New 802-8G from GPA

[Michael V]

This may have already been discussed, but I can't find a definitive answer on this forum. Does anyone know whether the diaphragms GPA is advertising are really the lighter 23744 model that Altec produced for the 802-8G, or just the standard 802/804/806 aluminum diaphragm?

Thanks

Altec Lansing GPA 802 806 802-8G Series II Alnico NEW - eBay (item 230489858732 end time Jul-19-10 15:19:31 PDT)

[bowtie427ss]

My understanding is that 23744 was only found in early 802-8G's(as well as in a special version of the 806, and early 604-8G's), it was discontinued after just a couple years of production and replaced by the 34647 std aluminum phragm that GPA still produces today.

I'd wager the new 802's are fitted with 34647's. But, a post from Todd or a call/email to GPA would positively answer your question.

[Todd W. White]

That's right - the 23744 hasn't been available for years and years.

The current 802's have the standard 34647's in them, which work quite well.

[Altec Best]

IIRC all 604-8G's that came stock from the factory came with the 23744 and was the recommended replacement diaghram for the 604-8G it may have been replaced late in the production as some of the late 604-8G's had tangerines too.Also I think that about half of the early production run of the 806-8A came with the 23744 as well and of course the 802-8G's started out with the 23744 and was replaced in late production units with the standard 34647 diaghram.

IMHO the 23744 with the extra Alnico is what made the 802-8G such a great sounding driver.I think the 23744 diaghram is one of the best if not thee best that Altec produced in terms of sound quality in HF response to these ear's and is hands down my Favorite small format Altec diaghram.It would be awesome if Bill could start reproducing it again.If he did I think he would have more orders then he would know what to do with.Hint hint

Maybe due to it's being so fragile is what may have caused Altec to replace with the 34647

[bfish]

...I think the 23744 diaghram is one of the best if not thee best that Altec produced in terms of sound quality in HF response...

Just my opinion, but I think they're way over-rated, as I've never heard or seen anything to convince me otherwise. Some web guru tagged them Lights/Lites, implying a lighter moving mass, yet it seems no one has bothered to do an accurate weight comparison to prove it.

I guess if something's repeated often enough it becomes true though. Like Columbus discovered America... rrright... sell that story to the people that met him on the beach...

And, when the Texas Board of Education gets done rewriting the history textbooks in their own image, our future youth won't have a prayer. But that's a rant for another time and place...

[bowtie427ss]

Just my opinion, but I think they're way over-rated, as I've never heard or seen anything to convince me otherwise. Some web guru tagged them Lights/Lites, implying a lighter moving mass, yet it seems no one has bothered to do an accurate weight comparison to prove it.

Valid point, agree with your opinion.

The marketplace has been the one place where they seem to clearly have a better "response" in my experience.

I do have a pair of very low mileage 23744 equipped monitors, they use an 806 type driver body, and they comparatively have a significant HF advantage to other standard aluminum phragm equipped driver/horn combinations around the house. But, these monitors also have significant eq/shaping in their 32343 networks. Having used 32343 in other less conventional applications i'm convinced that the HF advantage i hear is mostly if not entirely the result of the network rather than the "light" phragms.

OTOH, were i to offer them for sale on ebay or A'gon, you can be sure the 23744 phragms would be mentioned as i'm sure there are buyers out there willing to, and who do pay a premium for those numbers.

Just my .02..................

[Altec Best]

Just my opinion, but I think they're way over-rated, as I've never heard or seen anything to convince me otherwise. Some web guru tagged them Lights/Lites, implying a lighter moving mass, yet it seems no one has bothered to do an accurate weight comparison to prove it.

I guess if something's repeated often enough it becomes true though. Like Columbus discovered America... rrright... sell that story to the people that met him on the beach...

And, when the Texas Board of Education gets done rewriting the history textbooks in their own image, our future youth won't have a prayer. But that's a rant for another time and place...

But as I stated it is just my preference.I really like the sound of these and could care less what other people think of them.

It is just my personal preference.

I happen to have now 3 brand new never seen power pairs of the 23744's that I will kindly keep :thankU: And would like to see Bill start building some as I have a lot of other drivers that could use the upgrade IMO

There must be something to it if a lot of people like this particular "Fram" or are you saying that some Guru is waving his wand over us telling us that we will like this "Fram" regardless of how they sound.

My favorite Large format Fram is the 23763 but that is another story.

Bowtie have you compared frams using the same Network without adjustment.

Sound preference is as INDIVIDUAL as fingerprints.

Plus they are the original Diaghram in my 19's so I would like to have some spares as we can't replace them.

[bfish]

...The current 802's have the standard 34647's in them, which work quite well.

A point for which now there should be no further argument.