Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: New cabinets for my 604s

  1. #11
    Junior Hostboard Member jdiamantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 16th, 2003
    Posts
    10
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    The sheet that shows the Qts as being 0.9237, is obviously a misprint. If you input that number in WinISD and look at the results, the response is all over the place. If you transpose the first and second digit, you get a Qts of .29, and when you input that number the response is identical to what is shown on the sheet for loading in a 6 cu' box.

    The 604's I got look like 8k's. The guy I got them from said that they were used in the "Big REd" type enclosures. There are no markings on these speakers, but they are obviously the ceramic magnet version with Mantaray horn. Could this be another model?

    Thanks

  2. #12
    Senior Hostboard Member RonSSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 6th, 2002
    Posts
    1,222
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    17 Post(s)

    Post

    "The 604's I got look like 8k's. The guy I got them from said that they were used in the "Big REd" type enclosures. There are no markings on these speakers, but they are obviously the ceramic magnet version with Mantaray horn. Could this be another model?"

    The 604-8H is a possibility. These also had the Mantaray horn. Saw one on Ebay the other day.
    BTW...the 8H specs on the web site match much better with what is in the 5 page brochure for the 8K.

    I had always wondered if they made a duplex with the tangering phase plug, Manta horn and a bass driver sort of like a 416-8B. Looks like the 604-8H is it!
    Were these rare? Highly sought after? All overseas?

    Ron

  3. #13
    Senior Hostboard Member RonSSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 6th, 2002
    Posts
    1,222
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    17 Post(s)

    Post

    The 604-8H was alnico....wasn't it?
    Ron

  4. #14
    Inactive Member Froryder's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 18th, 2002
    Posts
    6
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Thanks Ron
    I heard so much conflicting information about box volume that I have delayed construction until information that is more concrete is available. An alternative is to learn how to measure the speaker?s T/S parameters and use them to construct cabs that suit my listening tastes.
    Cheers, Gustavo

  5. #15
    Inactive Member Don McR's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 5th, 2002
    Posts
    97
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    RonSS

    The tangerine phase plug is used in late model G's and all H's and K's. The K is the only ceramic magnet model. The bass motor and cone on the 604 is pretty much equivalent to a 515. It has a much larger magnet than the 416.

  6. #16
    Senior Hostboard Member RonSSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 6th, 2002
    Posts
    1,222
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    17 Post(s)

    Post

    Hey guys,

    Probably the best thing to do then is to measure the T/S parameters yourself.
    It's an interesting excersize, and sometimes the results are surprising. And don't expect 2 drivers to measure the same, they don't. Unless you are lucky.
    I have my 904's in 2.5ft3 boxes, and they sound good. they just don't go low. About 60hz or so.

    Ron

  7. #17
    Inactive Member Don McR's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 5th, 2002
    Posts
    97
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

  8. #18
    Inactive Member gearjammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 8th, 2002
    Posts
    96
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    Hi Don Yes those are the ones,thanks for the info. Do you have a guess what a pair would be worth??? they are next to mint condition. I am thinking of bi-amping or using some custom made passives.

  9. #19
    Inactive Member gearjammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 8th, 2002
    Posts
    96
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Hi All To add to all this confusion i have a pair of 604-168X they are ceramic with the mantaray horn 8ohm.high power woofer and a 16ohm.horn.They have decals on top of the rear labels that say HAND SELECTED AND INSPECTED STANLEY SCREAMERS I was told these were designed to be bi-amped. Any one hear of these or know any backround on them???

  10. #20
    Inactive Member airboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 2nd, 2003
    Posts
    157
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Red face

    Gang:
    I have been following this thread with a mixture of amusement and an entirely different kind of bafflement. The amusement only because I couldn't figure out how in the world Altec changed the Qts of the 8K driver so drastically. RonSS exhorts us to do our own measurement and I agree whole heartedly. Especially when the box is complete and we look at Q sub L; the penalty for misalignment in a vented box enclosure is severe.
    But for the real amusement: the book states that Qts is calculated thus: Qts = Qes X Qms / Qes + Qms. In the brochure that I downloaded from the unofficial site the Qts is given as .9287. As has been pointed out, this is clearly preposterous. According to the charts I have seen, no proper alighnment can be achieved with this driver at all! But do the arithmetic. Presuming that Altec got the other two parameters right the real Qts is .28686796...... Maybe they were better at arithmetic in LA than in OK? This gives us a box sized (at a Q sub L of 7) at 6.589785832 cubic feet. This should give us an F3 of 45.6744. It also gives us a box sized closer to the Altec's commercial offering for this driver. :-)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This forum has been viewed: 28131802 times.