I recently aquired an interesting set of DIY speakers based on the famous Yamaha NS1000M monitors. I have attached a few pictures to show what they look like. I currently have them in my garage. They need a lot of work but ultimately I would like to make some modifications and need your help.
Here is what I have got:
Yamaha tweeters: JA-0513
Yamaha midrange drivers: JA-0801
Radio Shack woofers: 12" 40-1034
Yamaha NS1000M crossovers (I haven't removed them yet to verify they haven't been modified)
Yamaha NS1000M Tweeter and Midrange driver attenuators
It appears that originally these speakers have used Yamaha woofers (boxes were painted after the drivers were installed!) and later replaced with Radio Shack woofers. Probably the old woofers were burned out and whoever replaced them potentially have not given much of a thought. The cables were simply twisted to woofer terminals. One woofer was not properly mounted (screws not pushed all the way). I didn't measure the front baffle when I removed the woofer but it appears that 3/4" MDF panels were used for the project.
I have tried removing tweeters and midrange drivers but it seems like they are glued to cabinets. Unfortunately I cannot get behind them to give them a little kick either.
I fired them up in my garage by connecting to some all in one Kenwood midi system from 1990s. I was quiet impress with what I have heard. There is something very right about the sound and I would like go give them a second chance instead parting them out (i.e. selling yamaha drivers) or turning them into garage system I would never use.
Here are a few things that are going through my mind:
I need to figure out these speaker potential and they see if it is worth messing around with them.
1) Is Radio Shack woofer suitable for TL application? I can keep it for the time being but didn't find TS parameters. Here is the manual for them. The stated frequency response is 30-3000Hz and sensitivity 88.2dB. The Yamaha woofer has 90dB sensitivity with same nominal impedance (8Ohm). I did find that keeping midrange and tweeter attenuators at the mid position (0dB) was about right. Obviously I haven't done any critical listening.
The opening of the baffle is 16 7/16" x 2 3/16". Overall box dimensions HxWxD: 35 1/2" x 18 1/8" x 17 7/8".
Perhaps I could continue on using Radio Shack woofer while I work on item #2.
2) Figure out how to take midrange and tweeter drivers out and build a custom box for them. Alternatively I could build some kind of bracket for them since midrange dome doesn't require an acoustic enclousure. The box is likely to create more diffractions but would look more pleasing aesthetically. Also I could experiment with driver placement (trying to time align them) like Technics SB-7000.
3) Identify suitable woofer for this particular enclosure if 2) proves that speakers have good potential. I prefer to keep it simple (not modify Yamaha crossover) unless it is unavoidable with TL enclosure.
4) Make the fancy enclosure with adjustable mid/tweet section where one could pivot up or down mid/tweet section (i.e. Wilson Audio). I can hire a cabinet shop to do high gloss black piano finish or mount fancy wood panels instead. I am not sure if toe-in of mid/tweet section only is a good idea since woofer has to cover a large portion of midrange (up to 500 Hz).
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Here is what I have got:
Yamaha tweeters: JA-0513
Yamaha midrange drivers: JA-0801
Radio Shack woofers: 12" 40-1034
Yamaha NS1000M crossovers (I haven't removed them yet to verify they haven't been modified)
Yamaha NS1000M Tweeter and Midrange driver attenuators
It appears that originally these speakers have used Yamaha woofers (boxes were painted after the drivers were installed!) and later replaced with Radio Shack woofers. Probably the old woofers were burned out and whoever replaced them potentially have not given much of a thought. The cables were simply twisted to woofer terminals. One woofer was not properly mounted (screws not pushed all the way). I didn't measure the front baffle when I removed the woofer but it appears that 3/4" MDF panels were used for the project.
I have tried removing tweeters and midrange drivers but it seems like they are glued to cabinets. Unfortunately I cannot get behind them to give them a little kick either.
I fired them up in my garage by connecting to some all in one Kenwood midi system from 1990s. I was quiet impress with what I have heard. There is something very right about the sound and I would like go give them a second chance instead parting them out (i.e. selling yamaha drivers) or turning them into garage system I would never use.
Here are a few things that are going through my mind:
I need to figure out these speaker potential and they see if it is worth messing around with them.
1) Is Radio Shack woofer suitable for TL application? I can keep it for the time being but didn't find TS parameters. Here is the manual for them. The stated frequency response is 30-3000Hz and sensitivity 88.2dB. The Yamaha woofer has 90dB sensitivity with same nominal impedance (8Ohm). I did find that keeping midrange and tweeter attenuators at the mid position (0dB) was about right. Obviously I haven't done any critical listening.
The opening of the baffle is 16 7/16" x 2 3/16". Overall box dimensions HxWxD: 35 1/2" x 18 1/8" x 17 7/8".
Perhaps I could continue on using Radio Shack woofer while I work on item #2.
2) Figure out how to take midrange and tweeter drivers out and build a custom box for them. Alternatively I could build some kind of bracket for them since midrange dome doesn't require an acoustic enclousure. The box is likely to create more diffractions but would look more pleasing aesthetically. Also I could experiment with driver placement (trying to time align them) like Technics SB-7000.
3) Identify suitable woofer for this particular enclosure if 2) proves that speakers have good potential. I prefer to keep it simple (not modify Yamaha crossover) unless it is unavoidable with TL enclosure.
4) Make the fancy enclosure with adjustable mid/tweet section where one could pivot up or down mid/tweet section (i.e. Wilson Audio). I can hire a cabinet shop to do high gloss black piano finish or mount fancy wood panels instead. I am not sure if toe-in of mid/tweet section only is a good idea since woofer has to cover a large portion of midrange (up to 500 Hz).
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Last edited:
Before investing too much time and money around the RadioShack woofers, I would check the condition of the foam surrounds. After around 20 years these may be starting to disintegrate. I can testify to this after owning similar, but smaller, RS woofers. If they are OK and sound good in the present box, I would keep the same size and type of cabinet loading. I can't say whether these woofer are suited to TL loading. If I were going to all that trouble, I would select more expensive woofers specifically designed for TL loading.
Couldn’t agree more with Mr Darwin - I’d like to avoid using the term sacrilege, but whoever enagaged in trying to second guess the original design’s engineering could certainly have experimented with something of higher quality than the Realistic woofers. The NS1000 was an outstanding speaker, and provided the beryllium dome mids and tweeters are intact, you could be well on your way to something special. As those are both sealed units, any new enclosure design should be predicated on the selected woofer’s requirements.
The rebuild project posted by Galu is definitely worth a read, Mr G definitely “does the math”.
The rebuild project posted by Galu is definitely worth a read, Mr G definitely “does the math”.
As suggested, the Yamaha mid & tweeter deserve a much better woofer(s) than the RS. And someone has been poking the dustcaps, and that gen of RS was from the disintegrating foam surround generation.
A set of drivers worthy of puttin gsome money & effort into.
A seperate box for the mid-tweeter is not a bad idea, but you want them to have as little centre-to-centre distances as possible so maybe not. Good for experimenting thou.
Very careful selection of bass driver(s) will be needed to minimize any mods to the XO, the high pass of the woofer will likely need tweaking no matter what you do.
Maybe easiest — much greater woofer selection opens up — just to bi-amp and just use the mid HP & tweeter LP part of the existing XO. A whole slew of PassDIY active XOs are about to hit the diyAudio store which makes active speakers even more appealing than they already are.
With the 2nd option one starts to think of many possibe bass enclosure options. 12s like the originals, 10s, multiple 6.5” (my imagination goes to a 4x Alpair 12pw in a Woden ML-TL, about the size of a set of IMF TLS 80s and needs to make no excuses wrt bass response). Trickiest part would be keeping the bass drivers centre-to-centre as small as possible to maximize their HF extension before comping (a single driver is good to 10k on-axis).
Mirror imaged NS-1000.
dave
A set of drivers worthy of puttin gsome money & effort into.
A seperate box for the mid-tweeter is not a bad idea, but you want them to have as little centre-to-centre distances as possible so maybe not. Good for experimenting thou.
Very careful selection of bass driver(s) will be needed to minimize any mods to the XO, the high pass of the woofer will likely need tweaking no matter what you do.
Maybe easiest — much greater woofer selection opens up — just to bi-amp and just use the mid HP & tweeter LP part of the existing XO. A whole slew of PassDIY active XOs are about to hit the diyAudio store which makes active speakers even more appealing than they already are.
With the 2nd option one starts to think of many possibe bass enclosure options. 12s like the originals, 10s, multiple 6.5” (my imagination goes to a 4x Alpair 12pw in a Woden ML-TL, about the size of a set of IMF TLS 80s and needs to make no excuses wrt bass response). Trickiest part would be keeping the bass drivers centre-to-centre as small as possible to maximize their HF extension before comping (a single driver is good to 10k on-axis).
Mirror imaged NS-1000.
dave
Thank for feedback guys. One of the surrounds has a very tiny hole I thought about fixing. Otherwise they are in surprisingly good shape. Obviously they are #1 candidates for a swap. The dust caps were ruined and I used vacuum cleaner to pull them back. The grilles on mids and tweets must be fixed as well (should not be a problem). I already read a lot of info on NS1000M including the info Galu shared. I have seen modified crossovers, bass reflex design, but I haven't seen anybody converting them to transmission line.
Active crossover would be great but I do not have room for another system. Ideally that would be the road I would take. I work with Acoustical Engineers and get theoretically get these speakers in anechoic chamber. I am an EE, and do not know much about speaker design. I am currently using modified Parasound JC1 mono blocks with Veritas V2.8 speakers and 2 svs pb13 ultra subs. These speakers would be good as an alternative (different sound) but unlikely to replace Energys.
As far as placement is going I was thinking about conventional vertical axis placement, tweeter, midrange woofer. Woofers are already close to the edge so midrange should be really close, but the share size of driver frames 7" and tweeter 4" makes it challenging for the tweeter. I should be on same access with midrange. I am concerned with combing effect though since the stock crossovers are 2nd order.
I would try to get someone to help me move these guys upstairs and play with them during Christmas brake. These speakers remind me of my fathers PA speakers. I wish I had his 200W tube amp though. Those childhood memories and a warm tube sound...
Active crossover would be great but I do not have room for another system. Ideally that would be the road I would take. I work with Acoustical Engineers and get theoretically get these speakers in anechoic chamber. I am an EE, and do not know much about speaker design. I am currently using modified Parasound JC1 mono blocks with Veritas V2.8 speakers and 2 svs pb13 ultra subs. These speakers would be good as an alternative (different sound) but unlikely to replace Energys.
As far as placement is going I was thinking about conventional vertical axis placement, tweeter, midrange woofer. Woofers are already close to the edge so midrange should be really close, but the share size of driver frames 7" and tweeter 4" makes it challenging for the tweeter. I should be on same access with midrange. I am concerned with combing effect though since the stock crossovers are 2nd order.
I would try to get someone to help me move these guys upstairs and play with them during Christmas brake. These speakers remind me of my fathers PA speakers. I wish I had his 200W tube amp though. Those childhood memories and a warm tube sound...
Thank you Dave.
Would you recommend miniDSP? Is there stuff any good (I meant not share measurements but the actual sound)?
I use a Minidsp 10x10 together with a pair of biamped JBL XPL200 and a JBL 2245H sub.
Biamping the XPL200 makes it possible too deactivate parts of the passive x-over with a switch and run an active x-over between the woofer and the midwoofer and add a tad of EQ where ever its needed.
An 50hz hp filter are also used too leave those deep tunes for the 18" 2245H subwoofer.
The rest of the channels manage 3 pcs XPL140 used as Center and surround channels.
I am unable to hear any Coloration, Distortion or other kinds of misbehavior from the minisdp. But can not speak for others that might claim otherwise
Biamping the XPL200 makes it possible too deactivate parts of the passive x-over with a switch and run an active x-over between the woofer and the midwoofer and add a tad of EQ where ever its needed.
An 50hz hp filter are also used too leave those deep tunes for the 18" 2245H subwoofer.
The rest of the channels manage 3 pcs XPL140 used as Center and surround channels.
I am unable to hear any Coloration, Distortion or other kinds of misbehavior from the minisdp. But can not speak for others that might claim otherwise
Attachments
Thanks Galu, for the valuable info.
Let me add a lesser known detail: once upon a time long long ago, I did some very extentive side by side listening tests of the NS1000 vs the NS1000M. The difference is anything BUT subtle: the NS1000 sounds MUCH better than the M, and that was obvious to anyone who cared to listen to them. I couldn't believe the box made such a big difference, everything else being the same.
Personally, I prefer the sound of a closed box (12dB/oct) above everything else, except an open baffle (6dB/oct), but that's only me
Apparently the woofers have different part numbers per vintage knob. 1000m is using JA-3058A and 1000 has JA-3058. Could it be that crossovers are also different? There is a video on youtube that compares 1000m to 1000. The difference it quiet obvious even though youtube video do not do the justice...
Thanks for your feedback. Those XPL200s look amazing. I played some tunes today in my garage
and that RS woofer is not a horrible driver. I am quiet impress how musical these speakers are.There are more than a few members here with much experience with several models of minidsp -including folks running the actively powered Linkwitz LXminis who I think can attest to its flexibility - and with the right model - transparency.
As with anything, it’s the implementation and total system design that counts. FWIW, I personally wouldn’t go out of my way to gain access to a true anechoic chamber for what appears to be a relatively modest DIY project. Of several passive multi-way systems I’ve built, the crossovers were designed via old school LMS/LEAP software and gated ground plane acoustic measurements in a large, but definitely not anechoic space. The engineer who assisted me with those said the last time around would be his last with that methodology - it’ll be all minidsp for him moving forward.
My only exposure to minidsp is with a large line array multi-way system at the home of one of the attendees of Dave’s last Fest event. It certainly kicked a$$ big time, but was far more intrusive than I’d want to live with. I think Dave has had direct experience with a Behringer XO a few years ago, but not with minidsp? I’ve had enough playtime with the DSP functionality of a series of surround receivers to gain an appreciation for the flexibility and relative ease of operation and calibration/setup of this class of signal processing. Were I starting out again, I’d probably not give a second thought to using that approach - it just be a matter of which particular model/ number of channels I’d need.
Back to the NS1000, as has been noted before, I was in the retail trade at the time of their introduction - in a dealership whose lines included Marantz, Ohm, Dahlquist, Acoustic Research, EPI, Crown, JBL, Burhoe, Genesis, Yamaha, QUAD, Dayton Wright, and likely a few I forget. The original NS1000 was a revelation, which I couldn’t have afforded at the time, but definitely left all but perhaps the rather idiosyncratic DQ10, ESL57, or problematic Dayton Wrights in the dust as far as detail and imaging were concerned. FWIW the most impressively visceral bass response of the lot at the time - given a big enough room and power- would have been a close contest between the Ohm F or stacked Dayton Wright XG8s. Neither were huge sellers in our little backwater - “ sir, if you have to ask the (total system) cost (of making them shine), can we perhaps interest you in CR1000 and pair of NS 690s?”, a combination which I think would still not embarress itself.
Last edited:
The M variant had a more compact enclosure that was stiffer and lighter than that of the domestic version and was fitted with the uprated JA-3058A woofer (as has been pointed out by tpaxadpom).
Some aficionados disagree with Zung and say the M variant delivered a cleaner sound, it's bass being described as tighter and faster, with less overhang.
Note that I have no axe to grind here as I have never been fortunate enough to listen to, let alone compare, either variant!
The Japanese market offered the NS-1000X which boasted an improved carbon fibre woofer.
There also was an FX-3 which utilised the same midrange and tweeter drivers in a large reflex-ported cabinet with a 15" bass driver.
There's obviously lots of scope for experimenting on the woofer arrangement which will best complement these iconic beryllium drivers!
Some aficionados disagree with Zung and say the M variant delivered a cleaner sound, it's bass being described as tighter and faster, with less overhang.
Note that I have no axe to grind here as I have never been fortunate enough to listen to, let alone compare, either variant!
The Japanese market offered the NS-1000X which boasted an improved carbon fibre woofer.
There also was an FX-3 which utilised the same midrange and tweeter drivers in a large reflex-ported cabinet with a 15" bass driver.
There's obviously lots of scope for experimenting on the woofer arrangement which will best complement these iconic beryllium drivers!
Galu - as I mentioned, my exposure to those was over 40yrs ago, so I’m a bit foggy on the details of specific model number, but not the overall impression of them compared to other makes/models in the showroom. One of the upsides to working retail at the time was opportunity to listen to lots of combinations of gear in a large and familiar venue - whether optimal or not, I think one can acclimate to the room’s characteristics and form personal assessments on the comparison that would be as valid as if made at home. Of course, another plus is the opportunity to try out your favourites in your own system, and to buy at wholesale or sometimes even further discounted promo pricing. The downsides of course are that you flip through more than enough gear to try your wife’s patience, and there are some demo songs that you’d pay to never have to hear again - “Money”, “Listen to the Music”, “Magic Man”, “ Also sprach Zarathustra”, “1812 Overture”, “Le Quattro Stagioni”, “Pachelbel’s Canon” . Granted, the last is a delightful wedding walk down the aisle piece.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.