• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Andrew Jones’s new speaker brand - Jones and Cerreta

The kind of which Mr. Ohm described 200 years ago: P=UI


Measured efficiency is 90 dB, not 93 dB:
View attachment 522829

No, it is an example of gain reduction, not power reduction!
Quote from your link:
"And dito re: gain. I mentioned already that I'm using replay gain tags for my music, which sometimes steal as much as 10db of headroom in my musicbee player for some ungodly reason. Thus, in order to achieve my desired volume levels, the peak gain of my left channel is currently sitting at 8.8db,"
Yes, I already said I doubt the 93dB one, JA estimated a 91.2dB so it falls a little short.

I'm well aware about the definition of W, but I'm also well aware about the absurd claims of companies.
To Goldenear defense though, there's this:



FTC.PNG


(yes, I'm one of those guys)

About DSP, no one mentioned a power or gain distinguish, or even a gain-staging matter.
It was just about (any) system losses, for whatever reason caused by DSP use.
 
He talked a lot about high efficiency. I just don't understand all of the craze for high efficiency speakers as if we are still in the 50's with limited powered amps.
First and foremost, the input power must be able to be converted cleanly and without distortion. So it’s not about how much power an amplifier can deliver, but how much usable dynamic range results from that power. A loudspeaker system is only as good as its ability to convert the input electrical energy into linear sound pressure. An inefficient speaker consumes a large portion of the input power without converting it proportionally into acoustic energy, whereas a highly efficient system actually transforms a significantly larger portion of this power into clean, undistorted sound pressure.

To achieve this, the bass range requires a large diaphragm area, sufficient excursion capability resulting in a high displacement volume, and, above all, a driver that remains linear even at large excursions.

A loudspeaker with an average efficiency of 86 dB/W/m requires power levels for high volume ranges that can quickly reach several hundred watts up to about 1,000 watts, while a 96 dB/W/m system achieves the same sound pressure level with just a fraction of that power, typically in the range of around 100 watts. This difference is not merely a matter of efficiency but determines whether the system is still within its linear operating range or has already significantly exceeded it.

In the rarest of cases is a traditional hi-fi speaker even designed to convert such high power into undistorted sound pressure. A large portion of the input energy is converted not into sound but into heat, causing the voice coil to heat up significantly. This immediately alters the driver’s electrical and mechanical parameters, as inductance increases and thermal compression causes efficiency to drop further under load. This means nothing other than that you have to put in more and more power just to achieve even a minimal increase in volume, while distortion increases exponentially at the same time.

In practice, this means that an average hi-fi speaker with moderate efficiency and about one or two 8-inch woofers reaches its limits and distorts audibly precisely when it is supposed to deliver dynamics in the bass range.

The only way to get around this is to sacrifice efficiency in order to achieve deeper bass, and/or to use large bass drivers with a high displacement volume and linear drive.

It is still not possible to consider sound pressure, low-frequency response, cone area, and enclosure size separately, even though many would like to and others imagine it to be exactly that way in reality; but these are all merely parameters that can still only be adjusted within the physically defined limits.

Even if you use a very powerful and clean amplifier—such as a modern Hypex or Purifi module highly regarded by ASR, with several hundred watts of low-distortion output power—the actual limitation remains in the loudspeaker, because what matters is not what the amplifier can deliver, but what the loudspeaker can derive from it in terms of sound pressure in a linear and undistorted manner.

For a speaker with 86 dB/W/m, you must use 10 times more power than for a speaker with 96 dB/W/m. This quickly puts the difference between 100 and 1000 watts into perspective, especially when you factor in some headroom.

This is precisely where the real advantage of highly efficient systems with drivers operating linearly within their “natural” operating range lies, because, first, they consume less power and, second, they usually convert this power in a much less compressed and distortion-free manner.

So not only do they operate at lower power levels, but they also remain stable under load because they can actually convert the supplied energy into linear sound pressure. What matters, then, is not the absolute amplifier power, but how much dynamic range is generated from the power that the speaker can still handle in a controlled and low-distortion manner, because a loudspeaker is, by its very nature, a very poor power converter and, in principle, little more than a sound-emitting complex impedance for the amplifier; even the most efficient loudspeaker systems have efficiencies in the single-digit percentage range.

So, in my opinion, it is still advisable today to select speakers that offer good efficiency and use high-power, linear drivers capable of moving large volumes of air in a controlled and distortion-free manner.
 
Ideal pairing though. It's not my style of speaker but I'm very curious as to how it performs and measures. 96 dB sensitivity and 30 Hz extension is kind of wild.
It's not that wild as long as you're fine with having really big cabs in the room. These look to be about 140 litres or maybe more.

Now if he could get that from some conventional size cabs that would be impressive but - Hoffman's Iron Law.

The field coil thing is just a gimmick, a USP.
 
I recall reading something long ago that has always stayed with me.
“1000 watts? Look at your big electric radiator heater. That glowing red bar is 800 watts.
Think any drive units can take that?”
 
The field coil thing is just a gimmick, a USP.
I see it similarly, even though field coil drivers are technically interesting and can offer real, tangible advantages, particularly in terms of motor linearity and magnetic field control. In my opinion, however, these advantages no longer justify the effort involved, because modern permanent magnet systems largely solve the same problems, and other factors in loudspeaker design have a far greater impact on the sound quality.

To me, field coils are a very complex solution to problems that can be addressed much more simply and just as effectively today.

So if Andrew Jones uses them, it’s not because they’re absolutely necessary but because they address a specific design philosophy and target audience, and/or because he simply wants to try something “out there.”

I recall reading something long ago that has always stayed with me.
“1000 watts? Look at your big electric radiator heater. That glowing red bar is 800 watts.
Think any drive units can take that?”

There are many PA woofers that can handle this power with ease.
This is just one example among many:

Beyma 18QLEX1600Fe
1,600W AES power handling and 3,200W program power with 97 dB sensitivity

1775553610028.png
 
Last edited:
Hmm you generally don’t fill the dips with DSP only reduce peaks , I do,lift some of the bass 2,5 dB .

but the number is close .

Each LS60 has 700 watts each of my KC92 sub has 1000 watts 1400 per channel 3200w total :)
Hi
Interesting speaker.
I'm really curious if you pushed it to the limit and how the Q driver behaved at that SPL.
And what was the max SPL?
I see it has a limiter which is good for the longevity of the product...
 
I recall reading something long ago that has always stayed with me.
“1000 watts? Look at your big electric radiator heater. That glowing red bar is 800 watts.
Think any drive units can take that?”
There is no way that any commercially "Hi-Fi" available driver,speaker can withstand such Load(Current, power)...
Maximum continuous power for Purify woofer is 90 watts....
 
Last edited:
The "power is cheap so efficiency doesn't matter is a myth" . If you have 85 dB speakers, allow 10 dB headroom for DSP and want to play 105 dB peaks you will need 3,162 watts of power. It would be much easier if you started out with 95 dB speakers where you would only need 316 watts.
What are you talking about, man?
My central heating boiler doesn't have that kind of power.
And that's for a three-story building.
Here is the calculation for an average speaker for a mid-priced AVR.
Not that I've ever burdened him with so much power...
Screenshot_20260407_114041_Chrome.jpg

 
There is no way that any commercially available driver can withstand such Load(Current, power)...
Maximum continuous power for Purify woofer is 90 watts....
Then how this Genelec has 500W for the bass driver?
96189.jpg
 
Hi
Interesting speaker.
I'm really curious if you pushed it to the limit and how the Q driver behaved at that SPL.
And what was the max SPL?
I see it has a limiter which is good for the longevity of the product...
I dont know , but both KeF LS60 and the KeF KC92 are active and closed box aligment . No bass reflex which i see as a feature , but you trade efficiency .

Each LS60 has 500w for the 4 bass/midbass drivers 100w midrange and 100w treble . Each sub has 1000w for two drivers in each sub

Indicating that the uni-q is quite efficient , but the bass is not ? using 500w at 4 drivers to compared 100w at one driver ?
This is hoffmans iron law in action , due to small size and closed box aligment you dump 1,5kW into two 9" and four 5,5" drivers to keep up with one mid or treble cruising with 100w this is of course some kind of peak power ..

They can play loud but not really loud , but sound at best at reasonable SPL in a midsized room. I sit 2.8 meters from the speakers .
 
It's not that wild as long as you're fine with having really big cabs in the room. These look to be about 140 litres or maybe more.

Now if he could get that from some conventional size cabs that would be impressive but - Hoffman's Iron Law.

The field coil thing is just a gimmick, a USP.
I see you understand speakers and their history and I don't want to offend you.
But that's crazy and in my book unachievable...
Take a look at the Klipsch Heresy 4 loudspeaker, appreciated for its efficiency and that is why it has found its application in various large churches...
Screenshot_20260407_131759_Chrome.jpg

It is approximately the same dimensions with 150 liters of volume, with 95 decibels of sensitivity, but it cannot defy the laws of physics either.
Screenshot_20260407_131713_Chrome.jpg

You can see that it's really close to 95 decibels of sensitivity, but from 100,90 Hertz it drops like a rock, even though it has a port on the back for better use(utilization) of wall boundary and is set to 30.35 Hertz.Just like this one I think
Screenshot_20260407_131744_Chrome.jpg

So at 30,35 Hertz where the port is set and where Andrew says his speaker has a sensitivity of 96 Db SPL at 30 Hertz, the actual sensitivity is a measly 80 db SPL.15 DB below its average SPL level...
Practically useless without a subwoofer...
 
Last edited:
I see you understand speakers and their history and I don't want to offend you.
But that's crazy and in my book unachievable...
Take a look at the Klipsch Heresy 4 loudspeaker, appreciated for its efficiency and that is why it has found its application in various large churches...View attachment 522868
It is approximately the same dimensions with 150 liters of volume, with 95 decibels of sensitivity, but it cannot defy the laws of physics either. View attachment 522870
You can see that it's really close to 95 decibels of sensitivity, but from 100,90 Hertz it drops like a rock, even though it has a port on the back for better use(utilization) of wall boundary and is set to 30.35 Hertz.Just like this one I thinkView attachment 522871
So at 30,35 Hertz where the port is set and where Andrew says his speaker has a sensitivity of 96 Db SPL at 30 Hertz, the actual sensitivity is a measly 80 db SPL.15 DB below its average SPL level...
Practically useless without a subwoofer...
The difference is that AJ's one uses two 12" instead of the one Klipsch uses.
And I'm afraid that my initial estimation of 150 liters is wrong, it's probably more than 200 liters so it's possible to hit the expensive 110dB mark and above, clean.
 
But that's crazy and in my book unachievable...
Ha, I completely agree with you. A woofer that can produce a sound pressure level of 95 dB at 30 Hz with just one watt in a 140-liter enclosure - yeah, I’d love to have one of those.
 
I dont know , but both KeF LS60 and the KeF KC92 are active and closed box aligment . No bass reflex which i see as a feature , but you trade efficiency .

Each LS60 has 500w for the 4 bass/midbass drivers 100w midrange and 100w treble . Each sub has 1000w for two drivers in each sub

Indicating that the uni-q is quite efficient , but the bass is not ? using 500w at 4 drivers to compared 100w at one driver ?
This is hoffmans iron law in action , due to small size and closed box aligment you dump 1,5kW into two 9" and four 5,5" drivers to keep up with one mid or treble cruising with 100w this is of course some kind of peak power ..

They can play loud but not really loud , but sound at best at reasonable SPL in a midsized room. I sit 2.8 meters from the speakers .
Kudos for the honest and down-to-earth answer :)
 
Last edited:
The difference is that AJ's one uses two 12" instead of the one Klipsch uses.
And I'm afraid that my initial estimation of 150 liters is wrong, it's probably more than 200 liters so it's possible to hit the expensive 110dB mark and above, clean.
I wouldn't say, let's agree to disagree...
But someone will definitely measure it and then we'll see who's right.
I can't wait, and until then we can assume anything.
Cheerse!
 
Eyeballing what we see at the video, is about 1 meter high (including stand), no less than 40 cm deep (2 x20 cm for the 12" drivers back to back at least for quality, strong motor drivers) and about half a meter wide, by Jones arms length?

Images are tricky though, I may be way wrong.
 
For a number of years I had a low power tube amp - something between 12 and 14 W - locally built, I seemed to remember it was no or low feedback. Sounded lovely, but also sounded too wimpy on many of my loudspeakers, so I got rid of it.

Later on I had an Eico HF81 - 14w push pull - and it sounded subjectively more powerful on all sorts of loudspeakers for whatever reason.

But the horn guys like to play with even lower flea-watts, right? Like just a few?
The Eico HF 81 was basically just a pair of Eico mono HF 12's in a single chassis. I think Eico came out with that amp in the late 50's. In my teeanage audiophile days way back in the '60s, I used a pair of HF 12's for my stereo setup. They were a pretty standard design with a pair of EL84's operated in push pull and using negative feedback. The transformers also had a decent amount of iron in them, allowing the amp to perform pretty well for its time. Much of the low power tube gear out there today is far inferior to the older amps....avoiding any loop feedback, and raising the output impedance to unacceptable levels. In particular, the SET stuff measures very poorly. Given the direct radiator design, dual woofers, bass tuning, etc., I'm guessing that this new AJ speaker is not going to be happy with flea powered tube amps.
 
Eyeballing what we see at the video, is about 1 meter high (including stand), no less than 40 cm deep (2 x20 cm for the 12" drivers back to back at least for quality, strong motor drivers) and about half a meter wide, by Jones arms length?

Images are tricky though, I may be way wrong.
I have some 180 litre cabs here I'd say the AJ speaker is maybe 20 percent smaller but it's a guess as hard to see the depth on the pic.
 
Back
Top Bottom