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 *
************************************************** ***********

Are you a salesman by any chance?

Anybody who is not independantly wealth and therefore has to generate a
income from Preacher to Prostitue and all in between are salespeople.

Its just the product that you sell that varies.

I am not independantly wealth. :-(

Are you a salesman by any chance?

Anybody who is not independantly wealth and therefore has to generate a
income from Preacher to Prostitue and all in between are salespeople.

Its just the product that you sell that varies.

I am not independantly wealth. :-(

"The Flash" wrote in message ...
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.

Really? When we mention speakers like the RS104aB and LS3-5A's and
such, we're talking the mid 1970's. This is the era when people
had low power amplifiers and receivers like Phase Linear 700's
which only had 350 watts per channel, Crown DC300's at 150 watts
per channel, Yamaha, Pioneer, Kenwood receivers easily pushing 100
watts/channel and more.

Turntables were the method
of source and most preamplifers were compensted with high and low pass
filters when used with Ttables.

Really? WHat preamplifier/integrated amplifier/receivers were
"compensated with high and low pass filters when used with turntables?"
I am sitting on about 1000 measurements of 1960's and 1970's
preamplifiers, receivers and integrated amplifiers and, you
know what, not a single one of them shows any such "high and low
pass filter" compensation.

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power, alot use
integrated power module based on opamp / power fet technology.

Really? So that a modern 100 watt/channel amplifier using "integrated
power module based on opamp/power fet technoology" has more power than
a 1970's Pioneer 100 watt/channel amplifier using old-fashioned
bipolar/discrete technology?

Really? So there are different kinds of watts?

And what, precisely, does an opamp have to do with the power output?
(just the vaguest of hints: absolutely nothing)

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.

That's funny, I've know people who have run speakers with T27's in them
off of 200 watt/channel amplifiers for 25 years without ever once
having to replace them.

How do you explain this? Is it because integrated module opamp/fet
watts are different than bipolar watts?

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.

What an absurd load of utter nonsense!

Precisely what "sudden starts and stops and such" are you going on
about?

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.

I suspect that you could make up any number of preposterous speculations
but, as always, it's when the speculative rubber hits the physical road
that separates the wheat form the BS.

"The Flash" wrote in message ...
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.

Really? When we mention speakers like the RS104aB and LS3-5A's and
such, we're talking the mid 1970's. This is the era when people
had low power amplifiers and receivers like Phase Linear 700's
which only had 350 watts per channel, Crown DC300's at 150 watts
per channel, Yamaha, Pioneer, Kenwood receivers easily pushing 100
watts/channel and more.

Turntables were the method
of source and most preamplifers were compensted with high and low pass
filters when used with Ttables.

Really? WHat preamplifier/integrated amplifier/receivers were
"compensated with high and low pass filters when used with turntables?"
I am sitting on about 1000 measurements of 1960's and 1970's
preamplifiers, receivers and integrated amplifiers and, you
know what, not a single one of them shows any such "high and low
pass filter" compensation.

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power, alot use
integrated power module based on opamp / power fet technology.

Really? So that a modern 100 watt/channel amplifier using "integrated
power module based on opamp/power fet technoology" has more power than
a 1970's Pioneer 100 watt/channel amplifier using old-fashioned
bipolar/discrete technology?

Really? So there are different kinds of watts?

And what, precisely, does an opamp have to do with the power output?
(just the vaguest of hints: absolutely nothing)

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.

That's funny, I've know people who have run speakers with T27's in them
off of 200 watt/channel amplifiers for 25 years without ever once
having to replace them.

How do you explain this? Is it because integrated module opamp/fet
watts are different than bipolar watts?

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.

What an absurd load of utter nonsense!

Precisely what "sudden starts and stops and such" are you going on
about?

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.

I suspect that you could make up any number of preposterous speculations
but, as always, it's when the speculative rubber hits the physical road
that separates the wheat form the BS.

In article , "The Flash" wrote:

"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!

The use of Armor All makes things pretty. I think it hastens desintegration of
materials. It does not protect, unless it has enough UV inhibitor when usesd
in sunlight. I would be aftaid to use any product for fear of reacting with glues
for the long term.

On many drivers, I shifted the centering when they came out of position from laying
up or down. I lightly wetted the back spyder with tap water, has minerals, and let the driver
rest in a centered state, by pushing it into position with foam pads behind the basket until dry.
In most all of my cases the cone was resting inward.

greg

In article , "The Flash" wrote:

"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!

The use of Armor All makes things pretty. I think it hastens desintegration of
materials. It does not protect, unless it has enough UV inhibitor when usesd
in sunlight. I would be aftaid to use any product for fear of reacting with glues
for the long term.

On many drivers, I shifted the centering when they came out of position from laying
up or down. I lightly wetted the back spyder with tap water, has minerals, and let the driver
rest in a centered state, by pushing it into position with foam pads behind the basket until dry.
In most all of my cases the cone was resting inward.

greg

Really? When we mention speakers like the RS104aB and LS3-5A's and
such, we're talking the mid 1970's. This is the era when people
had low power amplifiers and receivers like Phase Linear 700's
which only had 350 watts per channel, Crown DC300's at 150 watts
per channel, Yamaha, Pioneer, Kenwood receivers easily pushing 100
watts/channel and more.

Really, think before you post, the majority of those mentioned above were
sold in such small numbers as not to be represent what the typical amplifers
in user were.

Really, where did you get the mid seventys from? The B110 T27 were designed
in the early/mid 60's and produced from 1967 onwards. most examples of these
drivers are older rather than newer.

Really? WHat preamplifier/integrated amplifier/receivers were
"compensated with high and low pass filters when used with turntables?"
I am sitting on about 1000 measurements of 1960's and 1970's
preamplifiers, receivers and integrated amplifiers and, you
know what, not a single one of them shows any such "high and low
pass filter" compensation.

Really? how about Varislope filter / slope controls an Leak valve and
transistor amplifers. or the Highpass / Lowpass filter switchs on most 70's
tuners and amplifers.

Really? How could I have over looked, people never use the high or low pass
filters, never turned the tone controls from flat and never let the amplifer
clip!.

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power, alot use
integrated power module based on opamp / power fet technology.

Really? So that a modern 100 watt/channel amplifier using "integrated
power module based on opamp/power fet technoology" has more power than
a 1970's Pioneer 100 watt/channel amplifier using old-fashioned
bipolar/discrete technology?

Really? So there are different kinds of watts?

High Power is cheap now, so more people have amplifiers that can deliver the
type of power levels that were uncommon in the late 60's and early 70's (The
vintage of the SP1003)

Perhaps one should look more at the likes of quad303's a powerful
45wrms/8ohm amplifier or
Leak Stereo 30 with a huge 18w output into 4ohms or 10w into 16ohms. Oh too
old for you?, Ok how about, Technics SU7600 or SU7300 with aroun 40 watts of
power. Now for chicken feed you can buy an amp that delivers 100wrms+ into
8ohms for ~$200 and if one budgeted $800 you could likely put an amp in that
will have more than 500wrms/channel to disrupt the locals.

And what, precisely, does an opamp have to do with the power output?
(just the vaguest of hints: absolutely nothing)

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.

That's funny, I've know people who have run speakers with T27's in them
off of 200 watt/channel amplifiers for 25 years without ever once
having to replace them.

How do you explain this?

Really? They have high headroom and don't drive the speakers excessivly hard
nor do they allow either the pre or poweramp to clip.

Is it because integrated module opamp/fet

watts are different than bipolar watts?

Watts are watts, old bipolar amps were low powered had miniscule
powersupplies and were very derated at low frequencies. Modern amps have
huge powersupplies with significantly raised output at low frequency. Under
$1000 today gets the type of power that was unheard of unless one made a
huge financial commitment. What did a DC300 crown cost new? $1500? for ~$330
you can get a Crown XLS402 with 400w into 4ohms/channel. (But this stuff is
pro audio and not home audio as the B110/ T27 related too)

I suspect that you could make up any number of preposterous speculations
but, as always, it's when the speculative rubber hits the physical road

Really? So all music sources sound the same, all 'watts' from all amplifers
sound the same? (after all a watt is a watt!) Following you 'facts' then all
amplifiers must sound the same, So all clipping amplifiers sound the same,
and none will do damage to your 30 year old speakers designed 40 years ago.

Really? When we mention speakers like the RS104aB and LS3-5A's and
such, we're talking the mid 1970's. This is the era when people
had low power amplifiers and receivers like Phase Linear 700's
which only had 350 watts per channel, Crown DC300's at 150 watts
per channel, Yamaha, Pioneer, Kenwood receivers easily pushing 100
watts/channel and more.

Really, think before you post, the majority of those mentioned above were
sold in such small numbers as not to be represent what the typical amplifers
in user were.

Really, where did you get the mid seventys from? The B110 T27 were designed
in the early/mid 60's and produced from 1967 onwards. most examples of these
drivers are older rather than newer.

Really? WHat preamplifier/integrated amplifier/receivers were
"compensated with high and low pass filters when used with turntables?"
I am sitting on about 1000 measurements of 1960's and 1970's
preamplifiers, receivers and integrated amplifiers and, you
know what, not a single one of them shows any such "high and low
pass filter" compensation.

Really? how about Varislope filter / slope controls an Leak valve and
transistor amplifers. or the Highpass / Lowpass filter switchs on most 70's
tuners and amplifers.

Really? How could I have over looked, people never use the high or low pass
filters, never turned the tone controls from flat and never let the amplifer
clip!.

Modern amplifiers have significant improvements in power, alot use
integrated power module based on opamp / power fet technology.

Really? So that a modern 100 watt/channel amplifier using "integrated
power module based on opamp/power fet technoology" has more power than
a 1970's Pioneer 100 watt/channel amplifier using old-fashioned
bipolar/discrete technology?

Really? So there are different kinds of watts?

High Power is cheap now, so more people have amplifiers that can deliver the
type of power levels that were uncommon in the late 60's and early 70's (The
vintage of the SP1003)

Perhaps one should look more at the likes of quad303's a powerful
45wrms/8ohm amplifier or
Leak Stereo 30 with a huge 18w output into 4ohms or 10w into 16ohms. Oh too
old for you?, Ok how about, Technics SU7600 or SU7300 with aroun 40 watts of
power. Now for chicken feed you can buy an amp that delivers 100wrms+ into
8ohms for ~$200 and if one budgeted $800 you could likely put an amp in that
will have more than 500wrms/channel to disrupt the locals.

And what, precisely, does an opamp have to do with the power output?
(just the vaguest of hints: absolutely nothing)

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.

That's funny, I've know people who have run speakers with T27's in them
off of 200 watt/channel amplifiers for 25 years without ever once
having to replace them.

How do you explain this?

Really? They have high headroom and don't drive the speakers excessivly hard
nor do they allow either the pre or poweramp to clip.

Is it because integrated module opamp/fet

watts are different than bipolar watts?

Watts are watts, old bipolar amps were low powered had miniscule
powersupplies and were very derated at low frequencies. Modern amps have
huge powersupplies with significantly raised output at low frequency. Under
$1000 today gets the type of power that was unheard of unless one made a
huge financial commitment. What did a DC300 crown cost new? $1500? for ~$330
you can get a Crown XLS402 with 400w into 4ohms/channel. (But this stuff is
pro audio and not home audio as the B110/ T27 related too)

I suspect that you could make up any number of preposterous speculations
but, as always, it's when the speculative rubber hits the physical road

Really? So all music sources sound the same, all 'watts' from all amplifers
sound the same? (after all a watt is a watt!) Following you 'facts' then all
amplifiers must sound the same, So all clipping amplifiers sound the same,
and none will do damage to your 30 year old speakers designed 40 years ago.