Well ,the fact that something is used does not mean the results are optimal or very good. Nostalgia and mass hallucinations play a role 🙂
416 and 414 are my least favorite Altec woofers . I will take their biflex brethren any time and 515 is so much better.
416 and 414 are my least favorite Altec woofers . I will take their biflex brethren any time and 515 is so much better.
Admittedly - while looking at the specs, T&S of the 515 seems to approach my personal target parameters for a proper mid woofer.
High efficiency > implies low mass, high flux density and so on.
High efficiency > implies low mass, high flux density and so on.
515 has a snap and liveliness which neither 416/414 posess. I like 403a even more although it has a motor similar to 416. It's 100db rating comes at cost of bass extension. They are rare and cost much more than 416. Very nice tonality as well. I never could get along with Altec speakers. Valencia was a joke , kind of similar to Thirens td124 , Model 19 not so much better but the crown goes to domestic Vott. This one us so muddled it can only produce atmospheric pressure instead of music. I like Electro-Voice vintage speakers. Had Patrician IV and it's a marvel.
Correction , I meant 803A woofer of course not 403A. Also there was an Altec based speaker I liked and it was made by Heathkit . A version of Laguna with 2x 803A woofers, 511 horn and 802D CD. with Peerless coils based crossover.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...z-for-passive-hi-fi-2-way.375230/post-6769053
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...z-for-passive-hi-fi-2-way.375230/post-6770977
Hmm, missed this, so a belated you're welcome! ~ a couple of years late!
No, just Altec's in prosound apps, so great for high power handling in BRs when tuned to 1.56x Fs. The late Bill Eckle's docs help folks with driver/speaker combos up to 515-8G.
Re GPA's variants, they originally only could do whatever the EV tooling allowed, which hopefully Pano will elaborate on WRT to getting original OEM specs, though in recent years they refurb'd/bought new/both? and the 414s used/measured in these speakers have OEM specs, so based on these can only presume the GPA 515C will be likewise.
As for cab size in general, lacking any other specs can only presume these basic formulas are sufficient for a T/S max flat alignment with any added series resistance increasing its Vb, lowers its Fb:
Vented net volume (Vb) (L) = 20*Vas*Qts'^3.3
Vented box tuning (Fb) (Hz) = 0.42*Fs*Qts'^-0.96
F3 = Fs*0.28*Qts^-1.4
(Qts'): (Qts) + any added series resistance (Rs): http://www.mh-audio.nl/Calculators/newqts.html
WRT increasing box size: T/S theory peters out at the driver's effective upper [Fhm], lower [Flc] mass corners, so any bandwidth response plot beyond these points are strictly due to [inputted] inductance [mH] and/or mass roll off, with on-line freeware generally just flatlining it:
Fhm = 2*Fs/Qts' end of acceleration BW
Flc = Fs*Qts'/2 end of roll off BW [normally never used]
Qts' = 2*Fs/Fhm
Maybe more easily understood from a horn loading POV along with all the extra math, pg. 7: http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/PDF/Keele%20(1977-05%20AES%20Preprint)%20-%20LF%20Horn%20Design%20Using%20TS%20Paras.pdf'.
From this we see that a net Vb REDUCTION may ideally be required if no significant series resistance is used, though hard up against a rigid/massive wall or as you've learned, corners can allow a larger and/or lower tuned (EBS) cab alignment.
Agreed WRT 515s in general and especially with AlNiCo Vs any other 15" Altec drivers, and once my (then) next door neighbor bought my DIY'd A7-500 pair combined with the 'gifted' aforementioned A4s, switched to 515B reconed/drained/zapped at the East Coast Altec repair service with what turned out to be the prevailing 20 Hz Fs, 20 ft^3 Vas, 0.2 Qts.
Around 15 yrs? later I wanted another pair, so sent a special order with a copy of my recones and while the OEM frame had switched to the 16", the distributor confirmed the specs were 'dead' on and clearly been broken in! Sadly, that was the last time I had such service and by '96 was selling NOS at cost while trying to convince me their B0$3 PA, small cinema systems, was the 'Hot Ticket', 'future'.
FLH that go low need to be either very long, large or as a corner horn 'infinite' array, so either way, quite expensive for most, but this is where the 515 'shines' IME, at least with the OEMs I've been exposed to.
Re Onken alignments, note the mass quantities of (admittedly euphonic to many) mid-bass, (lower) mids distortion up to at least 1 kHz and you decide; personally critically damp all vented alignments, so have done it a few of times as much for the 'look' as for the extra output before going back to the pioneer's single Av = Sd size vent.
As for other alignments, with its low Fs, Qt, high Vas it's quite flexible in that we're always trading efficiency for BW, so how much efficiency/added series resistance and/or larger box size and/or build complexity are you willing to trade for a lower usable LF BW?
The design of later (ferrite) 515G series is clearly aimed at mid-woofer duties, while the early alnico versions were designed with the classic (N) 500 Hz crossovers (and multicells) in mind.
I have no experience with either, but the 515G parameters are similar to those of my favorite 15 woofers.
The Patrcian IV is a relatively complex multi way. Highly acclaimed during its days, but not without its own set of limitations.
Nothing's changed, really > theme of the old Harley ads. Still valid imo.
I have no experience with either, but the 515G parameters are similar to those of my favorite 15 woofers.
The Patrcian IV is a relatively complex multi way. Highly acclaimed during its days, but not without its own set of limitations.
Nothing's changed, really > theme of the old Harley ads. Still valid imo.
GM, I think we are in a select group of connoisseurs/enthusiasts of EBS alignments.
The vast majority of hobbyists and commercial manufacturers focus their attention on the lowest -3dB aligment possible, which often leads to room mode emphasis and bass overkill. Last fall, I experienced this in many rooms at a big show.
The vast majority of hobbyists and commercial manufacturers focus their attention on the lowest -3dB aligment possible, which often leads to room mode emphasis and bass overkill. Last fall, I experienced this in many rooms at a big show.
I fully endorse this quote from Absolute Sound regarding the Fleetwood Deville:
"The speaker is designed to give an extended bass shelf response, sacrificing some sensitivit:y in the bass region for extension - the rationale for that approach being that many typical domestic listening spaces exhibit strong standing wave modes between 50-80Hz, and this design is meant to avoid overly exciting such modes. Mounted on the short stands which couples the woofer and ports closer to the floor, I was able obtain a full midbass range, coupled with deep bass extension that was 3dB down at 39Hz. Deep-bass roll off was moderate, as you would expect from an over-damped bass-reflex alignment. Upright bass pitch definition was excellent, and certainly did not exhibit the sort of imprecision many bass-reflex designs are guilty of.".
"The speaker is designed to give an extended bass shelf response, sacrificing some sensitivit:y in the bass region for extension - the rationale for that approach being that many typical domestic listening spaces exhibit strong standing wave modes between 50-80Hz, and this design is meant to avoid overly exciting such modes. Mounted on the short stands which couples the woofer and ports closer to the floor, I was able obtain a full midbass range, coupled with deep bass extension that was 3dB down at 39Hz. Deep-bass roll off was moderate, as you would expect from an over-damped bass-reflex alignment. Upright bass pitch definition was excellent, and certainly did not exhibit the sort of imprecision many bass-reflex designs are guilty of.".
Current alignment, which of course turns out differently in room:
The result of extremely low mass (Mms: 51 g) and high flux density (1.4 T).
Quote from ‘Loudspeakers, for music recording and reproduction’ by Philip Newell and Keith Holland:
“Some manufacturers have tried to sacrifice system sensitivity by lowering the magnet flux in order to lower the system Q. There is a strong ‘amplifier power in cheap’ lobby, who believe that lower efficiency systems can exhibit higher Qs, and hence can be extended in their low frequency range. What they often seem to fail to realise is that a heavier current in the voice coil and a lower power magnet will drastically alter the ratio of the fixed magnetic field to the variable magnet field. The much higher variable field due to the voice coil current can severely distort the position of the flux lines of the weak, permanent magnet, and give rise to loss of low level detail in the sound and increased levels of intermodulation distortion.”
The result of extremely low mass (Mms: 51 g) and high flux density (1.4 T).
Quote from ‘Loudspeakers, for music recording and reproduction’ by Philip Newell and Keith Holland:
“Some manufacturers have tried to sacrifice system sensitivity by lowering the magnet flux in order to lower the system Q. There is a strong ‘amplifier power in cheap’ lobby, who believe that lower efficiency systems can exhibit higher Qs, and hence can be extended in their low frequency range. What they often seem to fail to realise is that a heavier current in the voice coil and a lower power magnet will drastically alter the ratio of the fixed magnetic field to the variable magnet field. The much higher variable field due to the voice coil current can severely distort the position of the flux lines of the weak, permanent magnet, and give rise to loss of low level detail in the sound and increased levels of intermodulation distortion.”
Last edited:
Alternative to 416: 10 years back I spent a long time searching all pro audio speaker catalogues. Finding nearly identical woofer parameters was mission impossible. Main challenge was the very low Fs of the 416 whilst retaining a relatively light cone (Mms around 70g). But if one can live with Fs around 35hz-40hz (which won’t make a meaningful difference in the end, IMHO) there are a few alternatives out there with close Vas, Qts, Bl etc, sometimes with interesting other parameters.
I have these
Old question but i have a pair of JBL 2215h in box re-coned by Sound of Singer New York back in 2001 with original conekit and never used after.
Have only tested them a few times loose at the floor, and they sound fantastic with lovley midrange!
Used in Urei 813c and 815c And i think about the closest to Altec 816 in sound
Share some info to you all
Regards John
Old question but i have a pair of JBL 2215h in box re-coned by Sound of Singer New York back in 2001 with original conekit and never used after.
Have only tested them a few times loose at the floor, and they sound fantastic with lovley midrange!
Used in Urei 813c and 815c And i think about the closest to Altec 816 in sound
Share some info to you all
Regards John
Attachments
Last edited: