HomeBody
Passion not Critisism
Last edited:
Mach One 4024, 4024A, 4029 Information and Upgrades!
- Thread starter Raddek
- Start date
videolady201
AK Member-Design Engineer
Thanks & Woofer Info
Thank you very much. No one was hurt but thank you for checking!
On the Mach One woofer cone area both are correct (james007 & dnewman). The woofer acts as if it were two different sizes! The surround material is an acoustical absorbing medium. At higher frequencies the surround absorbs most all energy that hits it, making the cone area just the size of the paper cone. At lower frequencies however, the surround is stiff and thick and becomes part of the piston of the cone as it is now moving air! You can see this as it plays and is reproducing lower frequencies. The cone area is the paper cone plus about half of the surround width! In modeling on a woofer we are usually more concerned with the bass output and would use the larger area for that. When you do your testing sets there are parameters that are known as an absolute. The DCR, FS, nominal impedance, acoustical output, mass, etc. Then if the modeling does not match the real world sweeps you can adjust the cone area until it does. Now we know the cone area and all the math behind it is correct when these two (model & real) sweeps confirm one another. Just thought you would like to know this.:yes:
Thank you very much. No one was hurt but thank you for checking!
On the Mach One woofer cone area both are correct (james007 & dnewman). The woofer acts as if it were two different sizes! The surround material is an acoustical absorbing medium. At higher frequencies the surround absorbs most all energy that hits it, making the cone area just the size of the paper cone. At lower frequencies however, the surround is stiff and thick and becomes part of the piston of the cone as it is now moving air! You can see this as it plays and is reproducing lower frequencies. The cone area is the paper cone plus about half of the surround width! In modeling on a woofer we are usually more concerned with the bass output and would use the larger area for that. When you do your testing sets there are parameters that are known as an absolute. The DCR, FS, nominal impedance, acoustical output, mass, etc. Then if the modeling does not match the real world sweeps you can adjust the cone area until it does. Now we know the cone area and all the math behind it is correct when these two (model & real) sweeps confirm one another. Just thought you would like to know this.:yes:
Last edited:
videolady201
AK Member-Design Engineer
Crash Causes another Tier 2 Delay
This has slowed me down as it has to be fixed now but no one was hurt but we did have some that were scared quite bad by this. It sounded like a Bomb went off. Not what you would expect on Friday afternoon.
I started to post these pictures and tell everyone it's what the new modded Mach Ones did to our showroom. LOL...
This has slowed me down as it has to be fixed now but no one was hurt but we did have some that were scared quite bad by this. It sounded like a Bomb went off. Not what you would expect on Friday afternoon.
I started to post these pictures and tell everyone it's what the new modded Mach Ones did to our showroom. LOL...
Attachments
You tell me, there is no doubt you are also much more highly skilled than I, in the art of speakers as well. Really the goal of the post was information and teaching. I guess I am like my twin sisters who are both school teachers in that I want everyone to understand. The best way for those who don't is to just keep reading :thmbsp:. So anyways I partial posted the pic so you did not have to make assumptions here regarding the 15" woofer's cone area... and thought you could just take the ~11.25" measurement and know for sure. Well I was set straight by VideoLady and you, thanks. The woofer is physically smaller than most other 15" drivers by an inch or so, but still has the same output in the low-end. Thats nice to know :thmbsp:
Finally ! Someone else who owned some T-70s ! I thought they were great. I gave mine away around 1984/85. The guy still has them. He's a bit of an audiophile with $6K or $7K tied up just in speakers. I recently asked if he'd like to get rid of them (25 years after I gave them to him). He doesn't ! He likes them. But he's starting to soften and I'll take them back in a heart beat if he decides to part with them and let them return 'home'.
Sorry for the off-topic.
I've been following VL's posts since the beginning. Great thread.
Interesting, to tell the truth I am surprised I don't hear 'anything' about them. Although here is a real treat for you. The man who designed and built them, the Tandy speaker designer here is a teaser quote "I have always thought the T-70 and T-300 were the best speakers ever sold by Radio Shack." Yes they were pretty darn good speakers and really did take me by surprise. There was also a mini-review of them and it was said the 'baby' of the 3 RS towers was the best buy, with "smooth extended bass" I remember that quote as I did not like it at all :worried: LOL, and it said something about it having a one inch soft dome and its big brothers using older cone drivers. This was a RS classic and needed no tweaks to take on speakers such as Advent Prodigy Tower Speakers at much more money and IMO was better. My research back then had me to believe the Advents Prodigy and Heritage Towers used the same woofer as the T-70 and that woofer was available from RS separate in the store their 8" paper cone driver. They were on sale for ~$69 each when my friend two houses away bought them. We are still friends and I printed out the letter from the designer and gave it to him.
enjoy...
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=294002
Now to wrap it up and show it is on topic, those speakers could play almost as deep as my new MachOnes and it took all I had to out do his bass, I had to put them on the floor in the very deep corners (yep....) and the boom was pretty good (remember I was 16), turn up the treble, level controls on the MachOnes and add that Bass EQ and I was thumping and playing loud for sure with 50wpc! The MachOnes were/are more efficient also versus the T-70; so the MachOnes did hit hard with Rock and had enough extension that you did not know how bad it lacked in the deep end with the program material back then or at least that I listened to. This all enabled me to outdo him, yes. But really the t-70s were more musical, which reminds me that's what the review said it was the most musical of the 3. 15 years latter I bought some used T-100 towers (and still have the cabinets), I bought them just for the cabinets but they worked fine, and you know what(?) I like them, they were smooth enough to listen to flat, very good speakers, both the T-100 and T-70s; however I will give the nod to the T-70 (honestly) for having IMO a bit more defined (probably because it was a transmission line speaker, very rare at its price) bass and treble versus the T-100. Those were the ones you picked if you just cared about sound quality and not loudness and boom,thud, and blow a hole in the wall sound/look of the MachOnes.
Last edited:
videolady201
AK Member-Design Engineer
After the Mach 1 Tier 2 is complete
After the Tier 2 for the Mach Ones, I will be starting threads for the Realistic Nova 8bs and the Nova 7bs. This is for those who are interested. :yes:
After the Tier 2 for the Mach Ones, I will be starting threads for the Realistic Nova 8bs and the Nova 7bs. This is for those who are interested. :yes:
VideoLady -
"making the cone area just the size of the paper cone. At lower frequencies however, the surround is stiff and thick and becomes part of the piston of the cone as it is now moving air! You can see this as it plays and is reproducing lower frequencies. The cone area is the paper cone plus about half of the surround width!"
Becuase the cone is smaller than a normal 15" woofer this may(?) help it at the top end, as its really more like a 13.5" or 14" woofer at 1Khz. A normal 15" cone area would have more beaming of the frequencies. This is theory/logic real world I don't know
.
Also let me get this out now since I have been thinking of it for 20 years. When I came back to my MachOnes home around 1992 I wanted better sound. And thought about using the dead area around the mid-range horn and its back panel to mount one or two open or sealed back mid-ranges. I wanted to 'open' up the midrange. I measured and found I had enough room to do so. The idea which was on paper (but lost) was to make it a bipolar speaker through the lower and upper midrange ~700Hz - 5Khz. All it would take is a driver or two and a simple crossover and level control. The finale plan was single driver on one side and the level control on the other.
Its so simple its ridiculous. Because I did not want to ruin the original backboard I would cut a new piece. This is just a rectangular piece of particleboard and a 16 year old could cut it out of a piece of wood... It could hold a 5" midrange or woofer and tweeter no problem! Why(?) to enhance the sound to open them up and smooth out the midrange. After almost 10 years I was ready for better sound...
Oh it would also have an on/off switch, so I could turn it on or off as desired. Adjust the level... I think it could have helped one caveat, it would totally change the pinpoint imaging of the horns. No one has notice this about the MachOnes when toed toward you? They still have every imaging advantage of a horn system, that is very low room effect to cloud the sound because it shoots the sound right at you. This does not give the room much chance to alter the sound. Read up on horns... I guess I may be the only one who thought despite all the tweaks it needed, imaging was good.
"making the cone area just the size of the paper cone. At lower frequencies however, the surround is stiff and thick and becomes part of the piston of the cone as it is now moving air! You can see this as it plays and is reproducing lower frequencies. The cone area is the paper cone plus about half of the surround width!"
Becuase the cone is smaller than a normal 15" woofer this may(?) help it at the top end, as its really more like a 13.5" or 14" woofer at 1Khz. A normal 15" cone area would have more beaming of the frequencies. This is theory/logic real world I don't know
.Also let me get this out now since I have been thinking of it for 20 years. When I came back to my MachOnes home around 1992 I wanted better sound. And thought about using the dead area around the mid-range horn and its back panel to mount one or two open or sealed back mid-ranges. I wanted to 'open' up the midrange. I measured and found I had enough room to do so. The idea which was on paper (but lost) was to make it a bipolar speaker through the lower and upper midrange ~700Hz - 5Khz. All it would take is a driver or two and a simple crossover and level control. The finale plan was single driver on one side and the level control on the other.
Its so simple its ridiculous. Because I did not want to ruin the original backboard I would cut a new piece. This is just a rectangular piece of particleboard and a 16 year old could cut it out of a piece of wood... It could hold a 5" midrange or woofer and tweeter no problem! Why(?) to enhance the sound to open them up and smooth out the midrange. After almost 10 years I was ready for better sound...
Oh it would also have an on/off switch, so I could turn it on or off as desired. Adjust the level... I think it could have helped one caveat, it would totally change the pinpoint imaging of the horns. No one has notice this about the MachOnes when toed toward you? They still have every imaging advantage of a horn system, that is very low room effect to cloud the sound because it shoots the sound right at you. This does not give the room much chance to alter the sound. Read up on horns... I guess I may be the only one who thought despite all the tweaks it needed, imaging was good.
Last edited:
Also let me get this out now since I have been thinking of it for 20 years. When I came back to my MachOnes/home around 1992 I wanted better sound. And thought about using the dead area around the mid-range horn and its back panel to mount one or two open or sealed back mid-ranges. I wanted to 'open' up the 'whole' midrange, make it fuller, more smoother by doing this. I measured and found I had enough room to do so. The idea which was on paper (but lost) was to make it a bipolar speaker through the lower and upper midrange ~700Hz - 5Khz. All it would take is a driver or two and a simple crossover and level control. The finale plan was single driver on one side and the level control on the other.
Its so simple its ridiculous. Because I did not want to ruin the original backboard I would cut a new piece. This is just a rectangular piece of particleboard and a 16 year old could cut it out of a piece of wood... It could hold a 5" midrange or woofer and tweeter no problem! Why(?) to enhance the sound to open them up and smooth out the midrange. After almost 10 years I was ready for better sound...
Oh it would also have an on/off switch, so I could turn it on or off as desired. Adjust the level... I think it could have helped one caveat, it would totally change the pinpoint imaging of the horns. No one has notice this about the MachOnes when toed toward you? They still have every imaging advantage of a horn system, that is very low room effect to cloud the sound because it shoots the sound right at you. This does not give the room much chance to alter the sound. Read up on horns... I guess I may be the only one who thought despite all the tweaks it needed, imaging was good.
Its so simple its ridiculous. Because I did not want to ruin the original backboard I would cut a new piece. This is just a rectangular piece of particleboard and a 16 year old could cut it out of a piece of wood... It could hold a 5" midrange or woofer and tweeter no problem! Why(?) to enhance the sound to open them up and smooth out the midrange. After almost 10 years I was ready for better sound...
Oh it would also have an on/off switch, so I could turn it on or off as desired. Adjust the level... I think it could have helped one caveat, it would totally change the pinpoint imaging of the horns. No one has notice this about the MachOnes when toed toward you? They still have every imaging advantage of a horn system, that is very low room effect to cloud the sound because it shoots the sound right at you. This does not give the room much chance to alter the sound. Read up on horns... I guess I may be the only one who thought despite all the tweaks it needed, imaging was good.
Last edited:
videolady201
AK Member-Design Engineer
Update About Tier 2 and Nova 8bs
The full Nova 8b mods are listed if anyone is interested. That project had been completed for some time, so it is posted in full. The Mach 1s I am still working on. You can find the Nova 8b info here::yes:
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3802237#post3802237
The full Nova 8b mods are listed if anyone is interested. That project had been completed for some time, so it is posted in full. The Mach 1s I am still working on. You can find the Nova 8b info here::yes:
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3802237#post3802237
videolady201
AK Member-Design Engineer
Tier 2 Upgrade Status
Just a note to let everyone know what's going on. I am very happy with the bass and the mid horn of the new design(Tier 2). The depth and dimension is awesome. These Machs now hit super low bass and very, very clean!! The mids are round and lush with no edge at all. Very open and transparent. :yes: It is not the same speaker!!
I am not happy with the tweeter, which in this case is handling from 5khz and up. I have now tested 8 of these tweeters and they all have a 12db hole at 10khz. I am looking at what can be done to fix this issue because it's the only piece keeping me from publishing the Tier 2 paper. I want to keep all the drivers original and I don't want it close, I want it dead on the money. I can't tell you how much better and how awesome they sound now, even with the tweeter issue! Just wanted to let you all know I am still working on it! I think I will drill the phase plug on one of the units and see if it helps the 10khz range. I think the throat size of the tweeter horn is causing this dip due to cancelation.:scratch2:
Just a note to let everyone know what's going on. I am very happy with the bass and the mid horn of the new design(Tier 2). The depth and dimension is awesome. These Machs now hit super low bass and very, very clean!! The mids are round and lush with no edge at all. Very open and transparent. :yes: It is not the same speaker!!
I am not happy with the tweeter, which in this case is handling from 5khz and up. I have now tested 8 of these tweeters and they all have a 12db hole at 10khz. I am looking at what can be done to fix this issue because it's the only piece keeping me from publishing the Tier 2 paper. I want to keep all the drivers original and I don't want it close, I want it dead on the money. I can't tell you how much better and how awesome they sound now, even with the tweeter issue! Just wanted to let you all know I am still working on it! I think I will drill the phase plug on one of the units and see if it helps the 10khz range. I think the throat size of the tweeter horn is causing this dip due to cancelation.:scratch2:
Last edited:
videolady201
AK Member-Design Engineer
Tier 1 vs Tier 2
No they are not! Tier 2 has it's own set of upgrades and blows the changes of Tier 1 away. However the Tier 1 is needed to complete Tier 2. The holes have to be in the mid chamber to use the Tier 2 upgrades. I will post the details in Tier 2 but the woofers are stiffened and mass loaded in tier 2!! What a difference!:yes:
No they are not! Tier 2 has it's own set of upgrades and blows the changes of Tier 1 away. However the Tier 1 is needed to complete Tier 2. The holes have to be in the mid chamber to use the Tier 2 upgrades. I will post the details in Tier 2 but the woofers are stiffened and mass loaded in tier 2!! What a difference!:yes: