Realistic Mach Series Speakers
- Thread starter jon56
- Start date
I think the Mach 2's are better at low listening levels, the Mach 1's have the horns and come alive when you really crank them. The stock Mach 1's have a hole in their frequency range (around 1000 hz) that makes the mid sound pretty harsh. There are great mods that can be done to eliminate this, I did new enlarged cabinets and all the other mods to my Mach 1's which took them to a new level. I have seen prices all over the place for both, I believe they made many more Mach 1's so they might be found for less than the 2's.
Just sold my pair of 4024a this past weekend, but still own my (2) pair of 4029 speakers, only one pair functional at the moment and having the full VL treatment. I also have Mach Two speakers, with upgraded caps, and have listened to both flavors for years now. My very first pair of RS speakers were Mach Two, which I bought new not long after they were introduced.
The difference in output is debatable, but to make a proper comparison I'll have to hook both pairs up to the same receiver. I'll do this and report back to this thread sometime after the weekend.
Each speaker excels in different types of music. Both do well with HT work, and both I can listen to for hours. I can solidly confirm that the VL mods make the Mach One a more respectable, and better behaved speaker, but I'll fall short of calling them audiophile or overstating how good they are. I can comfortably, and easily, compare them to my AR3a speakers (which most people know enough about). And while some people will state "sure the Mach One has more bass, it has a 15" woofer", well the less initiated would make such a statement absent of the fact that the radiating area of the Mach One woofer isn't much larger than a typical 12" woofer. You could say a bit of hype on the part of RS?
The 4024 and "a" version are the same speaker. Main differences are the 4024 was produced one year only, had wood finished bottom (though some early 4024a have also), came with a life time warranty (latter models having a 5 year warranty). Both generations had the non deteriorating foam surrounds.
The 4029 was the first to use traditional foam and use ferrofluid cooling. Of the woofers I've tested with DATS all had the same readings. I believe the T/S for the Mach Two were the same or very close, but have to double check.
The 4032 (Mach Two) went in an entirely different direction. Ported design, cone midrange and baby butt cheek style tweeter. It also used lamps in the network to safeguard the drivers. The single largest negative to the Mach Two is the cabinet. No where near as solid as the Mach One speakers. I would love to use the T/S specs to come up with a more suitable size cabinet as that would likely take better advantage of the woofer. But this is a known with the Mach One speaker, and likely applies to the Mach Two. Of course, in original format, the Mach Two uses the full cabinet volume AND benefits from porting, where the Mach One loses roughly 1/3 of the volume to the midrange volume. While this should make for a huge advantage for the Mach Two, it doesn't actually "sound" like it has that much more bass, but again I'll try and do some comparisons this weekend. Hopefully the weatherman is correct, the man cave is upstairs and gets bloody hot in the summer (air conditioning doesn't circulate well upstairs).
Forgot to touch on pricing. Mach One speakers started at $199, but eventually climbed to $239. The 1984 catalog was the last to list them. In 1985 the Mach Two were introduced at $20 less. I think the numbers is more related to the era than anything else. The Mach One was born of the era of large is better. By the time the Mach Two was introduced we were about to be introduced to surround sound for home use. With that came a downsizing of equipment, more specialized. The Mach One ran for 8 years solid, with only one dramatic change. The Mach Two lasted 6 years and would be replaced by the Mach Three. I remember it becoming more and more difficult to sell speakers as large as the Mach speakers. Even towers could be a challenge, not just in price but even size. It's not that large speakers were no longer desired, their following became more a nitch than the norm.
Current pricing? Totally agree, all over the board. From $10 a pair (for any Mach speaker) to more than retail (mint with original boxes and instructions).
RickeyM
Addicted Member
The Mach One may show the biggest improvement after modding because of the original crossover. It's really a big two way with a super tweeter. That and the better enclosure. The Mach Two & Three x-overs are designed as three ways from the start.
I didn't know about the differences in the Mach One & Mach Two cabs.
I have aftermarket RS 15's in my Mach Two's and the specs say the same thing, way too little cabinet for the driver. It's likely the factory Mach Two woofer's are the same way. I have some vacation time coming up and if the stars align, I'll get to build my bigger enclosures for the Mach Two's. They'll be around the size of RS Steve's Rhino's, heavily braced and have at least 1" thick front baffles. Not sure if I'm going with the Pyle mids or the RS domes tho'.
69sixpackbee
Well-Known Member
Well, let me add to this topic. I have Mach Ones, Two's and Threes. I just recently acquired the two's and I need to re-foam them so I cannot comment on the sound from them but you can take what Copa and RSSteve say to the bank as far as objective and quantitative listening results. I bought some Mach Threes brand new and I still use them today. They are currently being fed by my Marantz 2252B and they will get EXTREMELY loud and very clear and the bass literally loosened the pictures on the wall until one of them fell! I just completed the full boat VL mods to my Mach Ones and while I was testing them in my garage with both my Realistic STA-2100D and then with my Pioneer SX-1250 I can say that in that concrete floored environment the bass was very tight and I heard absolutely no "hole" within the transitional music ranges.
Suffice to say, these Realistic (Optimus) speakers were real sleepers and being fed the copious amounts of power that they crave, you will be shocked at what is spewed from them!
I have heard some VERY high end speakers and a close friend of mine has the renowned Klipshorns and he has commented on the sound produced from my newly finished Mach Ones and even though I have not broken in the caps on the crossovers fully he says, "I can't believe these are Radio Shack speakers!" Coming from him this speaks volumes. The chagrin on his face was priceless! To answer your question in a nutshell, I would echo what my Realistic brethren have stated that the allure is justified by the prices that the Mach Ones fetch as these "seem" to be the most desirable of the trio but the other two big "Mach's" have a place in that tri-fecta as well.
Bud
Suffice to say, these Realistic (Optimus) speakers were real sleepers and being fed the copious amounts of power that they crave, you will be shocked at what is spewed from them!
I have heard some VERY high end speakers and a close friend of mine has the renowned Klipshorns and he has commented on the sound produced from my newly finished Mach Ones and even though I have not broken in the caps on the crossovers fully he says, "I can't believe these are Radio Shack speakers!" Coming from him this speaks volumes. The chagrin on his face was priceless! To answer your question in a nutshell, I would echo what my Realistic brethren have stated that the allure is justified by the prices that the Mach Ones fetch as these "seem" to be the most desirable of the trio but the other two big "Mach's" have a place in that tri-fecta as well.
Bud
Last edited:
One nice thing for sure, all the Mach speakers benefit from some added attention. Somewhere in the VL thread I posted my thoughts on the cabinets. In a nutshell, assuming 4x8 sheets, the dimensions of the Mach speakers gets the most from a sheet of wood, with the least amount of waste. Clearly a bean counter decision. Add to this shipping. Weight AND of course size have a serious impact on shipping. While RS had trucks deliver direct to the stores, Corporate HAD to keep in mind shipping between stores as well as shipping to customers. To do so meant keeping the size manageable and such that UPS and Fedex would deliver them (without resorting to "freight"). The largest issue with the naysayers is they don't take any of this into consideration, but a company as large as RS that had 7000 stores HAD to watch the bottom line. Sacrifices in design? Sure, but sadly for good reason by the bean counters. Honestly, could have been a lot worse, we may never have had them at all.
Before digging into the Mach Two, let me post T/S specs so you don't go too large, especially if you wish to keep it ported. I'll post as soon as I find them.
OH by the way, there is also the Optimus 4000 and and I believe a 5000, which I believe to be Mach Brethren. Someone who owns them might chime in.
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/html/1994/h012.html
By 1996 (according to the catalogs) the behemoths were history.
RickeyM
Addicted Member
Mach ON!
Got that right, and after said attention, watch out!
I really think going ported on the Mach Two's and subsequent Mach brethren was an attempt to get a little more low end out of a too small enclosure. Bigger boxes = more low end ergo no need for ports. I've played my 'Two's with the ports blocked & un-blocked and prefer them blocked. The low end seems cleaner & tighter that way. Anywhoo, those "stars" are starting to line up. If anyone else is planning or has built larger Mach Two's, any info or suggestions would be very appreciated :thmbsp:
Got that right, and after said attention, watch out!
I really think going ported on the Mach Two's and subsequent Mach brethren was an attempt to get a little more low end out of a too small enclosure. Bigger boxes = more low end ergo no need for ports. I've played my 'Two's with the ports blocked & un-blocked and prefer them blocked. The low end seems cleaner & tighter that way. Anywhoo, those "stars" are starting to line up. If anyone else is planning or has built larger Mach Two's, any info or suggestions would be very appreciated :thmbsp:
OK, family things this weekend took precedence over listening, plus I had to rearrange the man cave to accommodate the head to head. Tonight I got in two tracks, "Gangsta's Paradise" and "Real Mother for ya", the latter by Johnny Guitar Watson. I picked these two mostly for the bottom end test, but there are other reasons including the choir in Gangsta's Paradise. Using the meters on my STA-2000 I ran each around 0.10w for the low level listening eval. What I can say is that at this level they both sound close, but the Mach One has the edge. Not in volume, but sound quality. Neither appeared louder than the other, so they obviously are extremely close at these levels.
But, before going on a little background. I'm, presumably, the second owner of each model. The Mach Two have had the networks updated with Erse caps, early model surrounds (the ones that don't actually fit correctly) and best I can tell original drivers. I have NOT bi-passed the lamps, not yet, but I am contemplating this. The Mach One's have the advantage of the full VL treatment, however one does have my extended cabinet, which I already know extends bottom end further than the VL mods. The Mach One's also have Erse caps. One solid benefit to the Mach One is the closer to "ear level" of the midrange, not to mention of course the horn.
In listening the two are so close in bottom end response I can't really call a winner. If anything the Mach Two might have a slight edge in Mid Bass, which might be attributed to the porting more than anything else. My opinion of course. Without question, or reservation, the Mach One wins in not only mid performance but imaging as well. One thing I noticed with the Mach Two is that some vocals and instruments that should be more centered (and not necessarily right in the middle), as with other speakers and certainly the Mach One speakers, are not. Imaging isn't the best, however, I may futz with placement some more to see how much this helps, but honestly I don't recall imaging be a strong point with these speakers.
Later this week I'll do more testing with other CD's and LP's, but what I will end with is that when these speakers are played together, OMG! In part the Mach One makes up for some of the deficiencies in the Mach Two, but together the bass response is, shall we say, earth shaking. With absolutely no change in volume settings the bass becomes instantly harder hitting, very solidly so. Anyone living near someone who owns both would be in for a treat checking these duo in action. Oh, this bit of entertainment was running at 1-5w of power, according to the meters. Most impressive, as Spock would say. With only 75wpc (per RS specs) I have no trouble rattling the man cave and it's contents. But I haven't yet pushed the envelope of the STA-2000, yet. God help me should I do this with the RS-1080.
EddyFranner
Super Member
No love for the Mach III's? I have a pair mixed into my bedroom rig and I always felt they sounded better then the Mach II's.
They are bloody hard to come by. I touched on this, possibly, in this thread. As time progressed "big" speakers weren't flying out the door like in the early years. So many things account for this, not the least of which is improved designs utilizing smaller drivers. I've read other posts, about Mach Three, with similar opinions, and of course the Three have horns, so going back to the early era design, I suspect. Came across a set of Three's, but the person "minding" the business (which was being liquidated) wasn't sure if they were part of the inventory or personal items. Would have loved the opportunity to line all three models up for a showdown, so to speak.
Disparity in pricing?
I don't believe I touched on the difference in price, but certainly one standout thing IS the woofer. I'm not aware of any "vintage" speakers with as cool a woofer as the Mach One. The speaker system, as a whole, appears larger than it is. It's a "man size" speaker, without question. There is also the fact that many people of my generation drooled over these as teens and many of us never could afford them. Much like Muscle Cars. Mostly you could attribute it to perception, but the Mach One does have some advantages, which I'll touch on again in my next post, i.e. Mach One vs Mach Two.
Mach One vs Mach Two...
So, here we are, round two. This time Phil Collins "In the Air Tonight". I'm actually going through the CD for a few samples, but what Phil Collins nut can't play "In the Air Tonight" over and over....well you get the point.
Once again the Mach One showed it's prowess when it comes to imaging. I'm running more volume this time, but still only around 1-5w as both these speakers in this smallish room get loud quick. Room is roughly 18'sq, however, the shape is NOT square, for more check out the images in my album which has images of the man cave.
For this track the Mach Two did "feel" deeper. I could sense it in my feet more as well as the arms of the chair, parts of my back, etc. It wasn't a landslide difference, but it was notable. Past the present volume and the Mach One become irritating while the Mach Two remains composed, so to speak. It's not so much being "bad" as ear shattering. That bloody Mach One midrange horn really gets loud fast.
I would have to say that for a largish room or a room with a lot of dampening, the Mach One likely would rule, particularly at higher volumes.
The Mach Two has a weak point in it's midrange performance, but mostly at low volumes, not bad as such. Start upping the volume and they begin to come into their own and the woofer begins to really make it's presence.
I would like, eventually, to do more with the Mach Two crossover but don't have the necessary tools or skills, yet.
So, here we are, round two. This time Phil Collins "In the Air Tonight". I'm actually going through the CD for a few samples, but what Phil Collins nut can't play "In the Air Tonight" over and over....well you get the point.
Once again the Mach One showed it's prowess when it comes to imaging. I'm running more volume this time, but still only around 1-5w as both these speakers in this smallish room get loud quick. Room is roughly 18'sq, however, the shape is NOT square, for more check out the images in my album which has images of the man cave.
For this track the Mach Two did "feel" deeper. I could sense it in my feet more as well as the arms of the chair, parts of my back, etc. It wasn't a landslide difference, but it was notable. Past the present volume and the Mach One become irritating while the Mach Two remains composed, so to speak. It's not so much being "bad" as ear shattering. That bloody Mach One midrange horn really gets loud fast.
I would have to say that for a largish room or a room with a lot of dampening, the Mach One likely would rule, particularly at higher volumes.
The Mach Two has a weak point in it's midrange performance, but mostly at low volumes, not bad as such. Start upping the volume and they begin to come into their own and the woofer begins to really make it's presence.
I would like, eventually, to do more with the Mach Two crossover but don't have the necessary tools or skills, yet.
tyeeslayer
Super Member
Agreed. New caps and a differerent mid helps a lot in this.
I tried RS 40-1281 dome mids on mine. When running the system in Mono it was apparent the 1281 sounded better with vocals and some of the instruments, but unfortunately it isn't designed to run as low as needed to compliment the woofer, sufficiently. Again, I didn't bypass the lamp, so mid performance is still weak at lower volumes, regardless of stock mids or the 1281. As I've said, I'll have to try a tweak of the network someday, using T/S parameters for the 3807 woofer and see if it's possible to make a network that will take advantage of the 1281. I do have another iron in the fire, and that is the woofer from the LX5 speakers. Not only will they go down to 80hz comfortably, they can also carry out to 4k or higher with easy. For this I'm thinking swapping out the mid OR coming up with a 4-way design using the LX driver as a midwoofer, transitioning into the 1281, then handing off to the wonderful mini butt cheek tweeter. I really like the sound of domes, like with my AR3a speakers.
RickeyM
Addicted Member
Just to chime in here. As you may recall, I have Pyle mid-woofers in my Mach Two's. These handle much more power than the stock mids and have a much wider frequency response as well. This allows me to drop the mid crossover point to 800hz and not need any protection device.
As far as sound quality, the mids from these units are very good. A little tweaking with the level controls and they match up very well with the Mach woofer & tweeter. So well that the mids & highs seem to be coming from a single driver! I played the aforementioned "In The Air Tonight" and I wasn't gentle with the volume either. At higher levels the new mids never showed any strain or harshness all the while keeping up with those big 15's. That drum breakdown near the end of ITAT was breathtaking. I haven't tried the RS mids yet but I'm afraid for their longevity crossed over that low being driven at high power levels. If they blow the Pyles away, some sort of fuse protection will be in order to keep using them.
Here's my idea of a dream comparison. A pair of Mach One's with VL Tier Two mods in large cabs, a pair of Mach Two's with upgraded mids & crossover mods in larger cabs and a pair of suitably modded Mach Three's. THAT would be something to behold :drool:
As far as sound quality, the mids from these units are very good. A little tweaking with the level controls and they match up very well with the Mach woofer & tweeter. So well that the mids & highs seem to be coming from a single driver! I played the aforementioned "In The Air Tonight" and I wasn't gentle with the volume either. At higher levels the new mids never showed any strain or harshness all the while keeping up with those big 15's. That drum breakdown near the end of ITAT was breathtaking. I haven't tried the RS mids yet but I'm afraid for their longevity crossed over that low being driven at high power levels. If they blow the Pyles away, some sort of fuse protection will be in order to keep using them.
Here's my idea of a dream comparison. A pair of Mach One's with VL Tier Two mods in large cabs, a pair of Mach Two's with upgraded mids & crossover mods in larger cabs and a pair of suitably modded Mach Three's. THAT would be something to behold :drool:
Last edited:
That would be, as Ronald would state, WICKED!
I'd need a separate power amp for the third wheel. None of my receivers will drive more than two pair, even though my RS-1080 is rated down to 4-ohm (comfortable at that). I have a 6-pair speaker switch, but three pairs playing doesn't sound right, likely due to the impedance balancing circuitry.
Not that the stock mid is bad, but I would agree that power handling is obviously a weak spot, otherwise why have it connected to the lamp? Isn't Pyle part of RS now anyway? That would, loosely speaking, make it an RS driver, correct? ;-)
