/20/13 at 9:24am
post #12802 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohlich View Post

Hard to speculate on price but I agree. We know they would be more than the Noesis 212. Likely bigger cabinet, different crossover, and beefed up woofers. The tricky part is when you head north of 3K, there is a lot of competition. The Seaton Cat12s for example have built in amps and retail for 3.6K (not saying they are better or worse...just giving an example of what else is available in that price range).
The Seaton Cats are what make me think these will be in the 3K range, but cannot go off of that, but certainly a good place to guess from. I have been looking at 2ch full range speakers for the last year or so and been looking at a few from the Salk lineup and certainly the Cat 12's, but I am certainly excited to hear the news on the new JTR's. I plan on building a little 2ch set up when I move everything in to my new media room. I am using the word "little" loosely biggrin.gif
post #12803 of 18478
i hope someone convinces Jeff that 24" deep, is wayyyy too deep.
post #12804 of 18478
Jeff said on Facebook that it would be more like 22.5" deep. I asked about 3 12" drivers in a single full range cabinet. I'm hoping that would yield something similar to 2 15s in a smaller cabinet. Even 4 12" drivers. biggrin.gif
Edited by Dbuudo07 - 11/20/13 at 9:18am
post #12805 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryWV View Post


This is a good guess. With the 10% frequent buyer discount maybe as low as $2700. Of coarse $2999 may be the introductory/10% discounted price with a $3299 Regular price.
The cabinet has to be bigger but those full range 15" woofers will be around $300 each.
I would guess they are going to weigh 180 to 200 pounds.
Chris

300$ for both maybe. drivers are not expensive, only their markup is. Look at what SI, FI,Dayton,mach5 can offer for around 250, and thats with markup retail.
the soft parts for the SI drivers are about 90$. if that and thats for the 18s and they perform awesome for their price.
post #12806 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohlich View Post

Just one man's opinion, but at 3.5K he would be up against a lot of competition. I know Jeff's margins are thin so this isn't a comment on profit margins at all, just that would limit his customer base both from a pure cost standpoint and also from competition standpoint point. You are starting to play in Legacy, Aerial, Paradigm Signature space.

The 215 looks to be the consensus most marketable of the two designs. If he builds this speaker (and it appears he will) he will be in a competitive space price wise but (and it's a big one tongue.gif ), my guess is it will out perform all that you have mentioned and most other "full range speakers" by a good margin. Jeff has been discussing some high gloss marine finishes that should help a bit with aesthetics issues but that will also increase the cost a bit.

As a flagship product it won't be for everyone and probably beyond the reach of his typical client. But my guess is it will be an incredible bargain for those that want a full range design and, can pay the toll.
post #12807 of 18478
Update: Jeff just said if he increases the height to 72", the extension reaches 18hz.
post #12808 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

300$ for both maybe. drivers are not expensive, only their markup is. Look at what SI, FI,Dayton,mach5 can offer for around 250, and thats with markup retail.
the soft parts for the SI drivers are about 90$. if that and thats for the 18s and they perform awesome for their price.
I would imagine he will be going with Acoustic Elegance. I think they are walking distance from each other. biggrin.gif
Chris
post #12809 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

The 215 looks to be the consensus most marketable of the two designs. If he builds this speaker (and it appears he will) he will be in a competitive space price wise but (and it's a big one tongue.gif ), my guess is it will out perform all that you have mentioned and most other "full range speakers" by a good margin.
I agree with this.^^^^ If the Catalyst is going to be equal to the 215 it will have to be a Catalyst 15.smile.gif
Chris
post #12810 of 18478
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryWV View Post


I agree with this.^^^^ If the Catalyst is going to be equal to the 215 it will have to be a Catalyst 15.smile.gif
Chris

Nope. The Cat uses a proprietary version of the AE TD12x where the xmax is close to double their other pro-style surround offerings. If Jeff doesn't go with the "s" or "x" variants and opts for a similar type of speaker that he uses now, the cat12's bottom end would still be on par with the 215 design.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Official JTR speaker thread