• 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

HPM-60's compaired to HPM-100's

Here's a little light reading I found interesting while trying to find out what the L100's
xover points are. Note the part about the mid and tweeter producing from 3k on up,
the same as the 60 and 100.

" The Marantz Imperial 6 was the first speaker Dawson had designed after Bart Locanthi had completed the lab/listening room set-up along with teaching his speaker design methodology to Dawson. We speaker novices would listen to the Imperial 6 all day long in between setting up other tests. It was a paper-cone 10” two-way with a phenolic ring (edge) cone tweeter. The woofer had a doped cloth surround and all cabinet parts where of ¾” veneered particleboard. In the lab the Imperial 6 measured ± 1.5 dB, 60Hz to 17,000Hz. It had a real walnut cabinet and retailed for $129.00 each. Guess what? It didn’t sell worth beans.

What did sell at that time was the Marantz Imperial 7. The 7 was a marketing-driven design all the way. A 12” 3-way, in the same size box as the Imperial 6. The Imperial 7 was Marantz’s answer to the hottest speaker of its day, the JBL L100 Century. Marantz marketing asked us to give them a design which would “jump out” from the L100 on the sales floor. And, oh yea, they wanted it to retail for $299 each versus the L100’s $399 each.

The L100 measured fairly flat and had a die cast 12” basket. We knew our stamped steel framed woofer had more sensitivity than the JBL plus it was considerably cheaper. And putting it in the same size box as the Imperial 6’s 10” meant that the Imperial 7’s 12” would roll off starting at 80 Hz. Fortunately for us, a ported 12” pumping out lots of 80Hz air sounded to most consumers at the time like a whole truckload of bass!

The answer to making the midrange and tweeter drivers “jump” was even easier. Don’t use any crossover component to roll off the midrange. That way both the mid and tweeter would be working in the same 3KHz – 10KHz region and we’d get a huge bump. (Never mind the cancellation effects which would limit the Imperial 7’s ultimate high frequency response to a pathetic 12KHz before it headed straight down.) (which just happens to be where the HPM kicks in!)

In the end Marantz’ marketing ploy was very successful. The Imperial 7 sold in huge numbers and the Imperial 6 sort of faded back in the model line-up. For a short time, my Locanthi-Hadley basic precepts of technically correct speaker design were a bit tarnished. Here I was at the beginning of what I had hoped would be a wonderfully challenging and enjoyable engineering career. And I had to look forward to speakers pre-designed by marketing?

Fortunately that situation was short lived. A well-known early audio pioneer named Henry Kloss was starting a new speaker company. In 1972, Kloss was so certain that he had designed the best price/performance speaker of its day that he started his company with only one product. The speaker was The Large Advent, a 10” two-way design.



Henry was not only a great speaker designer, he was a better marketing man. The Large Advent received glowing reviews from the enthusiast magazines of the time. The same magazines who had given our Imperial 6 a rather tepid “it’s a pretty good speaker” review a year earlier.

So we bought a pair of Advents. We measured them. They were good. They measured almost as well as the Imperial 6s. The main frequency discrepancy with the Advents was at their 1800Hz crossover frequency.

Henry had custom designed a cloth dome tweeter which had a 1” dome in its center but with a huge 1” cloth annulus surrounding (and part of) the dome. So to get down to 1800 Hz what the audio pioneer had designed was a 3” cloth-dome tweeter! In measuring the system it graphed out showing two very narrow, high Q peaks then dips on either side of the 1800Hz crossover. Other than that Henry’s system had about the same smooth and flat frequency response characteristic as the Imperial 6.

We listened to both the Imperial 6 and The Large Advent in mono (the Model 32 preamp has a an L + R setting) on the 8” riser in our lab. Only by A-B’ing both speakers, and knowing exactly where to listen, could we pick up the very slight smearing effect that the Large Advent had at the crossover frequency. But when we listened above 8KHz and into the high extreme-treble region it was Henry’s soft dome all the way. Was it ever smooth!"
 
Last edited:
PioneerHPMluver, Agreed many like the sound of the speakers as many liked the L100 or
like the article says many liked the marantz imperial7. It's how the speaker was marketed.

It was obvioulsly marketed that way because people would buy that sound, I understand
that completely but I want to improve or better what the marketing had in mind.

It's not a crime to mod something so well regarded to try and improve it is it?
And by doing that you try and find it's faults and correct them. So to some it
sounds like the speakers are being bashed but really the faults are just being
discussed to try and see what direction needs to be taken to achieve the goal.

As has been said many times every speaker design has it's faults and benefits
but if we can improve upon there faults they should lend themselves to sound
better more often then they previously did. That's all we are doing here.
 
Last edited:
Kegger said:
PioneerHPMlover Agreed many like the sound of the speakers as many liked the L100 or
like the article says many liked the marantz imperial7. It's how the speaker was marketed.

It was obvioulsly marketed that way because people would buy that sound, I understand
that completely but I want to improve or better what the marketing had in mind.

I hear ya...nothing wrong with that!
 
PioneerHPMLuver said:
Charivari and Kegger...A most intersting thread...thanks for the comments. For my 47 year old ears that have been overabused by too many concerts, loud car and home stereos, I love the sound of my HPM series speakers. Whatever the graphs and curves, roll offs mean. Everyone I know agrees with me. (their ears are probably shot as well!) My current stack of 2 HPM40's, 4 HPM60's, and 2 HPM100's sounds great too me.

Follow this for a pic...Thanks guys! Jim

http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?p=528193#post528193
It's a matter of taste, the HPMs excel with rock. Crank up a live concert recording and, well, they rock. The thing is that they don't do as well with other types of music and the sound, which most certainly is colored, doesn't appeal to everyone and for all tastes. Personally, I prefer a much more laid back sound with accurate reproduction preferred, so the HPMs don't do it. So, if you like them, you like them, simple as that.

That's something that's been so nice about this thread, it has succeeded in helping others recognize that these aren't perfect speakers and so aren't for everyone. Doesn't mean that they won't appeal to some.

Most impressive looking system, btw.

- JP
 
Interesting read there, Kegger. Funny, I'd chock up the Advent to a similar philosophy as the fried egg tweeter has a sizable peak in the upper midrange above the crossover point. (With the Smaller Advent this is a 12 dB peak, a little less for the Large.) So, I find it quite fatiguing and harsh, anything but "smooth."

- JP
 
Yes I thought that read was definatly pertaining to our thread here. Sorta reinforces
what we have been saying and what were hearing.
 
Kegger, just curious to know what your speakers sound like at this point ports bunged vs unbunged. I think you mentioned bunging/stuffing them before, but then somewhere along the line they were unbunged. What's your woofer strategy now?

The discussion of the Advent tweeter/mid and its annulus and the famous annulus of ol' Henry the K (he was a li'l chubby, bless his heart) takes me waaaaay back. The mid/tweet of the famous KLH Six was.. guess what.. a dome with a big annulus. Pretty much the same idea. Well, it worked in 1958, why not 1970? Henry had a few idees fixes, and the fried-egg mid/tweet, crossed over at around 1500 Hz, was one of them. And it may have been great bang for the buck, but I agree with CV-- soundwise it wasn't great. Smooth it wasn't. Workmanlike would be a good descriptor-- it was the underlying philosophy of many of the famous New England audio companies, after all (see the AR Turntable). To be fair to Henry, whose work I greatly admire, you have to remember that back then, most tweeters stank. So while it's not a bad idea to seriously consider replacing any '70s speaker's tweeter with a modern example, at least Henry had the guts and the smarts to design and build his own. It did the job and the speaker was affordable and reliable, and that was quite an accomplishment for an advent company 35 years ago.

Most crossovers stank, too, but that's another subject.
 
Well before redoing the dampening they needed to be plugged or they were boomy
and very hollow sounding throughout the bass and midrange.

Adding some more damping got rid of the hollowness to a degree and the boomyness
to where the ports could be unplugged to get some bass out of them. Then the tweeter
change just about erased all but the smallest amount of funky lower mid that I think
would go away by lowering the woofer to mid xover.

Now if you plug the ports you just lose "some" bass and it cleans up the mid a little more.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I believe the HPM-900 is a more accurate, better sounding speaker system than the earlier HPM-100. Heck, the 900 with its' vinyl wrap instead of veneer actually weighs a couple of pounds more than the 100. The only drawback is part of what makes them sound better, and that is their delicate graphite modulus cone material. But who's gonna kick the cone in, eh?
 
Kegger, have you checked to see if adding more damping material in the cardboard tube that houses the midrange could help some of the midrange funk you're still hearing or is that entirely due to the crossover point now?

- JP
 
Do we have any info on the 900? Xover points,frequency and impeadence charts?

Does it use a better/different tweeter?
 
"Kegger, have you checked to see if adding more damping material in the cardboard tube that houses the midrange could help some of the midrange funk you're still hearing or is that entirely due to the crossover point now?"


No as it is stuffed pretty full as it is. And it does deminish when you plug the port
so I do believe it's the combo of the woofer producing to high and not doing a good
job of it but also since it is producing it that it also comes out the port to.

Bass coming out a port is one thing but midrange coming out I gotta believe is not going to sound right.
 
Last edited:
Still very impressed with how these sound and someone just left here feeling the same way.

Not in a giant hurry at this point to get the xover done, but I will!
 
No hurry Andy you got plenty on your plate, I understand. I won't be available
saturday but should be around sunday.

Have a good one.
 
Yeh, working these "normal" hours (10-6:30PM) really messed me up.
I didn't have my free afternoons and actually slept more than 5 hours a night :lmao:
 
2nd order xover on oldest HPM 60 series?

Well, as I'm kinda new to this forum I hope I'm not repeating what others are already aware of and have extensively discussed.

In terms of the HPM-60s, everybody seems to be aware of two versions, which use different drivers and crossover frequencies. Series 1 has completely circular driver mountings (except for the super tweeter), which for the mid and tweeter are circular black plastic. Crossover frequencies are 1.2, 4 and 12k Hz. Sereies 2 has the metal mounting/faceplates for the drivers that are squared off a bit (but still have round corners). Crossover frequencies are 1.9, 3 and 12k Hz.
Now, an interesting tidbit of information that there are some further differences within Series 1 as far as I can tell: two distinct types of crossover networks were used. I'm not sure which was used earlier and which later, but my guess is that the earlier version is the one with P/N swn-109, and the later one has P/N swn-121.
Just for reference, the Series 2 crossover uses P/N swn-155.
SWN-109 is interesting in that it appears to use a second order filter for the woofer, and also for mid and tweeter. The 109 network is much more elaborate with many more components.

Silverchris in the following thread:
HPM 60 crossover
has a schematic for both crossover versions used in Series 1.
I just recently picked one such crossover up on ebay, and here is a picture:
HPM60%20SWN-109%20xover.jpg

The board is much larger than the others, in fact, it is quite a bit longer than the plastic holder it is attached to. It also has: SNP-090-0 printed on the PCB. Also of note is that one of the inductors is an air coil.

--Computer crashed before finishing--

so, bottom line is, I wonder how different these versions of HPM60 sound. In particular, I would expect that a series I with the second order crossovers, could sound quite different from a series I or II with the first order crossovers.
Has anyone compared not just the two series of the HPM60 to one another, but also the three possible combinations:
Series I with 1st order, Series I with 2nd order, Series II?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom