Realistic mach one. Just over hyped?

[swechsler]

Consider:

When the Mach Ones were marketed, Radio Shack was the only local source for consumer electronics for a large swath of the US (this point was driven home to me in the early 1990s when my wife and I traveled to a small town in Airzona; we needed a camera battery and RS was the only game in town). Most people were unaware that you could get good stereo equipment via mail order, and many of those that were would have been wary of purchasing unauditioned equipment, especially speakers. When you have a store that is seemingly everywhere, with speakers that look impressive (especially when that's all you've been exposed to), it's no wonder that they sold so many.

When I was a kid the Mach Ones looked impressive, but living in the NYC area, I had access to much better outlets for my stereo equipment needs, so never felt the need to shop at Radio Shack (they were also expensive compared with the other stuff that was available) much, although I did purchase a few different pairs of small speakers like Minimus 7s and the various Linnaeum-based Optimus speakers in the mid 1990s, during their frequent sales.

 

[turboyam]

If you think the Mach woofer has a small magnet, you must have not seen many late-90s consumer-grade woofers... This is a Pioneer 15" woofer from a CS-G403:

Magnet!, what magnet?

 

[Tom Brennan]

High Qts underdamped woofers are what work best in sealed boxes and the small woofer magnet could be what was needed to do the job intended--decent bass from a large woofer in a rather small box.

 

[mhardy6647]

The small magnet and high Qts of .56 indicate the woofer is intended for a sealed box. I suspect that modeling would show a very high F3 in a vented box but a larger sealed box might show an improvement in F3 over stock.

A bigger sealed box might be an improvement, as well(?). I write this, guessing/assuming the Qtc of the Mach One was pretty high (not that I know, nor am I really energetic enough to look it up).

 

[Tom Brennan]

Modeling shows a high Qtc. The first graph shows the woofer modeled in a sealed box of 90 liters, roughly the size of the box used. Note the peaked, underdamped response. So much for sealed boxes are "more accurate". As I'm probably being optimistic on box size the actual speaker might be more peaked.

The second graph shows the driver in a 180 liter box; response is flatter and better damped but not much deeper. Perhaps the best way to improve a Mach I is to double the box size. But I think the woofer is doing exactly as Radio Shack intended. Actually the performence isn't bad at all, deeper than I thought. The underdamped nature of the woofer might make it a decent "open baffle" candidate.

 

[Superampman]

Just Picked up a set of these mach 1 4024a speakers for $50 off a a buy and sell app on my phone. I was originally super excited to have a speaker that is talked up so much here on AK. Alot talk puts them as a poor man klipsch.

Now when I did listen to these "lengends" I was unimpressed. My main complaint is the bass. It seem to be single note thump thump status with the bottom end sounding not full or hollow. It just seems like it cuts out at 70hz and the bass does not sound deep(dry). Also the highs or mids seem to get harsh at times at louder volumes. My overall thought on these is they are designed to take gobs of power and geared towards parties? Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I was driving them with a Yamaha 1020.

No, you got it right. Time to let them pique someone else's curiosity.

 

[CKDC]

Consider:

When the Mach Ones were marketed, Radio Shack was the only local source for consumer electronics for a large swath of the US (this point was driven home to me in the early 1990s when my wife and I traveled to a small town in Airzona; we needed a camera battery and RS was the only game in town). Most people were unaware that you could get good stereo equipment via mail order, and many of those that were would have been wary of purchasing unauditioned equipment, especially speakers. When you have a store that is seemingly everywhere, with speakers that look impressive (especially when that's all you've been exposed to), it's no wonder that they sold so many...

I would like to politely contest your point in two ways:

1) I think people were accustomed to mail ordering stuff... especially in rural communities (think Sears Roubuck, Wells Fargo delivery, etc.)

2) Most people in small towns probably did not care about hi-fi. The radio (the wealthier could afford a bigger console) was good enough.

 

[nfafan]

I would like to politely contest your point in two ways:

1) I think people were accustomed to mail ordering stuff... especially in rural communities (think Sears Roubuck, Wells Fargo delivery, etc.)

2) Most people in small towns probably did not care about hi-fi. The radio (the wealthier could afford a bigger console) was good enough.

And so the paucity of higher-end/esoteric audio to be found in these less urban areas.

 

[damacman]

I powered the pair I had with a McIntosh MC2105. On Sir Duke, they were rockin' the upstairs with the needles pegged on the amp. As the MC2105 was sitting on top of an MC2300 it only made sense to see what even more power could do. The MC2300 / Mach Ones was an impressive combination by any standards and the 15s shook the floor with authority on Stevie Wonder with the tone controls flat and loudness off. Synergy. I remember thinking - if Radio Shack demoed them like this, they wouldn't have been able to build them fast enough. Loud is one thing - powerful another.

I had coveted them as a kid pouring over rat shack catalogs and seeing them in the stores. No, they weren't HiFi but they were fun. I never took them serious enough to do any critical listening. Stuff like Midnight Star, Stevie Wonder, Donna Summer, and other fun music was served well by them.

The ex took them in the divorce.

 

[z-adamson]

I have a pair of 4024a mach ones and with the right kind of music, they sound superb. Otherwise, they sound ok at best in my experience.

 

[z-adamson]

I have tweeters that have bigger magnets then the Mach 1 ones. The Mach 1's were a cheap price point design and that is all they were designed to be.

Cheap price point? Adjusted for inflation, they were 800-1000 bucks.

 

[Soundjunky]

Even though the M1's weren't on any real audiophiles list, in their defense, few speakers favored by the masses are. Personally if I hadn't moved & downsized, I'd still have mine with their water damage. Like many of us, I didn't get my start with high end audio. It has taken a long time to appreciate the nicer speakers and their sound. Surely some of the other readers have favorite speakers not considered audiophile quality. The Klipsch Heresy's are an example, they're expensive, but everyone doesn't have a high opinion of them(I like mine).

 

[RS Steve]

Modeling shows a high Qtc. The first graph shows the woofer modeled in a sealed box of 90 liters, roughly the size of the box used. Note the peaked, underdamped response. So much for sealed boxes are "more accurate". As I'm probably being optimistic on box size the actual speaker might be more peaked.

The second graph shows the driver in a 180 liter box; response is flatter and better damped but not much deeper.View attachment 978343View attachment 978344 Perhaps the best way to improve a Mach I is to double the box size. But I think the woofer is doing exactly as Radio Shack intended. Actually the performence isn't bad at all, deeper than I thought. The underdamped nature of the woofer might make it a decent "open baffle" candidate.

When I did my modded mach 1's and built the larger cabinets, I enlarged them to the size that video lady had suggested after VL's testing. I'm sure the measurements are in the thread I created, but I can't recall what they were exactly. Coating the woofer cone with superglue also helped the woofers output by stiffening the cone. The plastic L-pad plates were a big problem causing the sealed cabinet to leak. Under heavy use, they would flex and cause the plate to crack along where the tapered screw heads seated. The later models (4029), went to a flat seating screw head that didn't create the outward pressure that the tapered units did. I created aluminum plates that eliminated the problem completely. The bass output on my modded units is very good, doing side by side tests with originals back then, really showed the improvement. Another issue that seems to have had negative effects on bass output, if the surrounds needed replacing, most replacements were much stiffer, and slightly too large causing the trim ring to contact the roll and limit travel.

My biggest issue with the Mach's came from the mid driver and horn, in stock form there was a hole in the frequency range at around 1000 hz, the crossover mods done by VL, helped eliminate that. But to my ears, I could never get rid of the detached driver sound at fairly near listening. They did fill a large area with good sound for parties and such, but for quality near field listening, I always thought the mid horn lens did not go low enough to match up with the woofer. I think the mid needed to be located closer to the woofer also, and tweeter on the top. Replacing the foam seal around the mid diaphragm, and adding dampening felt to the pole, smoothed out the harshness somewhat.

I have a long history with Mach 1's, I purchased a pair in my senior year of high school (1978), and used them for sock hops and school events. After graduating, my fellow classmates called me to use my system for our 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th reunions. So I was always thought of as the guy with the killer stereo back then, and the Mach's never let me down. I never thought of them as high quality listening speakers, but man did they take abuse and put out some room filling sound. I admit that I hate to see them get dragged into a brand /model bashing thread, I consider them an iconic speaker that had a cool look, and powerful sound. Rat Shack sold a ton of them over the years for many reasons, many were bought as a part of complete system you could go see and listen to is any of their stores.

The mods were really a great experience for me, and I learned so much about speaker design and crossover operation. When I compared them with my Cornwall's, they actually had more bass, but still were lacking slightly in the balance and imaging of the Cornwall. I suspect most Mach 1's still working today, have problems with out of spec capacitors, degraded foam, cracked L-pad plates, and possibly incorrect woofer surrounds. If they sounded harsh and honky when new, imagine how bad they will sound with the problems mentioned. Anyone that owns horn loaded speakers should know, room placement, room acoustics, amplifier design, and quality of source have huge effects on their sound, they are not for everyone.

 

[mhardy6647]

That is cheap by today's standards. Used you can get better speakers for that coin. RS Maqch 1's were the start of the slippery slope for RS.

On the other hand:

In 1978 dollars, the Mach One was $200 a pop.

source: www.radioshackcatalogs.com (1978)

In 1978, $200 a pop would buy a pair of Polk Audio Montior Series Model 10s.

Scan0013 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[RS Steve]

On the other hand:

In 1978 dollars, the Mach One was $200 a pop.

source: www.radioshackcatalogs.com (1978)

In 1978, $200 a pop would buy a pair of Polk Audio Montior Series Model 10s.

Scan0013 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

I believe the original Mach 1's included a lifetime warranty also that was pretty much unheard of, I think they changed it to a 5 year at some point.

 

[swechsler]

I would like to politely contest your point in two ways:

1) I think people were accustomed to mail ordering stuff... especially in rural communities (think Sears Roubuck, Wells Fargo delivery, etc.)

2) Most people in small towns probably did not care about hi-fi. The radio (the wealthier could afford a bigger console) was good enough.

Conceded. Admittedly, I have never lived in a small town (small city, yes). But knowing what was offered in the Monkey Wards or Sears catalogs, these had to at least look much more impressive.

BTW, the inflation calculator says that $200 in '78 is worth $783 in today's money (my Pioneer SX-450, purchased the same year, cost about $140). That will buy you a pretty decent sounding new 2 channel system (well, at least a receiver and speakers) that would sound worlds better than the Mach One. How far we've come.

 

[swechsler]

I believe the original Mach 1's included a lifetime warranty also that was pretty much unheard of, I think they changed it to a 5 year at some point.

Genesis Physics also had a lifetime warranty (if the company had survived, I wonder if having to refoam all of those woofers 30 years later would have pushed them into bankruptcy).

 

[RS Steve]

Genesis Physics also had a lifetime warranty (if the company had survived, I wonder if having to refoam all of those woofers 30 years later would have pushed them into bankruptcy).

Possibly, but most likely company was sold and new owners doomed the product with changes. Original Mach 1's had the foam surrounds that never rotted, but the glue holding them did give up and needed to be re glued some 40 years later.

 

[Lavane]

In '75 I worked at the local RS store while in high school. After listening to many of the speakers I wound up buying the Optimus 1B's. I thought they sounded much better than the Mach 1's. I do remember hand trucking plenty of Mach 1's out the door for customers though.

 

[Bodyblue]

In '75 I worked at the local RS store while in high school. After listening to many of the speakers I wound up buying the Optimus 1B's. I thought they sounded much better than the Mach 1's. I do remember hand trucking plenty of Mach 1's out the door for customers though.

I like the Nova/Optimus series better also. I have a set of Nova 7 and 6s and love them. I pulled the 7s in favor of the Marantz Imp 6s I found but I am still using the Nova 6s in one of the bedroom systems and positively love them. The Machs dont sound nearly as good at lower volumes (to me).....The MOs were a great party speaker for the day that were designed for the popular marketing ideas of the day. Big woofers and horns that = big bass and very loud with specs that look good on paper. The Marantz Imperial 7s were just such a speaker......great specs on paper that did not sound nearly as good as the Imperial 6's below them in the line.

The Mach Ones were what they were. Bashing them 40 years later is really rather silly.