Mcintosh XR16 Recap

Dead thread alert! Dead thread alert!!

Found a set of 036-035 drivers in "excellent condition" for $120. Good price?

They're out of a set of XR7's, so I even get one of them funny pyramid things with them. Maybe I could use that to sharpen razor blades? <G>

PS ... my XR16's are still doing me proud, but what with the perceived and actual problems with these drivers, I don't suppose it'd hurt to have a spare set. Gotta get me another 30 years out of the speakers anyway ...

Apparently, not most, but ALL of my "problems" were bad eq. That's taken care of, and the system do sound sweet. Haven't even felt the need to diddle or twiddle a control for months now.
 
Apparently, not most, but ALL of my "problems" were bad eq. That's taken care of, and the system do sound sweet. Haven't even felt the need to diddle or twiddle a control for months now.

Any details on this? Why do you say apparently? I am interested.......:scratch2:
 
Interested in eq, or interested in the drivers? There's another set available ...

I worked long and hard at eq, but have what you'd call a "problem" room. Square and small with all sorts of tonal aberrations. I did a lot of room correction with hangings, traps, soft spots, etc but wasn't able to completely tame it. Next I gave graphic eq a shot, and I've got the pile to prove it ...

eq-stack-001.jpg


I've already got a McIntosh MQ-104 that could tame some of the big lumps, but just didn't have the gear to dial it in right.

Final solution ... sort of ... was to get rigged to do the curves and tests to do a real room voicing using a calibrated mike, mixer, my laptop, and software. Couple different packages there, with Room EQ Wizard far better than one I actually paid for. But ... wasn't able to transfer the results accurately to hardware using either the MQ-104 or a MiniDSP I picked up for the task. The MQ-104 was just too fiddly to zero in on the target freqs, and the MiniDSP was just shite ... and sounded worse.

Starting to sound like the search for the grail, right? <G>

The REAL solution was a Technics SH9010 parametric eq.

eq-amp-sacd.jpg


With that, I was able to use the REQ software plots to select target areas, then set the pots and sliders close, then do the tiny tweaks and nudges required to dial it in to my ears.

oooooooOOOOOooooooo ... wait ... let me go get a towel ... <G>

So, long story short ... like I said. The midrange hole I had on the right side was all EQ related. I confirmed that by switching the speakers, drivers, and amp sides, and no matter what, the "hole" stayed on that side of the room.

Anyway ... the drivers still have a bit of a bad rep ... so I expect an extra pair might be a good thing. They're also apparently (there's that word again) quite rare ... so back to my original question.

Good price?

PS ... it wasn't all about the midrange either ... I had some serious issues down low, as you'd expect. Some would overlap, where I'd need to apply a wide "Q" filter to a range while also bumping up a narrow spot within that band. Graphic EQs can't do that, but no problem for the SH9010 which allows you to "stack" filters on a target band. Real slick, that.
 
Last edited:
Quite the journey you have taken there, well as long as you are happy with the results then its all worth it....

No I wasn't interested in the drivers, I have another approach with my speaker system, which I am happy with....

I do enjoy reading your posts.....:thmbsp:
 
Yeah ... I'm told I have the gift of blab ... :D

I knew I was in the lead on the final turn when I could put Norah Jones on the turntable and enjoy it. Prior to the last stage in eq evolution here, that was painful. Now I can see what people hear in her ... or vice versa. Full and sweet, and the piano no longer sends me screaming from the room.

Still one more step to go ... I think I need to kill a ceiling beam that separates the actual listening area from the room beyond. More of an arch really. That can make for some interesting reflections. I've come up with a totally unscientific design for a baffle made of standard electrical conduit and varying sizes of those foam tubes you wrap water pipes with. It'll fill the area horizontally. Stagger the spacing from the wall, add a couple brackets to secure the conduit and hang it up - see what happens. I'll probably pull some rope thru the conduit to keep it from ringing also.

But ... I digress. About those drivers ... anyone?
 
I am enjoying my XR16s as well. that is not a bad price for the drivers. not a great price. Remember I paid $190 to have Mcintosh fix them & they didn't. & i have had about a 50% return on buying used ones Meaning half of what I is good. The seas tweeter in place of the original upper mid has been the ticket for me. For $120 you can install new Seas 27TDFC (1189) with a Mills 4ohm resister & a .30 coil in series. I wish you would give it a try its the same money.
 
Good to hear those Seas are working out for you. For me ... too late ... already bit on original type drivers.

If nothing else, I can do a swap and test response using REW to see if there's any difference. Worse comes to worse ... it's flippin' time! <G>
 
The 16s are such a great speaker for their size. I have rotated alot of speakers through my system. The last pair was a set of Teledyne AR9LS that I restored for a friend. before that was a really nice set of Dahquist DQ20s. Then the infinity reference six. A restored pair of Snell EIIs. That was in the last 30 days. The Infinity & the Snells are pretty impressive but None have beat the 16s.

You might be more spoiled than you think. I cant tell you what to do with your train set but you might try a few pair before you send the 16s down the road.
 
my recapped XR16's are great.The voice Imaging is what I noticed first it has the phantom third channel affect . 1 mid dome rebuilt by AC $135
 
Just swapped the "new" upper mids into the XR16's and no noticeable difference.

They won't go to waste though. I added a center channel courtesy of an A+B hookup using my Carver H9AV and am currently using a Bose AV speaker for that. Wouldn't take much to throw together a box to house that cute lil XR7 pyramid mount the drivers came on and use that instead. In effect, give my system a wedgie ... <G>

Crossover is easy ... just throw a couple "bass blockers" in line. Parts Express has some that block 1.4khz and below at 8ohms that should work real nice.

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=266-220

Big $6 investment there.
 
Last edited:
A new vintage audio store opened in our town a few months ago and when I stopped in a week ago there were mfino's modded xr6's for sale on consignment.

With the propietor's permission I finally was able to listen to them and finally run a voicing curve.

There was a problem with the sound......high intermodulation distortion, which I believe was caused by the lack of a back box, the woofer is modulating the mid cone.

Curves show a saddle throughout the whole upper mid, a similar experience I had with a hivi cone in a ml10 trial. I would think the cone would be more efficient than a dome.

Will post curve once my scanner starts to cooperate again.
 
c_dk If i remember correctly the xr6 woofer is not in the same chamber as the upper mid. The woffer cant be messing with the upper mid. unless there is an air leak where the wires come through. which as you know isn't that hard to pull the putty loose from the cab.
 
c_dk If i remember correctly the xr6 woofer is not in the same chamber as the upper mid. The woffer cant be messing with the upper mid. unless there is an air leak where the wires come through. which as you know isn't that hard to pull the putty loose from the cab.

I believe you are correct on this. When I had the upper midranges out, I was unable to detect any air flow through the driver opening, either when tapping the woofer cone, or when playing music.

As can be seen in the attached photo, the upper midrange/tweeter area is boxed in from the back.

I would strongly suspect the lower midrange is boxed in as well - wouldn't want that high-excursion 12" woofer modulating the 8" lower-midrange to death :D

The upper-midrange saddle Chris measured is likely due to the 8ohm resistor I wired in series with the new upper-midranges. In my small, highly reflective listening room it really helped to tame the upper midrange, but may be counter-productive in a large room. I think if we remove the resistors the AA2-measured response will improve.

I don't know if this is intrinsic to the XR6 or possibly just crossover issues, but I have always noticed that the 12" woofer seems to play too high into the range of the 8" lower-midrange and giving voices, especially male, an unnaturally chesty quality. Could this be the percieved intermodulation distortion? It does give a very "phasy" impression.

photo.JPG
 
When I looked inside after pulling the tang-band? mid it seemed that it should be isolated....the long time Mac owner who was with me (16s&18s) walked away, did not like the sound. Modulated interference seemed the most likely candidate.
 
Putting a 8 ohm resistor in series will shift the xover....not drop the level much.

While I was pulling the mid the shop owner was finishing up a woofer replacement in a pair of eminent technology speakers.....ran a curve on them also. They too had a saddle but in a slightly different area. Matched extremely well with Thigpen's posting on his website.
 
Putting a 8 ohm resistor in series will shift the xover....not drop the level much.

Agreed - it shifts the pass band lower in frequency.

While I was pulling the mid the shop owner was finishing up a woofer replacement in a pair of eminent technology speakers.....ran a curve on them also. They too had a saddle but in a slightly different area. Matched extremely well with Thigpen's posting on his website.

Interesting. Can you draw any conclusions from the ET speakers also showing a saddle in the midrange?
 
All the drivers are separated from each other unless the (salad bowls) are missing behind the 8" drivers or the cabs have been modified. Without adding a upper crossover to the upper mid they are playing with & overlapping the tweeter. It does sound very off and the whole upper end sounds very confusing. Been there.
I used a .30 coil to copy the original upper roll off the 035 upper mid. The tweeter is on a 24db crossover network with the tweeter connected in phase on the XR6, it still plays plenty of the upper mids And doesn't need an help .

The 8ohm resister might be a bit overkill. remember the DC resistance of the original 035 was pretty high 10-11ohms.
 
XR6 - XR16 Upper Mid drivers

Figured I'd pull the XR6's out of the corner and try once again to get them in service.

Had two pair of UM drivers in the cabinet (image from last year.)

XR6_UMs.jpg



Two of those drivers are from Clay's XR16s.. where one sounded and tested bad. It was tagged as FAILED. I removed the screens from Clays drivers and wiped the double-sided tape away with solvent. Here are all four on the bench. I had marked on the base-plate of one unit with a pen as an experiment. The ring components on those driver to the left are dissimilar, as are the screens.

Four_UMs_124.jpg



Next I find that Clay's UM drivers have grossly dissimilar damping pads.

Recall after the 2nd shipment of my UMs to McIntosh Service Dept, they came back without damping pads.

IMG_6063.jpg



How are these drivers supposed to have the same frequency response, or sound the same with oddball components like these?

The pad below is nearly ripped open on the near-side.

IMG_6051.jpg



Basically I'm trying to scrape together TWO working drivers from four. All four of these drivers were sent to Mc for rebuild.
It's hard to believe they'd come back in the shape they were in! Plus these guys are ignoring my messages!!

I'd like my PADS back please.


Here is Clay's left UM driver designated as `failed.´

IMG_6078.jpg



What do you recommend as a course of action?


-Gregory
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that these are custom built drivers. The difference in damping pads could be intended to more closely match the desired output on them? Thickness and composition adjusted as needed to reshape the envelope or fine tune the frequency output? Original material no longer available and replaced with an acoustically identical material, as in "same thing, only different" ?

The unit marked as FAILED could also have been reworked and someone just forgot to scratch off the markings ... we all maek misteaks ... you may find that whoever initialed it retired 20 years ago.

Or just plain sloppy workmanship ... either way, without running the same tests they do at the factory, it'd be difficult to prove one way or the other.

So, how do they hold up to the old "Ear Mark One" test?

PS ... does Mac still make the drivers, or are they simply refurbing old ones sent in for service or rejected way back in the day? I wouldn't expect a refurb to look perfect ... as they say, "some cosmetic defects" are to be expected and all that.
 
Many years ago Mac sent the last of their rebuild kit parts to an outside vendor. I spoke to that vendor 18 months ago. At that time he had one complete kit as well as a partial. I am sure they are now all gone.....

We have rebuilt a local client's pair of ML1s with RR crossover kit and Morell drivers. That led us to experiment with the Morel mid in a pair of XR6s....as well as a very inexpensive Dayton driver in those and ML1s.

We did purchase a Dayton usb mike test package to keep track of the various test drivers curves we have been trying.

Have a 2 pair of MLs and pairs of XR14,XR6, and XR5 to experiment with.
 
Back
Top Bottom