There are tweeteres that have the VC& former immersed in a viscous material...it's called ferrofluid!
Hi thanks a lot for the valuable advice Not all 1" tweeters are built same way i understand And some can stand more current through the coil
I tend to like simple things But i feel like i am alone sometimes People prefer complex things Like in cooking
When meat is good it can be even raw and you get pleasure
I tend to like simple things But i feel like i am alone sometimes People prefer complex things Like in cooking
When meat is good it can be even raw and you get pleasure
Last edited by a moderator:
Well...I'm vegetarian! But, doc, carrots are...crunch crunch...!
Were we talking about first orders in the other previous page? And about series connection, since the thread is about DQ-10...?!
I find it amusing since it's very easy & forgiving ( of possible errors). The rule that I learned is:
The midrange must be must more sensitive than the others, so you gotta find models in PA speakers or bigger Sd; the tweeter needs ferrofluid.
Since it needs only 1 coil and 1 cap.
3 speakers, yes, bass-midrange & tweeter
Were we talking about first orders in the other previous page? And about series connection, since the thread is about DQ-10...?!
I find it amusing since it's very easy & forgiving ( of possible errors). The rule that I learned is:
The midrange must be must more sensitive than the others, so you gotta find models in PA speakers or bigger Sd; the tweeter needs ferrofluid.
Since it needs only 1 coil and 1 cap.
3 speakers, yes, bass-midrange & tweeter
yes!
I just paid $200 Canadian for a pair of Dahlquist DQ tens the speakers you’re comparing them to are $3700 US ?
If you found a fully functioning pair of DQ-10's for $200 great. How would I know what you paid? Maybe they are fully updated, and the guy died, and you got them at a bargain?
I'll go one better, the smaller BMR Philharmonic in kit form, with the flat pack, and upgraded film caps costs about $1750 and they will beat the DQ-10s I had with upgraded caps and a ribbon tweeter - which if you take the original list price, apply inflation since then, and the parts I added, would be well over $1750, and still that pair of DQ-10's could not beat the BMR Philharmonics properly assembled.
Now to your pair, have you tested the drivers individually? Do the woofer surrounds need replacement? Are the caps leaking or dried out? Do they test in range of their specs? Please let us know.
BTW, $100 CD in 1973 is $651.39 today, the DQ-10 debuted at $750 US, so the original price adjusted for inflation is well over either BMR.
Last edited by a moderator:
As an aside on pp 189 in TAS (The Absolute Sound) Volume 1 Number 4 spring 1974, Dahlquist writes in his response to HP's review that the replacement for the CTS woofer used in the first run of 400 speakers will be made in house.
According to a second hand account from Joe the Service Manager at Regnar (Speaker Asylum) units 401-600 were made with the original Advent woofer. Then Dahlquist modified the design and the Masonite drivers were used thereafter.
So, my advice is, if you have serial numbers over 400, recone the woofers if at all possible. If not, get the regnars, or buy an OG used. On units under 400, get used ones or buy the Regnars's the discontinuity with the CTS blending into the mids isn't good. They go deeper, but are made of thicker material, and are slower, and might have a higher Q - although I didn't test that.
According to a second hand account from Joe the Service Manager at Regnar (Speaker Asylum) units 401-600 were made with the original Advent woofer. Then Dahlquist modified the design and the Masonite drivers were used thereafter.
So, my advice is, if you have serial numbers over 400, recone the woofers if at all possible. If not, get the regnars, or buy an OG used. On units under 400, get used ones or buy the Regnars's the discontinuity with the CTS blending into the mids isn't good. They go deeper, but are made of thicker material, and are slower, and might have a higher Q - although I didn't test that.
There are lots of modern DIY designs that crush the DQ10. FHXL with the right driver for instance… a build can be done for <$500.
dave
There's a famous Blues Musician in Rhode Island, "Duke" Robilliard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Robillard
I am told that he still enjoys his original pair of DQ-10s.
I can't speak to whether "Science" supports Open Baffle designs. I think the question is pointless, because every loudspeaker design is a compromise, even if the only things being compromised are affordability or practicality.
Here's an example of a very large Open Baffle (from the midrange up) design: https://gr-research.com/product/nx-treme/
john
For large mids up OB I had some experience with the Genesis 2.2 loudspeaker system if it counts as analogous format but ribbon.
Yes, that's true and I'll have to check out the FHXL.
I think its the evocation of the past - desires to finally get the object in question, or pleasurable moments that one hopes to recapture keeps classic gear alive - same with watches, etc.
Been a long time since I've been here. Let's see if I can figure out the forum software... I run a couple of owner support groups for the Dahlquist speakers and have been through far too much literature on them and discussions with the employees who designed and built them, so maybe I can help with some input on them.My question is the following
I have found a FR of the Philips midrange cone in another thread
https://files.diyaudio.com/forums/gallery/data/1935/medium/fr.jpg
It goes unbelievably flat up to almost 10kHz
In the DQ10 if i am not wrong is cut at about 1kHz ?
So, that's not the same driver. The DQ-10 uses the Philips AD5060/W8, the woofer version. That appears to be the AD5060/M8 or it's counterpart with a backer chamber. None of them are the same driver. Philips had an odd model numbering system at the time where different drivers with different applications, but the same basic size format would share the initial set of numbers and what came after the "/" dictated the function; "W" for woofer, "M" for midrange, "SQ" for squawker, which was the version meant to be used higher up to 10kHz.
Those were the stacking stands that Dahlquist sold for a brief period in 1977 when stacking was all the rage. They were well-received when demoed at the 1977 Summer CES, but seemed to have disappeared after. They're quite rare. I've only seen a few pairs come up.
Jon Dahlquist was a huge fan of the Quad ESL-57. In fact, his home system before he designed his speakers consisted of a stacked set of ESL-57s with a supertweeter between them. (think the Mark Levinson HQD several years before it came to be.) He loved the sound, but disliked their dynamic limitations, their limited frequency response especially in the bass and, surprisingly, their dipole nature.
The tweeter in the DQ-10 was the Mikrofonbau (bought by Peerless after the Dahlquist entered production) HTL-1913 3/4" (19mm) poly dome. No 1" tweeter. The midrange was the Mikrofonbau MTL-37, a 1.5" (37mm) (not 2.5") textile dome and little brother to the MTL-44 that was modified and OEMed to Infinity for use in their Quantum series a few years later.
Dahlquist never used a "ribbon" neither a JVC nor the Technics/Panasonic EAS-10TH-400A single-ended planar tweeter that was popular at a time because there was a glut of them on the market in the early '80s when they let go of old stock. Those were all third party mods that were sold as upgrades to the DQ-10. The Mikrofonbau HTL-1913 and Motorola KSN-1001A combination was used until the DQ-10 ceased production in 1989.
Gefco. Gefco made the woofers for both the Advent and the Dahlquist. While the former can serve as a drop-in replacement, they were not the same. The Dahlquist version of the driver differs from the Advent woofer in the cone stiffening treatment (shellac in alcohol), surround glue and process (ambroid cement and heated press vs. heat activated cement) as well as the voice coil former material (phosphor bronze for greater thermal capacity and slight improvement in inductance control). In practice, the Dahlquist woofer could handle a bit more power (handy with how power hungry they are) and had better top end break-up behavior, but the latter was irrelevant in the Dahlquist designs. Ironic considering the Advent really could've used that performance as its cone enters break-up before the crossover point to the tweeter in all their two-way designs using it. (The New Advent did address some of that with its redesigned driver.)
The first 999 used the 10" CTS woofer. This is per the Dahlquist service documents and I've seen serial number 884 that still had the CTS woofer. The reason for the change of drivers was because there was a supply issue towards the end of 1973 that was hurting production ie the company was left waiting for over a month for the woofers from CTS to finish what they'd built to fill orders. That forced Jon to look at alternatives and found that the woofer Gefco was building for Advent worked as a replacement with minimal modification to the design and gained a little sensitivity out of it as well. (This along with a crossover change netted a 3dB increase in system sensitivity, so it was definitely something not to ignore.) This resulted in what was internally known as the DQ-10A and was marketed as such here and there reflecting the woofer part number changing from D-1 to D-1A. Had nothing to do with the drivers being "slow" as drivers being "slow" or "fast" is a bunch of audiophile nonsense unless you're talking about something with high voice coil inductance. Gefco continued to produce these drivers with no change (cones were the same, magnets were the same) for Dahlquist almost twenty years after Advent stopped using their version with the introduction of The New Advent Loudspeaker. Even the DQ-20i used them in the early '90s.
Thank you for pointing that out. It's a common misconception that even I was guilty of at one point. The woofer is sealed, the supertweeter is a horn, the midrange and tweeter are domes only the midbass/lower midrange is without an enclosure, but it intentionally has such a thick felt layer behind it to offer acoustic resistance as to ensure it does not behave in a dipole manner. Jon Dahlquist was actually strongly against dipole speakers. He felt they "wasted energy" (direct quote) and confused the stereo image. He felt it better to have poor dispersion than to have in-room reflections.
Thought I saw the DQ-20 mentioned somewhere. That was designed by Carl Marchisotto with input from Jon Dahlquist. It's not a dipole either, though it uses an aperiodic loading of the midrange. (Kind of surprising that he went on to finally use open baffles in his Alon/Nola designs. It's worth noting that Marchisotto actually did most of the crossover revision work on the DQ-10 including the big switchover for those post sn 4134, the mirror-imaging and the change to metallized polyester caps. In the end, the DQ-10 was as much his design as Jon's, though, Dahlquist did continue to offer design input as a consultant even after his wreck pushed him out of ownership. Iirc, it was the DQ-30i designed by Jeff Hammerstrom that was the last model he offered input on.
I have a copy of the TAS review in my collection of literature here and took a moment to look through it again real quick. Though there is discussion of the new woofer by HP and Dahlquist, no mention is made of the serial number when the change over would occur. The number "400" only comes up in reference to the frequency of the crossover point between the woofer and the Philips driver.
Hi thank you for so much for your kind and very helpful advice
As I said before the dq10 were my first experience of 3d Soundstage
I was struck from the feeling of a sound coming from the space around and particularly behind the speakers
Call it love at first listening
From this my effort to understand what makes these speakers so special
And i have concluded that it is the xover design
To cut short i would like to simplify down to a 3 way increasing the range covered by the Philips
If the magic is in the xover the drivers that are good but nothing stellar could be even replaced with better one
Sad thing is that i can't understand how this xover works For me it's a mistery
I would like to see a simulation of it
I am pretty sure that phase response and impulse response should be very very good
Imho it's the xover that provides a sort of coherency similar to a single wide band driver
A masterpiece