Inductor: I found the following data on the internet on the 5060/SQ8 driver without the rear chamber which should be identical to 5060/W8. In case you want a more comprehensive list I will measure the driver myself:
Fc = 100.9 Hz
Qt = .48
Qe = .60
Qm = 2.6
Zin1K = 7.64 ohms
ZinMin = 7.19 at 569 Hz
Zin10K = 18.6
Lvc5K = .27 mH
Alpair 10P looks to be a nice driver with a very flat response and that it may be intended for horn designs. It also reminds me of a Lowther driver which has a rising response curve unless it is horn loaded. It also seems to be very new so I havn't seen any feedback yet nor any distortion data. The driver I will use in the DQ10 should be unloaded.
Fc = 100.9 Hz
Qt = .48
Qe = .60
Qm = 2.6
Zin1K = 7.64 ohms
ZinMin = 7.19 at 569 Hz
Zin10K = 18.6
Lvc5K = .27 mH
Alpair 10P looks to be a nice driver with a very flat response and that it may be intended for horn designs. It also reminds me of a Lowther driver which has a rising response curve unless it is horn loaded. It also seems to be very new so I havn't seen any feedback yet nor any distortion data. The driver I will use in the DQ10 should be unloaded.
Last edited:
I don' think so, at least without a strong engineered correction.
Look from the point of view of the similar Volt 3". Should be nice to just play with them.
I don' t see any problem in doing that. Contrary to the common believe Fs goes down with rubber. Just get a new set (pair) with rubber surrounds and play/measure them as a new DQ10 experience.
DQ-10, mid bass, tweeters, mid domes,etc.,etc.
So many comments, and so many I have comments to add; I feel overwhelmed.
Starting with drivers -
The mid range 5" cone was always the Philips AD5060/W8. They never used any other driver, EXCEPT for a brief time the AD5062W/8 was offered for repairs. It was the same cone, same surround(a flat butyl rubber). The later Philips 5" WOOFER was rated for twice the power handling of the original. It is an 8 ohm of course, hence the W8. The user group on yahoo has the measured T/S, via woofer Tester II. Those specs are almost unimportant as the cones are used in the DQ-10. In this specific use, the are mounted on a small open baffle, so no box and no box loading to use the specs.
From memory, FS was around 55Hz. and Qts. around .4. Sensitivity of 90 db. or a bit less depending on the frequency of measurement. There is nothing wrong with that driver as it's used, and anything else you put in will merely sound different. If I was pushed to swap something else in, I'd use a ScanSpeak. I don't recall which model I'd determined was the best drop in, but it was one with a paper cone, and that cone was the slotted one. Off to Madisound you go. IMO, a waste of money, but then I'm a cheapo.
The DQ-10 crossover was and remains unique. AS I like to say, the DQ-10 started with a design goal, and a circuit topology selected. It was then designed from in FRONT of the speaker, not via todays ubiquitous CAD, that admittedly does do 99% of the work, to produce speakers that sound 99% alike, most of which is quite good. Another such speaker designed from in front, and mostly by ear - the KEF LS3/5a. The crossover in that would drive a modern designer nuts.
In the DQ-10, there are 2 series connected networks, and 2 parallel branches of these. To further confound and amaze, each series circuit has additional components, some in series with each driver, and some in their own parallel branches. An example of that is the tweeter adjustment circuit that can lift or lower the high frequencies much like a parametric EQ, rather than a simple level adjustment, the use of which would have altered the crossover frequency. Now this whole reversed phase thing- Again, this speaker was designed from the front, not the rear. The series connected arrangement is IN PHASE with the drivers connected positive/negative, then negative/positive. Series crossovers were popular for a minute or two, and have been largely abandoned these days. Lots can be found on them by a trip to the local library and sifting through the old journals of the audio engineering society. Also, the old speaker builder magazine had a few decent articles on them. This is all confused by the parallel branches. Here then, a nominal IN PHASE arrangement for a FIRST ORDER crossover is positive negative, positive negative. However....The DQ-10 has second order components added, requiring another reverse phase arrangement to be IN PHASE at the crossover frequency....Geees Jon, made it hard on the tweakers, although they never knew it! The point is, changing things on this speaker is fraught with peril. However...
I disagree that the Advent woofer has no substitute. The very early DQ-10's used a 10" woofer made by CTS, long defunct. I actually preferred the sound of those. Not as "punchy", but they worked in the too small DQ-10 enclosures better, without needing a shunt resistor(2 4ohm resistors in series across the Advent woofer coils), and to my ears they went a bit lower too. That 2X4 ohm resistor arrangement tended to overheat and burn btw.
SEAS has woofers that work well in the DQ-10, again though which model....? I forget. I do recall that with minor tweaking, the SEAS woofers in the Dynaco A25 worked and sounded good. There are modern versions of that woofer. I realize that I'm disagreeing with myself here, as I said no substitutes will work as well, but since there were already 2 variants from Dahlquist there is more latitude for substitutes built-into the basic design..
Then there are the other drivers. The 1 1/2" mid range dome was made by early MB Quart/Peerless affiliate in W. germany, at the time. It remains a very good and smoother driver(5 db trough? My recollection was =/- 1 db from 500 to 10,000 Hz. or so. Maybe the poor measurements were some unaccounted artifact when measuring, some diffraction or maybe just badly aged drivers? However, getting speaker measurements to agree seems futile as even accomplished and experienced testers have disparate data. Still, general trends should be similar. IMO, that dome was superb for it's time.
Now, there are 1" domes that are superior, and have around the same FS. Sill, there is no reason to replace it, if it ain't broke.
The worst driver in the DQ-10 is not that darn piezoelectric, which btw has astonishingly low distortion and is crossed over so high (at 3rd. order electrical and higher acoustically) that it's one problem, a horrendous peak around 4Khz. never comes into the audible range. It has limited dispersion, but that tweeter makes a large contribution to the sound of the DQ-10, and it's positive in my view....BUT the worst driver is the 3/4" MB Quart/Peerless tweeter. Hard polycarbonate, semi-horn loaded and with a rising response before it becomes ragged and drops like rock after that. At the time the DQ-10 was designed, the choices of tweeter dome drivers were few, and most were not very good. This unit was an early attempt to address dome tweeter problems, but failed miserably.
The dome also had reliability issues with the single strand voice wire connections to the plastic plate. There was a non horn version of that tweeter with substantially smoother response, on axis, however it too had the same problems structurally, and it too used that awful polycarbonate material that had every type of plastic dome issue possible; i.e. hysteresis, the nasty breakup mode, non existent edge damping, etc. Also, under the dome the was no damping of reflected sound waves, the "venting" into the rear chamber was just a hole in the voice coil gap, that did nothing in aiding damping, although arguably reducing FS a tad.
It measured screechy, and sounded screechy. It sounds highly detailed of course, but can wear on you, especially in the near field. That driver can be upgraded, although I'd strongly recommend you make measurements of everything. The driver T'S, it's Re, it's response in-system, it's sensitivity.
You'll want a nominal 4 ohm tweeter, proper rear damping, improved magnet arrangement, perhaps the air circulating ScanSpeaks(?), proper flush mounting baffle boards for both the 1 1/2" dome mid, and the new tweeter. Scrupulous testing and double checking of each sonic change when compared to the stock tweeter, as while you want to improve on the speaker as a whole, you do not want to change it's character.... Or, you can order a few thousand dollars worth of tweeters and try each until you figure out which one YOU like best...
I eventually settled on one of the big dollar ScanSpeaks as the best possible substitute; then pulled it out as it's value exceeded the value of the entire speaker as a whole. Like I said, I'm a cheapo. Beside, with a little effort & maybe some copyright infringement, I could have built a better speaker than the DQ-10(still remarkable!) with that in the high end. Instead I sold it...
Besides being cheap, I'm also lazy. Throw in fat and ugly, and it's clear that I'm a chick magnet, especially in Tijuana.
So, find a bargain priced tweeter with good comparable specs. but with todays advances, copper shorting ring, well damped double or triple chamber, and tweak the crossover to get the most out of it. That makes sense at least. I'd look at Hi-Vi,Vifa,etc. A ribbon tweeter is not a good choice. Problematic dispersion pattern and true ribbons generally
need high order crossovers too. I'd take those off the list. These mini-Heils you see out of China MIGHT be workable? I haven't tried one, but at around the same sensitivity as the stock tweeter, and 4 ohm nominal load....hmmm?
I still think I'd stay with a dome since we know it's closest to stock, and will compliment the dispersion of the mid dome.
Surely one of the available 1" or 3/4" domes will work well at reasonable cost.....?If the new tweeter rolls off above 13khz. or so, leave the piezo alone. If it has an extended ultra high end; well you may want to remove the piezo., but make sure you remove all associated crossover circuitry including the trimmer circuit, the 30 ohm and 35 ohm resistors too. Otherwise, those components will negatively effect the response. I'd be inclined to upgrade the tweeter before I'd change anything else. Even the yellow capped crossovers are fine, but the 80uf electrolytic is a must change NOW. I haven't seen a non leaky stock one in the past 15 years. Also, the 2 4 ohm resistors across the woofers should be checked. An upgrade here would be a Dale 8 ohm, 100 watt with the aluminum heatsink, and attach that with silicone to a piece of scrap aluminum for additional power handling. I put mine onto a small heat sink when I messed with these sorts of things years ago.
Now I'm tired! Time for a sandwich and a nap......
* side note - I don't receive notifications of comments on a thread. Nor am I on the computer all that much. SO, any comments or questions thrown my way will likely sit in non response mode for awhile. No intention to ignore what others have to say. I'm just busy eating and sleeping and watching TV... Time is short, and I have expectations to live up to!
So many comments, and so many I have comments to add; I feel overwhelmed.
Starting with drivers -
The mid range 5" cone was always the Philips AD5060/W8. They never used any other driver, EXCEPT for a brief time the AD5062W/8 was offered for repairs. It was the same cone, same surround(a flat butyl rubber). The later Philips 5" WOOFER was rated for twice the power handling of the original. It is an 8 ohm of course, hence the W8. The user group on yahoo has the measured T/S, via woofer Tester II. Those specs are almost unimportant as the cones are used in the DQ-10. In this specific use, the are mounted on a small open baffle, so no box and no box loading to use the specs.
From memory, FS was around 55Hz. and Qts. around .4. Sensitivity of 90 db. or a bit less depending on the frequency of measurement. There is nothing wrong with that driver as it's used, and anything else you put in will merely sound different. If I was pushed to swap something else in, I'd use a ScanSpeak. I don't recall which model I'd determined was the best drop in, but it was one with a paper cone, and that cone was the slotted one. Off to Madisound you go. IMO, a waste of money, but then I'm a cheapo.
The DQ-10 crossover was and remains unique. AS I like to say, the DQ-10 started with a design goal, and a circuit topology selected. It was then designed from in FRONT of the speaker, not via todays ubiquitous CAD, that admittedly does do 99% of the work, to produce speakers that sound 99% alike, most of which is quite good. Another such speaker designed from in front, and mostly by ear - the KEF LS3/5a. The crossover in that would drive a modern designer nuts.
In the DQ-10, there are 2 series connected networks, and 2 parallel branches of these. To further confound and amaze, each series circuit has additional components, some in series with each driver, and some in their own parallel branches. An example of that is the tweeter adjustment circuit that can lift or lower the high frequencies much like a parametric EQ, rather than a simple level adjustment, the use of which would have altered the crossover frequency. Now this whole reversed phase thing- Again, this speaker was designed from the front, not the rear. The series connected arrangement is IN PHASE with the drivers connected positive/negative, then negative/positive. Series crossovers were popular for a minute or two, and have been largely abandoned these days. Lots can be found on them by a trip to the local library and sifting through the old journals of the audio engineering society. Also, the old speaker builder magazine had a few decent articles on them. This is all confused by the parallel branches. Here then, a nominal IN PHASE arrangement for a FIRST ORDER crossover is positive negative, positive negative. However....The DQ-10 has second order components added, requiring another reverse phase arrangement to be IN PHASE at the crossover frequency....Geees Jon, made it hard on the tweakers, although they never knew it! The point is, changing things on this speaker is fraught with peril. However...
I disagree that the Advent woofer has no substitute. The very early DQ-10's used a 10" woofer made by CTS, long defunct. I actually preferred the sound of those. Not as "punchy", but they worked in the too small DQ-10 enclosures better, without needing a shunt resistor(2 4ohm resistors in series across the Advent woofer coils), and to my ears they went a bit lower too. That 2X4 ohm resistor arrangement tended to overheat and burn btw.
SEAS has woofers that work well in the DQ-10, again though which model....? I forget. I do recall that with minor tweaking, the SEAS woofers in the Dynaco A25 worked and sounded good. There are modern versions of that woofer. I realize that I'm disagreeing with myself here, as I said no substitutes will work as well, but since there were already 2 variants from Dahlquist there is more latitude for substitutes built-into the basic design..
Then there are the other drivers. The 1 1/2" mid range dome was made by early MB Quart/Peerless affiliate in W. germany, at the time. It remains a very good and smoother driver(5 db trough? My recollection was =/- 1 db from 500 to 10,000 Hz. or so. Maybe the poor measurements were some unaccounted artifact when measuring, some diffraction or maybe just badly aged drivers? However, getting speaker measurements to agree seems futile as even accomplished and experienced testers have disparate data. Still, general trends should be similar. IMO, that dome was superb for it's time.
Now, there are 1" domes that are superior, and have around the same FS. Sill, there is no reason to replace it, if it ain't broke.
The worst driver in the DQ-10 is not that darn piezoelectric, which btw has astonishingly low distortion and is crossed over so high (at 3rd. order electrical and higher acoustically) that it's one problem, a horrendous peak around 4Khz. never comes into the audible range. It has limited dispersion, but that tweeter makes a large contribution to the sound of the DQ-10, and it's positive in my view....BUT the worst driver is the 3/4" MB Quart/Peerless tweeter. Hard polycarbonate, semi-horn loaded and with a rising response before it becomes ragged and drops like rock after that. At the time the DQ-10 was designed, the choices of tweeter dome drivers were few, and most were not very good. This unit was an early attempt to address dome tweeter problems, but failed miserably.
The dome also had reliability issues with the single strand voice wire connections to the plastic plate. There was a non horn version of that tweeter with substantially smoother response, on axis, however it too had the same problems structurally, and it too used that awful polycarbonate material that had every type of plastic dome issue possible; i.e. hysteresis, the nasty breakup mode, non existent edge damping, etc. Also, under the dome the was no damping of reflected sound waves, the "venting" into the rear chamber was just a hole in the voice coil gap, that did nothing in aiding damping, although arguably reducing FS a tad.
It measured screechy, and sounded screechy. It sounds highly detailed of course, but can wear on you, especially in the near field. That driver can be upgraded, although I'd strongly recommend you make measurements of everything. The driver T'S, it's Re, it's response in-system, it's sensitivity.
You'll want a nominal 4 ohm tweeter, proper rear damping, improved magnet arrangement, perhaps the air circulating ScanSpeaks(?), proper flush mounting baffle boards for both the 1 1/2" dome mid, and the new tweeter. Scrupulous testing and double checking of each sonic change when compared to the stock tweeter, as while you want to improve on the speaker as a whole, you do not want to change it's character.... Or, you can order a few thousand dollars worth of tweeters and try each until you figure out which one YOU like best...
I eventually settled on one of the big dollar ScanSpeaks as the best possible substitute; then pulled it out as it's value exceeded the value of the entire speaker as a whole. Like I said, I'm a cheapo. Beside, with a little effort & maybe some copyright infringement, I could have built a better speaker than the DQ-10(still remarkable!) with that in the high end. Instead I sold it...
Besides being cheap, I'm also lazy. Throw in fat and ugly, and it's clear that I'm a chick magnet, especially in Tijuana.
So, find a bargain priced tweeter with good comparable specs. but with todays advances, copper shorting ring, well damped double or triple chamber, and tweak the crossover to get the most out of it. That makes sense at least. I'd look at Hi-Vi,Vifa,etc. A ribbon tweeter is not a good choice. Problematic dispersion pattern and true ribbons generally
need high order crossovers too. I'd take those off the list. These mini-Heils you see out of China MIGHT be workable? I haven't tried one, but at around the same sensitivity as the stock tweeter, and 4 ohm nominal load....hmmm?
I still think I'd stay with a dome since we know it's closest to stock, and will compliment the dispersion of the mid dome.
Surely one of the available 1" or 3/4" domes will work well at reasonable cost.....?If the new tweeter rolls off above 13khz. or so, leave the piezo alone. If it has an extended ultra high end; well you may want to remove the piezo., but make sure you remove all associated crossover circuitry including the trimmer circuit, the 30 ohm and 35 ohm resistors too. Otherwise, those components will negatively effect the response. I'd be inclined to upgrade the tweeter before I'd change anything else. Even the yellow capped crossovers are fine, but the 80uf electrolytic is a must change NOW. I haven't seen a non leaky stock one in the past 15 years. Also, the 2 4 ohm resistors across the woofers should be checked. An upgrade here would be a Dale 8 ohm, 100 watt with the aluminum heatsink, and attach that with silicone to a piece of scrap aluminum for additional power handling. I put mine onto a small heat sink when I messed with these sorts of things years ago.
Now I'm tired! Time for a sandwich and a nap......
* side note - I don't receive notifications of comments on a thread. Nor am I on the computer all that much. SO, any comments or questions thrown my way will likely sit in non response mode for awhile. No intention to ignore what others have to say. I'm just busy eating and sleeping and watching TV... Time is short, and I have expectations to live up to!
Hi all,
That Phillips driver had its back covered with felt. Can someone describe the purpose of the felt? Why was it there? What did it do for good or for bad?
I ask because it may or may not be useful for other wider range dipoles like that used in the Linkwitz LXmini. In other words replace the tube with a felt sheet and place the driver on a tiny baffle. Thoughts?
Thanks
That Phillips driver had its back covered with felt. Can someone describe the purpose of the felt? Why was it there? What did it do for good or for bad?
I ask because it may or may not be useful for other wider range dipoles like that used in the Linkwitz LXmini. In other words replace the tube with a felt sheet and place the driver on a tiny baffle. Thoughts?
Thanks
All the pictures look like the 5060SQ8 with the chamber cup removed, but I'm
sure they just ordered them without the cup. I have also seen pictures of the
back of the Dahlquist mid and the magnet is stamped with AD5060W8 but I'm
not sure what you'd find inside the cup of the SQ8 maybe a W8?
The 5060W8 that I've seen and bought had a rubber edge not cloth.
"but I'm not sure what you'd find inside the cup of the SQ8 maybe a W8?"
The cone is smaller in diameter, and has a cloth edge (really, a very different driver).
For the frequency range of interest the copper cap may not be needed (except for the lower distortion).
I was never fond of the DQ10, even though I was a dealer and repair center for them.
I have found a tweeter that is almost a perfect match for the original (acoustically, and very close mechanically). It requires you to remove the ferrofluid for the best detail.
The cone is smaller in diameter, and has a cloth edge (really, a very different driver).
For the frequency range of interest the copper cap may not be needed (except for the lower distortion).
I was never fond of the DQ10, even though I was a dealer and repair center for them.
I have found a tweeter that is almost a perfect match for the original (acoustically, and very close mechanically). It requires you to remove the ferrofluid for the best detail.
You can find some pictures in the internet. The SQ version had a shallower smaller basket. Check this out.
http://hupse.eu/radio/speakers/A.htm
http://hupse.eu/radio/speakers/A.htm
The SQ version was listed as 5.1 cm deep and 9.5 cm in diameter, while the W and M versions shared a separate chassis and were listed as 5.6 cm deep and 10.7 cm in diameter. The SQ had a resonance of 130 Hz while the M was 85 Hz and the W was listed at 50Hz. The pictures are of the back of an SQ while the other is a poor illustration of an M but enough to see they are not the same. The SQ was a very short travel driver.
Attachments
I know that they are different drivers, but what I'm saying is that all the pictures that
I've seen of the DQ10s had the fabric edge SQ looking driver and not the rubber edge
W version, yet the DQ10 drivers had W8 stamped on the back.
I'm sure that Dahlquist could have had them made however they wanted or perhaps it
was early and late production.
I just took the cup off of an SQ8 that I have and nothing is stamped on the back of the
driver.
I have a Phillips/Norelco data book that has the AD5062SQ version with T&S parameters but
not the, probably earlier, AD5060SQ version. I posted the numbers years ago and someone
else had the data sheet for the AD5060 version. Here is the thread:
Snell Type A Midrange Phillips AD5060 vs 62 Specs - Snell - The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
But it seems that we need the AD5060W8 parameters and the data book that I have
does provide parameters, note that Xmax = .65mm:
AD5060/W Woofer version with rubber edge and Fs = 65 Hz, large peak in FR.
Note these power differences for the AD5060/W8 vs 62 versions of the woofer:
AD5060/W8 RMS PHC = 10, Operating = 8, P. Max = 15 W
AD5062/W8 RMS PHC = 20, Operating = 8, P. Max = 40 W
More data is given for the woofer:
DC resistance: 7 for 8 ohm, 3.2 for 4 ohm
Moving mass: 6 g
BL: 5
Piston diam: 87 mm
Piston area: 59 mm^2
Magnet: 230 g
Air gap height: 5 mm
VC height: 6.3
Fs: 65
Compliance: 1.25 mm/N
Vas: 5.2 liters
Qms: 3.8
Qes: .66
Qts: .56
I've seen of the DQ10s had the fabric edge SQ looking driver and not the rubber edge
W version, yet the DQ10 drivers had W8 stamped on the back.
I'm sure that Dahlquist could have had them made however they wanted or perhaps it
was early and late production.
I just took the cup off of an SQ8 that I have and nothing is stamped on the back of the
driver.
I have a Phillips/Norelco data book that has the AD5062SQ version with T&S parameters but
not the, probably earlier, AD5060SQ version. I posted the numbers years ago and someone
else had the data sheet for the AD5060 version. Here is the thread:
Snell Type A Midrange Phillips AD5060 vs 62 Specs - Snell - The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
But it seems that we need the AD5060W8 parameters and the data book that I have
does provide parameters, note that Xmax = .65mm:
AD5060/W Woofer version with rubber edge and Fs = 65 Hz, large peak in FR.
Note these power differences for the AD5060/W8 vs 62 versions of the woofer:
AD5060/W8 RMS PHC = 10, Operating = 8, P. Max = 15 W
AD5062/W8 RMS PHC = 20, Operating = 8, P. Max = 40 W
More data is given for the woofer:
DC resistance: 7 for 8 ohm, 3.2 for 4 ohm
Moving mass: 6 g
BL: 5
Piston diam: 87 mm
Piston area: 59 mm^2
Magnet: 230 g
Air gap height: 5 mm
VC height: 6.3
Fs: 65
Compliance: 1.25 mm/N
Vas: 5.2 liters
Qms: 3.8
Qes: .66
Qts: .56