What year were these 210's made?

[GM]

Since this doesn't appear to be a valid EIA code, unless someone has serial number records or a known date of an existing cab with a relatively close serial number the only way to approximate the earliest likely build date is from that of the theater. If you're referring to this one then it would be circa '62-63 depending on when they were ordered: http://cinematreasures.org/theater/3319/

GM

[RacerXtreme]

Altec A2 / A4 system out of the George Burns Theatre. Serial number on one of the 210 cabinets is 2712817. Any idea what year they were made?


Thanks,


Guy

[RacerXtreme]

You know, that's what I thought too, but a few years ago I asked the same question and for some reason I think the manufacture date of the system was sometime in the mid to late 70's. Can't remember for sure who told me. I think I talked to Bill @ Great Plains. Have to give him a call.

Guy

[GM]

Possible, and why I said 'likely earliest date'. It's also quite possible that they chose to upgrade their system to an L-C-R one for Stars Wars, etc., circa '77. Being a stand alone cinema, they probably didn't have to worry about LF 'bleedout' to surrounding areas, using additional 210s as little more than subs like was done down here in a few cinemas that were upgraded for the early stereo/multi-channel movies.

FWIW, as much as I like 210/211 systems, the best cinema surround sound system I've heard to date was a small neighborhood cinema that was converted to show early derived four/five channel rock concert movies, 'Yessongs', 'Live at Pompeii', 'So Far', etc.. They placed a solid row of A7-500s across the length of the screen and one on each side of the stage in front of it, then stacked two (one inverted, horn in vent) in the rear corners. It was so 'live' that the only thing missing was the obnoxious drunks, body odor, etc., you have to suffer through at a live performance, and what motivated me to assemble a cheaper, scaled down, electronically simpler version post haste.

GM

[RacerXtreme]

How big was this neighborhood cinema (i.e. how many seats) ? Approximately...... if you don't know for sure. Do you know how many A7's they had ?

I've used my four A4's (in an A2 configuration with wings) in a 1486 seat theatre in Mt. Clemens, Michigan that's now called the Emerald Theatre. I think it was built in 1921. It's been renovated quite a bit over the years and now has some fairly large acts from time to time (like Kid Rock for example). A friend and I organized a few rock concerts there years ago and the big V.O.T.T. cabinets did o.k. They were kind of "binny" as many people know, but we used them a lot, pushed them pretty hard and they did their job fairly well. Usually laid them on their side and stacked them to get the best low end possible. This was almost 20 years ago.

I know they have their flaws........all speakers do in one form or another........ but I really think I can get them to sound a lot better than they ever did. Had eight Altec 288's in four 1005B ten cell horns (2 tar filled and HEAVY) that were o.k., but eventually I grew tired of their sound too. Going to try some large format (2") JBL's. Not sure which comp. driver/ horn combo tho.

Guy

[GM]

>How big was this neighborhood cinema (i.e. how many seats) ? Approximately...... if you don't know for sure. Do you know how many A7's they had ?

====

It was small, like a screening room, so maybe 250 seats? It was originally an 'art' cinema to appeal to the Oglethorpe University crowd just walking distance away.

Anyway there were sixteen? total down in front, so fourteen? behind the 40ft? screen, though not all had HF horns, instead stacking multiple ones to make the L-C-R and some with just one for 'fill', like the two in front on the sides. I only looked at it once when I peeked behind a side curtain on the way out. I saw enough though to change my opinion of what I perceived to be an 'accurate' sound reproduction system.

Up to that point I felt that controlled, wide angle mono was the best compromise for achieving a ~accurate reproduction of live music. I mean I enjoyed the multi-channel Cinerama and the few other 70mm movie 'panorama' sound effects, but even their music soundtracks were mono from the CC, at least as presented down here.

====

>Usually laid them on their side and stacked them to get the best low end possible. This was almost 20 years ago.

====

Yeah, I had to lay mine down at home, bolting a couple of hardwood clothes rod braces across the mouth and a 2x6 'L' brace along the other side (now top). This put the HF horns at ~the right height when seated. With three, they barely fit from wall-to-wall after I removed the baseboards on each side wall. Since you know how heavy they are, even on carpet they were a 'bear' to slide/finesse into place without banging stuff up too much. This made them ~flat to 40Hz, with extension to below what any special effects RTR tapes, and well below, any records I had access to at the time.
It really hooked me on reproducing all of the signal though since the more LF extension there is (even if electronically derived), the more real/extended the music sounds even though for sure there isn't any increase in HF extension, and why I just shake my head in dismay every time someone posts that a 30-80Hz Fb is 'low' enough.

====

>I know they have their flaws........all speakers do in one form or another........ but I really think I can get them to sound a lot better than they ever did.

====

You bet, I did. They did fine when properly set up for their intended app, but with today's electronics and software, we expect far more from them than their designer(s) ever dreamed there would be a need for.

====

>Had eight Altec 288's in four 1005B ten cell horns (2 tar filled and HEAVY) that were o.k., but eventually I grew tired of their sound too. Going to try some large format (2") JBL's. Not sure which comp. driver/ horn combo tho.

====

Yeah, the 1005 has too much dispersion for all but the largest HI-FI/HT apps. Not to mention too little HF extension. Plugging the outer cells with enough polyfil to damp the HF while passing most of their lowest BW helps the former somewhat due to less room interaction and comb filtering between cells at the listening position, and using either a RC network or digital EQ to flatten/extend its response helps a bit with the latter, though I prefer passive since it mellows out the slightly harsh tone typical of a metal diaphragm.

I have airbrushed thin damping coatings on inexpensive CDs that really smoothes them out, but of course HF response plummets. Still, if you can find the right amount that allows a >5kHz/2nd order XO point, then even cheap units can perform as good/better than the top of the line CDs (in the same BW). Of course peak power handling falls due to less excursion capability, but short of a high transient noise spike I've never bottomed out a CD at home, and you can always adjust the XO either higher or steeper to compensate.

None of the JBL lens I'm familiar with impress me all that much. Better IMO to DIY a good conical for best SQ since the loss of some efficiency isn't a big deal in a HI-FI/HT app.

GM

[GM]

Greets!

Bigger horn/more cells = less compression due to larger lens and more comb filtering between cells, confusing our brain with too much info so it 'collates' into something more familiar to us. This is why good line array and large surround sound systems sound ~coherent to us, too much info in the increased nearfield they generate to process it all individually, so if you prefer to use a multi-cell in a HIFI/HT app, IMO either go way too large or tightly focussed, such as the 1505/805 or 203, though if sitting well back from the 1505s, some damping is ideally required to reduce vertical and/or horizontal HF dispersion.

If digital delay had been available when I first got the 210s, I would probably either still be using the tar damped 805s or 'upgraded' to 203s, but I couldn't get what I considered acceptable HF SQ with/without a super tweeter, so opted for heavily tweaked 511Bs instead, though in retrospect I should have doubled them up/channel to gain back the slight loss of lower mids 'fullness'/increased dynamic headroom and used acoustic tweaks to reduce the increased vertical dispersion.

WRT using one Vs two drivers, there may be some destructive comb filtering going on in the 'Y' adapter (I don't know, but it seems reasonable to me), but since each is using only half the power and quarter the excursion as a single, I would think that the overall sound would be superior with two, but then you may not be pushing either hard enough to get up to where the single driver is becoming audibly distorted, so the dual may sound less smooth.

GM

[RacerXtreme]

I think you're 100 % right GM. When maximum output was desired (because of the size of the crowd or the environment the speakers were playing in), dual 288's on a y-throat did the trick, but did it sound "better" than with a single compression driver ? I'd have to say ........no. Just my opinion tho.


Guy

[djnagle]

Hi GM, I just set up my new 1505B and they sound much better with a pair of Beyma CP25 tweets. I cross at 5000. For what ever reason, the 1505 with single 288C sound MUCH better than my 1005b with duel 288Cs. Dont know why.