• 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

Non working Valencias, are they worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charivari said:
You may have a point there. A few years ago, Jean Hiraga, a somewhat well-known French audio reviewer, came up with a general guideline for psychoacoustic speaker quality that has come to be known as the 'Law of 400,000." The principle is basic, that as a speaker's bandwidth increases higher at the top end, then the bass response must deepen to result in a balanced sound or vice versa. A speaker that reaches 20kHz on the top end must achieve 20Hz on the bottom end to have that "magical" balanced sound, thus 400,000 (20x20,000).

For a speaker that can't reproduce frequencies below 40Hz, the ideal treble response limit according to this "law" would be 10kHz, which is the same bandwidth theophile stated just a couple of posts ago.

- JP
Click to expand...
That's very true.
The Altecs are bandwidth limited.In a very balanced way.
 
Saint Johnny said:
I'm not being flippant. But, is that just an hypothesis, that because measuring and plotting can not readily explain the 'Altec magic'?
That perhaps the 'magic' can be explained by saying, 'the premature roll off of the HF's somehow effects our human perceptions to the point of making the mids appear sweeter to the ear than they in fact truly are, in reality', at least the realities of measuring gear and the associated gear-heads?
Click to expand...

Pretty much my feelings about Altecs. I knew owners of 19's (they were insane about them) and that was my contention. I also felt the box colorations were a major drawback. BUT there has to be something to the sound, too many people love them for them to be dismissed.

Theo, Oregon is a bit too far for me, but TY for the heads-up.
Zilch, I have a b-day party to go to, but Bezerkly is a doable trip on a different date.
 
Saint Johnny said:
Both??:scratch2:
The Model 14's were sold, immediately after I hesitated. I kinda figured they wouldn't last long, though. And I really do NOT NEED anymore speakers. I still have to find a place to fit the Vals.
Click to expand...

I dont need any more speakers but I bought some more yesterday.. I still have my eyes on those fishers :D :yes::music::smoke:

You can never have too many vintage speakers :yes: :D :smoke:
 
While you're at it the 846As weren't built to conform with the T/S parameters,so measuring the actual driver and composing a plot based on the T/S parameters,is surely poor science.
No?
It couldn't be representative of the 846a's 416A/Z driver in the 846A's box.
So what were you trying to accomplish by posting that virtual reality plot?
It had no basis in fact,and was mis-representative.
More data....more confusion.
 
theophile said:
While you're at it the 846As weren't built to conform with the T/S parameters,so measuring the actual driver and composing a plot based on the T/S parameters,is surely poor science.
No?
Click to expand...
No. You apparently do not understand the concept.

theophile said:
It couldn't be representative of the 846a's 416A/Z driver in the 846A's box. So what were you trying to accomplish by posting that virtual reality plot? It had no basis in fact,and was mis-representative. More data....more confusion.
Click to expand...
The known volume and tuning of 846B Valencia plus measured T/S parameters of a 416A driver were used to generate that plot. It is therefore a perfectly legitimate simulation which, assuming the T/S parameters are correct, represents the system performance as best this particular software can approximate it.

Allow me to add that considerable effort was required to put that information together; I'm merely documenting more of what has been "well known to everyone for 40 years" here. :thmbsp:
 
theophile said:
While you're at it the 846As weren't built to conform with the T/S parameters,so measuring the actual driver and composing a plot based on the T/S parameters,is surely poor science.
No?
It couldn't be representative of the 846a's 416A/Z driver in the 846A's box.
So what were you trying to accomplish by posting that virtual reality plot?
It had no basis in fact,and was mis-representative.
More data....more confusion.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure I'd agree with you on this, Theo. And I am truly not trying to be argumentative or just tangentially supportive of Zilch's fine hard work.
I believe 'science' has to start somewhere. And if Zilch did not have a real Altec driver to measure, then what harm is there in measuring a 'virtual one'?

And to be more precise. Valencias were built empirically, prior to understanding how T/S parameters could be applied to help building better speakers. T/S parametrs as my understanding of them are not analogous to say, the RIAA curve. Just my .02 cents.
 
The 846B cabinet dimensions and tuning were designed for the T/S of the 416B driver,not the 416A/Z.
This will give a different response.
Poor science.
 
theophile said:
The 846B cabinet dimensions and tuning were designed for the T/S of the 416B driver,not the 416A/Z.
This will give a different response.
Poor science.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, Theo. 846B design was done before T/S parameters even existed, and 416A and Z seem to be the drivers predominately used to build them:

http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/reference/1975-drivers/page06.jpg

Now, if you want to argue that 416A T/S parameters do not accurately characterize 416Z, or that those I am using are "bum," then get me correct parameters for the "Z," and I'll be pleased to run the sim using them. Surely GPA, for example, has that information available.... :yes:

It would appear that 846As were made with "Z" drivers exclusively:

http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/reference/1975-drivers/page05.jpg
 
Zilch said:
Wrong again, Theo. 846B was done before T/S parameters even existed, and 416A/Z seem to be the drivers predominately used to build them:

http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/reference/1975-drivers/page06.jpg
Click to expand...
Not entirely correct, Zilch. They had been published and they existed as theoretical exercises, at the time the 846B's were built, they just were not known to too many, and they had yet to be applied. And I agree certainly not applied to building 846B's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiele/Small
 
I've read some threads about this before, and although Zilch is quite correct about those designs both being done "pre" T/S parameters, there was still some proven science used in determining box volume and tuning. It was an evolutionary thing and everybody was still learning.

Also consider that a lot of the Altec T/S parameters are not all that accurate, and you're probably a lot further ahead to measure the T/S parameters of the specific drivers involved in a project yourself rather than rely on posted specs.

Surely GPA, for example, has that information available....
Click to expand...
I'm not sure i'd wager a lot on that. Little from the old days of altec exists any longer. I've been told horror stories of the boxes and boxes of files and literature that went to landfill when they cleaned out both the Aneheim and Oklahoma City facilities. My guess would be that GPA data mainly focuses on the drivers they currently build and are in the process of developing, but that's just my WAG.:D
 
Wrong again Zilch,
You posted that original simulated response curve as an answer to a query from a member about a 846A.
Remember?
Poor science.
 
theophile said:
Wrong again Zilch,
You posted that original simulated response curve as an answer to a query from a member about a 846A.
Remember?
Poor science.
Click to expand...
Stop crackin' on me with the "Poor science" thing, Theo. Everybody knows better, and it's making you look, well, rather "small." I have done my best not to be insulting to you or to Valencias. It'd be good if you evidenced the same respect.

There have certainly been enough AK members here visiting to personally attest to my intellectual integrity. I'm sorry you don't like the facts as I know them, is all.

846A used 816Z driver, as I just showed you, so the driver parameters are the same, assuming the ones I'm using are accurate, and do not vary with voice coil impedance. Our best estimate of actual 846A tuning is 846B, which I used to model the response, and if you had ever run any sims yourself, you'd know something about how those specifications interact to produce the result....
 
theophile said:
You got it wrong.
Be man enough to admit it.
Click to expand...
Theo, I'm not sure I understand. What exactly do you feel Zilch got wrong?
I believe Zilch is as genuinely curious as to what the 'Altec magic' may be, as are the rest of us. And he's is trying to quantify and interpret those characteristics via scientific study. As much as I may not agree with his opinion on what those findings 'mean' sonically. I can NOT fault him for caring enough to put in the time to study Vals. And the effort it requires to do so.!!!
 
theophile said:
You got it wrong. Be man enough to admit it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, sir, once you regain your wits, we can share a rational discourse on these matters.

For now, I'm off to ZilchLab to complete construction of a pair of 846B crossovers for another thread and the upcoming weekend's further empirical determinations.... :p:
 
BMS driver vs GPA re-tune?

I've been doing a bit of research, here and over at LHF. Since, the HF drivers are not working at all and they need to be removed anyway. And after checking around at what GPA charges to, recharge, retrofit, and then replace the phragms, plus shipping to and from OKC. It may be more worth it financially to give the BMS drivers a chance. I really have nothing to lose by trying them out. And they may be sonically/aurally an improvement, over the originals.
After reading, and re-reading the thread over at LHF, it seems a few members there are pleased with results.

Since I haven't seen the subject of replacing, (but only temporarily, for now)the original Altec drivers here, on AK, (yes, I searched). I wondered how many had given the option Zilch had so painstakingly laid out a listen, or even just considered it?

Dollar to dollar, it's just about the same outlay. Sending them to GPA and
keeping them all ALTEC versus trying the BMS drivers, while waiting for the Altecs to come back.

I will send the the originals to GPA eventually, (I am a conservationist at heart)! But for now I just don't have enough cash to do both at the same time. And the option of trying the BMS 4550/4554 seems like a no brainer.
 
It's something I'll try out one day.
For me it's an expense 'over and above',because I'm not fixing anything.
 
I've also pondered the BMS option with my Valencias. What I've decided on for the meantime is to stay with the Altec driver and add a 077 or 2404 to flesh out the high end. I have both so I'm going to do listening comparisons to see which I prefer. I'll have to put together some xovers as well.

This is my second pair of Valenicas I put my first pair together myself back in 1974 using my JBL 418B guitar speakers, 811B-806-8As, and home made cabinets. Right after I had completed them I wasn't satisfied with the highs so I went out and picked up a pair of 077s and N7000 crossovers. The difference was remarkable. That pair went on a trade and almost twenty years Iater I came across my second pair in a pawn shop for $500. They were close to mint and I couldn't resist, even though fitting them into my vehicle was lots of fun, lol.

If you want to stay two way the BMS drivers is the way to go. You will need to put together a pair of decent crossovers as well to get the best out of them though but you realize that already having read the thread, that very looooong thread.

Lar
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom