Revisiting Jim Rogers JR149s
Tony L
Administrator
Yes, it was an ultra-high-end thing with a carbon fibre cabinet, which to my mind kind of missed the genius of the original which was very clever and inexpensive in construction. I suspect it was going to be far too expensive to sell.
Both bark up a similar tree, but have slightly different strengths and weaknesses. The LS3/5A has a true reference mid-band quality to this day, the JR149 gets very close, but is more dynamic with better bass.
Martyn Miles
pfm Member
They were shown at the Munich High End Show, 2017.
mandryka
pfm Member
you mean I have to spend another £2K?!
Martyn Miles
pfm Member
Your decision...
mandryka
pfm Member
Tony L
Administrator
The bass on the 149s is amazing for their size IMHO. I’m astonished by how deep and controlled it is. Their limitation is volume, not extension really. It always makes me giggle how good reggae, electronica etc is through them, though I do listen in the near-field. No speaker with a 5” bass is going to fill a huge room.
PS Stick something like Donald Fagen’s Morph The Cat on!
I too found the bass quality and dynamics very appealing on the 149 Mk2 speakers, never really got to do a long term comparison with the Mk1 only a brief one. The most enjoyable aspect for me is the ability to handle and convey subtlety, detail and fabulous imaging even at lower listening levels.
At the moment I am tidying up a second pair of these wonderful speakers and not sure to try and remove the wooden tops or sand and polish them in situ with lots of bubble wrap around the main speaker body etc to protect drive units from dust etc. Also have a pair of Snell K's to polish up a bit that were silver rewired by Audio Note for me a few months ago. I am obviously a bit impressed with some of the older and more classic speaker designs and still think they do a lovely job of conveying a sense of the music in a very rewarding manner and realism.
In a way I think some of the older classic amps, tuners etc are still very good in a similar manner and if maintained, properly refurbished by someone knowledgeable. I am still waiting for a safe time to take personal delivery of a lovely clean looking Leak Stereo 20 amp and even bought an Audio Synthesis Passion passive pre-amp in anticipation so the box count has been increasing but I am sure so will the enjoyment factor. The Leak Stereo 20 should just about drive the JR 149's nicely I hope and theoretically easily drive the Snell K's.
At the moment I am tidying up a second pair of these wonderful speakers and not sure to try and remove the wooden tops or sand and polish them in situ with lots of bubble wrap around the main speaker body etc to protect drive units from dust etc. Also have a pair of Snell K's to polish up a bit that were silver rewired by Audio Note for me a few months ago. I am obviously a bit impressed with some of the older and more classic speaker designs and still think they do a lovely job of conveying a sense of the music in a very rewarding manner and realism.
In a way I think some of the older classic amps, tuners etc are still very good in a similar manner and if maintained, properly refurbished by someone knowledgeable. I am still waiting for a safe time to take personal delivery of a lovely clean looking Leak Stereo 20 amp and even bought an Audio Synthesis Passion passive pre-amp in anticipation so the box count has been increasing but I am sure so will the enjoyment factor. The Leak Stereo 20 should just about drive the JR 149's nicely I hope and theoretically easily drive the Snell K's.
mandryka
pfm Member
ToTo Man
the band not the dog
I've written a fair bit about the mk2 earlier in this thread if you look back. I like them enough to have bought 3 pairs, so I'm sorted if I ever need spares! The first pair I bought were NOS, more or less still sealed in their box having never been used, original foam grilles in pristine condition. The other two pairs were used but measure very similarly to the NOS pair. The variations are subtle enough that you'd struggle to tell the three apart in a blind listening test, which leads me to conclude that the crossover components, Scanspeak tweeters and Focal bass drivers used in mk2 were either more closely matched and/or survive better with age than the crossover components and KEF units used in the mk1.
Tony L
Administrator
How do you mean ‘corrected’? I’ve tried audiophile film-caps (see upthread) and felt it made them sound worse (thin, bright, if very detailed). There is a later crossover, the ‘Type 24’, which is allegedly a Jim Rogers design, though third-party execution. I’ve never heard a pair, though the consensus seems to be they are less good than a sensibly re-capped original pair.
My view is that Jim Rogers knew exactly what he was doing, he voiced the things exceptionally well finding to my mind just the right balance of strengths and weaknesses given the drivers. Now I have them fully restored and dialled in there is nothing I want to change, they are a great pair of mini-monitors that hold up to current competition. I can maybe see the appeal of getting rid of the passive crossover entirely and driving them active with a digital solution, but I don’t think anyone has gone down that route yet. Its not for me, my aim was only ever to find a perfect original pair, and after a lot of effort and expense I think I’m pretty close to what I’d get with a time-machine and a trip to 1979, but I’d be fascinated to see where you could take them in a cost no object active scenario.
My view is that Jim Rogers knew exactly what he was doing, he voiced the things exceptionally well finding to my mind just the right balance of strengths and weaknesses given the drivers. Now I have them fully restored and dialled in there is nothing I want to change, they are a great pair of mini-monitors that hold up to current competition. I can maybe see the appeal of getting rid of the passive crossover entirely and driving them active with a digital solution, but I don’t think anyone has gone down that route yet. Its not for me, my aim was only ever to find a perfect original pair, and after a lot of effort and expense I think I’m pretty close to what I’d get with a time-machine and a trip to 1979, but I’d be fascinated to see where you could take them in a cost no object active scenario.
Yes, I have no doubt knew what he was doing, specifically to cut costs whilst making the best XO he could, however it's compromised a good example being no properly constructed inductor and initial poor quality component selection. I'm not interested in the active route. I would be interested in a properly designed pair of XO's with inherent design faults removed and with decent inductors and caps/resistors.
Tony L
Administrator
There’s also the physical space thing, if you went for typically pretentious boutique audiophile components you’d need a crossover box the size of the speakers! The thing that is so clever about both the JR149 and LS3/5A is they managed to get class-leading results (even now!) in a very compact form and at a sensible price. That’s proper engineering!
I’ll certainly be interested to hear how you get on if you do build modern crossovers, though what I learned from replacing the caps with “better” ones, plus a lot of experience with Tannoys (expensive third party and DIY) is a change very often isn’t an improvement! I’d certainly expect to pretty much start again from scratch as just throwing boutique components at Jim Rogers’ original design will almost certainly not work. He very clearly understood exactly what he was doing and factored-in the behaviour of the components he used.
After I’d acclimatised I was surprised just how bad the film caps sounded in comparison to Falcon’s electrolytics, they just lost the balance and coherence of the speaker despite initially fooling me with a perceived increase in clarity. I found just the same with the Tannoys, and after much experimenting/expense use untouched original crossovers there.
PS Whatever you do I strongly advise you keep a stock pair of crossovers as a benchmark. It is so, so easy to fall down a rabbit hole with no firm benchmark to AB against. If you do decide to go this route I do actually have the second pair of crossovers (the ones with film caps) I’d sell as I’m done experimenting now. My JR149s are actually finished! \o/
I’ll certainly be interested to hear how you get on if you do build modern crossovers, though what I learned from replacing the caps with “better” ones, plus a lot of experience with Tannoys (expensive third party and DIY) is a change very often isn’t an improvement! I’d certainly expect to pretty much start again from scratch as just throwing boutique components at Jim Rogers’ original design will almost certainly not work. He very clearly understood exactly what he was doing and factored-in the behaviour of the components he used.
After I’d acclimatised I was surprised just how bad the film caps sounded in comparison to Falcon’s electrolytics, they just lost the balance and coherence of the speaker despite initially fooling me with a perceived increase in clarity. I found just the same with the Tannoys, and after much experimenting/expense use untouched original crossovers there.
PS Whatever you do I strongly advise you keep a stock pair of crossovers as a benchmark. It is so, so easy to fall down a rabbit hole with no firm benchmark to AB against. If you do decide to go this route I do actually have the second pair of crossovers (the ones with film caps) I’d sell as I’m done experimenting now. My JR149s are actually finished! \o/
337alant
Negatively Biased
Some pretty strong claims made there?, care to share with us exactly what compromises you consider JR made and what impact they make to the sound stock speakers and what changes you have made to improve on the original design?.
Alan
Tony L
Administrator
I can understand audiophiles brought up on today’s film capacitors, air-core inductors etc turning their nose up at the 149 crossover with its electrolytic caps and iron cores, level pot etc. IIRC one inductor value is actually split across two components to fit it into the available space!
I have huge respect for genuinely innovative and clever design, and that’s what I see in the JR149s. Its easy to view them in today’s market of boutique £3k LS3/5As etc as they do perform at around that level, but at the time they were not an expensive speaker at all. IIRC they were about the same price as a pair of Ditton 15s, which was the default ‘mid-fi’ speaker. The LS3/5A being a tenner or two dearer, I assume due to the BBC licence fee more than actual construction costs.
PS One thing I’d love to hear is a JR149 with an LS3/5A crossover! To my ears there is a different set of strengths/weaknesses between them, the JR149 trading better dynamics and bass extension for just a tiny hint of B110 quack/harshness. The LS3/5A tuning it out entirely, but not packing the quite same punch. Neither is right or wrong, I’d just be curious to know what they’s do with the other’s crossover!
I have huge respect for genuinely innovative and clever design, and that’s what I see in the JR149s. Its easy to view them in today’s market of boutique £3k LS3/5As etc as they do perform at around that level, but at the time they were not an expensive speaker at all. IIRC they were about the same price as a pair of Ditton 15s, which was the default ‘mid-fi’ speaker. The LS3/5A being a tenner or two dearer, I assume due to the BBC licence fee more than actual construction costs.
PS One thing I’d love to hear is a JR149 with an LS3/5A crossover! To my ears there is a different set of strengths/weaknesses between them, the JR149 trading better dynamics and bass extension for just a tiny hint of B110 quack/harshness. The LS3/5A tuning it out entirely, but not packing the quite same punch. Neither is right or wrong, I’d just be curious to know what they’s do with the other’s crossover!
Stunsworth
pfm Member
In the original Hi-Fi Choice Loudspeakers book From 1976 the JR149s have an RRP of £110 and the Chartwell LS3/5A £125. There’s no review of the Ditton 15s, but an advertiser has them for £85. That’s likely to be with a discount
Tony L
Administrator
Ditton 15s were about £100-110 IIRC and I think the later XR variant was out by that time. It was a hugely successful speaker, first introduced in the mid-60s, so tons of them about and typically highly discounted. The 149s and LS3/5As were certainly more niche market.
I remember Ditton 15s being absolutely everywhere, I knew at least three friend’s with family systems ending in them (usually a Japanese receiver and PL12D or Trio KD1033 upstream). I’d put money on them being the biggest selling UK speaker of all time. Surprisingly it is getting a lot harder to find a really nice pair of them second hand.