advertisement


Revisiting Jim Rogers JR149s

It still amazes me that we are still finding variations for this excellent speaker. I used mine for the first time in quite sometime with a 300b amp, what an amazing sound I heard. I would say that they really need the right amp to make them sing, they are such vibrant performers.
 
I need to buy some forks/spades to fit on speaker cables for my JR149s. What size is the bolt on the crossover that clamps the speaker cable (M3.5?).

regards

Kevin
 
Thanks. I reckon that’s approx. 3.6mm outer diameter of the thread.

I guess a M3.5 spade/fork can be made to fit.

regards

Kevin
 
I just use bare-wire on mine. The Chord Rumour stuff I use (purely because it fits through the hole on the base!) doesn’t seem to corrode at all.
 
In this context they are absolutely pointless and just add a needless joint IMHO. I’d just go with bare-wires with 149s, or alternatively solder or crimp automotive fork connectors onto the leads e.g. like these.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Tony L said:
In this context they are absolutely pointless and just add a needless joint IMHO. I’d just go with bare-wires with 149s, or alternatively solder or crimp automotive fork connectors onto the leads e.g. like these.
Click to expand...

These look OK. R/S Online are great but I have to buy 100 and then the postage almost double the cost.

regards

Kevin
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
What size is your cable? If it`s more than 1.5mm you will need blue crimps. I can send you a few free. I don`t have red (for cable 1.5mm or less).
 
Ramblings of a JR owner.
I've owned my 149's for about 25 years and after 'in vogue' messing about with polypropylene caps and a Type 24 crossover, I found 2% alcap electrolytics hit the sweet spot, I suppose 5% electrolytics would do the job just as well.
I've tried numerous active subwoofers but none could achieve a satisfying integration with the the JR's, Rel, MK and even a Cheap and cheerful Yamaha failed, so some years ago when the chance to have a JR passive sub came along I grabbed the chance. Immediately it had the right balance. Crossing over at 120hz it relieved the B110 of a lot of work, the midrange and higher frequencies took on a lighter more airy presence and the subwoofer integrated so well that apart from reproducing lower frequencies it did not interfere with the 149's character, apart from a small dip at the crossover point that reduced ever so slightly output. This of course could be due to ageing capacitors - soon to be replaced.
I now have an LPA unit, have connected the unit directly to the subwoofer bypassing the passive crossover. The LPA allows the 149's to be full range and supplements frequencies at and below 75hz, even with the unit unpowered the 149's play as they should, so with or without a subwoofer is simply a choice of turning the LPA on or not. With the LPA as opposed to the passive x/over the sound is fuller, some would say a tad thicker towards the bottom end but the 149's are working at full frequency rather than with the passive x/over from 120hz upwards and perhaps I've got used to the passive x/over, time will tell.
I don't honestly know which version, passive or active I prefer (if any) the bass from the subwoofer can be best described as a touch soft in presentation but is in keeping with the 149's and if balanced correctly so as not to dominate the 149 you would be forgiven for thinking that you had very competent large floorstanders the extra octave or so is very welcome and lacking in 'boom'. The active crossover also gives a better leading edge to lower frequency instruments, this could be due to the small dip in output of the passive x/over.
I have read in a description that some JR Subwoofers were reflex loaded, I don't know how reflex is being determined, all cabinets I have seen have been closed box the woofer firing downwards onto a supplemental veneered chipboard stand which is raised from the floor by castors, whether there was a ported cabinet I don't know, but I don't think so.
All in all the JR subwoofer is a worthy addition to the 149's, it works, fits hand in glove with the 149's and also looks rather nice and unusual. The original SEAS driverCA25FEY is no longer made and the foam surround like all foam perishes, Jim Rogers advocated and preferred the SEAS 25F-EW which alas is no longer made but its replacement the A26-RE4 is a very close spec and performs well, although the speaker cutout needs to be enlarged to accommodate it as the chassis is 26cm rather than the original 25cm.
Anyway, rambling over and I hope some information has been of use, I really don't see me parting with the 149's or subwoofer, there is some magic going on, although I may build a suitable cabinet and try a Kef B139 with the LPA unit just for giggles, an ex BBC friend once told me B139 would stop on a sixpence and he wouldn't use anything else for lower frequencies, its got to be worth a punt.
 
jfs said:
Ramblings of a JR owner.
I've owned my 149's for about 25 years and after 'in vogue' messing about with polypropylene caps and a Type 24 crossover, I found 2% alcap electrolytics hit the sweet spot, I suppose 5% electrolytics would do the job just as well.
I've tried numerous active subwoofers but none could achieve a satisfying integration with the the JR's, Rel, MK and even a Cheap and cheerful Yamaha failed, so some years ago when the chance to have a JR passive sub came along I grabbed the chance. Immediately it had the right balance. Crossing over at 120hz it relieved the B110 of a lot of work, the midrange and higher frequencies took on a lighter more airy presence and the subwoofer integrated so well that apart from reproducing lower frequencies it did not interfere with the 149's character, apart from a small dip at the crossover point that reduced ever so slightly output. This of course could be due to ageing capacitors - soon to be replaced.
I now have an LPA unit, have connected the unit directly to the subwoofer bypassing the passive crossover. The LPA allows the 149's to be full range and supplements frequencies at and below 75hz, even with the unit unpowered the 149's play as they should, so with or without a subwoofer is simply a choice of turning the LPA on or not. With the LPA as opposed to the passive x/over the sound is fuller, some would say a tad thicker towards the bottom end but the 149's are working at full frequency rather than with the passive x/over from 120hz upwards and perhaps I've got used to the passive x/over, time will tell.
I don't honestly know which version, passive or active I prefer (if any) the bass from the subwoofer can be best described as a touch soft in presentation but is in keeping with the 149's and if balanced correctly so as not to dominate the 149 you would be forgiven for thinking that you had very competent large floorstanders the extra octave or so is very welcome and lacking in 'boom'. The active crossover also gives a better leading edge to lower frequency instruments, this could be due to the small dip in output of the passive x/over.
I have read in a description that some JR Subwoofers were reflex loaded, I don't know how reflex is being determined, all cabinets I have seen have been closed box the woofer firing downwards onto a supplemental veneered chipboard stand which is raised from the floor by castors, whether there was a ported cabinet I don't know, but I don't think so.
All in all the JR subwoofer is a worthy addition to the 149's, it works, fits hand in glove with the 149's and also looks rather nice and unusual. The original SEAS driverCA25FEY is no longer made and the foam surround like all foam perishes, Jim Rogers advocated and preferred the SEAS 25F-EW which alas is no longer made but its replacement the A26-RE4 is a very close spec and performs well, although the speaker cutout needs to be enlarged to accommodate it as the chassis is 26cm rather than the original 25cm.
Anyway, rambling over and I hope some information has been of use, I really don't see me parting with the 149's or subwoofer, there is some magic going on, although I may build a suitable cabinet and try a Kef B139 with the LPA unit just for giggles, an ex BBC friend once told me B139 would stop on a sixpence and he wouldn't use anything else for lower frequencies, its got to be worth a punt.
Click to expand...

Can you say a bit more about how the sub is positioned relative to the speakers?

If you take the speakers out of the circuit and keep the sub and crossover, does it sound like music or does it sound like grunting? (That's my test!)
 
The sub is to the right of the right hand speaker and approx. 50cm from the rear and side wall of the room. It is there for convenience but doesn't sound reinforced in the least, even though it is almost a corner placement.

Disconnecting the 149's all I am left with is a low frequency mush of notes, no leading edge to instruments ( this is taken care of by the 149's ), although the low frequencies can be followed if you know what track is being played.
The sub just fills in the bottom octave or so, no vocals or other instruments are passing the 75hz x/over point, the 149's play as they should with the bottom octave and a bit being provided by the sub, a little like hearing the low rumbling of traffic in the distance.
Hope this answers your query.
 
53167933832_77dc922086_b.jpg


I bought these stands as an impulse buy as they were cheap and I wanted to try a lower stand before spending insane money commissioning a wood pair, assuming I ever get around to it. These are too low, they are 44cm including whatever spike is not in the carpet (I measured from top-plate to carpet), but given I do a lot of listening from a beanbag they are not crazy, actually about perfect for that. I bought them as I wanted to see just how much the 60cm LS3/5A stands were compromising the 149s bass, and it seems a lot! Based on a quick listen this is a step in the right direction, but really I think I need to be in the 47-50cm ballpark. I’ve lost a bit of image width, depth, space etc, but gained a lot of bass weight and kick. They sound a more balanced tonally. I’ll live with them for a few months and then decide where to go next. I’m pretty sure I’m coming to the conclusion I prefer the 149s to the LS3/5As, so I’ll likely set them free at some point and really optimise the 149s. It was a curiosity thing I really needed to do, but I suspect I’ve done it now.

PS The stands are quite a nice design, I’m trying to place them. My initial thought was Meridian from one of the ‘80s active speakers, but they aren’t quite right for that. Probably influenced by them though. They are a bit tatty and were filled with some rather nasty damp sand, which I’ve removed and jet-washed. That’s why there is no end-caps on the rectangular tubing at present (I’ve ordered some fresh ones from eBay as they were really scuffed-up and tatty). I’ll use them empty as they are very stable being a tripod and I don’t see the point of adding mass for the sake of it. I don’t think they were intended to be filled as it was all falling out of the spike holes! Anyone recognise them?
 
Tony L said:
53167933832_77dc922086_b.jpg


I bought these stands as an impulse buy as they were cheap and I wanted to try a lower stand before spending insane money commissioning a wood pair, assuming I ever get around to it. These are too low, they are 44cm including whatever spike is not in the carpet (I measured from top-plate to carpet), but given I do a lot of listening from a beanbag they are not crazy, actually about perfect for that. I bought them as I wanted to see just how much the 60cm LS3/5A stands were compromising the 149s bass, and it seems a lot! Based on a quick listen this is a step in the right direction, but really I think I need to be in the 47-50cm ballpark. I’ve lost a bit of image width, depth, space etc, but gained a lot of bass weight and kick. They sound a more balanced tonally. I’ll live with them for a few months and then decide where to go next. I’m pretty sure I’m coming to the conclusion I prefer the 149s to the LS3/5As, so I’ll likely set them free at some point and really optimise the 149s. It was a curiosity thing I really needed to do, but I suspect I’ve done it now.

PS The stands are quite a nice design, I’m trying to place them. My initial thought was Meridian from one of the ‘80s active speakers, but they aren’t quite right for that. Probably influenced by them though. They are a bit tatty and were filled with some rather nasty damp sand, which I’ve removed and jet-washed. That’s why there is no end-caps on the rectangular tubing at present (I’ve ordered some fresh ones from eBay as they were really scuffed-up and tatty). I’ll use them empty as they are very stable being a tripod and I don’t see the point of adding mass for the sake of it. I don’t think they were intended to be filled as it was all falling out of the spike holes! Anyone recognise them?
Click to expand...
This guy would make you a decent pair of customised oak stands at a decent price. Bass will not be compromised, since i moved to oak bass has become natural & much tighter & the mids are better defined.
Bespoke Handmade Solid Oak Speaker Stands adjustable Spikes - Pair | eBay
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
I suspect what I actually want is a pair of traditional three-leg wooden stools of the right height and diameter, not a speaker stand at all! AudioChic are right on the money design wise, but really expensive. There has to be a good wooden stool option somewhere!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top