ALTEC MATCHED PAIR 411-8A SPEAKERS FROM BARCELONA 873S - eBay (item 180585991132 end time Dec-10-10 17:00:35 PST)
Jeez, it would be something else to sit around till I never get to it...but for that price
Printable View
ALTEC MATCHED PAIR 411-8A SPEAKERS FROM BARCELONA 873S - eBay (item 180585991132 end time Dec-10-10 17:00:35 PST)
Jeez, it would be something else to sit around till I never get to it...but for that price
Yes they have been selling cheap another pair that ended Tuesday sold for $199
Altec 411-8A 15 inch Vintage Woofer Pair Original - eBay (item 110607656788 end time Nov-09-10 17:56:42 PST)
What would a fella do with the surrounds, leave em be, or replace them with the later foam style?
I'm of the "if it ain't broke..." school.
If I reconed one I'd do the other to match.
Pretty hard to come up with a good argument against that.Quote:
I'm of the "if it ain't broke..." school.
Seems anytime i encounter a pair with this type of surround, at least one has a significant wrinkle or other anomaly, those look pretty good.
FWIW, I don't consider a wrinkle in this type of surround a problem. Indeed, there's at least one excellent performing ultra-wide BW 'full-range' driver that are wrinkled by design.
GM
No argument here GM, i realize what the function of the suspension is, and that so long as it's function isn't affected, cosmetic issues are purely that. But, in at least some cases isn't this an indication of the cone likely sagging or warping?Quote:
FWIW, I don't consider a wrinkle in this type of surround a problem.
On at least one wrinkled 411 surround that i've visited in person, the wrinkle seems to have been the migratory destination of the surround sealant when it gave in to gravity's influence.
Regardless, i have a mental disorder that prevents me from accepting things that do not appear as the designers/engineers intended them to be(a smooth, uniform, half roll in this case).
Fortunately mine are of the later variety with foam. I've considered picking up another pair for a "sub" project, but would like foam surrounds. Out of sheer curiosity does anybody know if the surround was the only change between the two types?
If a chemical strong enough and/or exposed long enough to soften/degrade the chemical(s) impregnated under pressure into the paper, but normally it would be an indication of a damaged or torn loose spider.
Yeah, the pair we put in the A7s had to be rotated as often as the 515s and they looked well used after ~ 3.5 years of high power 'sub' duty before we moved away, but still performed up to par AFAIK, though without doing comparison distortion measurements there's no way to know for sure.
While I agree with you in principle, the reality with this driver's original surround is that it was so flimsy it didn't hold its form well, at least after being shipped cross country, whether in a box or mounted in a speaker. You can see in this picture that the surround's shadowing shows an anything but uniform contour once installed: http://www.lansingheritage.org/image...ome/page04.jpg
Never have heard why the swap to foam surrounds came about since they performed fine, but we assumed it was a cost reduction issue, though the distributor's in-house speaker designer commented that the foam surround version sounded a bit flat/dull to him, so may have also been to at pander to the then new shift to a more recessed mids/lower treble in HIFI/studio monitor design.
For sure, my first/only impressions of the foam surround 848 and 9846 left a lot to be desired, though at the time I wrote it off as being mostly due to its much lower efficiency/increased distortion at the ~live piano bar SPLs I normally listened at, so don't know if the foam affected this or not.
Never having any interest in the 411s for other than the one 'sub' duty app, I didn't bother with keeping current WRT any 'updates'/differences, but my limited experience with foam up to that point was to avoid it like the plague. Today's foam is fine and maintenance free, so would be my choice for a < 500 Hz XO app, though without auditioning a GPA re-cone in an 848 or similar, my 'knee-jerk' reaction is it still won't perform well enough for me with higher XO points.
GM
Sounds ideal in the terms of what a surround is and is NOT supposed to do with regard to compliance.Quote:
the reality with this driver's original surround is that it was so flimsy it didn't hold its form well
I've re-foamed a few woofers and in each case i'm always left thinking that those surrounds i handled added to the stiffness of the compliance. My basic understanding is that the surround is much akin to the hinge on a door and should neither resist movement or limit the range of movement. So, in order to sleep at night i've simply convinced myself that the designers/engineers must take the compliance of the foam into consideration in their design. I might be completely out to lunch with the notion, but i'm well rested nonetheless.:D
My only listening experience with 411's is with the foam versions in my 9846's. I have a hard time stepping away from the honesty and extension of the bass.
Recently i've been toying around using them as subwoofers in the 9846 boxes, actively crossed at 80hz. I like the results well enough that i'm considering a winter project around a pair of 411's as dedicated subwoofers in a box/alignment that might better suit the application than the 9846 cabinet.
It looks like for my intended use, either surround type will be fine and i should really discard my preconceived bias against the older surround type. Sometimes i get caught up in my American consumerism and value of appearances. There are times i'd probably buy a turd if somebody put the right polish on it.:doh:
These beauties in a box with an 811 horn could be super sweet with a SS amp. Good bass extension and great sound. Might even make a Model 19 blush. ;)