I've had a very different experience with the Peerless 830870 recently, in the context of a pair of the smaller Munro Sonic Eggs, FWIW. Vocals are very well reproduced by the Munro amp/ speaker combination. That said, the raw drive unit is not very sensitive and a well-designed three way system using it would probably sound more like a big Spendor or Harbeth than an NS1000, I suspect. The obvious candidate for a dome mid is the ATC, but they are very expensive, and I've read that they will no longer be supplied to the DIY market. Still too expensive I expect, but a left-field possibility might be acquiring a pair of the cheapest KEF 'R' series second-hand to use the midrange coax (R300?) and combine the drivers in that with something like SEAS L26R0Ys. A low cost approximation would probably involve cone mids or compression drivers.
After my glowing endorsement, if anybody wants a very cheap pair or quad of used 830870 (I have the shielded version, which is identical to the 830870 in every respect with a metal can encircling the magnet), let me know. I have no plans to use them. All four are in good condition, with a modification to the mounting flange.
Peace,
Tom E
Peace,
Tom E
Appears you are right: No more ATC domes after 31. 5.!!!
Leaves us with the Volt VM752 but that costs more than the ATC does/did.
rahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Pfffffffffffffffffffffff ! Purely free words....
You aware of the most sold american speaker which used a french inversed dome ! And they didn't use Mundorf caps
!There are far more bad tweakers than bad drivers, you had the proof with Wilson Audio using the titane inverted Focal Speaker for years !
Last edited:
wow, what a scientist proof ... all is in the feeling as I can see ! Bravo...
I would like to see more interresting input from you than to disgress like you do ! Or common, if so with talent please, try to introduce some humor !
More seriously I would like to see some inputs like what about a mid an tweeter dome patern vs for instance a conic concentric like we can see more and more in some ore and more cheap speakers like Elac (but which sound good because the designer don't need to putt an AMT to make the buzz !)
... all is in the feeling as I can see ! Bravo...I would like to see more interresting input from you than to disgress like you do ! Or common, if so with talent please, try to introduce some humor !
More seriously I would like to see some inputs like what about a mid an tweeter dome patern vs for instance a conic concentric like we can see more and more in some ore and more cheap speakers like Elac (but which sound good because the designer don't need to putt an AMT to make the buzz !)
Last edited:
@ Erik ! Common, was it not just personal here, free and not usefull for the demonstration : "Certainly better than used in some current French uber speakers."
But by the way I don't care, it is just to push you in your logic ; I myself like such logic often, and this is not personal : for instance : I like the novergian meat because it performs better than the crappy american beef food ! Is it bad because it's american or just because it is poor quality which is not only a question of country (good luck with the ARgentine beef of today !)
Which is true but not usefull for the conversation...BUT if you introduce some humor, style or whatever for the pleasure of our eyes !
Btw I don't like both inverted dome and ring radiator tweeters even with a good T-bones !
Of course I joke !
But by the way I don't care, it is just to push you in your logic ; I myself like such logic often, and this is not personal : for instance : I like the novergian meat because it performs better than the crappy american beef food ! Is it bad because it's american or just because it is poor quality which is not only a question of country (good luck with the ARgentine beef of today !)
Which is true but not usefull for the conversation...BUT if you introduce some humor, style or whatever for the pleasure of our eyes
! Btw I don't like both inverted dome and ring radiator tweeters even with a good T-bones !
Of course I joke !
Last edited:
Whatever you choose, make sure you modify one only NS1000 first and keep the other original for long term comparison.
Until you manage a 'mod' that actually sounds better than the original, make sure you can revert to the original
________________
We used to listen to loadsa competitors speakers. Most were unpacked, listened to and re-packed to be sent back the same day.
The NS1000 was one of only 2 speakers we kept for nearly 2 decades and might appear in our DBLTs
When CD appeared, it had a new lease of life. Without wobbly turntables, its powerful and well controlled bass was allowed to show its best face.
The NS1000 sealed box tuning .. near maximally flat 50Hz with a well designed 12" unit .. is a classic for tuneful bass that is known to do well in DBLTs. This was first demonstrated in AR3a but that wasn't as well balanced a speaker.
________________
NS1000 mid & treble performance wasn't as good as others but in a DBLT, it is the sum of the parts that is paramount and NS1000 does this very well.
You can certainly get better mid & treble but it would require the highest skills in matching drive units & xover to box. If you think just substituting a unit in the original will do it, you are very far from having these skills.
Don't assume fancy exotic materials give you better clarity & definition bla bla. NONE of these materials come out better in DBLTs. I say this having done some good speakers using supa dupa materials in my previous life.
Troel's xover looks good but ignores probably the biggest failing of the NS1000 xover. The coil cores on the lower xover have too small a diameter. But theoretical nit-picking has little correlation to DBLTs so I reserve judgement until someone carries one out properly on old & 'new' .. unlikely this Millenium
BTW, speakers which did will in DBLTs at the end of the last Millenium are likely to do well against the best today too .. even though technology has changed.
_____________________
My prejudices are heavily biased towards stuff that is relevant to performance in DBLTs .. but is there a more important criteria for choosing a speaker?
Oh! I forgot. Of course there is!!! $$$ and a "hand carved from solid Unobtainium by Virgins" label.
Until you manage a 'mod' that actually sounds better than the original, make sure you can revert to the original
________________
We used to listen to loadsa competitors speakers. Most were unpacked, listened to and re-packed to be sent back the same day.
The NS1000 was one of only 2 speakers we kept for nearly 2 decades and might appear in our DBLTs
When CD appeared, it had a new lease of life. Without wobbly turntables, its powerful and well controlled bass was allowed to show its best face.
The NS1000 sealed box tuning .. near maximally flat 50Hz with a well designed 12" unit .. is a classic for tuneful bass that is known to do well in DBLTs. This was first demonstrated in AR3a but that wasn't as well balanced a speaker.
________________
NS1000 mid & treble performance wasn't as good as others but in a DBLT, it is the sum of the parts that is paramount and NS1000 does this very well.
You can certainly get better mid & treble but it would require the highest skills in matching drive units & xover to box. If you think just substituting a unit in the original will do it, you are very far from having these skills.
Don't assume fancy exotic materials give you better clarity & definition bla bla. NONE of these materials come out better in DBLTs. I say this having done some good speakers using supa dupa materials in my previous life.
Troel's xover looks good but ignores probably the biggest failing of the NS1000 xover. The coil cores on the lower xover have too small a diameter. But theoretical nit-picking has little correlation to DBLTs so I reserve judgement until someone carries one out properly on old & 'new' .. unlikely this Millenium
BTW, speakers which did will in DBLTs at the end of the last Millenium are likely to do well against the best today too .. even though technology has changed.
_____________________
My prejudices are heavily biased towards stuff that is relevant to performance in DBLTs .. but is there a more important criteria for choosing a speaker?
Oh! I forgot. Of course there is!!! $$$ and a "hand carved from solid Unobtainium by Virgins" label.
Last edited:
Fear not, i have no intention of "improving" my rather tatty ex studio training college ns1000s. Infact i have already removed the bodged "upgraded" with some quite nice parts in actually crossover that were in it when i got them.... The basic design was a good copy, but had some horiffic wiring errors. I sourced so original crossovers and they are fitted, So they are fairly stock now.
One of my issues is that i don't want to move them around, i have heard bad things about glued magnets, and oxidisation and crushed voice coils.....
I love what the mid does and i can't believe it it is unique. So to help find a similar driver i am suggesting removing one of the mids and substituting the proposed alternative for initial evaluation. The level pot eases the problem of minor sensitivity differences. This would be entirely reversible.
Question. Am i being unduly unfair on the potential of a soft dome? I in the UK it seems popular in the professional monitor, but i have never heard one i liked. This is maybe a problem with me, however because i have not been every where and seen everything.
I still feel efficiency is a good goal, bit like putting a big engine small car.....
Is there even an objective test for "dynamics" . I don't know if you would agree but better built more expensive speakers tend to "soak up" the power better without sounding squashed.
Just to focus myself Mr Troels says the crossover points at 500 Hz and 4500 Hz. That rather rules out the scanspeak dome mentioned earlier, which is not recommended below 1000Hz, due to excursion limits.
One of my issues is that i don't want to move them around, i have heard bad things about glued magnets, and oxidisation and crushed voice coils.....
I love what the mid does and i can't believe it it is unique. So to help find a similar driver i am suggesting removing one of the mids and substituting the proposed alternative for initial evaluation. The level pot eases the problem of minor sensitivity differences. This would be entirely reversible.
Question. Am i being unduly unfair on the potential of a soft dome? I in the UK it seems popular in the professional monitor, but i have never heard one i liked. This is maybe a problem with me, however because i have not been every where and seen everything.
I still feel efficiency is a good goal, bit like putting a big engine small car.....
Is there even an objective test for "dynamics" . I don't know if you would agree but better built more expensive speakers tend to "soak up" the power better without sounding squashed.
Just to focus myself Mr Troels says the crossover points at 500 Hz and 4500 Hz. That rather rules out the scanspeak dome mentioned earlier, which is not recommended below 1000Hz, due to excursion limits.
The original Yamaha NS1000 mid and tweeter are vapor deposited Berillium. The technology was a high water mark. It was that tech that enabled such low mass for the Berillium drivers that used them to their best advantage. Trying to find a replacement for $100 is like putting bicycle tyres on a McLaren F1 and expecting similar track performance. The only mid I can think of that comes close is the ATC-SM75-150. They are the best mid dome in the world still in current production.
In production but no longer available for sale.
If you want some you will have to order them before the end of May.
Unfortunately, this will only lead to frustration. Any good crossover is designed for a specific driver complement and their respective characteristics as mounted in the enclosure. This means that a substituted driver might be called on to operate under unsuitable (even unfair) constrains. Efficiency is only one of the issues to be addressed.
One would think - intuitively - that stiff diaphragms should have better resolution, notwithstanding their tendency to ring in the breakup region (makes for a more complex crossover). However, it is not merely a question of hard vs soft: every engineering decision is a result of pro vs con considerations (ideally!). The diaphragm's shape, mass, stiffness, self-damping (as well as its ability to be damped by other driver parts) all contribute to the performance of the final product. Most important is how it actually performs within its required operating conditions. Note that, as mentioned elsewhere here, "the best midrange in the world" is a soft-dome.
An interesting case is the debate on which dome mid is the better between Dayton RS52 or Morel MDM55. The Dayton measures better, yet users report better subjective results with the Morel, while others argue that much of this is down to the skill of the designer.
I think you've given a fair description of dynamics. One could set up a test that measures the distortion profile of a driver at various input voltage levels. I very recently came across two different discussion topics which seem like they may be related: (1) someone was evaluating drivers with "the 10V test" and (2) someone had developed a procedure to establish amplifier drive levels (i.e., drive voltage) from typical domestic listening levels.
I haven't heard the NS1000
In over 30 years, but they, and the M&K S1C satellite monitors made a lasting impression on me.
To that end, I made a three way satellite pair using a Vifa XT25BG60-04 tweeter, (unable to find a metal tweeter I liked as much)a Dayton Audio RS52AN-8 two inch sealed aluminium dome midrange (92db), partnered with a Scanspeak 15W 8530K 01 Revelator, in a 15 litre sealed box.
Thirty years is nearly forever, but this dome seems completely uncoloured filling in from 1500 hertz to 5000 hertz, and the speaker plus a not very good sub is satisfying at all volume levels I use.
It brings back the NS1000 exuberance I recall, the slam of the M&K sub/sat combo, with the vocal excellence I expect from Scanspeak.
There are plenty of crossover and L Pad, as well as enclosure calculators to get one close to their mark, in my case, a bulls eye for me.
It's possible my setup may surpass what I recall, but I'm glad to have had inspiration from two legendary speakers. I've come to appreciate dome mids - a friend has some Energy Veritas with 2 inch dome, they too, have effortless low distortion liveliness.
In over 30 years, but they, and the M&K S1C satellite monitors made a lasting impression on me.
To that end, I made a three way satellite pair using a Vifa XT25BG60-04 tweeter, (unable to find a metal tweeter I liked as much)a Dayton Audio RS52AN-8 two inch sealed aluminium dome midrange (92db), partnered with a Scanspeak 15W 8530K 01 Revelator, in a 15 litre sealed box.
Thirty years is nearly forever, but this dome seems completely uncoloured filling in from 1500 hertz to 5000 hertz, and the speaker plus a not very good sub is satisfying at all volume levels I use.
It brings back the NS1000 exuberance I recall, the slam of the M&K sub/sat combo, with the vocal excellence I expect from Scanspeak.
There are plenty of crossover and L Pad, as well as enclosure calculators to get one close to their mark, in my case, a bulls eye for me.
It's possible my setup may surpass what I recall, but I'm glad to have had inspiration from two legendary speakers. I've come to appreciate dome mids - a friend has some Energy Veritas with 2 inch dome, they too, have effortless low distortion liveliness.