Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a shelf
in my basement for many years. They are coated with fine white dust that I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?
Thanks in advance.

867-5309 wrote:

Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a shelf
in my basement for many years.

Face up or face down?

They are coated with fine white dust that I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?

A slightly humid piece of cloth as with any other dust, if it is
"greasy" then help it with a wee bit of dishwaster in the water. But
don't overdo it and don't get water on the magnet assembly or rear
suspension. You could also follow the advice of Briggs and leave it be
and just use them. If they have been placed correctly, i. e. face down,
so that the dust is on the rear side, then: do nothing, it is probably
an acoustic advantage.

The reason for placing loudspeaker units in long term storage face down
is to prevent the rear suspension from sagging by supporting the
membrane.

Thanks in advance.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

867-5309 wrote:

Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a shelf
in my basement for many years.

Face up or face down?

They are coated with fine white dust that I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?

A slightly humid piece of cloth as with any other dust, if it is
"greasy" then help it with a wee bit of dishwaster in the water. But
don't overdo it and don't get water on the magnet assembly or rear
suspension. You could also follow the advice of Briggs and leave it be
and just use them. If they have been placed correctly, i. e. face down,
so that the dust is on the rear side, then: do nothing, it is probably
an acoustic advantage.

The reason for placing loudspeaker units in long term storage face down
is to prevent the rear suspension from sagging by supporting the
membrane.

Thanks in advance.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Peter Larsen wrote:

A slightly humid piece of cloth as with any other dust, if it is
"greasy" then help it with a wee bit of dishwaster in the water.

Oh, do be aware of the non-trivial difference between humid and wet and
do be aware that the suggestion is targeted at this specific type of
loudspeaker membrane and surrounding.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Peter Larsen wrote:

A slightly humid piece of cloth as with any other dust, if it is
"greasy" then help it with a wee bit of dishwaster in the water.

Oh, do be aware of the non-trivial difference between humid and wet and
do be aware that the suggestion is targeted at this specific type of
loudspeaker membrane and surrounding.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
867-5309 wrote:

Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years.

Face up or face down?


Thanks. They were stored face up. Any further suggestions?

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
867-5309 wrote:

Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years.

Face up or face down?


Thanks. They were stored face up. Any further suggestions?

867-5309 wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
867-5309 wrote:

Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years.

Face up or face down?


Thanks. They were stored face up. Any further suggestions?

Check them with a tone generator - or by simply connecting them to an
amp and play music - before you start buidling boxes for them. KEF's of
that day and age are a forgiving design, they may be OK. If they aren't,
then try and leave'm the right way for a couple of weeks. There is also
gently massaging them back to a centered state, but it is not going to
do much good if the rear suspension is permanently stretched.

I am not saying it is, but it is a possibility, I have seen it happen to
other units that had been stored face up for long time. Your loudspeaker
units may be OK, in which case you may call yourself lucky.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

867-5309 wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
867-5309 wrote:

Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years.

Face up or face down?


Thanks. They were stored face up. Any further suggestions?

Check them with a tone generator - or by simply connecting them to an
amp and play music - before you start buidling boxes for them. KEF's of
that day and age are a forgiving design, they may be OK. If they aren't,
then try and leave'm the right way for a couple of weeks. There is also
gently massaging them back to a centered state, but it is not going to
do much good if the rear suspension is permanently stretched.

I am not saying it is, but it is a possibility, I have seen it happen to
other units that had been stored face up for long time. Your loudspeaker
units may be OK, in which case you may call yourself lucky.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
867-5309 wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
867-5309 wrote:

Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon
a
shelf
in my basement for many years.

Face up or face down?


Thanks. They were stored face up. Any further suggestions?

Check them with a tone generator - or by simply connecting them to an
amp and play music - before you start buidling boxes for them. KEF's of
that day and age are a forgiving design, they may be OK. If they aren't,
then try and leave'm the right way for a couple of weeks. There is also
gently massaging them back to a centered state, but it is not going to
do much good if the rear suspension is permanently stretched.

I am not saying it is, but it is a possibility, I have seen it happen to
other units that had been stored face up for long time. Your loudspeaker
units may be OK, in which case you may call yourself lucky.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Thanks once again.

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
867-5309 wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
867-5309 wrote:

Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon
a
shelf
in my basement for many years.

Face up or face down?


Thanks. They were stored face up. Any further suggestions?

Check them with a tone generator - or by simply connecting them to an
amp and play music - before you start buidling boxes for them. KEF's of
that day and age are a forgiving design, they may be OK. If they aren't,
then try and leave'm the right way for a couple of weeks. There is also
gently massaging them back to a centered state, but it is not going to
do much good if the rear suspension is permanently stretched.

I am not saying it is, but it is a possibility, I have seen it happen to
other units that had been stored face up for long time. Your loudspeaker
units may be OK, in which case you may call yourself lucky.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Thanks once again.

"867-5309" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years. They are coated with fine white dust that
I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?
Thanks in advance.

B110? or B200?

I usually use luke warm soapy water, the glue (now well aged) will resist
most mild solvents, however even though well set the adhesive bond between
the rubber and bextene cones can be none too flash ex factory so use care.
Do not get moisure into the voice coil!

I would tend not to use armorall (it will give a nice shine) but the action
of rubbing the cone to polish away the armour all will tend to generate a
significant static charge, you will then note that dust will just gravitate
to the speaker!

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification. The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!

"867-5309" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years. They are coated with fine white dust that
I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?
Thanks in advance.

B110? or B200?

I usually use luke warm soapy water, the glue (now well aged) will resist
most mild solvents, however even though well set the adhesive bond between
the rubber and bextene cones can be none too flash ex factory so use care.
Do not get moisure into the voice coil!

I would tend not to use armorall (it will give a nice shine) but the action
of rubbing the cone to polish away the armour all will tend to generate a
significant static charge, you will then note that dust will just gravitate
to the speaker!

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification. The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!

"The Flash" wrote in message
...

"867-5309" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years. They are coated with fine white dust
that
I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?
Thanks in advance.

B110? or B200?

I usually use luke warm soapy water, the glue (now well aged) will resist
most mild solvents, however even though well set the adhesive bond between
the rubber and bextene cones can be none too flash ex factory so use care.
Do not get moisure into the voice coil!

I would tend not to use armorall (it will give a nice shine) but the
action
of rubbing the cone to polish away the armour all will tend to generate a
significant static charge, you will then note that dust will just
gravitate
to the speaker!

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification. The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!


Thanks for the advice. B-110 mid/bass and T-27 tweeters.

"The Flash" wrote in message
...

"867-5309" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years. They are coated with fine white dust
that
I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?
Thanks in advance.

B110? or B200?

I usually use luke warm soapy water, the glue (now well aged) will resist
most mild solvents, however even though well set the adhesive bond between
the rubber and bextene cones can be none too flash ex factory so use care.
Do not get moisure into the voice coil!

I would tend not to use armorall (it will give a nice shine) but the
action
of rubbing the cone to polish away the armour all will tend to generate a
significant static charge, you will then note that dust will just
gravitate
to the speaker!

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification. The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!


Thanks for the advice. B-110 mid/bass and T-27 tweeters.

The Flash wrote:

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification.

? ... The first use I made of my Coda's was listening tests of large
amplifiers in case it was relevant to check whether letting them really
work remedied obvious sonic problems. It didn't btw. - if it can't do a
single watt, then there is no relevance in listening to the performance
when it does 200, just say "next". Until they got a pair of subwoofers I
used them with a fair amount of bass eq (40 Hz "two notches", 250 Hz
"one notch", 1 kHz nil, 5 kHz "minus 1 notch" and 16 kHz "one notch" on
a JVC 5 band eq).

The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!

Common sense and not clipping the poweramp has good (7-9-13) mileage. It
is not so that the dynamic range of generally distributed music has
increased, on the contrary: it has decreased. One simple reason for
"analog to sound better" is that it - generally speaking - is less
compressed and that if it is compressed then it was done by someone
knowing what and how to do.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

The Flash wrote:

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification.

? ... The first use I made of my Coda's was listening tests of large
amplifiers in case it was relevant to check whether letting them really
work remedied obvious sonic problems. It didn't btw. - if it can't do a
single watt, then there is no relevance in listening to the performance
when it does 200, just say "next". Until they got a pair of subwoofers I
used them with a fair amount of bass eq (40 Hz "two notches", 250 Hz
"one notch", 1 kHz nil, 5 kHz "minus 1 notch" and 16 kHz "one notch" on
a JVC 5 band eq).

The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!

Common sense and not clipping the poweramp has good (7-9-13) mileage. It
is not so that the dynamic range of generally distributed music has
increased, on the contrary: it has decreased. One simple reason for
"analog to sound better" is that it - generally speaking - is less
compressed and that if it is compressed then it was done by someone
knowing what and how to do.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

"The Flash" wrote in message ...
"867-5309" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years. They are coated with fine white dust that
I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?
Thanks in advance.

B110? or B200?

Or B139 or B300, and there are others.

I usually use luke warm soapy water, the glue (now well aged) will resist
most mild solvents, however even though well set the adhesive bond between
the rubber and bextene cones can be none too flash ex factory so use care.

Uh, sorry, but this is a REAL bad idea. Most of the KEF cone drivers
were coated with latex/PVA which IS sensitive to water, even 20-30 years
later. The surround/basket adhesive is also PVA, which hardens by
solvent evaporation and does not "cure." Any amount of water beyond
that of a damp cloth can cause irreversible changes.

The other advice given, using simply a soft, at most slightly damp
cloth and gently wiping the cone, is probably the best. Better
advice would be to ignore the dust.

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The fact that the signals
got there by digital or analog is irrelevant to the survival
of the speaker.

The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!

To paraphrase another thread: yeah, right!

The best protection is judicious use of the volume control on
stable reliable amplification. I know a number of people that
are running things like KEF RS104's on modern systems at quite
healthy levels using almost exclusively CDs as their source
material with absolutely NO signs of any untoward damage or
deterioration.

"The Flash" wrote in message ...
"867-5309" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I have some mid '70's KEF drivers that have been sitting uncoveredon a
shelf
in my basement for many years. They are coated with fine white dust that
I
would like to remove. The cones are rubberized/plastic coated and the
surrounds are rubber. My question is what do you folks suggest to clean
them without dissolving the adhesive? My first guess was ArmorAll?
Thanks in advance.

B110? or B200?

Or B139 or B300, and there are others.

I usually use luke warm soapy water, the glue (now well aged) will resist
most mild solvents, however even though well set the adhesive bond between
the rubber and bextene cones can be none too flash ex factory so use care.

Uh, sorry, but this is a REAL bad idea. Most of the KEF cone drivers
were coated with latex/PVA which IS sensitive to water, even 20-30 years
later. The surround/basket adhesive is also PVA, which hardens by
solvent evaporation and does not "cure." Any amount of water beyond
that of a damp cloth can cause irreversible changes.

The other advice given, using simply a soft, at most slightly damp
cloth and gently wiping the cone, is probably the best. Better
advice would be to ignore the dust.

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The fact that the signals
got there by digital or analog is irrelevant to the survival
of the speaker.

The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!

To paraphrase another thread: yeah, right!

The best protection is judicious use of the volume control on
stable reliable amplification. I know a number of people that
are running things like KEF RS104's on modern systems at quite
healthy levels using almost exclusively CDs as their source
material with absolutely NO signs of any untoward damage or
deterioration.

In article ,
The Flash wrote:

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification. The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!


I'm afraid I don't understand this, since the output from a power amplifer
is analog and the speaker has no idea what source was plugged into the
amp. It is true that these drivers were not very resistant to being
overdriven, but that was true back in the analog day also.

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

In article ,
The Flash wrote:

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on high
powered amplification. The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!


I'm afraid I don't understand this, since the output from a power amplifer
is analog and the speaker has no idea what source was plugged into the
amp. It is true that these drivers were not very resistant to being
overdriven, but that was true back in the analog day also.

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

The B110 (SP1003) uses a Nomex former upon which the voice coil is mounted,
it is a small diameter former and is very easily damaged. Often SP1003
drivers (B110) are wounded without the owner knowing it at the time. Removel
of the dust cap and inspection will show distortion of the nomex form in a
lot of cases, This type of wounding often slowly progresses until the
former/vc meets the pole piece.

The SP1057 (B110) is significantly more robust

The SP1003 driver is rated 30W full range, 80W mid range, max VC temp
250DegC/5 Secs, sustained temp 180DegC - 30Min
The SP1057 drive is rated 50W full range, 150W mid range, max VC temp
340DegC/5 sec, sustained temp 250DegC - 30Min

As has been mention clean power is needed but these are not a suitable
speaker for high volume use (SP1003) . That said I like them as a speaker
and have a couple of sets of them (Drivers from Kef kits / Dismantled Lin
Isobariks and such) as well as a set of concertos and a pair of worlds most
abused LS3/5a (some 'thing' drilled holes in the enclosures to put bolts
thru so the could be bolted to wall (Came from a school) lovingly
waterstained and gouged cases!

Of all the speakers that I have owned over the last couple of decades the
only failures of drivers I have had have been with Kefs, that said I still
like them and you can pick up replacements if needed.


"Michael Squires" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Flash wrote:

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on
high
powered amplification. The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!


I'm afraid I don't understand this, since the output from a power amplifer
is analog and the speaker has no idea what source was plugged into the
amp. It is true that these drivers were not very resistant to being
overdriven, but that was true back in the analog day also.

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564
(h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN
47408

The B110 (SP1003) uses a Nomex former upon which the voice coil is mounted,
it is a small diameter former and is very easily damaged. Often SP1003
drivers (B110) are wounded without the owner knowing it at the time. Removel
of the dust cap and inspection will show distortion of the nomex form in a
lot of cases, This type of wounding often slowly progresses until the
former/vc meets the pole piece.

The SP1057 (B110) is significantly more robust

The SP1003 driver is rated 30W full range, 80W mid range, max VC temp
250DegC/5 Secs, sustained temp 180DegC - 30Min
The SP1057 drive is rated 50W full range, 150W mid range, max VC temp
340DegC/5 sec, sustained temp 250DegC - 30Min

As has been mention clean power is needed but these are not a suitable
speaker for high volume use (SP1003) . That said I like them as a speaker
and have a couple of sets of them (Drivers from Kef kits / Dismantled Lin
Isobariks and such) as well as a set of concertos and a pair of worlds most
abused LS3/5a (some 'thing' drilled holes in the enclosures to put bolts
thru so the could be bolted to wall (Came from a school) lovingly
waterstained and gouged cases!

Of all the speakers that I have owned over the last couple of decades the
only failures of drivers I have had have been with Kefs, that said I still
like them and you can pick up replacements if needed.


"Michael Squires" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Flash wrote:

Be aware that the kefs will be of a previous technology and although they
will sound nice they cannot withstand modern digital reproductions on
high
powered amplification. The use of PTC or other such protection in speaker
design is well worth it least you turn them into paper weights!


I'm afraid I don't understand this, since the output from a power amplifer
is analog and the speaker has no idea what source was plugged into the
amp. It is true that these drivers were not very resistant to being
overdriven, but that was true back in the analog day also.

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564
(h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN
47408

To paraphrase another thread: yeah, right!

The best protection is judicious use of the volume control on
stable reliable amplification. I know a number of people that
are running things like KEF RS104's on modern systems at quite
healthy levels using almost exclusively CDs as their source
material with absolutely NO signs of any untoward damage or
deterioration.

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

Combined with the other drives the 104/2 makes an impressive speaker and it
has huge power handling ability and can produce serious sound levels plus it
is quite efficent so you don't need really need a huge amplifier (unless you
believe in the high headroom ideal).

I have never seen a pair of the original 104, I have seen/heard Kit 104's
and cannot remember what drivers were used other than they reminded me of
the concertos.

To paraphrase another thread: yeah, right!

The best protection is judicious use of the volume control on
stable reliable amplification. I know a number of people that
are running things like KEF RS104's on modern systems at quite
healthy levels using almost exclusively CDs as their source
material with absolutely NO signs of any untoward damage or
deterioration.

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

Combined with the other drives the 104/2 makes an impressive speaker and it
has huge power handling ability and can produce serious sound levels plus it
is quite efficent so you don't need really need a huge amplifier (unless you
believe in the high headroom ideal).

I have never seen a pair of the original 104, I have seen/heard Kit 104's
and cannot remember what drivers were used other than they reminded me of
the concertos.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:38:46 +1300, "The Flash" wrote:

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

In a pair, mebbe. I know of no KEF designs that used multiples of the
B110.

Kal

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:38:46 +1300, "The Flash" wrote:

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

In a pair, mebbe. I know of no KEF designs that used multiples of the
B110.

Kal

"The Flash" wrote in message ...
To paraphrase another thread: yeah, right!

The best protection is judicious use of the volume control on
stable reliable amplification. I know a number of people that
are running things like KEF RS104's on modern systems at quite
healthy levels using almost exclusively CDs as their source
material with absolutely NO signs of any untoward damage or
deterioration.

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

No, I said RS104. It had the B139 passive radiator, a B200 SP1039
and the T-27. The SP1039 had a substantially larger voice coil
(1.5" vs 1") and substantially beefier construction.

Combined with the other drives the 104/2 makes an impressive speaker and it
has huge power handling ability and can produce serious sound levels plus it
is quite efficent so you don't need really need a huge amplifier (unless you
believe in the high headroom ideal).

I have never seen a pair of the original 104, I have seen/heard Kit 104's
and cannot remember what drivers were used other than they reminded me of
the concertos.

And they were utterly unlike the them, bearing almost no resemblance
whatsoever.

Beyond that, you have yet to explain your rather bizarre assertion
thatthere's something magic about digital which makes these older
KEF's so deeply vulnerable.

"The Flash" wrote in message ...
To paraphrase another thread: yeah, right!

The best protection is judicious use of the volume control on
stable reliable amplification. I know a number of people that
are running things like KEF RS104's on modern systems at quite
healthy levels using almost exclusively CDs as their source
material with absolutely NO signs of any untoward damage or
deterioration.

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

No, I said RS104. It had the B139 passive radiator, a B200 SP1039
and the T-27. The SP1039 had a substantially larger voice coil
(1.5" vs 1") and substantially beefier construction.

Combined with the other drives the 104/2 makes an impressive speaker and it
has huge power handling ability and can produce serious sound levels plus it
is quite efficent so you don't need really need a huge amplifier (unless you
believe in the high headroom ideal).

I have never seen a pair of the original 104, I have seen/heard Kit 104's
and cannot remember what drivers were used other than they reminded me of
the concertos.

And they were utterly unlike the them, bearing almost no resemblance
whatsoever.

Beyond that, you have yet to explain your rather bizarre assertion
thatthere's something magic about digital which makes these older
KEF's so deeply vulnerable.

Now I know what you were talking about, however the drive in question was
the B110 not the B200, a speaker which has a significantly improved rating
over the old B110 (SP1003)

Beyond that, you have yet to explain your rather bizarre assertion
thatthere's something magic about digital which makes these older
KEF's so deeply vulnerable.

Typically I think this issue is something that applies to all older
generation speakers, power handling is low, amplifers were low powered.
Valve amplifiers tend to have softer distortion when over driven. Transistor
amplifers had very low power ratings and typically used capacitivly coupled
output stages which limit low frequency output. Turntables were the method
of source and most preamplifers were compensted with high and low pass
filters when used with Ttables.

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power, alot use
integrated power module based on opamp / power fet technology. These are a
double edged sword, fine when correctly used but things go badly astray if
driven hard, the protection circuits in most of these are designed to
protect the module from overtemp or over current situations cause the output
to become damaging to these older type speaker (and a lot of modern
speakers)

Clipping damages speakers and a modern amplifer has such powerlevels that
when it clips (if ever) it will destroy a pair T27 tweeters in a flash.
Generally a ferrofluid tweeter will withstand alot more of this abuse before
failing.

The digital reproductions I refer to are albums constucted with significant
added effects that produce a dynamic range very wide and varied in level,
Along the line of say Pink Floyds Divison Bell (Not a favorite, I much
rather prefer Us and Them) or such can be listend at quite high levels with
out realising the stress placed on speakers designed and built 20 years or
more ago as the attempt to deal with wide transitions, sudden starts and
stops and such. I suspect that you could list other such albums that work
any modern speaker out and give a classic speaker system driven by an
amplifer 20 years its junior a suprise.

Now I know what you were talking about, however the drive in question was
the B110 not the B200, a speaker which has a significantly improved rating
over the old B110 (SP1003)

Beyond that, you have yet to explain your rather bizarre assertion
thatthere's something magic about digital which makes these older
KEF's so deeply vulnerable.

Typically I think this issue is something that applies to all older
generation speakers, power handling is low, amplifers were low powered.
Valve amplifiers tend to have softer distortion when over driven. Transistor
amplifers had very low power ratings and typically used capacitivly coupled
output stages which limit low frequency output. Turntables were the method
of source and most preamplifers were compensted with high and low pass
filters when used with Ttables.

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power, alot use
integrated power module based on opamp / power fet technology. These are a
double edged sword, fine when correctly used but things go badly astray if
driven hard, the protection circuits in most of these are designed to
protect the module from overtemp or over current situations cause the output
to become damaging to these older type speaker (and a lot of modern
speakers)

Clipping damages speakers and a modern amplifer has such powerlevels that
when it clips (if ever) it will destroy a pair T27 tweeters in a flash.
Generally a ferrofluid tweeter will withstand alot more of this abuse before
failing.

The digital reproductions I refer to are albums constucted with significant
added effects that produce a dynamic range very wide and varied in level,
Along the line of say Pink Floyds Divison Bell (Not a favorite, I much
rather prefer Us and Them) or such can be listend at quite high levels with
out realising the stress placed on speakers designed and built 20 years or
more ago as the attempt to deal with wide transitions, sudden starts and
stops and such. I suspect that you could list other such albums that work
any modern speaker out and give a classic speaker system driven by an
amplifer 20 years its junior a suprise.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:38:46 +1300, "The Flash" wrote:

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

In a pair, mebbe. I know of no KEF designs that used multiples of the
B110.

Kal

http://www.savantaudio.com/kef1042s.html

Heres a picture (little dark). 2 nice B110's outside, mounted inside the
cabs are a pair B200 base units in 'twin coupled-cavity bass loading' this
method was used in the 104/2, 107 (B250's) and lots of other 100 series
speakers.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:38:46 +1300, "The Flash" wrote:

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

In a pair, mebbe. I know of no KEF designs that used multiples of the
B110.

Kal

http://www.savantaudio.com/kef1042s.html

Heres a picture (little dark). 2 nice B110's outside, mounted inside the
cabs are a pair B200 base units in 'twin coupled-cavity bass loading' this
method was used in the 104/2, 107 (B250's) and lots of other 100 series
speakers.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:37:17 +1300, "The Flash" wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:38:46 +1300, "The Flash" wrote:

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

In a pair, mebbe. I know of no KEF designs that used multiples of the
B110.

Kal

http://www.savantaudio.com/kef1042s.html

Heres a picture (little dark). 2 nice B110's outside, mounted inside the
cabs are a pair B200 base units in 'twin coupled-cavity bass loading' this
method was used in the 104/2, 107 (B250's) and lots of other 100 series
speakers.

Ah. My familiarity with KEFs was fading when these came out and I was
not aware that the drivers were the same B110s from earlier. Prior to
that, iirc, Meridian/Boothroyd/Stuart had some models with dual B110s.

Kal

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:37:17 +1300, "The Flash" wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 04:38:46 +1300, "The Flash" wrote:

If your refering to the 104/2 Kef this is a different kettle of fish, it
uses two B110's of the SP1057 which have about 75% more power capability
that the older (but very common) SP1003

In a pair, mebbe. I know of no KEF designs that used multiples of the
B110.

Kal

http://www.savantaudio.com/kef1042s.html

Heres a picture (little dark). 2 nice B110's outside, mounted inside the
cabs are a pair B200 base units in 'twin coupled-cavity bass loading' this
method was used in the 104/2, 107 (B250's) and lots of other 100 series
speakers.

Ah. My familiarity with KEFs was fading when these came out and I was
not aware that the drivers were the same B110s from earlier. Prior to
that, iirc, Meridian/Boothroyd/Stuart had some models with dual B110s.

Kal

"The Flash" wrote in message
...
Beyond that, you have yet to explain your rather bizarre assertion
thatthere's something magic about digital which makes these older
KEF's so deeply vulnerable.

Typically I think this issue is something that applies to all older
generation speakers, power handling is low, amplifers were low powered.
Valve amplifiers tend to have softer distortion when over driven.
Transistor
amplifers had very low power ratings and typically used capacitivly
coupled
output stages which limit low frequency output. Turntables were the method
of source and most preamplifers were compensted with high and low pass
filters when used with Ttables.

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power, alot use
integrated power module based on opamp / power fet technology. These are a
double edged sword, fine when correctly used but things go badly astray if
driven hard, the protection circuits in most of these are designed to
protect the module from overtemp or over current situations cause the
output
to become damaging to these older type speaker (and a lot of modern
speakers)

Clipping damages speakers and a modern amplifer has such powerlevels that
when it clips (if ever) it will destroy a pair T27 tweeters in a flash.
Generally a ferrofluid tweeter will withstand alot more of this abuse
before
failing.

The digital reproductions I refer to are albums constucted with
significant
added effects that produce a dynamic range very wide and varied in level,
Along the line of say Pink Floyds Divison Bell (Not a favorite, I much
rather prefer Us and Them) or such can be listend at quite high levels
with
out realising the stress placed on speakers designed and built 20 years or
more ago as the attempt to deal with wide transitions, sudden starts and
stops and such. I suspect that you could list other such albums that work
any modern speaker out and give a classic speaker system driven by an
amplifer 20 years its junior a suprise.

What a load of ********. There are just as many cheap speakers made these
days with less power handling/max SPL/overload/destruction capabilities as
any that KEF made 20 years ago.
Sure the better companies now use higher temp epoxies, higher temp formers
etc. But the average speaker used by the masses is hardly any better,
usually worse IMO.

The fact that there are very many KEF B110's, T27's etc. still in use after
20 years of digital reproduction proves any limitations are easily overcome
with application of a small amount of intelligence, and is exactly the same
with the vast majority of today's speakers.

TonyP.

"The Flash" wrote in message
...
Beyond that, you have yet to explain your rather bizarre assertion
thatthere's something magic about digital which makes these older
KEF's so deeply vulnerable.

Typically I think this issue is something that applies to all older
generation speakers, power handling is low, amplifers were low powered.
Valve amplifiers tend to have softer distortion when over driven.
Transistor
amplifers had very low power ratings and typically used capacitivly
coupled
output stages which limit low frequency output. Turntables were the method
of source and most preamplifers were compensted with high and low pass
filters when used with Ttables.

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power, alot use
integrated power module based on opamp / power fet technology. These are a
double edged sword, fine when correctly used but things go badly astray if
driven hard, the protection circuits in most of these are designed to
protect the module from overtemp or over current situations cause the
output
to become damaging to these older type speaker (and a lot of modern
speakers)

Clipping damages speakers and a modern amplifer has such powerlevels that
when it clips (if ever) it will destroy a pair T27 tweeters in a flash.
Generally a ferrofluid tweeter will withstand alot more of this abuse
before
failing.

The digital reproductions I refer to are albums constucted with
significant
added effects that produce a dynamic range very wide and varied in level,
Along the line of say Pink Floyds Divison Bell (Not a favorite, I much
rather prefer Us and Them) or such can be listend at quite high levels
with
out realising the stress placed on speakers designed and built 20 years or
more ago as the attempt to deal with wide transitions, sudden starts and
stops and such. I suspect that you could list other such albums that work
any modern speaker out and give a classic speaker system driven by an
amplifer 20 years its junior a suprise.

What a load of ********. There are just as many cheap speakers made these
days with less power handling/max SPL/overload/destruction capabilities as
any that KEF made 20 years ago.
Sure the better companies now use higher temp epoxies, higher temp formers
etc. But the average speaker used by the masses is hardly any better,
usually worse IMO.

The fact that there are very many KEF B110's, T27's etc. still in use after
20 years of digital reproduction proves any limitations are easily overcome
with application of a small amount of intelligence, and is exactly the same
with the vast majority of today's speakers.

TonyP.

What a load of ********. There are just as many cheap speakers made these
days with less power handling/max SPL/overload/destruction capabilities as
any that KEF made 20 years ago.
Sure the better companies now use higher temp epoxies, higher temp formers
etc. But the average speaker used by the masses is hardly any better,
usually worse IMO.

Ok, for the day the old T27/B110 etal would have had very good power
handling

Yes there are some truely nasty speakers avalible that would be of inferior
capabilities than a 20 year old (could even be 36 years old!) speaker - and
i don't see any excuse for that in this day and age.

I LIKE Kef speakers (generally) I currently own a set of Concertos, and
possibly worlds most battered set of Ls3/5a's also a set of C60's - The
first new set of speaker that I paid hard cash for! (and why I still have
them in storage) I have a couple of sets of T27/B110 drives from various
models of Kefs for project use. I have a box of dead B110 and T27 / T33
drivers (That I just know I will get repaired one day - of course I have
said that for 10 years or more). I have owned others including C30, C80,
Chorale and Cantor 3's and either fixed or trialed a large number of other
Kefs or Speakers using Kef drivers.

The fact that there are very many KEF B110's, T27's etc. still in use
after
20 years of digital reproduction proves any limitations are easily
overcome
with application of a small amount of intelligence, and is exactly the
same
with the vast majority of today's speakers.

Yes they are / were a very popular speaker and were used by a number of
other companies.
Intelligence? Well You and I may understand that the were designed 40 years
ago and what a realistic level of drive is. However a teenage has different
ideas on said issue and judges the output based on what his/her friends
prelude with Cerwins and 'Tantrum' amplifers produces while in 'cruise'
(missile) mode on a friday night.


TonyP.

What a load of ********. There are just as many cheap speakers made these
days with less power handling/max SPL/overload/destruction capabilities as
any that KEF made 20 years ago.
Sure the better companies now use higher temp epoxies, higher temp formers
etc. But the average speaker used by the masses is hardly any better,
usually worse IMO.

Ok, for the day the old T27/B110 etal would have had very good power
handling

Yes there are some truely nasty speakers avalible that would be of inferior
capabilities than a 20 year old (could even be 36 years old!) speaker - and
i don't see any excuse for that in this day and age.

I LIKE Kef speakers (generally) I currently own a set of Concertos, and
possibly worlds most battered set of Ls3/5a's also a set of C60's - The
first new set of speaker that I paid hard cash for! (and why I still have
them in storage) I have a couple of sets of T27/B110 drives from various
models of Kefs for project use. I have a box of dead B110 and T27 / T33
drivers (That I just know I will get repaired one day - of course I have
said that for 10 years or more). I have owned others including C30, C80,
Chorale and Cantor 3's and either fixed or trialed a large number of other
Kefs or Speakers using Kef drivers.

The fact that there are very many KEF B110's, T27's etc. still in use
after
20 years of digital reproduction proves any limitations are easily
overcome
with application of a small amount of intelligence, and is exactly the
same
with the vast majority of today's speakers.

Yes they are / were a very popular speaker and were used by a number of
other companies.
Intelligence? Well You and I may understand that the were designed 40 years
ago and what a realistic level of drive is. However a teenage has different
ideas on said issue and judges the output based on what his/her friends
prelude with Cerwins and 'Tantrum' amplifers produces while in 'cruise'
(missile) mode on a friday night.


TonyP.

The Flash wrote:

Now I know what you were talking about, however the drive in question was
the B110 not the B200, a speaker which has a significantly improved rating
over the old B110 (SP1003)

Beyond that, you have yet to explain your rather bizarre assertion
thatthere's something magic about digital which makes these older
KEF's so deeply vulnerable.

Typically I think this issue is something that applies to all older
generation speakers, power handling is low, amplifers were low powered.

I have made listening tests of a Yamaha P2200 on my Coda's. You seem to
get the decade wrong, we are talking 1970's not 1960'ties.

Valve amplifiers tend to have softer distortion when over driven. Transistor
amplifers had very low power ratings and typically used capacitivly coupled
output stages which limit low frequency output. Turntables were the method
of source and most preamplifers were compensted with high and low pass
filters when used with Ttables.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? !

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power,

OK, let us take a vintage Radford dual 100 watt valve amp, if you want
to improve on that in terms of loudness it has to be with the kilowatt
league of modern amps.

Clipping damages speakers and a modern amplifer has such powerlevels that
when it clips (if ever) it will destroy a pair T27 tweeters in a flash.

No, not even the ill behaved right channel (oscillates and goes SMACK
when it clips) of my Audire dual 120 watts amp did that. I have burned
one T27, but that was by getting a cross-over breadbord to oscillate and
having too little visual monitoring of what was going on. One should not
just listen to a construction to determine whether it works. It kinda
worked too good .... the objective was to deliver treble to treble
units, but not quite that kind and amount.

Clipping per se does not damage loudspeakers. Power does. Clipping can
lead to a changed frequency distribution that voids powerhandling
asumptions, but it is the power that causes damage.

The digital reproductions I refer to are albums constucted with significant
added effects that produce a dynamic range very wide and varied in level,

Expanded to generalities - as it first came across - the notion that
digital has a larger dynamic range than vinyl is nonsense. The
restrictions actually deployed for both technologies are defined by
operators whim and daring-do.

Along the line of say Pink Floyds Divison Bell (Not a favorite, I much
rather prefer Us and Them) or such can be listend at quite high levels with
out realising the stress placed on speakers designed and built 20 years or
more ago as the attempt to deal with wide transitions, sudden starts and
stops and such. I suspect that you could list other such albums that work
any modern speaker out and give a classic speaker system driven by an
amplifer 20 years its junior a suprise.

Are you a salesman by any chance?


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********