Nice combo. Finish comes later. Much later.
It does? I always thought that step was completely optional.
I hate you voice of reason!
"The voice of having too many unfinished projects around" is more like it.
Ok, so to summarise:
1) 604-8H-III
- Bigger frequency range 40Hz- 20kHz
- Bigger pressure sensitivity 121.5dB
- Single cell horn, purportedly improved over the original horn
- Ferrite Metal
- Cheaper at USD885/pc
2) 604E Series II
- Smaller frequency range 30Hz-20kHz
- Smaller pressure sensitivity 98dB
- 6 cell horn similar in appearance to the gen
- Alnico metal
- More expensive USD1100/pc
The specifications tells one tale, but the myth tells me another. My head wants the 8H but my heart wants the E. If price was not a consideration, which would you chose?
1) 604-8H-III
- Bigger frequency range 40Hz- 20kHz
- Bigger pressure sensitivity 121.5dB
- Single cell horn, purportedly improved over the original horn
- Ferrite Metal
- Cheaper at USD885/pc
2) 604E Series II
- Smaller frequency range 30Hz-20kHz
- Smaller pressure sensitivity 98dB
- 6 cell horn similar in appearance to the gen
- Alnico metal
- More expensive USD1100/pc
The specifications tells one tale, but the myth tells me another. My head wants the 8H but my heart wants the E. If price was not a consideration, which would you chose?
Do you want better treble, or do you want better bass? (8h for treble, E for bass in simple boxes.)
Do you have money and an alnico fetish? (The E.)
Do you plan to have subs or an equalizer? (Just get the Gen 3 8h. Full stop.)
Can you toss a coin?
According to GM from earlier in this thread: "IMNSHO, the oldest are by far the best overall as they have a proper 1 kHz horn, ultralight woofer diaphragm and ~time correct XO"
I asked him a bit later on, which models he meant by 'earlier' but he perhaps didn't see the post. Following some research, I found that Altec switched to a smaller horn with the 604C model. GPA states that with their 604E series II they went back to the horn originally used on the 604B. Since GM cites that one of the main reasons for the superiority of the earlier models is the larger 1 KHz horn, then it stands to reason (partially at least) that the 'E' should have the edge. How much of an edge? well...
Another possible benefit is the Alnico on the 'E'. On their 416 drivers, GPA claims that both Fe and Alnico versions sound the same, but for what it's worth, Lynn Olson over at the 'Beyond The Ariel' thread, had a definite preference for the Alnico version when he auditioned both drivers.
Also keep in mind that the price difference between the two will be smaller percentage-wise in your case, since the shipping charges to Asia will probably add a good premium to the price of either pair. All this to say, that if I were you I'd spring for the 604E's... It's so easy spending other peoples' money!
Good luck and keep us posted on your decision.
I asked him a bit later on, which models he meant by 'earlier' but he perhaps didn't see the post. Following some research, I found that Altec switched to a smaller horn with the 604C model. GPA states that with their 604E series II they went back to the horn originally used on the 604B. Since GM cites that one of the main reasons for the superiority of the earlier models is the larger 1 KHz horn, then it stands to reason (partially at least) that the 'E' should have the edge. How much of an edge? well...
Another possible benefit is the Alnico on the 'E'. On their 416 drivers, GPA claims that both Fe and Alnico versions sound the same, but for what it's worth, Lynn Olson over at the 'Beyond The Ariel' thread, had a definite preference for the Alnico version when he auditioned both drivers.
Also keep in mind that the price difference between the two will be smaller percentage-wise in your case, since the shipping charges to Asia will probably add a good premium to the price of either pair. All this to say, that if I were you I'd spring for the 604E's... It's so easy spending other peoples' money!
Good luck and keep us posted on your decision.
Last edited:
Huh. It looks a lot more like the sectoral horn used on the C through G than it does the multicell used on the B.
Some people hear this, others don't. If you've fallen off the deep end on direct-heated triode amplifiers, and can hear the difference between RC-coupling and interstage-transformer coupling, Alnico may be the one for you.
But if you're not that far gone and have more conventional amplification, you may not hear any difference at all, so you can choose between the drivers on other merits.
Be aware that designing a crossover for the 604 is extremely difficult, since both drivers are at the edge of their working range and are not flat in the octave around the crossover region.
So why do you need 121.5dB...
You will never achieve that SPL level.
Some considerations:
#1 Driver: 97.9 dB/2.83V/m and with 100 W (RMS) you have (@1.00 m) 117.8 dB for one speaker and 120.8 dB for a pair (theoretical), if you count with compression (TA) -2.3dB you have final 115.5 dB @1 m for 1 speaker... DUH!
#2 Driver: 95.0 dB/2.83V/m you will be playing about 50W RMS, meaning you have ~25 watts RMS (for KT88) and building a new ~80 Watts RMS (300B triode tube) probably 50W output: <0.18%.
With this amp you have @1.00 m, 112.3 dB (1) speaker and 115.4 dB pair (with 57 W RMS). Then you have compression (TA) -1.9 dB, meaning final 110.4 dB (duh/bis). So that's not a problem in your case. Power is the same for both drivers 100W RMS.
Now, and this was meant already in this thread, With #1 Driver you have F-3 dB 57 Hz and with #2 Driver F-3 dB 38 Hz meaning that #1 will require subwoofer driver with standard/ideal volume speakers VB = 100 L in the first case and VB = 180 L in alnico case.
Regards.
If I may add to this: I would suggest that system considerations, room setup, and listening habits will swamp the magnet concerns between the two systems.
I have a pronounced preference for the alnico variants in my setup, but that preference has not been at all pronounced in other contexts. That said: I have neither the experience nor the confidence to endorse one over the other in all use cases. I'll leave that to folks like GM and Lynn.
Lynn's advice about crossovers is also critical. He's being very nicely understated when he says that the drivers are operating "at the edge" of their range. They are, in fact, operating in an pathologically unfriendly and insane area of their range. For a beginner who doesn't want to engineer a crossover, the Markwart implementations offer an excellent start.
Sadly, Jeff Markwart doesn't have a crossover that precisely matches either of the available GPA duplexes.
I'm going to try to make sense of what you just wrote (remember I'm an idiot who knows nothing about hi-fi, seriously).
From what I can understand, what you are essentially saying is, I will not be able to hear a difference, the numbers published don't mean much (especially considering the amp that I will be using) and it's essentially a wash. Correct?
Please, someone give me some bullets and a gun already!
From what I can understand, what you are essentially saying is, I will not be able to hear a difference, the numbers published don't mean much (especially considering the amp that I will be using) and it's essentially a wash. Correct?
Please, someone give me some bullets and a gun already!
So why do you need 121.5dB...
You will never achieve that SPL level.
Some considerations:
#1 Driver: 97.9 dB/2.83V/m and with 100 W (RMS) you have (@1.00 m) 117.8 dB for one speaker and 120.8 dB for a pair (theoretical), if you count with compression (TA) -2.3dB you have final 115.5 dB @1 m for 1 speaker... DUH!
#2 Driver: 95.0 dB/2.83V/m you will be playing about 50W RMS, meaning you have ~25 watts RMS (for KT88) and building a new ~80 Watts RMS (300B triode tube) probably 50W output: <0.18%.
With this amp you have @1.00 m, 112.3 dB (1) speaker and 115.4 dB pair (with 57 W RMS). Then you have compression (TA) -1.9 dB, meaning final 110.4 dB (duh/bis). So that's not a problem in your case. Power is the same for both drivers 100W RMS.
Now, and this was meant already in this thread, With #1 Driver you have F-3 dB 57 Hz and with #2 Driver F-3 dB 38 Hz meaning that #1 will require subwoofer driver with standard/ideal volume speakers VB = 100 L in the first case and VB = 180 L in alnico case.
Regards.
Last edited:
As I've stated before, I really am no expert on anything Altec, much less on the Duplexe's, but it's my understanding that the change from the 'B' to the 'C' series was in the reduction of the size of the horn. It remained basically the same multi cell type, albeit a smaller one.
From GPA's 604E SII documentation linked bellow, it states:
"This horn is a redesigned and improved version of the original
true multi-cell horn, last available on the 604B!"
How close this multi-cell redesign stuck to the original 604B in size, is anybody's guess and could only be confirmed by GPA.
http://www.greatplainsaudio.com/downloads/604E Series II Spec Sheet.pdf
Yes, besides the correct coax driver depends on the application.
#1 Driver: 604-8H-III + Sub (price?, amps?, space?, crossovers?)
Urei 813A Monitor
Urei 813A Monitor Speakers - YouTube
#2 Driver: 604E Series II (if you are a purist... tube amp is obvious?!)
Tannoy Monitor Gold 15"
Tannoy Monitor Gold 15" - 1968 Vintage Dual Concentric Speakers - YouTube
I was in the process of 'catching up' with this thread when I looked up the E2, which had been speculated for many years on the Altec and HE forums with me and some others 'campaigning like Southern Diplomats' for a re-make of the original multi-cell horn [at minimum, I was/am wanting an even bigger one], but eventually got the 8H S3 instead. An improvement, but for me and some others, still a disappointment overall.
When I first learned of the E2 here, I assumed it was basically an AlNiCo S3, so 'much ado about nothing' for me except for the horn’s motor.
The large multi-cell horn is a 'game changer' for me WRT choice if cost isn’t a major issue. Now if it just had the early woofer diaphragm……..
Note that the smaller horn used on the later models isn’t a true multi-cell, but a horn with an ‘egg crate’ grill insert to diffract the beaming HF to somewhat mimic a multi-cell, which is fine for the high power studio, PA apps it’s designed for, but not so much in HIFI/HT apps where the speakers normally idle along at fractions of a watt.
GM
An improvement, but for me and some others, still a disappointment overall. When I first learned of the E2 here, I assumed it was basically an AlNiCo S3, so 'much ado about nothing' for me except for the horn’s motor.
The large multi-cell horn is a 'game changer' for me WRT choice if cost isn’t a major issue. Now if it just had the early woofer diaphragm……..
Note that the smaller horn used on the later models isn’t a true multi-cell, but a horn with an ‘egg crate’ grill insert to diffract the beaming HF to somewhat mimic a multi-cell, which is fine for the high power studio, PA apps it’s designed for, but not so much in HIFI/HT apps where the speakers normally idle along at fractions of a watt.
GM
So, basically the 'egg crate' 'insert' has no bearing in my decision making process because in my application, it will not do anything. BUT the 8H with a bigger horn than the S3 will be a marginal improvement?
I believe it is also not a multi-cell.
I believe it is also not a multi-cell.
I was in the process of 'catching up' with this thread when I looked up the E2, which had been speculated for many years on the Altec and HE forums with me and some others 'campaigning like Southern Diplomats' for a re-make of the original multi-cell horn [at minimum, I was/am wanting an even bigger one], but eventually got the 8H S3 instead.
When I first learned of the E2 here, I assumed it was basically an AlNiCo S3, so 'much ado about nothing' for me except for the horn’s motor.
The large multi-cell horn is a 'game changer' for me WRT choice if cost isn’t a major issue. Now if it just had the early woofer diaphragm……..
Note that the smaller horn used on the later models isn’t a true multi-cell, but a horn with an ‘egg crate’ grill insert to diffract the beaming HF to somewhat mimic a multi-cell, which is fine for the high power studio, PA apps it’s designed for, but not so much in HIFI/HT apps where the speakers normally idle along at fractions of a watt.
GM
if you are in situation to finance 604 acquisition without too much pain ( either in wallet or guts or marriage ) , then go for it
if not , then allow to your self to try to listen to them first ......... somewhere ;
same for any other spks - they're ( in conjunction with room ) single most important factor in recreating musical enjoyment , but also most complicated and most prominent to our (different) tastes
also - maybe you already know the answer , but if we are speaking of coaxials - it's worth thinking what's costlier to you to buy locally or import - Tannoys or Altecs ;
for my twisted mind both are certainly same fun ( even if I saw just one pair of 604 in entire life
) , but for novice , I can bet that Tannoys are more friendly to implement and more HiFi-sh , at least slightly
what's size of room , acoustics , your listening habits ?
if not , then allow to your self to try to listen to them first ......... somewhere ;
same for any other spks - they're ( in conjunction with room ) single most important factor in recreating musical enjoyment , but also most complicated and most prominent to our (different) tastes
also - maybe you already know the answer , but if we are speaking of coaxials - it's worth thinking what's costlier to you to buy locally or import - Tannoys or Altecs ;
for my twisted mind both are certainly same fun ( even if I saw just one pair of 604 in entire life
) , but for novice , I can bet that Tannoys are more friendly to implement and more HiFi-sh , at least slightlywhat's size of room , acoustics , your listening habits ?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.