What would be an example of volume reducing? One way I thought of is to muont the horn in the port- though not many people seem to run them that way.
If your 828's have a full width motorboard that seals off the volume behind the curved horn flares, Altec already took the first volume reducing step. I have experimented a lot with varying thicknesses of fiberglass in the lower portion of the cabinet, and i know a fella that installed a false floor in his VOT boxes bringing the floor up approximately 6 inches internally. Not sure if that's where he ultimately stopped or not.
You can also put bricks, pavers, cement caps, etc. in the bottom to reduce volume and add a bit of mass loading.
Peruse the forum for some posts on mass loading by a former member "Low Ohms".
In your last paragraph, are you refering to various versions of 416- or a specific one?
I'm referring to the entire family of original alnico 416's, including their predecessor the 803B.
Could you elaborate on the issue of 416A refurb vs GPA 416B new?
IMO, they will be close as the moving assemblies are going to be identical. The difference is in the magnetic return structure. 803B, 416A, 416-8A, and every other 416 preceding the 416B's introduction in 1974 uses a magnetic return structure made from steel pipe and plate welded together. The 416B introduced a new one-piece cast steel return structure. I can only assume that GPA builds their 416B with the same cast steel return structure which should render them identical in performance to an original 416B re-built with the same moving assembly as used in the new version.
After reading these forums (and my own hunches), the emerging info seems to be that a good running stock 416A- a 416A recone/regauss- and a GPA 416B are varying significantly.
I'm not sure "significantly" is an appropriate term, certainly not for all ears. Some folks won't hear any difference. Some folks will definitely detect a difference, though likely subtle. Yet another group of folks(count me in) will consider ANY AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE between two "same" drivers to be significant. It really is a "your mileage may vary" situation.
Wouldn't a recone use the same cone assy as a new GPA 416-16B?
That is a question for Bill/GPA. The answer likely is yes, but you should assume nothing. The cruxt is really a matter of practicality. There were so many changes and revisions of the original drivers over time that it wouldn't be practical, or even advisable to try to offer exact replacements for them all. My WAG is that Bill chose the best cone to be a universal replacement across all 416's.
If there might be any downsides/tradeoffs to using the GPA 416s, I curious to know what they are- and ways to consider mitigating. Since I don't have a good running original 416A (does anybody?), I'm at the fork in the road of refurb vs GPA new. If I want, I can use the GPA 416-16B shipping boxes to send the 416As in for refurb- then A/B. A good adventure regardless of final outcome.
I think there are actually advantages particularly where support into the future is concerned. If you damage a GPA 416, it can be repaired, EXACTLY for at least some time into the future. I just find them a little pricey for my budget/situation.
I have no problem being patient and sourcing a pair of broken Altec 416B, one at a time, and sending them off to GPA for re-build. If it fits your budget, and you want to commence a project immediately, the GPA 416 is a no-brainer.
Originally Posted by Elitopus1
Bookmarks