414 and 416 question

[westend9]

You're welcome. Yeah, I found out early that as soon as you think you know everything about Altec, there turns up a different type of the same model.

[speakerdave]

Altec says >2.5 ft^3 [70.8 L] sealed with 3.5ft^3 [99.1 L] optimum: http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...ign/page12.jpg

The 9862 has 350, 2500 Hz XO points, but is designed for a narrow 'sweet spot', so for good polar response a 12" needs to be limited to ~1500 Hz.

GM

FYI: Nice little conversion freeware program: Convert for Windows – JoshMadison.com

A correct reading of that chart is that the optimum 414 enclosure is 3.5 cu ft ported for full downward extension use. For the application in question a sealed subchamber would be nice, but the size and amount and type of stuffing would be guess and check unless you are set up for box analysis and testing.

Or somehow get measurements from that cabinet. There's a thread on that speaker over at LH somewhere, but I have not found it.

You can find the thread using google. Warning: Sadly, some of the discussion is not serious and some may find it irksome.

[Earl K]

From a dated E Bay auction:


The 9862 studio monitor speaker system was produced in the early eighties for sale exclusively to the Japanese market. It was a four way system using the 950-8A ring radiator tweeter, a 902 type driver on a special horn for the upper midrange, a 414 twelve inch driver for the lower midrange, and a subwoofer using a specially designed 416. The number of units built was very limited. The 416 woofer used all standard parts except for the cone, which was about 25 grams heavier than the stock cone. This allowed the driver to have the same low frequency performance as a standard 416, but in a much smaller enclosure with a sacrifice of about 3 dB in efficiency. A standard 416-8B/C in a nine cubic foot vented enclosure tuned around 40 Hertz has an F3 of about 40 Hertz with minimal ripple. A 416 built with the "heavy" 35239 cone has the same 40 Hertz F3 in a five cubic foot vented enclosure tuned to 30 Hertz.

For those wanting to retain the excellent mid and upper range behavior of the standard 416, but with 40 Hertz performance in a much smaller enclosure, a 416 built with the 35239 cone is the answer. These cones are original factory parts and are over thirty years old. I was the Senior Design Engineer of Acoustics for Altec Lansing in the 1980's at the Oklahoma City facility and these cones are from my personal collection. This auction is for one pair of cones.

Quoted for emphasis ( thanks Westend9 !)

Here's the"original eBay sale"where the 35239 heavy cone is mentioned.

Perhaps also worth mentioning now is that GPA's official re-visit of the classic 416-8B ( alnico )has a much higher MMS figure ( at around 89 grams ) that would be in more in-keeping with the specs for the ( model 9862 ) 416 variant .
- It's MMS figure is 40-50% heavier than the standard 1970's figures ( 60ish grams ).

[Elitopus1]

Quoted for emphasis ( thanks Westend9 !)

Here's the"original eBay sale"where the 35239 heavy cone is mentioned.

Perhaps also worth mentioning now is that GPA's official re-visit of the classic 416-8B ( alnico )has a much higher MMS figure ( at around 89 grams ) that would be in more in-keeping with the specs for the ( model 9862 ) 416 variant .
- It's MMS figure is 40-50% heavier than the standard 1970's figures ( 60ish grams ).

So it is just the GPA 416-8B that has the heavier cone or do they use these same cones in their recone service?

[Earl K]

So it is just the GPA 416-8B that has the heavier cone or do they use these same cones in their recone service?

Oddly enough ( & somewhat ironically ), over the last 1/2 decade, not a single GPA recone or new 416-8B ( when measured for TS specs ) has measured anywhere close to this heavy MMS figure ( according to my observations ) .

IOW, The posted cut-sheet just doesn't seem to represent current reality.

More than five years ago, there were a couple of observations ( complaints if you will ), that recones were coming back to customers with heavier than original Altec cones.

So did things change ( or not ) over those 5 years ??? I don't really know ( it's all circumstantial info collected from across many forums ) .