I've just been given a large single speaker by the feller that does amp repairs nearby.
He says it came from an old organ. Sounds OK just sending some music to it sitting on my untidy desk. I just wonder if anybody can help out with some details. Even an approximation of use.
All I can see on the back is "CHUN - IL" 15130w
8R and 130w
1992 and 915 at the bottom
Smallish magnet for the size of the cone but a big vent; bass is reasonable but it seems to have a decent but climbing midrange
Pix if needed. What am I going to do with it?
He says it came from an old organ. Sounds OK just sending some music to it sitting on my untidy desk. I just wonder if anybody can help out with some details. Even an approximation of use.
All I can see on the back is "CHUN - IL" 15130w
8R and 130w
1992 and 915 at the bottom
Smallish magnet for the size of the cone but a big vent; bass is reasonable but it seems to have a decent but climbing midrange
Pix if needed. What am I going to do with it?
I'm guessing it's paper, with a surround that doesn't look like it was made for much excursion, with a stiff spider and a number of annular striations?
Would you consider it for bass duty because it's only one? If it has enough excursion I'd probably measure Fs and Q, from here you could see which enclosure type it would prefer.
Would you consider it for bass duty because it's only one? If it has enough excursion I'd probably measure Fs and Q, from here you could see which enclosure type it would prefer.
That's it to a "T" Allen. I have two of the large Jaycar 15" woofers in the shed, they are similar but without the vented voice coil. The Jaycar have deeper bass tho.
If I was into Mono a I would have no trouble with a design, the Jaycars on the bottom side by side with this centred above then in a Wharfedale sand filled baffle OB
If I was into Mono a I would have no trouble with a design, the Jaycars on the bottom side by side with this centred above then in a Wharfedale sand filled baffle OB
Only thing I find annoying is that everyone assumes I carry a smart phone.... but I'm not that smart. Cheers
Simply not true.
For a start check Yamaha JA3055A, yes, Alnico.
It's an extraordinary driver on OB or aperiodic.
I have a lot of ex-organ drivers, 10" and 12" and a few 15", mostly Yamaha and Kawai, paper, cloth surrounds and with the right approach they are very hard to beat.
Also some of the Kawai 8" Leslie drivers are exceptional full ranges for between 250Hz and 16kHz.
Some of the 8" Technics / National mid-woofers are so smooth when measured with HolmImpulse that I wonder how they can be bettered. And sound unbelievable.
Last but not least the famous Elephant ear Yamaha speakers. I have 3 JA5101A, yes another Alnico. They'll make a fantastic OB woofer.
It's a known fact that Troels Gravesen lately uses Eminence Alpha in a lot of his designs and the Alphas are instrument speakers as you say.
Finally check what drivers does Pure Audio Project and Bastanis use in their quite expensive speakers. Expect to be surprised.
1992 organs did bells, cymbals, drums, piano, other high frequency sounds from synth circuits. Could be just fine 54 hz to 12 khz or higher. Post 1965 they had more than one driver, though. My Wurli 4500 has 6 drivers. Even 1950's high end organs did 54 hz. Is it in original enclosure? Do a microphone frequency sweep measurement to see what it is suitable for. If it is 10" obviously another driver & crossover is necessary to do the highs.
Last edited:
Chun IL is Korea audio manufacturer back in 70s to 2000. Actually,They used to make quality high end stuffs around 90s. Some of them with MOSFET amp they built in 90s are considered very high quality. They did OEM for Japanese brand back in 70 to 80s and their built and sound quality similar to Japan’s. I assume your unit sound sweet and mid heavy as most speakers at that era. Some of white paper corn unit has very nice bass for it size.
Unequivocally loudspeakers in amplified instruments or instrument amplifiers form part of the sound of that instrument. There is no guarantee that the loudspeaker component is suitable for anything other than the designer/manufacturer's intention, and I stand by that generalisation regardless of exceptions that might exist.
BTW amplitude response alone is not a good determinant of sound quality. The transfer function (frequency response) of an un-amplified instrument, say a piano, is different for every listener at a performance, for example, yet everyone will recognise the unadulterated quality of the audio experience, and will recognise the sound of the piano if they were to change seating position.
It's clear from the responses above that there is a chasm between what I consider 'faithful' reproduction and what is accepted for faithful reproduction more generally. Just because a loudspeaker driver sounds 'sublime' or 'unbelievable' does not mean it can faithfully create an acoustic waveform that is an analog of the electrical input. How would a listener even know what it should sound like if they haven't experienced the original acoustic performance for comparison?
BTW amplitude response alone is not a good determinant of sound quality. The transfer function (frequency response) of an un-amplified instrument, say a piano, is different for every listener at a performance, for example, yet everyone will recognise the unadulterated quality of the audio experience, and will recognise the sound of the piano if they were to change seating position.
It's clear from the responses above that there is a chasm between what I consider 'faithful' reproduction and what is accepted for faithful reproduction more generally. Just because a loudspeaker driver sounds 'sublime' or 'unbelievable' does not mean it can faithfully create an acoustic waveform that is an analog of the electrical input. How would a listener even know what it should sound like if they haven't experienced the original acoustic performance for comparison?
johnmath
"It's clear from the responses above that there is a chasm between what I consider 'faithful' reproduction and what is accepted for faithful reproduction more generally. Just because a loudspeaker driver sounds 'sublime' or 'unbelievable' does not mean it can faithfully create an acoustic waveform that is an analog of the electrical input. How would a listener even know what it should sound like if they haven't experienced the original acoustic performance for comparison?"
Same argument applies to the so called new, modern, Hi-Fi drivers of today.
How do you know they are faithful to the original sound?
This to me sounds like the argument some people had a few years back when they said: CD produces the perfect sound forever and went ahead and tried to trash everything vinyl.
Now we know who won that war.
To me the proof is in the pudding, I listen to a lot of drivers, modern and old, and find some of the old organ drivers more accurate, more revealing and way more pleasant to listen to.
Just some anecdotal evidence: a friend of mine has two very expensive sets of speakers, one with a 10" ScanSpeak, very expensive dome mid, and a also very expensive ribbon tweet.
The other set uses full range modern Seas drivers.
I could see his amazement when we listened to one of my speakers, consisting of Yamaha 3063 (woof in MLTL), Yamaha 3055A (mid on OB) and Vifa H26, series XO, all driven by a 5W class A amp.
We are comparing here $4000- speakers to a DIY maybe $200- worth of vintage drivers.
So at the end I assume you have no experience with old drivers and how to properly use them.
"It's clear from the responses above that there is a chasm between what I consider 'faithful' reproduction and what is accepted for faithful reproduction more generally. Just because a loudspeaker driver sounds 'sublime' or 'unbelievable' does not mean it can faithfully create an acoustic waveform that is an analog of the electrical input. How would a listener even know what it should sound like if they haven't experienced the original acoustic performance for comparison?"
Same argument applies to the so called new, modern, Hi-Fi drivers of today.
How do you know they are faithful to the original sound?
This to me sounds like the argument some people had a few years back when they said: CD produces the perfect sound forever and went ahead and tried to trash everything vinyl.
Now we know who won that war.
To me the proof is in the pudding, I listen to a lot of drivers, modern and old, and find some of the old organ drivers more accurate, more revealing and way more pleasant to listen to.
Just some anecdotal evidence: a friend of mine has two very expensive sets of speakers, one with a 10" ScanSpeak, very expensive dome mid, and a also very expensive ribbon tweet.
The other set uses full range modern Seas drivers.
I could see his amazement when we listened to one of my speakers, consisting of Yamaha 3063 (woof in MLTL), Yamaha 3055A (mid on OB) and Vifa H26, series XO, all driven by a 5W class A amp.
We are comparing here $4000- speakers to a DIY maybe $200- worth of vintage drivers.
So at the end I assume you have no experience with old drivers and how to properly use them.
I think you were replying to Moondog55. He's the one with the Chun IL driver.
It's a high-Qts, high spl driver with a stiff suspension. Gee, that's the very prototype of an organ speaker!