• 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

Realistic mach one. Just over hyped?

I thought I'd post this picture of a Lafayette model speaker that most likely was built by Fostex Electronics, just like the Mach 1. The midrange placed in the center is what I think would really help imaging at near field listening, and do away with the disconnect between drivers that I notice. I always wanted to experiment with this driver layout to see if it would give the Mach 1 a better balance, and take away the honky nature of the mid being pretty far away from the woofer. It would be cool to give these Lafayette speakers a listen, I notice it has a port on the bottom for the woofer also.

lafayette speakers.jpg
 
stereoguy70 said:
The best speaker they ever offered was the Optimus-1 and it does sound pretty close to the KLH it is supposed to be a tribute to..
Click to expand...
I agree. I have 2 pair of the Optimus-1's with the cloth surround woofer. I used to own a pair of 5b's but I think the 1's have the edge over them. They just seem to image better. Not the best speakers I own, but easy and pleasant to listen to without fatigue.
 
I owned Mach 1's for a short period. I'm sure they would have sounded noticeably better when new but they really weren't for me. As was said, box too small for the woofer, enlarging the enclosure I'm sure would help a lot for starters. Sold mine fairly quick, was kind of an itch I wanted to scratch as back in the day would have looked at these a million times (knowing I'd never afford them) while drooling over the latest RS catalog.
 
Very impressive
You may have inspired me. My mach are looking pretty rough. Maybe I should take a shot at a rebuild.
 
To appreciate the Mach One for what it is, you must know why? Many here have touched on why. Except the reason Radio Shack came out with the 4029 "Liquid Cooled" Speaker System in 1982.


When the Mach One came out in 1976 it was in the middle of the Disco years and HIFI was growing. Back then people used the bass and treble controls heavily and had equalizers! With the average of 50 to 75 watts per channel stereo receivers back then you could turn the bass all the way up and treble with the Mach One taking the power and not blowing too easy. However, during the late 1970s we saw the power wars with the Watts being the selling feature! Radio Shack comes out with a 120 wpc receiver. The Mach Ones needed to be redesigned.


In 1982 the Mach One Liquid Cooled was introduced (model 4029). All three voice coils were redesigned to handle much more power. The woofer voice coil went from an edge wound four or two-layer brass coil to a longer two-layer brass plated aluminum coil. Brass transfers heat quick and aluminum dissipates it quick. And being only double wound but wound longer on the coil increased how far the driver could move back and forth, moreover allowed the voice coil to dissipate heat much quicker. The 4029 woofer was also pressed stronger. It’s a stronger, stiffer (denser) woofer cone compared to the 4024 models. All to increase power handling, and to sound good at high levels.


The original Mach One midrange had a paper voice coil, that's it! The new 4029 model has a new aluminum voice coil assembly sitting in a magnetic gap filled with ferrofluid (liquid cooled). This greatly increased power handling and smoothed the response. Same with the tweeter, paper to metal coil sitting in ferrofluid.

The one sheet double sided printed instruction sheet (English both sides) that came with the Mach One Liquid Cooled said it was more than able to handle the power output of any home amp without breakup, distortion, or damage even if peaks went tens times the rated power of the speaker. With normal music, not test tones. The designers said it all for us. The Mach One Liquid Cooled was designed for power handling.

In that era 250 plus watts per channel receivers were out there. Records were mostly compressed music, turn up the bass and treble all the way, play the receiver at 10% clipping levels. Then the Mach One (4029) will prove their worth.

In 1982 it was records all the way. Most, or almost most music did not have bass below about 50hz. So, the Mach One peak at 65hz was perfect for rock. Everyone was getting more powerful amps/receivers and made the smiley face with an equalizer or turned the bass and treble up all the way. For the price it was a good speaker. I threw all the power I could at them, and they never blew (hundreds of watts in a car audio system). And now 42 years after it was born we still argue about its sound.

You can’t buy a pair and hook them up and listen. You need to replace the capacitors. Not saying then they will sound good or bad. But they will handle a lot of power. And play uncompressed (clean, effortless) at the same time.


http://audiokarma.org/forums/index....-4029-information-and-upgrades.261425/page-27
https://classicreceivers.com/the-most-powerful-vintage-receivers-of-all-time
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index....-4029-information-and-upgrades.261425/page-25
 
Last edited:
Agreed it is a meh speaker, after doing all avalible tested and graphed mods it became a, hmmm that’s a lot better, speaker. I did the mods just for fun, the guy that bought them loves them. In my experience the same can be said for the Heresy.
 
Justgotohm said:
Agreed it is a meh speaker, after doing all avalible tested and graphed mods it became a, hmmm that’s a lot better, speaker. I did the mods just for fun, the guy that bought them loves them. In my experience the same can be said for the Heresy.
Click to expand...

So, you feel Mach 1's and Heresy's are underwhelming. FWIW. I totally agree with you.
 
HTHMAN said:
I agree. I have 2 pair of the Optimus-1's with the cloth surround woofer. I used to own a pair of 5b's but I think the 1's have the edge over them. They just seem to image better. Not the best speakers I own, but easy and pleasant to listen to without fatigue.
Click to expand...
Funny how people's ears differ.
I have 5Bs and 1s.
I like the 5Bs better. The mids to me seem clearer and the low frequencies are far stronger and tighter.
They are not in the same room, though, nor are they placed identically.
I could live with either of them though.
 
I do, both in stock form for me could be very unpleasant. The Mach Ones became much much smoother to me after the mods though lacked the depth, sound stage, I guess you would call it, that the Heresy has from the get go. I recently did some work to a set of 73 Heresy’s with the type C crossover and 16ohm woofers. I ran them off of a Pilot 240 and would listen to them for hours, it was an excellent match, much better than any I had heard before.
 
Last edited:
botrytis said:
Why? The mods are worth more than the speaker is worth. I never understood people wanting to change what a speaker designer came up with. A Mach 1 is just a meh speaker.
Click to expand...
I wrote change meaning change to stock value capacitors or VL Mods. But either way the capacitors in the crossover are probably way off. So swap out the two big ones at least, with the same values. The little red capacitor can stay because it retained its exact value after all these years. If you can't measure capacitance you may want to replace it to be safe. Then knowing the crossover is good, listen and find them bad, OK, or good. The 33uF measured 40uF, the 10uF measured 15.5uF. Taken today. Original owner of 4029 bought when I was a teen for $125 each, brand new at Radio Shack. For that kind of money I heard a lot worse.

So just buying a pair of old Mach Ones and to listen may not be telling you the whole picture. with at least two new caps (super cheap and easy) you will return them to factory spec (hopefully) and can truly hear them for better or worse.

33uF.jpg 10uF.jpg 33uF.jpg 10uF.jpg
 
Anyone know the woofers resistance? I might buy some tomorrow which are missing the original woofers and I'm considering the "classic" Dayton 15s if the ones in their aren't up to par, any thoughts on that? Thanks.
 
MrRogers385 said:
Anyone know the woofers resistance? I might buy some tomorrow which are missing the original woofers and I'm considering the "classic" Dayton 15s if the ones in their aren't up to par, any thoughts on that? Thanks.
Click to expand...

https://www.parts-express.com/grs-r...ofer-for-15-realistic-mach-one-8-ohm--290-184

These are supposed to be drop in replacements for the 4024 8 ohm version (1976-1981).

Edit: reading the description a little more closely suggests it will work for the newer versions too, but I’m not sure.
 
Very interesting thread. Thx for the entertainment. I have a few thoughts.

- There seems to be a missing context for a lot of the discussion here. The culture of hi-fi gear has changed significantly over the past 35-45 years. This gear in the 80s (the time period I fell in love with this gear) was all over the map as far as quality and what was marketed to the masses. No doubt, there was a lot of high end stuff, but for many, the Radio Shack gear was largely adequate and performed quite well. Maybe a contemporary example of the differing markets would be people who can be completely happy with a quality bluetooth speaker compared to the folks on this forum who scoff at such products being anything "hi-fi". Other than boom-boxes, there were only stereo components for folks in the 80s who wanted to listen to quality music. In this context, products like the ones RS offered were quite satisfactory, most of the time.

- To the original point: I had a pair of Optimus 10 speakers that were quite good. Not the best ever, but very solid speakers. I lusted after the Mach Ones mostly because they were bigger, more expensive, and looked like they could really party. My priorities have shifted since then. I would take my Optimus 10s back, but don't know what the heck I would do with the Machs at this point in my life.

-Loud music at a kegger seems to be what Machs would be best for. Fraternity parties would right up their ally. Fine listening at low levels in a living room... not as much.

- In the 80s there were LOTS AND LOTS of brands putting out stereo systems that were absolute crap. They might look cool on the showroom floor (to the uneducated buyer) but they were terrible sounding monstrosities. Many of these were by brands that were supposedly better than the Radio Shack components, but Radio Shack products ran circles around a lot of these other brands.

- Comparing RS components with other products from their time seems more appropriate than holding them up to all products from all time. At the time, they were affordable and decent. Time has revealed that many of them were quite good. Some were not. There was a market for the Machs at the time. I really can't imagine a company making the Mach One speakers now and having a market for them. There was a market for covered wagons at one point in time. To say "covered wagons suck!" would be ridiculous. At one point in time they helped build America. They just don't work for us anymore.

- Radio Shack was an awesome store. Their catalogs were like getting the Sears Christmas Catalog, and I read every word of them. My home town was 20k people in the midwest. We had another dedicated stereo store and then products like the MCS Series at Sears. These were all hands-on options - no need to order anything. I wasn't under the impression that RS offered the best products ever. But They were decent for the money, and a fun store to visit.

- Certain people were dumping on RS even back then. Whatever. Some brands of products just seem to attract people who want to beat them up. I could name some other brands like this, but it would be out of context for this thread.

Okay. I'm done. :)
 
Back in 1980, while still in school, I wanted the ultimate sound system, something the neighbors would hear day and night, something to drown out the guys system next door.
I went down to Radio Shack, which was pretty much the only game in town back then besides maybe Sears or Two Guys, and bought a brand new STA 2100D, which when bought as a package came with a pair of Optimus T200 speakers, a LAB-500 turntable and all new cables. Wanting to make use of both speaker channels, I went back a week later and bought two Mach 1 speakers. I didn't buy their tape deck, the guy selling them told me most people weren't very happy with the Radio Shack TT which was another $580 or so dollars at the time. I kept using my HK 3500 with the new equipment.
Of the two speaker models, I liked the Mach 1's better. They could blast out the bass with far more authority than the T200's could but at lower volumes, the T-200's had the edge. Before the year was out, I was at another Radio Shack store and heard a comparison between the STA2100D and a Pioneer SX1980, and I bought one on the spot, along with a brand new CT-F950 cassette deck to go with it. I still have the STA 2000D, and the HK3500, but sold the SX1980 a few years ago when the price on those went nuts.

The T-200 speakers have been in use ever since, although they got moved to a spare room in my current house years ago. I dug out the Mach 1's about a year ago, refoamed the woofers and gave them a try again on my current system and was completely disappointed. They sounded flat with absolutely no detail, and little of the strong bass punch I remembered back then.
I recapped the crossovers and gave them another try, and they were better but not what I thought I remembered. I still strongly preferred my vintage large Advents.
I then dug out the STA 2000D, gave it a good cleaning and hooked up the Mach 1's and dug out an old Dual TT I had been keeping around and to my surprise the sound was back.
For some reason they liked the older equipment and old vinyl. I switched them back to my newer VSX-D1S receiver and my modern DVD/CD player and they sounded terrible. The highs get harsh, sort of blaring, and the bass range narrows considerably. Now that same receiver, on a pair of Boston Acoustic T1030s and a pair of Advent 5002's sounds great.

For some reason the Mach 1's just like old vinyl and older equipment.
The T-200's are a bit like that but they are still decent playing on an older Carver 'Receiver' from the same period along with an older Nakamichi CD1 CD player in my spare room.
 
louder said:
Back in 1980, while still in school, I wanted the ultimate sound system, something the neighbors would hear day and night, something to drown out the guys system next door.
I went down to Radio Shack, which was pretty much the only game in town back then besides maybe Sears or Two Guys, and bought a brand new STA 2100D, which when bought as a package came with a pair of Optimus T200 speakers, a LAB-500 turntable and all new cables. Wanting to make use of both speaker channels, I went back a week later and bought two Mach 1 speakers. I didn't buy their tape deck, the guy selling them told me most people weren't very happy with the Radio Shack TT which was another $580 or so dollars at the time. I kept using my HK 3500 with the new equipment.
Of the two speaker models, I liked the Mach 1's better. They could blast out the bass with far more authority than the T200's could but at lower volumes, the T-200's had the edge. Before the year was out, I was at another Radio Shack store and heard a comparison between the STA2100D and a Pioneer SX1980, and I bought one on the spot, along with a brand new CT-F950 cassette deck to go with it. I still have the STA 2000D, and the HK3500, but sold the SX1980 a few years ago when the price on those went nuts.

The T-200 speakers have been in use ever since, although they got moved to a spare room in my current house years ago. I dug out the Mach 1's about a year ago, refoamed the woofers and gave them a try again on my current system and was completely disappointed. They sounded flat with absolutely no detail, and little of the strong bass punch I remembered back then.
I recapped the crossovers and gave them another try, and they were better but not what I thought I remembered. I still strongly preferred my vintage large Advents.
I then dug out the STA 2000D, gave it a good cleaning and hooked up the Mach 1's and dug out an old Dual TT I had been keeping around and to my surprise the sound was back.
For some reason they liked the older equipment and old vinyl. I switched them back to my newer VSX-D1S receiver and my modern DVD/CD player and they sounded terrible. The highs get harsh, sort of blaring, and the bass range narrows considerably. Now that same receiver, on a pair of Boston Acoustic T1030s and a pair of Advent 5002's sounds great.

For some reason the Mach 1's just like old vinyl and older equipment.
The T-200's are a bit like that but they are still decent playing on an older Carver 'Receiver' from the same period along with an older Nakamichi CD1 CD player in my spare room.
Click to expand...
Funny how I bought the same system and added the Mach 1s also. I used the system for a few of our graduation reunions and everyone enjoyed the music. Great times and good memories!
 
Machs are what they are. I far prefer the Novas and Optimus series but the Machs were fun as well. Those and Bose 901s could absorb a latge amount of power and produce ear splitting sound. People like to use RS stuff as a punching bag but many have not heard their better stuff in spec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom