Infinity Quantum 2 Woofer Cone Material

[Kencat]

Army mentioned polywoofers in his post in the other thread I started last week. I've been wondering about the woofers and the midbass couplers in the Q2's I recently got.

It looks like the woofers, and the midbass couplers, are "painted" gray. The woofer cone is paper or fiber of some kind as near as I can tell. I am afraid the owner went whackoo one night and decided to slap some gray stuff on his expensive speaker drivers. Hopefully this is some wierd Infinity technological innovation.

My question to the forum, is whether this is a hack job, or is stock from the factory. Just like the tweeters, with their strange angles, I hope that this "paint job" is from Infinity.

I have a picture that I copied from http://www.infinity-classics.de/infinity/models/Quantum-series-1976/index-Quantum.htm
which seems to show the same thing. Notice how the coupler cone and dust cap are all covered. For the woofer, only the cone is coated.

Check out the attached pictures I took of mine. Seem the same ??

This gray "paint" is very rough, and on the coupler, it covers the tinsel leads that are on top of the cone.

Is this normal ? What is it for?

 

[Charivari]

The poly woofers Army mentioned weren't incorporated in the bigger Infinity speakers until the later RS series, the first example of poly woofers in the industry, like he has. The Quantum Watkins had paper cones. That midbass coupler looks as it should, though originally the literature says it had some special grease coating. This evidently goes away over the years leaving the cone looking the way you see it.

Have you hooked them up for a listen? You should be able to play at least the one with more intact surrounds for a brief low level listen to get an impression and to figure out which drivers are working or if the pots are shot.

- JP

 

[Kencat]

though originally the literature says it had some special grease coating. This evidently goes away over the years leaving the cone looking the way you see it.
- JP

JP, what literature do you have on these? There doesn't seem to be a lot on the net. Have you found a book? found an obsure website? Did your info say what the grease coating was for? and was it supposed to be taken off I wonder when they were sold. Or it was meant to harden into a sealer/stiffener for the cones. Would be cool to understand the theory behind it.

Have you hooked them up for a listen? You should be able to play at least the one with more intact surrounds for a brief low level listen to get an impression and to figure out which drivers are working or if the pots are shot.

- JP

Well, after seeing your post, it kind of made me think why not! I was holding off in case it did more damage, but my curiosity got the better of me (you're a bad influence ).

Nice. I can tell there is a lot of potential there. At first the tweeters weren't working (worried...thinking all the Emits are dead), but after rotating the tweeter control they kicked in. The pot feels bad though...dry and rough.

The word that came to me while listening (just the one speaker) was... effortless. Even at the very low volume I had it, the sound was..just there. Even with the one speaker, it seemed that the music had depth, not necessarily coming from the speaker itself. Detailed midrange that is clean. My wife commented that it was going to be very easy to listen to. The highs may have been suffering coming through the pot, but still....I struggle to find words....but it's going to be sweet.

The bass....I can tell that it's going to be an experience. It seemed very nice and crisp, good response, and even with the holy foam, and low volume, it was getting down there...again, effortlessly.

This was the one with the funny looking tinsel lead on the mid. I'm pretty sure both mids were working...by putting my ear up close to each one.

Looks like a refoam and cleanup of the pots, and they should be ready to go. I think I'll try out the other one very briefly just to see if sound comes out of all the drivers.

:thmbsp: :thmbsp:

 

[newoldguy]

Ken

Remember those speakers are very power hungry.Do not drive them to hard with a low power amp,they will not take well at all to clipping,the emits will fry.The min. amp I would recomend is 100 to 150 wps.With the right amp they will sound spectacular.I remeber these when they were new,hense my search for QLS,can never get the sound out of my head.You will soon discover what I mean.If I remember correctly the woofer surrounds are not special,any refoam kit will work for the size.Wait till you hear those dual voice coils pump.

Regards
Mike

 

[Charivari]

Glad to hear that everything seems to be working. You should be able to adjust the controls so the EMITs play more to verify if each is playing. Just you wait until you've got them refoamed with enough power behind them. Just as newoldguy said, once you hear the quality and depth of the bass, nothing less will do, ever. Trust me on this one, you'll be grinning ear to ear and will never again be able to take anyone seriously who brags about the depth and quality of bass from a 50 Hz speaker; they'll just sound like fools. Now that I have my big amp back, I think I'll go hook 'em up and enjoy what I've been missing and longing for.

As to the comment on the grease, I can't seem to find it again in my saved literature. I believe it was from some obscure website with a transcription of a review that I can't seem to find again. If my memory is holding up, the grease was only on the midbass coupler and not the woofer itself.

Looking at mine real quick, the original woofer cone looks like a standard paper cone, though a bit on the rough side. There's no coating as you said nor are they as light of gray as in your picture. However, mine are newer with several design changes, so that may explain the difference. Our midbasses do match, though, with that odd coating.

- JP

 

[Kencat]

JP,

Are you sure your serials are not "older" than mine? I was following a lengthy discussion on the Yahoo Infinity Group. The consensus there was that the non- mirror imaged sets were the very early ones, then Infinity went mirrored. Kind of doesn't jive though with them dumping the rear Emit later???

Unless mix-ups occurred when stores delivered to customers what was supposed to be mirrror sets, but delivered two lefts or rights. Are your serials one odd, and one even? or both odd, or both even?

The paper cones were the early ones, with poly coming later I think.

 

[Charivari]

Keep reading this stuff that I've long forgotten and you'll be the Quantum expert around here. My Q2s are consecutively numbered 1020711 and 1020712, which makes them Quantum 2 s/ns 711 and 712.

The paper cones were the originals with the Quantum series, Infinity didn't go with poly cones until the later RS series. Any Quantum speaker with the poly cones has replacement drivers probably from when the foams went south, as the replacement Watkins drivers with poly cones were available from Infinity right up until just a few years ago.

- JP

 

[SicMan]

Someone with Infinities !!!!!

:thmbsp:
Hey guys, I have 2 sets of Q3's one is mirrored and the other is not. I'll have to check the serial numbers.
By the way, seeing you guys have the Q3's with 2 domed mid-ranges how about tossing a couple my way so I can complete my repair on my Q2's ? Just Kidding.

Tested my racooned woogers and they work great. Excellent punch now on the base. I'm driving them with my 2 newly aquired KR-9600's. I'll have to post some pics when I get everything organized. Good luck with the "racooning" LOL!

 

[Kencat]

My Q2s are consecutively numbered 1020711 and 1020712, which makes them Quantum 2 s/ns 711 and 712.

- JP

JP,

This is interesting. Your serial numbers do not fit into the numbering system for Q2's. Here is why, based on numbers given on the Yahoo Infinity site.

(7100178 and 7100179) - Non mirrored with rear emit - made in Sept/Oct 1976.

(7103168 & 7206395) - mirror imaged Q3's.

(7104061 & 7104520 - Mirror imaged Q2's , no rear emit - mine.

Is your 1st number really a 7 ?

 

[Kencat]

:thmbsp:
Hey guys, I have 2 sets of Q3's one is mirrored and the other is not. I'll have to check the serial numbers.

Hey SicMan, it would be interesting to see how those serials are in relation to the ones I just posted on, with regard to the mirror vs non mirrored sets.

By the way, seeing you guys have the Q3's with 2 domed mid-ranges how about tossing a couple my way so I can complete my repair on my Q2's ? Just Kidding.

What's wrong with your Q2 mids ?

 

[Charivari]

Yep, I am most certain that I have my numbers correct. That first digit is most assuredly a '1' and not a '7', the styling of the two numbers is very different. I don't know the specifics of when they were made, though, as they were a $15 Goodwill find.

Sicman, you can repair those domes rather than scrap another pair for parts. Just check out this hastily written post on how to do it.

- JP

 

[SicMan]

Fix it post...

Yes I saw the post and read it. I may try that before I go nuts searching for those replacements. already been to dozens of tag sales and a couple GW's and others.

My serials.

NON-Mirrored 7209404 / 7209405 <--- just racooned the woogers!
Mirrored 7207664 / 7206975 <--- I bought these new in 1979

 

[Kencat]

Re serial numbers.

That is bizarre. Per SicMAn's info, the non-mirrored ones are newer than the mirrored set. If the numbers are sequential with time that is.

The only common fact so far, is that the non-mirrored sets are sequential numbers, and the mirrored sets have fairly large differences in the serials.

Looks to me like Infinity didn't know what they were doing, unless there was a market for the different styles. A price difference perhaps ?

We may never know the answer unless an old Infinity person comes forth.

 

[brainsmasher]

I have a pair of Qjr's and the woofers have the grey paint on the cones, so dont worry about them being ruined it would appear that it is factory. I think it is a stiffening agent to prevent the cone from deformining at high volume. The "q" series are outstanding speakers I did a little shootout here between some of my better speakers and the jr's too top honors in my eyes. Over the years they have been slightly bettered but just slightly.

 

[Charivari]

Well, it seems that my Q2s are the odd man out here. Well, I like unusual speakers, I guess that applies to unusual variants.

I concur about how good these speakers are. I ran my Q2s all day yesterday for a lot of music and even a movie. While they lack the dynamic snap and body of my Tannoys (and fortunately the slight honk of the horn tweeter), there's still something very nice about a good full ranger like them. Different speakers for different musical approaches, so it's hard to compare directly, but needless to say, I'm going to be holding onto my Quantums. I do so love these big, older Infinities.

- JP