I'm almost too sick from embarrassment to say this but I sold a pair recently after they were given to me by a friend along with the rest of his old Yamaha gear. He was not in to audio any more and basically just told me to do as I wished. I sold the speakers and the electronics for a mere 300.00 bucks. I will await the "You dumb a-- comments. |
i appreciate with cones/single drivers you et a good image, but they are completely useless in the bass, or high frequency extension IMHO
I've made a couple of horn speakers, and whilst they do sound great for a while - great imaging, the rest of it can become very unsatisfying. |
Japosey,You are absolutely right in what you say.You think you are happy with something and then you hear something else with a different set of strengths and this captures your imagination.
For many of us once we hear really good imaging which is most often a combination of a really good preamp and either point source or electrostatic/planar speakers there is no going back.This is what happened to me.Around the same time I got the chance to have extended listenings to both Goodmans Axiom 80s and E.R. Audio electrostatics.Although completely different speakers-the Axiom 80s a high sensitivity dual cone driver and the ER a low sensitivity full range stat,they both set benchmarks for imaging.
These systems also used Supratek preamps which of course are also known for their amazing imaging potential.
So now most systems sound very two dimensional to me.
JT |
I can see how phase issues can be a problem. Yeah, JM Lab has used that inverted tweeter for awhile. I really enjoyed a pair that I had awhile back. If there was a perfect answer we wouldn't be having this discussion now. That's what makes this hobby so unique. As soon as you get used to one thing, you hear something a little different and you perceive it more pleasing. Whether or not one is better than the other is up for debate. Especially when you get to a certain point. There are trade-offs for everything when it comes to audio. FUN, FUN, FUN!!! |
Japosey,
You are right when you say that domes provide you with a wider sweet spot but you get a bigger sweet spot of lesser quality.
I built some speakers using Cabasse DOM 12 midranges.These sound superb but simply don't image, even when time aligned.I have spent hundreds of hours working with dome mids,crossovers,time alignment,different driver confgurations etc etc and gave up in frustration.The only way I could get them to image precisely is to use them in an Edgar mid horn which of course changes their dispersion pattern.I have used domes from Dynaudio and other less well known makers and they are all the same in this regard.
I have since had it explained to me that dome mids interacting with other drivers create phasing problems and this is why they don't work as they should in theory.
This is the sonic equivilent of sitting front row centre at the cinema.There is plenty off stuff going on but you keep shifting your head from side to side to try to take it all in, and what is dead in front is not quite in focus.
As for domes in general have you noticed how few manufacturers use them now?There is even a big move away from dome tweeters.Focal/JM lab and Accuton both have opted for cones and many others are now using ring radiators or ribbons.
JT |
I don't know about that. I do get a pretty solid image. Maybe not as pinpoint as other speakers, but pretty good still.
Imaging has more to do with time alignment then dome vs. cone and to a lesser extent, intensity. The one thing domes do, is that they increase the area of the sweetspot. That is why most tweeters are domes. Producing high frequencies off axis is difficult, especially outside of 30 degrees. By using a dome, the window is widened. With a normal speaker you can clearly distinguish when you move a foot or two to oneside of the sweetspot. The image begins to collapse. |
Here goes again.
Speakers that use dome midranges do not image well.It took me some years of building speakers to realise this.I have built and owned several speakers with dome mids and have listened closely to both the Yamaha NS1000 and NS1200 speakers.This is not just room reflections/acoustics because even outside they still don't image precisely.
A friend with NS1200s has replaced the mid dome with a Fostex cone mid because they were not imaging properly.Now they do.
Good imaging means that you should not be able to discern that the soundstage is coming from the speakers.Voices for example should sound quite narrow and sound that they are hanging in air between the speakers.The NS1000s don't do this.Voices are very wide and vague and you hear that they are coming from both speakers.
When you think about it this makes perfect sense.A cone shape will focus sound whereas a dome will just spread it.
Really good speakers regardless of type should image properly.Otherwise we might as well all listen in mono to Bose 901s.
JT |
I agree. They typically sell for around $1,000 nowadays..give or take $300. I have the madacassar (spelling?) ebony finish. I have fallen in love with them. I'm using them in my office and I'm having difficulty partying with them. Much like the Altec A7 Voice of the Theaters that I kept in my garage for a year. I refinished those. They two had a great, but unique sound. |
The common wisdom calls for these speakers to be used with tube amps to minimise the "brightness" and give them more "life" than with ss. They have always been an exceptional speaker and I still enjoy them at a friends house. They are certainly the equal of anything anywhere near there price. There is also a slight improvement if you bypass the mid & high speaker controls. Also sound a little less harsh if you use silver wire to the tweeters. Enjoy them. |
I purchased a pair new in 1980; still use them in my second system, driven by a QUAD 606-II power amp. I could not even think about parting with them now. They still look great and sound excellent. Lots of dynamic range, tight bass and crystal clear mid/upper with fantastic transient response. Of course there are better speakers available (I love my Nautilus 801s), but for the money and longevity, you can't beat the NS1000Ms. |
You should read Hi-fi World. The editor uses the Yammys as his reference. |
I owned them for a year or two around 1976-77. Replaced with Quads. I don't think I ever powered them properly and, back in that day, we didn't know about putting them up on stands, break in, etc.. They really captured my fancy when I auditioned them (much as Avalons did 20 years later), but I came to feel that they sounded rather artificial and metallic and too "present", though you could adjust the levels on the mid and tweet. I blew out more than one tweeter, too. Great bass, though. Sealed box, right?
Would love to hear again in a modern system.
|
I owned a pair for 5 years back in 1979 - bought new. Sold them for what I paid for them, but I still miss them.
In fact, the Coincident Super Eclipse IIs I bought 4+ years ago were obtained in the somewhat rare black finish to remind me of the old Yammies.
Great top end and midrange. Wonderful depth in the bass, but a little slow. I used to drive them with a 100w class A sand amp - one of Kostas Metaxas early efforts, before he went all boutique. Really controlled that 12 inch paper cone.
There is an inmate on Audio Asylum who runs NS1000s in a studio and emailed me the measured response. His room was almost flat down to 30 Hz, which made me sit up. He loves the Yammies.
Regards, |
