I am thinking of restoring original mk1 versions of these speakers. I
will probably remount the tweeters on the front panel and line the
ports with foam. Does anyone have any info of the Hifi Choice review
and/ or info about the changes made for the 108.2 version?
Thanks in advance
Neddy
will probably remount the tweeters on the front panel and line the
ports with foam. Does anyone have any info of the Hifi Choice review
and/ or info about the changes made for the 108.2 version?
Thanks in advance
Neddy
Hi Neddy! I'm including details about your speakers in order to to give your request a bump.
TSR108: Its bass/midrange driver is just under 8 inches and has a cone made of a new mineral-filled homopolymer to reduce cone breakup and resonance problems. The tweeter is a 1-inch soft-dome unit. Frequency range is 35 to 25,000Hz and amplifiers of 15 to 80 watts per channel are recommended.
The image below shows the TSR 108-2.
The TSR 108 was the smallest speaker in Wharfedale's TSR (Total Sound Recall) range, which extended to the TSR 110 and the TSR 112.
TSR108: Its bass/midrange driver is just under 8 inches and has a cone made of a new mineral-filled homopolymer to reduce cone breakup and resonance problems. The tweeter is a 1-inch soft-dome unit. Frequency range is 35 to 25,000Hz and amplifiers of 15 to 80 watts per channel are recommended.
The image below shows the TSR 108-2.
The TSR 108 was the smallest speaker in Wharfedale's TSR (Total Sound Recall) range, which extended to the TSR 110 and the TSR 112.
Have you looked at the crossovers, Neddy?
It may be advantageous to replace any NP electrolytic capacitors with modern versions of the same.
P.S. Out of interest, from where did you get the idea to line the ports with foam?
It may be advantageous to replace any NP electrolytic capacitors with modern versions of the same.
P.S. Out of interest, from where did you get the idea to line the ports with foam?
From a post by Sreten RIP regarding the 108.2 who was my twin brother. HiFi Choice does detail excessive bass for the 108.2 though I do not know if this equally applies to the original. Yes, I will checkout the capacitors for sure; I would really like to know what changes were made between the original and the mk2. Thanks
I can't find an image of the 108 to compare with the 108-2 shown above, but I assume the drivers are the same.
Sometimes only cosmetic changes are made to the external appearance to produce a mk 2, but often the crossover components are upgraded.
Sometimes only cosmetic changes are made to the external appearance to produce a mk 2, but often the crossover components are upgraded.
I've found information on the TSR 112 and 112-2 which indicates that the bass drivers differ, changing from 6 ohm impedance to 8 ohm impedance. However, both speakers are described as being similar sounding.
The same source states that the TSR mk2 versions contained electrolytic capacitors.
I also see in the thread from which you got the port lining suggestion that the plaque on the rear of the TSR 108-2 gives the following information:
88 db/watt, 30 litre box volume, -3 db @ 45-25 kHz, 8 ohms impedance, 100 watts, 2 x 12 db 7 element crossover at 3.5 kHz.
Is there an information plaque on the rear of your TSR 108 originals?
The same source states that the TSR mk2 versions contained electrolytic capacitors.
I also see in the thread from which you got the port lining suggestion that the plaque on the rear of the TSR 108-2 gives the following information:
88 db/watt, 30 litre box volume, -3 db @ 45-25 kHz, 8 ohms impedance, 100 watts, 2 x 12 db 7 element crossover at 3.5 kHz.
Is there an information plaque on the rear of your TSR 108 originals?
Hi Guys,
The original was more sensitive and had a lower impedance. HiFi Choice No.26 gave the mk2 Best Buy whilst stating the mk1 possessed significant flaws which barred it from recommendation. It also states that the mk2 had a 4db lift at 100hz and a general excess of bass although -6db improved to 40hz and had a much improved Midlband (near monitor class) over the mk2. As I feel its unlikely changes were made to the drive units it is probable that the changes apart from the tweeter location were to the Xover.
If anyone has a 108.2 a picture of the Xover would be good, meanwhile I'll get a picture of my Xover.
The original was more sensitive and had a lower impedance. HiFi Choice No.26 gave the mk2 Best Buy whilst stating the mk1 possessed significant flaws which barred it from recommendation. It also states that the mk2 had a 4db lift at 100hz and a general excess of bass although -6db improved to 40hz and had a much improved Midlband (near monitor class) over the mk2. As I feel its unlikely changes were made to the drive units it is probable that the changes apart from the tweeter location were to the Xover.
If anyone has a 108.2 a picture of the Xover would be good, meanwhile I'll get a picture of my Xover.
Attachments
Was just about to query that! 🙂
Will await your photo of the 108 crossover board - there's almost certainly electrolytics on there.
Will await your photo of the 108 crossover board - there's almost certainly electrolytics on there.
Given the 108 has a tweeter control then not worried about ESR and will change treble arm to film. Will also send pics of the drive units to see if anyone can confirm a change to the bass unit from 6 to 8 ohm.
I thought that change had been confirmed through comparing the specs from the two information plaques.
Measuring the DC resistance of your woofer with an ohmmeter will help confirm its nominal impedance. Just add one third to the ohmmeter reading.
P.S. The tweeter filter may already contain a film capacitor. Wharfedale certainly incorporated one in the tweeter section of its contemporary E Series loudspeakers. Capacitors elsewhere in the E Series were electrolytics, and ELCAP ones that don't age well.
