The ones I have seen had a 23978 cone number. What numbers do yours have?
All
Looking for anyone that knows what the correct cones are for the Altec 604-8K. Looking to make sure the pair I m looking at have the right cones before I pull the trigger.
Thanks in advance.
The ones I have seen had a 23978 cone number. What numbers do yours have?
Is this the pair on ebay right now? Sounds like one is original and one has been reconed
Lets see if the real experts chime in on this one
Check if the 35430 is actually 35400(which is listed by EV as a replacement for the 604-8K).
There is an Altec cone 23919 for an RCA 33785 loudspeaker.
Cone numbers are often poorly stamped which can lead to them being misread.
Opinion is only as valid as its verifiable supporting evidence.
Yup the price is right but the wrong cone would be a deal breaker
- - - Updated - - -
You are right the 35430 is actually the 35400 so it has been reconed with EV part.
The other one looks like 239792 so it looks like an original Altec cone.
Still worth it?!
Last edited by kwingylee; April 3rd, 2017 at 11:36 PM.
Yup this is the Altec to EV conversion letter that shows the 35400.
The 35400 is an original Altec part that EV used for Service Repairs of Altec 604-8K speakers. Earlier cones may have different numbers but you would need to know what they are and then find NOS. Stick with the 35400.
The 6 digit cone number is in doubt.
- - - Updated - - -
Use pages 2 and 4 to cross-reference R/K(recone kit)# to drivers:
Dropbox - ALTEC PRO PDF'S
- - - Updated - - -
Just wondering if these could be an alternative to the 604-8K:
JBL 801B Urei 15" Coaxial Studio Monitor Speakers 801 Post Altec 604 Duplex | eBay
No crossovers but those horns are great.
Check the cone numbers, with Board members, of course.
Last edited by mah; April 4th, 2017 at 03:54 AM.
Opinion is only as valid as its verifiable supporting evidence.
Upon reflection these are JBLs with the Urei horns rather than the Altecs JBL used previously.
Last edited by mah; April 4th, 2017 at 07:05 AM.
Opinion is only as valid as its verifiable supporting evidence.
Bookmarks