• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Epicure EPI 100V or Boston Acoustics A40?

CKDC said:
Wait a minute. There were at least four different EPI tweeters. Would you please clarify what you meant by the "advancement" of the tweeter?
Click to expand...


The inverted dome, masonite top plate, with the big magnet.
 
CKDC said:
Wait a minute. There were at least four different EPI tweeters. Would you please clarify what you meant by the "advancement" of the tweeter?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by 'four different tweeters'. There were different versions of the only tweeter used in the original line.......the original was altered buy changing the lead entrance from both leads coming into the voice coil next to each other to the leads entering at 180 degrees opposite each other.....the cone material was changed from paper to a phenolic...the magnet size was decreased. These were all variants of the original one inch, concave tweeter.

If you are referring to tweeters used after about 1980 or so, those I don't know or care too much about as they were, at that point, just another mediocre speaker company on their way out of business.
 
saea501 said:
Not sure what you mean by 'four different tweeters'. There were different versions of the only tweeter used in the original line.......the original was altered buy changing the lead entrance from both leads coming into the voice coil next to each other to the leads entering at 180 degrees opposite each other.....the cone material was changed from paper to a phenolic...the magnet size was decreased. These were all variants of the original one inch, concave tweeter.

If you are referring to tweeters used after about 1980 or so, those I don't know or care too much about as they were, at that point, just another mediocre speaker company on their way out of business.
Click to expand...


That makes more sense.

I guess there are still a lot of people that like their speakers from a "mediocre speaker company", including me.
 
CKDC said:
That makes more sense.

I guess there are still a lot of people that like their speakers from a "mediocre speaker company", including me.
Click to expand...


Agree, I particularly like the "gold ring" tweeters with the smaller magnet and the plastic face plate better than the original masonite, but that's one guy's opinion.
 
CKDC said:
Yes, except now I want to know what I have been missing.:)
Click to expand...

There's a simple way to find out.

Just make sure you have some power on tap. I saw a post the other day where someone was going to use a 16 watt per channel receiver to drive a pair of EPI 100s. Well, they will make noise......:thumbsdown:
 
saea501 said:
There's a simple way to find out.

Just make sure you have some power on tap. I saw a post the other day where someone was going to use a 16 watt per channel receiver to drive a pair of EPI 100s. Well, they will make noise......:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...


I have written this before but will bore you all with it again.

The EPI 100 was a relatively inexpensive speaker. It is not surprising to see them linked, more often than not, to a lower powered receiver. Due to the forces of marketing among other reasons, I would think if people had more money they would buy a higher powered receiver as well as more expensive speakers.
 
CKDC said:
I have written this before but will bore you all with it again.

The EPI 100 was a relatively inexpensive speaker. It is not surprising to see them linked, more often than not, to a lower powered receiver. Due to the forces of marketing among other reasons, I would think if people had more money they would buy a higher powered receiver as well as more expensive speakers.
Click to expand...

I have written this before but will bore you all with it again.

What you say makes some degree of sense. I'm simply saying that all of the original EPI line sounds considerably different when driven with what seems to be proportionally more power than one would need for any given speaker. You can drive a pair of 100s with a 35 watt per channel receiver. You can drive a pair of 1000s with that same receiver. Certainly no one would consider driving a pair of 1000s with a 35 watt per channel receiver because 'they are so big!' Yet most everyone thinks driving a pair of 100s with that receiver is perfectly fine because the box is much smaller. However, in both cases you are leaving a great deal of performance untapped.

" I would think if people had more money they would buy a higher powered receiver as well as more expensive speakers."

Here, you are exactly right. And this is because the great majority of the audio buying public have not a clue of the way speakers and amplifiers actually relate to each other. Especially inefficient speakers. Which brings me right back to my 'ignorance is bliss' comment that I made some time ago that raised so much ire.
 
saea501 said:
Not sure what you mean by 'four different tweeters'. There were different versions of the only tweeter used in the original line.......the original was altered buy changing the lead entrance from both leads coming into the voice coil next to each other to the leads entering at 180 degrees opposite each other.....the cone material was changed from paper to a phenolic...the magnet size was decreased. These were all variants of the original one inch, concave tweeter.

If you are referring to tweeters used after about 1980 or so, those I don't know or care too much about as they were, at that point, just another mediocre speaker company on their way out of business.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion of the cast aluminum Epicure tweeters? Also inferior to the Masonite ones?
 
I also have freshly re foamed EPI 100v and are hands down better and my next 8 " 2 way which is my Advent Prodigy. If you can get the golden ring concave tweeter, supposed to be much better.IMG_3818[1].jpg
 
Those are the phenolic cones with the half size magnet, still an excellent tweeter.

The original had a paper cone with a separate surround much like a woofer only, of course, on a much smaller scale. This design allowed the tweeter cone a great degree of travel which, in turn, allowed it to respond accurately to much lower frequencies. With the design above the surround has been eliminated in favor of the one piece of phenolic. The outer edge of which is fastened in place with the voice coil attachment further in thereby leaving a free area in between to act as the suspension. This design though reduced the amount of travel that the original had.

'If you can get the golden ring concave tweeter, supposed to be much better."

The operative word here is 'supposed'. The 'much better' also adds to the humor.

Is it 'much better'? How so? Does it have a more accurate frequency response? Does it have better dispersion? Does it have less distortion?

I'll answer those questions. The answer is no. All of the successive changes to the original tweeter design, with regard to the overall sonics, were so very subtle that one would have to do some very serious listening to even think about hearing any differences. So all of the statements we've all heard and read.......'they're much better....these just blow those away......there's no comparison....' these are simply nonsense. These are the product of what people think they are supposed to hear. Get involved in a double blind test in a controlled environment. You would be very surprised at what you really don't know.
 
Last edited:
satellite65 said:
What is your opinion of the cast aluminum Epicure tweeters? Also inferior to the Masonite ones?
Click to expand...

The material the plate is made out of makes a difference only with regard to resonance. Neither the aluminum or the Masonite created a problem with resonance. The tweeters you are referring to are very similar to the ones above except I think, I'm not certain, but I think the aluminum ones still used the full sized magnet.

And no, they're not inferior to the Masonite ones. But sure as hell looked cool.
 
I think the EPI 100 is an enjoyable speaker, especially for how inexpensive they can be found. I liked them better than the Boston A70's that I had.

I have a pair of the 100W walnut cabs that came with the Masonite tweeter. I also had a pair of 100V that had the Gold ring . I ended up putting the Gold rings in the walnut cabs, best of both worlds IMO. It was a very simple recap with only one cap in each speaker and made a great improvement.

I have ran the EPI's on low watt tubes, a restored Marantz 2230 and a couple of Mcintosh amps. They performed well with all of them. They really opened up when I hooked them up to my Mcintosh 2105! The EPI's don't require a lot of power but they sure do like it.

My pick goes for the EPI. :thumbsup:
 
Does anyone have photos of that original tweeter that they could post? I think I know what it is but I want to make sure.

Thanks.
 
Actually, that is not the original. The original had the leads entering next to each other approximately 6mm apart. The one pictured above was after the change to bring the leads in at 180 degrees opposite each other. The thought process being to have the mass of the leads, such as it is, evenly distributed on the cone. With both leads on one side of the cone you have a greater mass on one side than the other. At least in theory. Response tests and burst tests showed little to no difference.

This is an original design.
26401574446_b803f9dfa9_c_d.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom