[[email protected]]

one of my Probe Jaydes sounds thin, I suspect the problem is the signal
going into the midrange ( not a driver problem ) Company is out of
business, ( no parts available) any hope of service anywhere ? Stephen

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

wrote in message
...
one of my Probe Jaydes sounds thin, I suspect the problem is the signal
going into the midrange ( not a driver problem ) Company is out of
business, ( no parts available) any hope of service anywhere ? Stephen


If you're sure it's not a driver problem (how?) then crossover components
should be sourceable. If there are no values on the components (unlikely on
coils, more likely on capacitors) you may have to take the coil out of the
good side and have it measured.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[[email protected]]

I had earlier contacted Audio Classics, the tech said without a source
for parts, it could not be serviced. The drivers are of very specific
design and could not be replaced with anything but originals. I see
about 5-6 components that could be capacitors , but how would I know
what they are and how to get duplicates ? SD

[jamesgangnc]

wrote in message
...
one of my Probe Jaydes sounds thin, I suspect the problem is the signal
going into the midrange ( not a driver problem ) Company is out of
business, ( no parts available) any hope of service anywhere ? Stephen

The speakers themselves are the most common part to go bad. Confirm that it
is not a signal problem by switching the two speakers and make sure the
problem moves. The next step would be to swap the midrange speaker between
the two cabinets. Often these can be removed from the front and many times
have push on connectors. Sometimes they are soldered. Any reputable stereo
service center should be able to evaluate the speakers for you if you are
not comfoirtable doing this yourself.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

wrote in message
...
I had earlier contacted Audio Classics, the tech said without a source
for parts, it could not be serviced. The drivers are of very specific
design and could not be replaced with anything but originals. I see
about 5-6 components that could be capacitors , but how would I know
what they are and how to get duplicates ? SD

The crossovers will have inductors (coils of wire) capacitors and possibly
resistors. The Inductors are obvious as they are coils of wire. The
capacitors will be either rectangular or tubular, and will typically be
around 40mm long by something like 25mm wide, or diameter. The resistors
will be also about 40mm long, but only about 10mm wide, so easily
distinguishable from the capacitors. The capacitors and resistors will most
probably have their value marked on them, but the inductors most probably
won't.

If any of the components don't have values stamped on them, then the only
way to know what value to replace them with is to measure the good side.

I do think, however, as already mentioned, the most likely fault will be a
drive unit rather than the crossover. There are loudspeaker repair companies
around that could recone and recoil your faulty drive unit, but again as you
don't know what the spec is, they may have to get that from the good unit.

Either way, it is not going to be easy or cheap to do, sadly.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[[email protected]]

thanks for the responses, I've contacted a couple of speaker repair
companies....due to highly specific nature of the drivers, the tweeters
look like wafers the midrange looks like a generator from the back ,
completely encased in a gelatenous plastic housing, I would not take
them out. One repair guy said that replacing capicators would probably
change the sound, the other said not ( typical) both recommended
changing the crossovers ( if that proved to be the problem ) in both
units ( no chance I'd want that ). If it's the drivers they really could
not be replaced other than with originals. SD

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:20:10 -0400, wrote:

thanks for the responses, I've contacted a couple of speaker repair
companies....due to highly specific nature of the drivers, the tweeters
look like wafers the midrange looks like a generator from the back ,
completely encased in a gelatenous plastic housing, I would not take
them out. One repair guy said that replacing capicators would probably
change the sound, the other said not ( typical) both recommended
changing the crossovers ( if that proved to be the problem ) in both
units ( no chance I'd want that ). If it's the drivers they really could
not be replaced other than with originals. SD

It's easy to test the drivers yourself. Disconnect a driver from
the crossover network and hook it directly to the wire from
the amplifier. At modest volume there is no danger. Does it
play?

If so (and yes, it will sound strange, but should be "clean")
then you're golden. Crossovers are trivially repaired if a
good 'un (your other speaker!) is available for measurement
of unmarked parts.

Another, even simpler, driver test, but one that requires some
experience in interpretation, is to brush the disconnected
driver's wiring with a 1.5 volt battery. All speakers will
make some sound from this little test (if they're not DOA)
and it's perfectly safe.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[Mr.T]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
It's easy to test the drivers yourself. Disconnect a driver from
the crossover network and hook it directly to the wire from
the amplifier. At modest volume there is no danger.


I wouldn't try that with a tweeter if I were you!

MrT.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:10:20 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

It's easy to test the drivers yourself. Disconnect a driver from
the crossover network and hook it directly to the wire from
the amplifier. At modest volume there is no danger.


I wouldn't try that with a tweeter if I were you!

I appreciate your concern, but at modest volumes there's
no real danger. By "modest" I mean a small-ish and
comfortable volume in the other speaker of the pair -
enough to hear what's happening, but not enough for
the Steel Wheels tour. Conversational volume; does that
carry the right flavor?

After all, at this point we're only trying to weed out
a cooked driver as a first step. Does it play at all?
Yes: good! No: not so much.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[Mr.T]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
It's easy to test the drivers yourself. Disconnect a driver from
the crossover network and hook it directly to the wire from
the amplifier. At modest volume there is no danger.


I wouldn't try that with a tweeter if I were you!

I appreciate your concern, but at modest volumes there's
no real danger. By "modest" I mean a small-ish and
comfortable volume in the other speaker of the pair -
enough to hear what's happening, but not enough for
the Steel Wheels tour. Conversational volume; does that
carry the right flavor?


Nope, full bass at "conversational" level into most tweeters will simply
prove that it's NOW stuffed.

MrT.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:45:44 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

I appreciate your concern, but at modest volumes there's
no real danger. By "modest" I mean a small-ish and
comfortable volume in the other speaker of the pair -
enough to hear what's happening, but not enough for
the Steel Wheels tour. Conversational volume; does that
carry the right flavor?


Nope, full bass at "conversational" level into most tweeters will simply
prove that it's NOW stuffed.

I'm suddenly reminded of why I seldom post into this Newsgroup.

In fact, it's perfectly safe; I've done it for about four
decades without the slightest incident. Readers can decide for
themselves. Knowledgable readers can even explain *why* it's
perfectly safe. Hint: excursion is *not* the dominant issue.


Good luck,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[Mr.T]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
In fact, it's perfectly safe; I've done it for about four
decades without the slightest incident.

Lucky you, and maybe you do actually know enough to only do it when
appropriate.

Readers can decide for
themselves. Knowledgable readers can even explain *why* it's
perfectly safe. Hint: excursion is *not* the dominant issue.

Sure, if the level *IS* low enough, a slower rate of excursion is not a
problem.
The problem is how low that level should be to actually determine anything
useful by listening.

What appears to be "conversational level" when fed only into a tweeter is
open for debate, and no mention was made of program content/spectral
distribution to be used for such a test.

So IF your going to try that test, why not simply use a sine wave frequency
within the speakers operating range.
I also see no reason NOT to use a large cap in series, just in case of a DC
problem, or even a small fuse.

Good luck,

Don't need it, don't do it :-)
Most of my tweeters would handle it just fine, but they are too expensive to
bother with such unnecessary risks.

MrT.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:33:23 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

Lucky you, and maybe you do actually know enough to

snipped


A technically savvy reader would have complained about the
1.5 volt battery first. Seems none are still up. This is
boring. Good night,


Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[Mr.T]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
A technically savvy reader would have complained about the
1.5 volt battery first.

Good of you to admit it.

Seems none are still up.

You appear to be.

This is boring.

We do agree on something then.

MrT.

[VMI]

Mr.T wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
A technically savvy reader would have complained about the
1.5 volt battery first.

Good of you to admit it.

Seems none are still up.

You appear to be.

This is boring.

We do agree on something then.

MrT.


Hello Mr.T.
As the OP is not very much aware of electronics (not everybody can be an
electronics engineer), he will most probably have no sinus generator.
As Chris said, use the amp to feed the speakers at very modest volume,
that's the only way the OP can go.
Unless he brings them to a repair shop.
I also use the amp to feed a speaker when I have no generator at hand.
On my work bench, yes, then I use a generator with the appropriate
frequencies set at a "modest" level with spectral purity.
And a small battery can also show if the coil is not completely dead.
So try to put yourself in place of the OP with the limited resources and
knowledge he has...
Zilog

[Mr.T]

"VMI" wrote in message
...
As the OP is not very much aware of electronics (not everybody can be an
electronics engineer), he will most probably have no sinus generator.

We can assume he has a computer, probably has a sound card, and there are
plenty of freeware signal generator programs available.
But if he really can't manage any of that, I think he would be better off
finding a good repair shop.

As Chris said, use the amp to feed the speakers at very modest volume,
that's the only way the OP can go.

Which is what I don't recommend to anyone "not very much aware of
electronics", or speakers.

So try to put yourself in place of the OP with the limited resources and
knowledge he has...

I was, that's why suggesting something that can easily lead to disaster is
not my preferred option.

But yes it can be done with proper care. I still doubt it's a definitive
test of his problem though.

MrT.

[jakdedert]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:33:23 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

Lucky you, and maybe you do actually know enough to

snipped


A technically savvy reader would have complained about the
1.5 volt battery first. Seems none are still up. This is
boring. Good night,


Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

Some people are pendantic. Then there's Mr. T....

Zilog hit the nail on the head; the same one you were pounding on. It
appears the OP has little tech knowledge, so we'll either need to keep
it simple, or he'll need someone knowledgeable to do the dx and work.

I'd like to know what is so special about the mids, but I can't find
anything about the Jaydes on the web. If new parts are unavailable,
there's only the 'E' place. However, it's unlikely that a small company
made their own mid drivers.....

The simplest driver test is to simply play some music at very low volume
and place one's ear up close to the individual drivers--each in turn
(hopefully with a mono source to rule out l/r program differences).
Then reverse the speaker connections--left to right--in order to rule
out the amp as a cause. If a particular driver is discovered to be
deficient, the easiest way to rule out the crossover is to swap that
driver to the other box. If the problem migrates to that one, then the
driver's at fault. If it stays with the box, it's almost certainly the
crossover.

The OP's description of 'thin' sound is much too vague to give more
meaningful advice.

jak

[[email protected]]

These speakers are incomperably better than anything else I heard when
replacement speaker shopping 15-20 years ago in the high efficiency
category (Probes Jaydes 92dB/1w/1m.) ( tho my favorites were my
original KLH 12s ) If the problem worsens I'll try a shop in Kentucky
where the guy works on high end stuff. On a completely different
note...I was recentely troubleshooting my equipment, I tested a Mac
1700 receiver that I had serviced about 12 years ago. I had not listened
to it even after it came back from the "highly reputable" repair guy (
who took 2 years to work on it) as I have two others. Sadly the drop out
on one of the channels is still present ( takes 30-40 minutes to warm up
so that the sound does not cut out at low levels of amplitude )...this
unit has been serviced about 7 times for the same problem and it always
returns. But this is not the reason for the post...the other channel
completely distorts both speakers, but there isn't any distortion in the
STAX headphones from this channel. I've switched the channels, rewired ,
taken the headphones out of the system, switched all three receivers and
the situation remains the same. One channel on this receiver (output
40-50 watts/channel ) distorts both speakers ( Probe Jaydes ..will
accept fom 25 to 200 watts ) but works fine with the STAX ( tho the
other channel will need to warm up to avoid droupout). The techs I've
talked to are clueless as to why this can happen ( not much cause for
confidence on my end ). Any ideas ?

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , wrote:
These speakers are incomperably better than anything else I heard when
replacement speaker shopping 15-20 years ago in the high efficiency
category (Probes Jaydes 92dB/1w/1m.) ( tho my favorites were my
original KLH 12s ) If the problem worsens I'll try a shop in Kentucky
where the guy works on high end stuff. On a completely different
note...I was recentely troubleshooting my equipment, I tested a Mac
1700 receiver that I had serviced about 12 years ago. I had not listened
to it even after it came back from the "highly reputable" repair guy (
who took 2 years to work on it) as I have two others. Sadly the drop out
on one of the channels is still present ( takes 30-40 minutes to warm up
so that the sound does not cut out at low levels of amplitude )...this
unit has been serviced about 7 times for the same problem and it always
returns. But this is not the reason for the post...the other channel
completely distorts both speakers, but there isn't any distortion in the
STAX headphones from this channel. I've switched the channels, rewired ,
taken the headphones out of the system, switched all three receivers and
the situation remains the same. One channel on this receiver (output
40-50 watts/channel ) distorts both speakers ( Probe Jaydes ..will
accept fom 25 to 200 watts ) but works fine with the STAX ( tho the
other channel will need to warm up to avoid droupout). The techs I've
talked to are clueless as to why this can happen ( not much cause for
confidence on my end ). Any ideas ?

I assume the Stax are driven from the speaker outputs. I don't know what it
takes to drive the Stax, perhaps its a light load. How about with the Stax and
speakers connected ?

Sounds like you have two bad channels.

greg

[[email protected]]

yes the STAX are connected to outputs on the back of the receiver, the
normal set up is STAX to the receiver and speakers to the STAX
transformer. That's the way I keep it. This receiver does have two
problem channels, the totally distorted ( thru speakers ) one may just
need to have the audio switch cleaned of twelve years of oxidation, but
I would not send it out for repair again. Since I listen to little music
these days I just let it warm up and use the headphones or rarely just
the one speaker ( the other 1700s do well enough with the problem
speaker, but I'll let them sit for now and just use them enough to keep
the electronics from drying out ). SD

[jakdedert]

GregS wrote:
In article , wrote:
These speakers are incomperably better than anything else I heard when
replacement speaker shopping 15-20 years ago in the high efficiency
category (Probes Jaydes 92dB/1w/1m.) ( tho my favorites were my
original KLH 12s ) If the problem worsens I'll try a shop in Kentucky
where the guy works on high end stuff. On a completely different
note...I was recentely troubleshooting my equipment, I tested a Mac
1700 receiver that I had serviced about 12 years ago. I had not listened
to it even after it came back from the "highly reputable" repair guy (
who took 2 years to work on it) as I have two others. Sadly the drop out
on one of the channels is still present ( takes 30-40 minutes to warm up
so that the sound does not cut out at low levels of amplitude )...this
unit has been serviced about 7 times for the same problem and it always
returns. But this is not the reason for the post...the other channel
completely distorts both speakers, but there isn't any distortion in the
STAX headphones from this channel. I've switched the channels, rewired ,
taken the headphones out of the system, switched all three receivers and
the situation remains the same. One channel on this receiver (output
40-50 watts/channel ) distorts both speakers ( Probe Jaydes ..will
accept fom 25 to 200 watts ) but works fine with the STAX ( tho the
other channel will need to warm up to avoid droupout). The techs I've
talked to are clueless as to why this can happen ( not much cause for
confidence on my end ). Any ideas ?

I assume the Stax are driven from the speaker outputs. I don't know what it
takes to drive the Stax, perhaps its a light load. How about with the Stax and
speakers connected ?

Sounds like you have two bad channels.

greg

The Mac(intosh?) receivers use output transformers, correct? Perhaps
you're not setting the taps correctly...?

jak

[dizzy]

jakdedert wrote:

Some people are pendantic. Then there's Mr. T....

....who just made an idiot of himself.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:48:02 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

GregS wrote:
...I was recentely troubleshooting my equipment, I tested a Mac
1700 receiver that I had serviced about 12 years ago. I had not listened
to it even after it came back from the "highly reputable" repair guy

Any ideas ?

Twelve years without being used? You're lucky that the
electrolytic capacitors didn't explode. I'm not at all
kidding - this is an antique, and if its electrolytics
are original (what? 1978? thirty years old, more-or-less)
the electrolytics "deform", meaning that they forget
what'n'heck they're supposed to be doin', and revert
towards the formless void.

Maybe somebody who actually understands the process can
post a complete description. But the strongly recommended
procedure when bringing an antique piece of electronics
back into service after a very long downtime is to
"reform" the electrolytics. I'll post a long, painful
description if it's really necessary. Shouldn't be, on a
technical newsgroup, but we are talking antiques.



And in the meantime, the metals of all of the 1700's
switch contacts and control wiping finger contacts have
been exposed to atmosphere. Metals hate being treated
like that.

First: work all switches and controls in-'n-out, turned
all the way counter-'n'-clockwise, many times each. Then
listen to the receiver with signal while moving them all
again. Do any make any noise? Does signal disappear at
any point when moving any control or switch slowly. If
so, that 'un needs more work.

My strongest recommendation is a product called Caig
MCL, a very, very tiny amount in each switch and control.

But it's not forever...

All the best fortune,





The Mac(intosh?) receivers use output transformers, correct? Perhaps
you're not setting the taps correctly...?

The receivers don't have the output autoformers. Woulda
been too expensive. But most (including the 1700, IIRC)
don't have an output "speaker" relay, a separate source
of contact wierdness.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:09:25 -0400, wrote:

yes the STAX are connected to outputs on the back of the receiver, the
normal set up is STAX to the receiver and speakers to the STAX
transformer. That's the way I keep it. This receiver does have two
problem channels, the totally distorted ( thru speakers ) one may just
need to have the audio switch cleaned of twelve years of oxidation, but
I would not send it out for repair again. Since I listen to little music
these days I just let it warm up and use the headphones or rarely just
the one speaker ( the other 1700s do well enough with the problem
speaker, but I'll let them sit for now and just use them enough to keep
the electronics from drying out ). SD

This makes the issue sound as if it were in the Stax "box",
rather than upstream. Do you really mean to say that your
speakers connect to terminals on the Stax "box"?

And that the Stax headphones, connected also to that "box",
sound fine?

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[[email protected]]

Mac 1700 is from mid/late 60's .....I did not follow your suggestions
about cleaning the unit, do you mean flick the switches on the front of
the unit up and down many times and turn the input selction and volume
control back and forth ? Where should that cleaning solution be used, on
the switches ? STAX : standard electrostatic headphone setup : red/black
green/white wires from receiver to r/b g/w poles on STAX box, headphones
plug into box, r/b, g/w wire from STAX box will connect to speaker
wires. As I wrote I took the STAX out of the system, speakers
distorted from right output. SD

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:35:23 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

GregS wrote:

Re-reading this, I see that I've totally screwed up the
attributions.

It wasn't my fault! The dog ate my homework! Honest!


But seriously, I'm sorry and will try to do better.

All the best fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[[email protected]]

I have optical and headcleaner aerosol, should I spray this into the
switches and controls on the front panel ? SD

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:44:43 -0400, wrote:

Mac 1700 is from mid/late 60's .....I did not follow your suggestions
about cleaning the unit, do you mean flick the switches on the front of
the unit up and down many times and turn the input selction and volume
control back and forth ?

Yes, indeedy. The idea is to make the wiping contacts mechanically
work any contaminants off their path and to expose fresh metal
surfaces. Oxidation layers might be only a coupla molecular
layers thick, but can interfere with small signal voltages.

A good mechanical workout is the first step to good antique
hygiene, and should be repeated as necessary...




Is the 1700 the one with a vacuum tube FM tuner? I'm ashamed
to say that I can't remember anymore. Too many advertizing
jingles and memories of pretty women filling the old hard-head
drive.

But I do have a pristine front panel for one around here somewhere.
I'd better put it up for sale before I die; that'd be damned
inconvenient.


Where should that cleaning solution be used, on
the switches ?

Any contact cleaner needs to *SOMEHOW, Lord willin' and
the creek don't rise* get onto the actual contact surfaces.

Switches and controls usually, but not invariably, have
little weep holes into which some cleaner can be introduced
with an internally-pressurized widget. If ya spring the
twelve bux or so for a tiny, tiny can of Caig MCL, all
you'll need is the gumption to pick and poke around inside
your (UNPLUGGED!!) 1700 looking for and trying likely
tiny holes. A little spritz; badda bing; badda bang;
and wipe mechanically.


STAX : standard electrostatic headphone setup : red/black
green/white wires from receiver to r/b g/w poles on STAX box, headphones
plug into box, r/b, g/w wire from STAX box will connect to speaker
wires. As I wrote I took the STAX out of the system, speakers
distorted from right output. SD

So. just to be perfectly clear, the wires from your speakers
connect *to the STAX box* and NOT directly to the 1700?

If so, you'll want to *also* clean the switches in the
STAX box. What the hey: clean 'em all; it's good Karma. Or
to paraphrase a Pope "Clean 'em all and let God sort it out"


All the best fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[[email protected]]

yes to the STAX question, the only place to spray the switches is thru
the switch openings, is this OK ? SD

[[email protected]]

the 1700 does have six tubes in the FM section, but the sound is the
same to my ears on the CD, phono , tape selections . SD

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:08:18 -0400, wrote:

I have optical and headcleaner aerosol, should I spray this into the
switches and controls on the front panel ? SD

Two seperate issues: first, I can't recommend *anything*
other than Caig MCL in good concience. I used LPS1 for
decades - it works and is safe, but wasn't designed for the
gig, and is only effective as a side-effect of its
designed purpose.

I've also used some of the magic elixers of their time,
and have lived through the era of the McIntosh Clinic-
inspired death of gazillions of controls due to the
wonder-drug "Blue Shower".

Yeah, sounds nasty, but the final results were worse.
Controls all over the country seized up from lack
of lubrication in their brass shaft bearings. Ouch.

If anybody wants to maintain antiques, or any electronics
with mechanical switches and controls, just buy a can
of Caig MCL. It's great, and will last ya a decade
at least. 'Nuf said.


The second part of this is that the cleaner needs to
get onto the actual physical contact surfaces their-
own-selves. So ya gotta squirt it in, from the back.

Yeah, sounds dirty. And is. 'S life. Arf.


All the best fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:47:46 -0400, wrote:

the 1700 does have six tubes in the FM section, but the sound is the
same to my ears on the CD, phono , tape selections . SD

I didn't mean to imply any disrespect for vacuum tubes. Unlike
almost everyone else on this Newsgroup, I'm a vacuum tube
booster. To get into the reasons is to enter a religious
discussion that would only contaminate your thread.

McIntosh built their FM tuners in surprisingly primitive
(even for the time) ways in order to perform certain feats
unavailable otherwise.

Ferzample: the MR78 was built as a special favor for a friend
of the family to allow the reception of a distant (WQXR!!)
station sitting right next (and I do mean "next"; not
alternate) to a strong obnoxious local. And at the distance
of Boston to NYC. Giants walked the Earth in those days.

The MR78 didn't use vacuum tubes, but it had a decade's
experience on your 1700, and the availability of MOSFET's
for the gig. Until those MOSFET's that level of RF performance
simply wasn't available in semiconductors. McIntosh went
with what did the job.


All the best fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[The One[_2_]]

With the exception of the 1700 I only like good tubes,tried the switch
giggling and quickly rotated other controls, sprayed the head cleaner
into the switch openings, no improvement SD

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:08:18 -0400, wrote:

I have optical and headcleaner aerosol, should I spray this into the
switches and controls on the front panel ? SD

Two seperate issues: first, I can't recommend *anything*
other than Caig MCL in good concience. I used LPS1 for
decades - it works and is safe, but wasn't designed for the
gig, and is only effective as a side-effect of its
designed purpose.


Its called "Fader Lube" now of all things.

Head cleaner is likely alcohol which should not wash out
much lubricant, and is an effective cleaner.
I do have some Ampex head cleaner that will probably melt anything.

I think I'm getting back to basics and I think rubbing alcohol is ideal in many cases
This gets a little complex with the added water and oils, but can clean some things
better than other stuff.


I've also used some of the magic elixers of their time,
and have lived through the era of the McIntosh Clinic-
inspired death of gazillions of controls due to the
wonder-drug "Blue Shower".

I got some Blue Stuff.

Yeah, sounds nasty, but the final results were worse.
Controls all over the country seized up from lack
of lubrication in their brass shaft bearings. Ouch.

If anybody wants to maintain antiques, or any electronics
with mechanical switches and controls, just buy a can
of Caig MCL. It's great, and will last ya a decade
at least. 'Nuf said.

I never tried the spray, I just have the oiler.

The second part of this is that the cleaner needs to
get onto the actual physical contact surfaces their-
own-selves. So ya gotta squirt it in, from the back.

Yeah, sounds dirty. And is. 'S life. Arf.


All the best fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"True, but only for large values of zero."
-Mike Rivers

[[email protected]]

How do I spray the controls from the back , the housing behind the
front panel has four screws on the sides but when taken out the housing
remains imobile ? SD

[Mr.T]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
jakdedert wrote:

Some people are pendantic. Then there's Mr. T....

...who just made an idiot of himself.

Is anyone supposed to know what you are referring to?
(assuming anyone actually cares what you think)

MrT.

[[email protected]]

I've been advised ( elsewhere) that the only way to possibly get a
reproduction of the original sound from replacement crossvers is to have
the testing done by a tech who uses equipment from Audio Precision to
insure that the response is the same as the good speaker. Responses ? SD

[Don Pearce]

wrote:
I've been advised ( elsewhere) that the only way to possibly get a
reproduction of the original sound from replacement crossvers is to have
the testing done by a tech who uses equipment from Audio Precision to
insure that the response is the same as the good speaker. Responses ? SD


Nonsense. Read the values from the capacitors and measure the inductors.
Any electronics tech should be able to do that for you. Replace what
needs replacing and you will be back in business. Just to be sure
replace the caps on both speakers as they will probably all have changed
in value somewhat over the years.

Only bother with the inductors if you have reason to believe they have
been damaged - charring of the insulation for example.

d

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

wrote in message
...
I've been advised ( elsewhere) that the only way to possibly get a
reproduction of the original sound from replacement crossvers is to have
the testing done by a tech who uses equipment from Audio Precision to
insure that the response is the same as the good speaker. Responses ? SD


Nonsense. AP equipment measures audio performance like frequency response,
noise, distortion etc. It is the best test equipment around currently, but
is not what you need.

To create a new crossover, you need to have a Tech measure the component
values of the good crossover. This means you need an LCR bridge, or other
similar instrument that can measure the values of the crossover components.

Then, with that information, you (or your Tech) can obtain replacement parts
and fit them. Then, once you have the crossover repaired, you can certainly
check the performance with a calibrated microphone and an AP, but you can do
the same with a calibrated microphone and any number of much cheaper items
of test gear. There's even some free software that you can use (RMAA), but
you do need the calibrated microphone otherwise you have no idea what you're
measuring.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
I've been advised ( elsewhere) that the only way to possibly get a
reproduction of the original sound from replacement crossvers is to have
the testing done by a tech who uses equipment from Audio Precision to
insure that the response is the same as the good speaker. Responses ? SD


Nonsense. AP equipment measures audio performance like frequency response,
noise, distortion etc. It is the best test equipment around currently, but
is not what you need.

To create a new crossover, you need to have a Tech measure the component
values of the good crossover. This means you need an LCR bridge, or other
similar instrument that can measure the values of the crossover
components.

Then, with that information, you (or your Tech) can obtain replacement
parts and fit them. Then, once you have the crossover repaired, you can
certainly check the performance with a calibrated microphone and an AP,
but you can do the same with a calibrated microphone and any number of
much cheaper items of test gear. There's even some free software that you
can use (RMAA), but you do need the calibrated microphone otherwise you
have no idea what you're measuring.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com
Further to the above, you can even do without the calibrated microphone if
all you want to know is if the repaired 'speaker measures sensibly the same
as the other one.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com