About 4 years ago I found a pair of DQ-10 with a subwoofer in a thrift shop. I got super excited at first glance because I thought they were ESL 57. Those I would have snatched up as fast as possible.
The thrift shop wanted $200 for the Dahlquist pair and $75 for the sub. I resisted buying them, as I already had enough OB.
I didn’t know they had a fan club!
The thrift shop wanted $200 for the Dahlquist pair and $75 for the sub. I resisted buying them, as I already had enough OB.
I didn’t know they had a fan club!
It was in the crossover and the selection of the drivers. There were better drivers available at the time, but this mismatched collection was chosen because they matched one another so well. The point of the design was coherence between the drivers even if it came at the sacrifice of some aspects others prioritize (dispersion, time alignment at the start of the transient, distortion, etc). The crossover played its part by being of a series design rather than parallel, so as the drivers reacted to the music, they influenced the crossover themselves. Unfortunately, that's also made upgrading the drivers rather difficult. You can't just drop in something newer and get the same sound because of the series crossover and the concerns with regards to inter driver coherence. I suppose if you wished to understand what all is happening, Vituixcad would be the way to go, though you'd have to measure the drivers to get the parameters to plug into it and realize that they will have changed parameters after half a century. (Time is hard on suspensions.)
As for a three-way version...that was done. At the time of the DQ-10, Dahlquist felt that no single driver was capable of handling the midrange on its own hence why he divided it up among two drivers. Or in his words from a 1985 interview: "The DQ-10 was conceived in large part as a reproducer of the operatic voice, and that's a task for which it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a single driver that's satisfactory over the full range. So I used two drivers."
It seems to have worked for a 1973 design using conventional drivers, it wasn't too bad. Not up to today's standards, but understandable that it would get such a following back then.
By the time the mid-'80s had rolled around, driver design had improved significantly and that allowed the option of a three-way thus enter the DQ-20. That employed the same Gefco produced woofer, but (for the DQ-20i version) switched to a Vifa C13MH-08 for the midrange and a Scan-Speak D2008-8517 for the tweeter. Though, it changed to a more conventional parallel crossover.
That would've been a good price if they didn't need to much work. I'd have been tempted to hunt around for the crossover. When those two are paired up, it's usually either with the passive XO, the DQ-MX1 or, if you'd been lucky, the DQ-LP1 designed by Carl Marchisotto, which has quite the following still.About 4 years ago I found a pair of DQ-10 with a subwoofer in a thrift shop. I got super excited at first glance because I thought they were ESL 57. Those I would have snatched up as fast as possible.
The thrift shop wanted $200 for the Dahlquist pair and $75 for the sub. I resisted buying them, as I already had enough OB.
I didn’t know they had a fan club!
Considering his college setup was stacked Quad ESL-57s with a Fane IonoFane ionic tweeter acting as a supertweeter between them, that they inspired him to create the DQ-10 and that it was that he shared a love for electrostatic speakers with Saul Marantz that brought them together in friendship leading to the founding of the company to bring the speaker to market...I'd say that's a fair guess.
To refer to that 1985 interview again, Jon Dahlquist addressed just that:
Hi thank you so much for your very kind and valuable advice
Then things are much more complicated than what I thought
I was trying to breakdown complexity
I wonder what he intended for matching I really don't think the matching was done by the ear I believe that Mr Dahlquist were a scientist
This is where i don't understand Imho coherence must be supported by measurements like time alignment in particular because all the drivers must act like a single one And also phase should play a role
Fwiu it seems to me that a series xover provides some benefits
I wonder why not a use it really if it is a superior design like i think
Usually tech challenges excite the brighter minds And depress mine
Thanks a lot I will try but I'm very ignorant I don't even know what is the electrical equivalent circuit of a driver But I will study
Actually he ended up using 3 drivers to cover the human voice range
Woofer midwoofer and dome mid up to 6kHz
I tend to think that time and phase alignment are the real key to their performance
This is a very important point I have never listened to the dq20
I really wonder if they were better than the dq10
Please don't tell me different
I really need to know which is the better model
Because if the dq20 were better then it will change my mind
Very interesting thank you I also do not like dipoles and in a domestic context narrow H and V dispersion can make speakers placement less critical
My dream one day would be to be able to ma a 2 ways series xover
Maybe i am asking too much to myself
Thanks a lot again for the extremely interesting advice and story of a hifi classic
In my very limited knowledge the series XO may not be easily/well simulated by software due to impedance interaction.
My first diy "HeilEve" was a 2-way AMT & (Eve Audio) 5.5" honeycomb, 1st-order-series XO in 7L 1m TL. Preferred it to parallel in direct comp. Don't dream, just do it.
My first diy "HeilEve" was a 2-way AMT & (Eve Audio) 5.5" honeycomb, 1st-order-series XO in 7L 1m TL. Preferred it to parallel in direct comp. Don't dream, just do it.
Hi thank you very much for the valuable support
Problem is that while i can hope to calculate a 2 ways 1st order parallel xover i have not the minimum idea about how to design a series one
I would be extremely grateful to get advice/directions
I am very intrigued by this series xover concept a lot
Problem is that while i can hope to calculate a 2 ways 1st order parallel xover i have not the minimum idea about how to design a series one
I would be extremely grateful to get advice/directions
I am very intrigued by this series xover concept a lot
This is a bit off-topic so I'll be brief. Discussion can go on another thread even my New Year TLonken vs 2-way.
Connect tweeter - to woofer + in series. Bypass tweeter +/- with inductor which is then series before woofer +. Bypass woofer +/- with capacitor which is then series after tweeter -. Voila. Because series XO fall-off will be closer to 2nd-order thanks in part to the bypasses, the L C filtering ought to be a bit less than 1st-order-parallel XO starting values: L smaller, C larger. Test by ear using tone-sweep or familiar music. Check phase alignment by moving tweeter back-and-forth playing XO-frequency tone and listening for maximum. Just do it
p.s. This simple method of phase-aligning multiple drivers has obvious limitations but given a large selection of drivers, XO frequencies and baffle layout freedom, and sufficient trial-and-error, could result in a phase-coherent multi-way speaker.
Connect tweeter - to woofer + in series. Bypass tweeter +/- with inductor which is then series before woofer +. Bypass woofer +/- with capacitor which is then series after tweeter -. Voila. Because series XO fall-off will be closer to 2nd-order thanks in part to the bypasses, the L C filtering ought to be a bit less than 1st-order-parallel XO starting values: L smaller, C larger. Test by ear using tone-sweep or familiar music. Check phase alignment by moving tweeter back-and-forth playing XO-frequency tone and listening for maximum. Just do it
p.s. This simple method of phase-aligning multiple drivers has obvious limitations but given a large selection of drivers, XO frequencies and baffle layout freedom, and sufficient trial-and-error, could result in a phase-coherent multi-way speaker.
Last edited:
HI i promise the last ot kind questionThis is a bit off-topic so I'll be brief. Discussion can go on another thread even my New Year TLonken vs 2-way.
Connect tweeter - to woofer + in series. Bypass tweeter +/- with inductor which is then series before woofer +. Bypass woofer +/- with capacitor which is then series after tweeter -. Voila. Because series XO fall-off will be closer to 2nd-order thanks in part to the bypasses, the L C filtering ought to be a bit less than 1st-order-parallel XO starting values: L smaller, C larger. Test by ear using tone-sweep or familiar music. Check phase alignment by moving tweeter back-and-forth playing XO-frequency tone and listening for maximum. Just do it
p.s. This simple method of phase-aligning multiple drivers has obvious limitations but given a large selection of drivers, XO frequencies and baffle layout freedom, and sufficient trial-and-error, could result in a phase-coherent multi-way speaker.
If i had to take down the tweeter level where i can put the resistor?
The tweeter sensitivity usually is higher than the woofer's one
Thanks again
Thanks a lot again i will try as you say
These series xovers are very interesting but maybe too challenging for many
A normal parallel xover looks easier to calculate Low pass and high pass and it's done
I really think that the real challenge is to make a multi ways acting as a single driver
Very difficult but also very exciting
Kindest regards
Gino
These series xovers are very interesting but maybe too challenging for many
A normal parallel xover looks easier to calculate Low pass and high pass and it's done
I really think that the real challenge is to make a multi ways acting as a single driver
Very difficult but also very exciting
Kindest regards
Gino
What we have here is a design produced with careful human touch and a slide ruler. Computers, autocad, etc had minimal if any impact and perhaps that's the reason they are so attractive sonically. They certainly aren't perfect, and last I looked neither is the world. The most important factor is the DQ-10 is not a true full range design. And attempting to run them as such is equivalent to wizzing into the wind. Bi-amping them releases a lot of stress and instead of smoking resistors you get ever better reproduction. Once you dial in passive sealed alnico subs lowering the floor to 21hz or so, they become an entirely new ball game. Plus they like Cobra speaker cables which is a good thing. DQ-10's, LP-1's, Eagle 2's, and Cobra cables have withstood the test of time for a reason. As all four are masterpieces and even work well with each other. They are affordable and built when quality actually mattered and best of all none are devices.
DD
DD
It is not so much the speaker that has to be happy with Cobra/Polk cable, it is the amplifier that has to deal with the high C.
dave
.
The object is to produce a system that whatever speakers 110% approve of. And equipment, cables, etc is the means to doing so. The resulting load on the amp is of secondary concern. I'm assuming you've never owned Cobra's. I can vouch for the C issue being way overblown. Once upon a time long ago, it may have been an issue with SS amps. But with today's amplifier designs its a rare occurrence. And if it does present there are simple methods of correction. The fact remains that just like the 10's Cobra's has always been excellent. And even today perhaps 3 of the entire crop of cable offering might beat it. I've run them since the late 90's with many different amps and issues have been rare. Like perhaps 1 in 10 older amps from the late 90's or older and those were easily corrected. And should the amp not jive then it grows legs and I move on. At least in my world it all starts with the speaker selection and then figuring out how to make them as happy as possible. Which admittedly takes some time. Just like MLK, Marantz also had a dream. Which was to produce a legendary speaker prior to checking out. And he finally pulled it off, and sadly like most great accomplishments, it wasn't completely recognized until after he stepped out.
DD
DD
THAT stuff blew-up my amp AND speakers back in the mid-70s.
I had a pair of Dalquists [DG10] not long after the Polk cable disasters. They were really pleasant and musical. But I lived in a London apartment and the Missus refused to allow them and 3 other pairs of not small speakers! So they went.
