908 0r 902?

[badtoby]

No foul here vott , I'am all ears too

[RonSSS]

"(who both seem to really "know your stuff")"

In my case, the word "seem" fits perfectly.
I only know what I think I know based on experience with the stuff I've had over the years.
Better HF for me is the 902-8A with LW frams over the 802-8G. Remember too that my drivers are all bug screenless.
Ruined them ough, as are my 19's because I'm an amateur modifier. I seem to remember reading that here recently......

I'll be interested to hear what you think when done with your experiments.

Ron

[bowtie427ss]

(who both seem to really "know your stuff")

I just stay at one of those motels now and then.

[voice of the theater]

I just stay at one of those motels now and then.

Bowtie, when you say that you prefer the 902-8A over the 802-8G, do you mean the 902 with the light diaphragm, or with the 34647 diaphragm? Or do you mean in your opinion with either diaphragm the 902's "beat" the 802-8G's with light diaphragms.

Also, does anyone have some kind of description as to what kind of improvement I'm likely to hear if I remove the loading caps on my 902's and install rear covers with felt? Will it be like a toothpaste ad--will they be cleaner and brighter? Or warmer, or roll off at a higher frequency--any or all of the above?

"(who both seem to really "know your stuff")"

In my case, the word "seem" fits perfectly.
I only know what I think I know based on experience with the stuff I've had over the years.
Better HF for me is the 902-8A with LW frams over the 802-8G. Remember too that my drivers are all bug screenless.
Ruined them ough, as are my 19's because I'm an amateur modifier. I seem to remember reading that here recently......

I'll be interested to hear what you think when done with your experiments.

Ron

I don't remember hearing you or anyone else say that you ruined your speakers/drivers by removing the bug screens or remember anyone calling you an amateur modifier. I actually said that I'm considering removing them from my 14's since they're between the driver and the horn and can be relatively easily removed/accessed (and hopefully easily re-installed if I decide to). Especially since I always keep the grills on mine (except when listening to them) so I feel they have ample protection from dust and contaminants. I did mention that personally, I can't bring myself to take an exacto knife to my 802-8G's since that's apparently the only way to get the screens out of those. But if someone else removes theirs, I don't consider the drivers to be ruined (especially if they sound better without the screens).....

[bowtie427ss]

Bowtie, when you say that you prefer the 902-8A over the 802-8G, do you mean the 902 with the light diaphragm, or with the 34647 diaphragm? Or do you mean in your opinion with either diaphragm the 902's "beat" the 802-8G's with light diaphragms.

Also, does anyone have some kind of description as to what kind of improvement I'm likely to hear if I remove the loading caps on my 902's and install rear covers with felt? Will it be like a toothpaste ad--will they be cleaner and brighter? Or warmer, or roll off at a higher frequency--any or all of the above?

Well, i have to start by saying that the difference that i hear between the 23744 and 34647 diaphragms is NOT significant. My biggest attraction to the "light" diaphragms is in preserving the value and originality of the speakers i own that were originally equipped with them. I do use the lights that came in my 9849's since they have such low hours of total use. But the "lights" from my 604-8G's are shelved to be included in the eventual sale of the 604's. The 34647's sound "just as good" and allow freedom of worry about breaking a non-replaceable part.

To answer your question about the 802 vs 902 in simple terms, the 902 magnet/motor structure, and throat length and angle give a HF extension advantage regardless of the diaphragm used. I've never tried a "light" phragm in a 902, and since it was never a "stock" marriage i'm not inclined to venture down that path.

I think the 902 is best suited to XO's of 1200hz or higher, i haven't heard them in a system crossing them lower, nor would i run them lower myself. That said, low XO's are where the removal of loading caps and damping the covers really makes the most difference. At 1.2k or above, i'd probably just leave the caps in place. But, i encourage you to give it a try and see what your own ears say. It's an easily enough reversed mod.

[voice of the theater]

Thanks! I may still try removing the loading caps even though my 14's have a 1500 hz crossover..... BTW, Altec Best (or anyone else)--I know you own a lot of drivers. Have you ever tried 902's in your Model 19's just for the sake of experimentation?

[voice of the theater]

Well, i have to start by saying that the difference that i hear between the 23744 and 34647 diaphragms is NOT significant. My biggest attraction to the "light" diaphragms is in preserving the value and originality of the speakers i own that were originally equipped with them....... I've never tried a "light" phragm in a 902, and since it was never a "stock" marriage i'm not inclined to venture down that path.

I'm keeping the light diaphragms in my 19's -- want to keep them all original and they sound so great "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"! I will probably still try installing the 902's from my 14's into my 19's just to see if I like the difference and at that point may have some decisions to make about possibly buying 902's for my 19's. BTW, RonSSS and the late Bill Eckle both seem(ed) to think light diaphragms were stock with (at least some of the) 902's at some point in time....

Altec

[Earl K]

To answer your question about the 802 vs 902 in simple terms, the 902 magnet/motor structure, and throat length and angle give a HF extension advantage regardless of the diaphragm used. I've never tried a "light" phragm in a 902, and since it was never a "stock" marriage i'm not inclined to venture down that path.

The 35480 diaphragm is purported ( by some ) to be a new style equivalent to the older, "light-weight" 23744 . This ( 35480 ) diaphragm is typically found within 902-8B(s) under a loading cap .

Numerically ( obviously ), it "seems" to follow the 34647 in the timeline , making it hard to logically pin-point when ( & why ) the 35480 was introduced .

[bowtie427ss]

I'm keeping the light diaphragms in my 19's -- want to keep them all original and they sound so great "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"! I will probably still try installing the 902's from my 14's into my 19's just to see if I like the difference and at that point may have some decisions to make about possibly buying 902's for my 19's. BTW, RonSSS and the late Bill Eckle both seem(ed) to think light diaphragms were stock with (at least some of the) 902's at some point in time....

Altec

It's been my understanding based on posts here from Altec employees that production of the lights ceased around '78 or '79. It would certainly stand to reason that some early 902's could have been equipped with them. I've not personally encountered any that made it this far east.

[bowtie427ss]

The 35480 diaphragm is purported ( by some ) to be a new style equivalent to the older, "light-weight" 23744 . This ( 35480 ) diaphragm is typically found within 902-8B(s) under a loading cap .

Interesting.

Does this phragm have lead in conductors "under" the hub, and "push on" terminals?