RE:super 8
Hi Sreten and Kevin, As far as the surrounds go I too was puzzled the first time I bought wharfedale speakers and upon removing the drivers saw that the surrounds were indeed Felt> I thought to myself what kind of idiot uses felt for that? That felt was thick like pool table cloth and probably not see through . But I was thinking of the bug problem more then anything as being an antique dealer one thing I know is moths and other bugs love wool and felt ! The use of felt has to be up there with one of the biggest speaker blunders the use of neo-pream surrounds in the 70s' a material that fell apart over time wether used in light or not. I really don't want to get into a fighting match and I am sure you would know more then I about the spec side of the driver as I really don't try and understand that side of of audio. Sure as I think about building some 7 or 10 tall horns I may have to get into that in more detail. I merely was trying to give kevin some hope , instead of telling him to throw them away. As mere audiophiles I for one won't begin to second guess why the designers at wharfedale used felt, the type of frames or cones they used for that matter. As I am sure they had their reasons at the time,also many companies had to shut down production during the war years and in the early 50's things just started rolling again. If that changed anything as far as their decisions I don't know. I do know that I have yet to see anyone make an impact on audio like wharfedale did this day and age with all the computer aided gear. The driver companies are only perfecting an old idea with better equipment that lets them improve on the science. That being said their build quality still sucks! Darenb
Hi Sreten and Kevin, As far as the surrounds go I too was puzzled the first time I bought wharfedale speakers and upon removing the drivers saw that the surrounds were indeed Felt> I thought to myself what kind of idiot uses felt for that? That felt was thick like pool table cloth and probably not see through . But I was thinking of the bug problem more then anything as being an antique dealer one thing I know is moths and other bugs love wool and felt ! The use of felt has to be up there with one of the biggest speaker blunders the use of neo-pream surrounds in the 70s' a material that fell apart over time wether used in light or not. I really don't want to get into a fighting match and I am sure you would know more then I about the spec side of the driver as I really don't try and understand that side of of audio. Sure as I think about building some 7 or 10 tall horns I may have to get into that in more detail. I merely was trying to give kevin some hope , instead of telling him to throw them away. As mere audiophiles I for one won't begin to second guess why the designers at wharfedale used felt, the type of frames or cones they used for that matter. As I am sure they had their reasons at the time,also many companies had to shut down production during the war years and in the early 50's things just started rolling again. If that changed anything as far as their decisions I don't know. I do know that I have yet to see anyone make an impact on audio like wharfedale did this day and age with all the computer aided gear. The driver companies are only perfecting an old idea with better equipment that lets them improve on the science. That being said their build quality still sucks! Darenb
Mine have roll cloth surrounds, the only felt present is used to seal the driver against the inside of the baffle board. The Super12 I saw was the same way? Mine are new, never used, and in fact never even out of the box until last night. Foam around the whizzer cones is intact.. (Probably not for long.. 
)
The surrounds look very porous to say the least..
We shall see. If nothing else I will have some fun messing around with them..
)The surrounds look very porous to say the least..
We shall see. If nothing else I will have some fun messing around with them..
RE SUPER 8
Well I think my super 8's had some kind of strange foam surround which has since fallen apart, as they 2 were never used and came complete with box,labels, and the black dust jacket. I think if you search the Super 12's on this forum you will find some of the tweaks you seek but based on the 12" the same should apply and I am sure you could ask them as I remember reading the materials needed etc. treating the cone was one of them as well as also fixing the surround, from memory I think their was also info on cleaning the voice coil area as well as other treatments and sources of products. Daren
Well I think my super 8's had some kind of strange foam surround which has since fallen apart, as they 2 were never used and came complete with box,labels, and the black dust jacket. I think if you search the Super 12's on this forum you will find some of the tweaks you seek but based on the 12" the same should apply and I am sure you could ask them as I remember reading the materials needed etc. treating the cone was one of them as well as also fixing the surround, from memory I think their was also info on cleaning the voice coil area as well as other treatments and sources of products. Daren
Porous surrounds
I remember that there was one of Hartley's speakers that didn't have any 'surround' at all. It had a Rube Goldberg type of spider that crossed over from the frame to the opposite sides of the raw edge. I remember well because I was facinated with this departure from the norm. It apparently failed as a commercial idea because of manufacturing problems. The performance was supposedly exceptional.
If no surround was good for clarity, maybe Briggs used porous surrounds like foam or felt for the same purpose. I'm not saying who had the idea first. I am suggesting that brilliant minds had the same idea.
Now I see that the Super 3's need the felt surrounds coated to increase the performance. I have some that has the foam rubber disintegrated & need new surrounds.
What material would be good?
I'm wondering if a very limber material, such as doeskin, might not work well. That's not a new idea, it's been done before.
I can't imagine what Wharfedale used in their more recent coated cloth surrounds.
Frank Dobias
I remember that there was one of Hartley's speakers that didn't have any 'surround' at all. It had a Rube Goldberg type of spider that crossed over from the frame to the opposite sides of the raw edge. I remember well because I was facinated with this departure from the norm. It apparently failed as a commercial idea because of manufacturing problems. The performance was supposedly exceptional.
If no surround was good for clarity, maybe Briggs used porous surrounds like foam or felt for the same purpose. I'm not saying who had the idea first. I am suggesting that brilliant minds had the same idea.
Now I see that the Super 3's need the felt surrounds coated to increase the performance. I have some that has the foam rubber disintegrated & need new surrounds.
What material would be good?
I'm wondering if a very limber material, such as doeskin, might not work well. That's not a new idea, it's been done before.
I can't imagine what Wharfedale used in their more recent coated cloth surrounds.
Frank Dobias
Mine are the Super 8 RS/DD which have the porous cloth roll surround and dual diaphragms. (A whizzer cone to those of us in the USA) I'm going to try them in the recommended slot port variant as it is easy to build, and won't cost much.
Once I have listened to them I will decide whether to dope the surrounds or not. I'm not too encouraged by what I have read, and being an engineer (somewhat inexperienced on the acoustic side of the realm) I am very suspicious of the overall quality of these drivers from an acoustic perspective. The published measurements indicate that they are pretty close to utter rubbish, (confirmed from more than one source) and based on my own loudspeaker design work I cannot ignore the comments - and I doubt that doping the surround alone is going to address many of the concerns.
Some people revere Briggs, and certainly his very early pioneering efforts are notable, but whether or not he was still at the top of his game when these drivers were designed is debatable. The total lack of respect for these speakers (by those who know enough to have a worthwhile opinion) is telling in an age where even some cheap vintage Foster drivers are revered.
Once I have listened to them I will decide whether to dope the surrounds or not. I'm not too encouraged by what I have read, and being an engineer (somewhat inexperienced on the acoustic side of the realm) I am very suspicious of the overall quality of these drivers from an acoustic perspective. The published measurements indicate that they are pretty close to utter rubbish, (confirmed from more than one source) and based on my own loudspeaker design work I cannot ignore the comments - and I doubt that doping the surround alone is going to address many of the concerns.
Some people revere Briggs, and certainly his very early pioneering efforts are notable, but whether or not he was still at the top of his game when these drivers were designed is debatable. The total lack of respect for these speakers (by those who know enough to have a worthwhile opinion) is telling in an age where even some cheap vintage Foster drivers are revered.
Actually they are quite porous as I can see right through the surrounds, and others who have the same driver have reported better results after doping the surrounds. Take a look at the site that sreten cites in an earlier post - these are exactly the drivers I have, and planet10 I believe can corroborate this.
Here is that link yet again: http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/WharfedaleSuper8.htm
These drivers were built in 1966 so I am assuming Briggs was still around if just - and these drivers are considerably older designs than the production date indicates. I have a pdf of a catalog that lists them published around 1962..
I need to devise a quick lash up to give them a listen and then I will know, until then it is a shot in the dark I guess.
Here is that link yet again: http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/WharfedaleSuper8.htm
These drivers were built in 1966 so I am assuming Briggs was still around if just - and these drivers are considerably older designs than the production date indicates. I have a pdf of a catalog that lists them published around 1962..
I need to devise a quick lash up to give them a listen and then I will know, until then it is a shot in the dark I guess.
Re: G.A.Briggs
Hi Frank,
The boxes do say Rank Wharfedale so that lends credence to what you are saying..
Oddly enough the recommendations are to use something like driveway crack sealer thinned with naptha or similar. It's supposed to be quite flexible when properly applied. Understandably I am more than a bit hesitant.
Cone doping would be with something like PVA..
I guess I'll just build some small boxes first and see what happens.
dobias said:
Hi Frank,
The boxes do say Rank Wharfedale so that lends credence to what you are saying..
Oddly enough the recommendations are to use something like driveway crack sealer thinned with naptha or similar. It's supposed to be quite flexible when properly applied. Understandably I am more than a bit hesitant.
Cone doping would be with something like PVA..
I guess I'll just build some small boxes first and see what happens.
The surrounds on my 1966 vintage 10 RSDDs were treated with bituminous paint some 30 years ago by Norm Edge in Melbourne. Norm was trained by N Thiele when employed at the ABC studio.
The cones are treated with PEP gasket cement and diluted PVA.
I don't understand the "problem" with the surrounds. Other manufactures have used rolled cloth. The 4" Fosters drivers I was using prior to the Warfedales (top end over Altec 411-8As) had a cloth roll surround.
The cones are treated with PEP gasket cement and diluted PVA.
I don't understand the "problem" with the surrounds. Other manufactures have used rolled cloth. The 4" Fosters drivers I was using prior to the Warfedales (top end over Altec 411-8As) had a cloth roll surround.
Hi,
Driveway crack sealer ? are you serious ? presumably ......
The obvious I would of thought is a latex Fabric glue, test first ....
http://www.ryman.co.uk/Copydex-Adhesive-with-brush-125ml-Bottle-0625102293.asp
Nothing wrong with cloth surrounds as long as they are sealed ....
/sreten.
Driveway crack sealer ? are you serious ? presumably ......
The obvious I would of thought is a latex Fabric glue, test first ....
http://www.ryman.co.uk/Copydex-Adhesive-with-brush-125ml-Bottle-0625102293.asp
Nothing wrong with cloth surrounds as long as they are sealed ....
/sreten.
Geoff H said:
I've have other drivers with cloth roll surrounds, but they clearly aren't porous as these are reported (and appear) to be. I can see right through these surrounds. I hate rotting foam and have no vintage drivers that use it..
Sreten, driveway crack sealer sold here is bituminous and very pliant - I guess that is why it was recommended..
I'm going to think about this seriously before I ruin drivers worth at least a couple of bucks each or maybe not.. Just kidding.. The baskets sure are pretty if nothing else.. Oh well..RE: super 12 and suitable phase plugs
Hello, its been some time now since this thread was first posted but I have been busy with several super 12 drivers and experiments with different cabinets. Hoping soon to decide on which ones work best,at that point I would like to finish the modifications to the drivers. There is much talk about removing the centre whizzer and installing a phase plug? can anyone suggest a source for a phase plug that will work? and describe the procedure? I have treated the surrounds with silicone rubber which seems to work very good but of course the surrounds are now RED to match the magnets. Any help would be greatly appreciated,or send me to a thread which would cover this???? Thanks D
Hello, its been some time now since this thread was first posted but I have been busy with several super 12 drivers and experiments with different cabinets. Hoping soon to decide on which ones work best,at that point I would like to finish the modifications to the drivers. There is much talk about removing the centre whizzer and installing a phase plug? can anyone suggest a source for a phase plug that will work? and describe the procedure? I have treated the surrounds with silicone rubber which seems to work very good but of course the surrounds are now RED to match the magnets. Any help would be greatly appreciated,or send me to a thread which would cover this???? Thanks D
Mail me, i mightbe able to help with phase plugs...
I just recently got a pair of Super 8s in pretty good condition. The aluminum dustcap was a caraciture of the aluminum dome stereotype... they'd be playing along and something would excite the dome resonance & a quick stab of pain would go thru my head. They are better now with the dustcap removed. The plugs i have for Visaton B200 fit in them... i've not seen a set of Super 12s so i'm not sure if they have the same size voice coil.
dave
I just recently got a pair of Super 8s in pretty good condition. The aluminum dustcap was a caraciture of the aluminum dome stereotype... they'd be playing along and something would excite the dome resonance & a quick stab of pain would go thru my head. They are better now with the dustcap removed. The plugs i have for Visaton B200 fit in them... i've not seen a set of Super 12s so i'm not sure if they have the same size voice coil.
dave
This thread has been dead for a while, but I noted a question about the Super 12 RS DD today in another thread and referenced this one.
If anyone is actually wondering about my pair of Super 8 RS DD and what happened to them I'd be surprised.. However I never did anything with them at all, all of the justifiably negative comments about these drivers scared me off. (Why spend the time building a box for an obviously flawed driver? I'm curious, but not that curious.)
Last summer a friend gave a pair of NOS Fostex FE167 full range drivers and I focused my attention on building a pair of Half Chili Chang boxes for these instead. Given the great amount of work required to get these drivers to sound halfway decent in these boxes I'm glad I did not pursue a project with the Wharfedales.
I did manage to sell these to a fellow in Italy who was restoring a pair of the large Wharfedales and needed a pair of Super 8 RD SS to replace the trashed ones used as mids in these speakers. It took a while but I did get some money out of them.
If anyone is actually wondering about my pair of Super 8 RS DD and what happened to them I'd be surprised..
However I never did anything with them at all, all of the justifiably negative comments about these drivers scared me off. (Why spend the time building a box for an obviously flawed driver? I'm curious, but not that curious.)Last summer a friend gave a pair of NOS Fostex FE167 full range drivers and I focused my attention on building a pair of Half Chili Chang boxes for these instead. Given the great amount of work required to get these drivers to sound halfway decent in these boxes I'm glad I did not pursue a project with the Wharfedales.
I did manage to sell these to a fellow in Italy who was restoring a pair of the large Wharfedales and needed a pair of Super 8 RD SS to replace the trashed ones used as mids in these speakers. It took a while but I did get some money out of them.
RE: super 12 and super 8 drivers
Hi thanks for the update Dave and Kevin, I have been far to busy building a loft bedroom in our old building to follow up on the super 12 drivers. One thing I will say is the super part of their name suits them as I think they are awesome full range drivers and prefer them to some of the Tannoys I have had, that's a great bang for the buck! as they are cheap. I stuck them in some old cabinets I picked up and was throughly impressed. I am currently looking for another pair. As far as the super 8's I have an unused pair in the original boxes but the surrounds are gone. Not sure yet what I will do with them?????? They probably have potential with a few mods? I still have a hard time believing they are total crap as Briggs was usually on the ball? D
Hi thanks for the update Dave and Kevin, I have been far to busy building a loft bedroom in our old building to follow up on the super 12 drivers. One thing I will say is the super part of their name suits them as I think they are awesome full range drivers and prefer them to some of the Tannoys I have had, that's a great bang for the buck! as they are cheap. I stuck them in some old cabinets I picked up and was throughly impressed. I am currently looking for another pair. As far as the super 8's I have an unused pair in the original boxes but the surrounds are gone. Not sure yet what I will do with them?????? They probably have potential with a few mods? I still have a hard time believing they are total crap as Briggs was usually on the ball? D
Say, I don't know how many of you guys have heard Super 8s. I have had a pair of super 8 RS/DD speakers in 1.5 cu. ft. teak enclosures since I was a boy. My father gave them to me in 1967, having brought them back from Hong Kong. I must say, they are suprisingly good sounding speakers. For full-range speakers with whizzer cones, they have extended treble response. The bass response, in the enclosures they came in, is good to probably 50hz. Overall, the speakers are _remarkably_ uncolored. The trick is to resist the attempt to reproduce rock concert sound pressure levels from bookshelf speakers. Otherwise, these speakers are unreal.
Oh, if you have an aluminum dustcap, I don't believe you have original Super 8s. The whizzer cones have a cloth cover in the middle to keep crud out of the voice coil gap on the originals. Also, they should have a cork gasket behind the whizzer cone. The aluminum dustcap suggests a recone. I don't know who would have had the correct components for a recone for this driver, though.
Actually, The site has a response from a Wharfdale employee from the period in which the 8/RS/DD was produced. He pretty thoroughly debunks the ideas of the author about the driver, which was a _very_ sophisticated driver for the time. It actually holds up well in listening tests today--if it hasn't been blown by folks in the intervening years who have hooked it up to high powered amplifiers and cranked it. The 8/RS/DD is a 5-10 watt speaker, and that is really all it needs. I used to use it with tube Sony TC-200 Tape Deck with built-in amplifiers. Later, I purchased a Marantz 1030 15 watt integrated amp that drove the speakers to decent levels.
The trick with any drivers of unknown provenance is getting some that haven't been roached out--especially if they are essentially incapable of being properly rebuilt. I have had my Wharfedales since new. They have been used within their design parameters. They are GOOD speakers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.