Jump to content

VAF

Commercial Member
  • Content Count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

VAF last won the day on October 10 2012

VAF had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

240 Excellent

About VAF

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Adelaide
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Chris, only ever two types of cabinet. PCL2001 series and then the C6/7000 - C6000/7000 had same cabinet but C7000 had the Krell active crossovers. Later C6000 had some cross over mods and also the later version had updated mid range drivers.
  2. Drop us an email and we can send you through some info no problems, Cheers! Simon
  3. There's been a dramatic slowing of demand for large sub $5k floor standing speakers over the last few years, we found it harder and harder to keep the price down until it became unsustainable. Ironically as soon as we decided to stop them, we had more demand than ever and did two 'last' runs. But we'd already told the driver supplier we were stopping them and they discontinued the baskets. With a lot of development in the signature range and the new smaller DC's - we're turning attention back to a new DC-X soon.
  4. VAF

    VAF

    Hey there, that's a GEN3 DC-X, circa 1995-2000. One of or most popular models ever. Thousands built and shipped all over the place. Twin Fibreglass 8" bass/mid and a horn loaded Audax tweeter. High sensitivity at 96dB/W One of the first cross overless designs, one capacitor on the tweeter (and a padding resistor). We still make the occasional replacement grille sock for these. There's also a retrofit for the bass/mids that we've done to fit the newer GEN4 Kevlar woofers - the original Audax 8" drivers are no longer available as replacements. Hope you like them! They look like they're in great condition. Cheers, Simon
  5. Hi Steve, You've got DC-X speakers there by the pics, not DC-7. Twin 8" bass/mid and horn loaded 1" dome tweeter. The drivers are 8 Ohm. The original French manufacturer of the drive units went out of business about 15 years ago and we held replacement stock until about 2 years ago. The replacement we've developed is an upgrade to the speaker and I assume that's what was offered. Specs on the driver probably wont help that muc h, however - attached. Send an email through, we do have the odd upgrade and some times end up with a couple of the original drivers, so I could probably help you out. Cheers, Simon.
  6. Yeah OK, I understand. I'd think there's other problems going on there if it had no bass, and if the rubber was stiff, maybe the owner used a chemical cleaner that reacted with the surround. Anyway, good to hear from you - if there's any owners in SA that need support I'd be happy to help you / them out. Just shout out!
  7. Marquis NEVER had anything but VIFA drivers from the Regency Park factory or before. When Duntech was sold and Regency Park closed there was a brief period , maybe 12 months...(ish) when manufacturing was outsourced, before Duntech was sold/reborn again to the current owners who wouldn't have had anything to do with it before then. It is possible at the end of that time a Marquis might have been made with Morel and Dyn tweeters (which is what the picture looks like) - in this case ir would have been tested and integrated correctly, so the owner shouldn't have any misgivings or worry - I'd suggest they sound better than the originals anyway. Hi Kiat, hope you're well. Long time no speak! If it wasn't a morel then it didn't come from the 'factory'. Pic really looks like a morel... You have any pics of the back?
  8. Pleasure, brings back some good memories. So female vocals would be influenced - typically the range is around 350 to 3Khz with harmonics going out to roughly 12kHz. So I'd suggest it's th higher order harmonics that are causing some issues. Depending on the band width of the dip you mention, it's unlikely you'd hear an effect - which I guess you proved. Sounds like you have some experience and tech capability, if you want to squeeze the most out of those you might consider a DSP like the DEQX - they're damn good and if you can bi amp and run a quasi active arrangement you'll be able to balance the woofer to mid transition better, where some of those problems are. I see you're in Adelaide, happy to have a chat if you want to drop in or call. No problems either way. cheers, Simon
  9. No problems Chris, questions are for asking. It does depend on a few things including what the construction is and what your preferred setup is in terms of speaker placement in the room - the main thing I see there is the speakers are going to be close to the side walls if you want a decent sound stage assuming your setup is on the short wall - on the long wall you're too close. So you'll definitely want some good acoustic treatments in that space. (in fact regardless of the room it's always going to benefit from a better acoustics). We recommend Vicoustic products, they have an excellent service to model your room and design a layout for you. It's completely worth the trouble - do it once and do it right. Happy to chat about that if you'd like. Jump on our web site and send me a mail, or just call. Cheers Simon
  10. Hey, sorry Chris. No, I wouldn't rate the black knight as an upgrade to the Princess. Different beast really. I think the mids on the princess are better than the Black Knight. The polyprop cones on the knight are more coloured. However, the knight wins on dynamics, bass (obviously) and impact. If Sov is too big, so is the knight. Both really need a ton of amplification to control the bass, which will overpower many rooms. The knight was designed to be a cheaper high volume alternative to the Sov, not as refined. If you have the choice of picking up a Sov or black knight.... get the Sovereign. If you've got a few mates to help lift it!
  11. Haha, ok so I'm diligently trying to make a clear delineation of interest here which is hard to do - I honestly like to help people out with info in as unbiased way as possible. I worked at Duntech for nearly ten years and have a lot of accumulated knowledge, nostalgia and pride in what we accomplished there. I probably made a mistake to talk about what he wasn't measuring on a couple of levels - firstly its hard to separate out VAF and talk to fundamental design principles that VAF was actually researching here at the time. Secondly I'm just helping out on info because the Duntech story was unique in that an Australian company gained world wide attention no other company had achieved previously (or I believe since) and probably did more to jump start the Aus audio industry as a genuine world contender and as such opened doors to others in Aus. Which is fantastic!. Very cool period in history and I was lucky to be a part of it. So I find myself in a little dilemma. So ignoring that - We're all on the quest to make a better speaker, however it's commercial reality that you're always working with compromises - FACT, don't care which speaker you're looking at. Simply looking at phase and amplitude response from a driver isn't the whole story, also when you include pure electrically first order crossovers with cheaper drivers you really start to limit what's possible. There's many other influencing factors including the cone material, magnetic circuit, back emf's , internal cabinet reflections, stored energy within the cones, suspension, cabinet and on and on it goes. These things called speakers are very complicated - in fact there's SO SO MANY compromises no one is completely across right through the whole chain from recorded artist to end reproduction! I had the pleasure of spending some time with Rob Watts, lead consulting DAC engineer for Chord UK. Over dinner we spoke to life the universe and everything audio and it was clear he was thinking about the same things I've been wondering about. Even the most advanced DAC technology still falls short of reproducing reality- their DAVE DAC and scaler is using bit rates and scaling speeds no one ever would have thought needed, but as he says each time he goes to the next level of resolution there's audible improvements - if you had the opportunity to hear Rob speak at the presentation we put on at the last hifi show you would have walked away amazed at the digital resolution he's using to try and recreate sounds to trick the human brain into believing it's 'real'. My point is NO ONE is measuring EVERYTHING needed to make the perfect reproduction that mimics reality. So with all that ramble, back to the question! - I'll give you a simple answer - I think one fundamental issue was the use of cheaper drivers and adherence to 1st order crossovers simply pushing those drivers outside their useful operating range. That is quite simplistic I know, but basically higher tolerance, better made drivers should have better performance across a wider range and therefore more suited to this design type. I don't think they were properly measuring the distortions outside the cross over region that are still audible if not appearing directly in the response measurements. I don't believe they were looking into the higher level contributing harmonics produced and i'm not convinced there wasn't quite a bit of stored energy that muddied the midrange. Even though they did publish some cumulative spectral decay plots especially on the SCIV that looked incredible, and would dispute the stored energy comment, we did spend some time recreating their setups based on the time axis and well, i'd question the usefulness of the plots to be honest... 😕 I think overall speakers have their strengths and weaknesses, there's lots of reasons for doing this or that. Personal preference, listening environment, source all contribute to the end result and a bunch of other things. I've probably rambled on way too long - so my apologies. Hope it's half interesting anyway. Cheers!
  12. Hi Chris, I've only had the one opportunity to listen to the SCIV in Vegas at CES some time ago. Given the usual caveats like show conditions, non ideal etc etc, I believe the Princess is/was a better speaker. More natural mids and highs with similar bass. So that's a potentially long answer but I'll try to keep it short. The two main design criteria for the speaker based on Dunlavy original designs is to create a perfect 'step function' this is a time domain measurement that shows output over time when a full bandwidth signal is applied. The curve should be basically a 0 time increase in pressure to a given level that decays back to zero over a clean and perfect exponential curve back to zero. The only way to achieve this is with a perfectly flat frequency response with minimum phase characteristic. That is 0 phase shift across the unwaveringly flat frequency response. What also influences this is any resonant behaviour or stored energy, which can come from any number of sources in a speaker, so ignoring that side of it for the sake of a lot of typing... Now I can't say exactly what Dunlavy was doing at DAL, but his legacy thoughts and practices from Duntech were to find a driver that had a flat response and when combined with the other drivers to create a full range speaker you ended up with the flattest amplitude and phase curves. And if you could do that with a cheaper driver then so much the better. Looking at the DAL designs they all seem to be using much cheaper drivers than chosen at Duntech. He was very much set on the thought that the perfect speaker should be able to recreate a square wave. Also he was clearly looking at the stored energy issue at DAL - he started publishing Cumulative Spectral Decay measurements, which duntech was also doing at the same time, (and VAF by the way ) but I think his belief in cheaper drive units didn't help him. And why I still say the Duntech legacy product he left behind, that we re engineered were better. (better quality drivers still). So what were the drivers actually tested for - wide bandwidth, flat frequency response and minimum phase behaviour across the widest possible frequency range. Which is exactly what I still look for in a quality driver, however there's more to it than that - it's what john wasn't measuring that I personally think was blinding him from creating some really great speakers.
  13. Just rolling through this thread, thought I'd throw in some details - I've got more than a little history with Duntech so happy to help answer any questions on this topic. The crown prince and the princess (same speaker) have Dynaudio 24w75 woofers with D28AF (later D28/2) tweeters. the mids are scanspeak 13M8640 paper cone. Early 13M's were notorious for the magnet letting go with a hard knock or drop and this would jam the voice coil. Simple to tell, you can clearly see if the magnet is off centre by looking at the back of the driver, also the cone doesn't move!! You should be able to gently move the cone with your fingers, it's got at least 3mm of travel. If it doesn't move at all, there's your problem.... We used to easily collect the magnets out of these in failed units with a simple knock on the floor and the pole piece and backing would just come away with a pull. I must have had a stack of these a meter high. I noticed someone said replacement for the D28 could be the morel MDT32 - yes, this driver was made as Morels equal and is a nice little tweeter - it was used in the Duntech PCL25, D100 and D200 models. Also later in the Gemstone series. All these models had Morel drivers. Also, early ones had terrible corrosion problems at the back of the external solder point. Early drivers had a thinner magnet, about 12mm with later models being about 18mm. The earlier models was PCL1000 and PC1100 which was the crown prince and princess numbers, PCL standing for Pulse Coherent Loudspeaker. The redesign and later models were designated C for Classic series and only the Princess C5000 was made. Until the later C5500 Prince came along with all new drivers but using the 13M8636 Kevlar midrange. The aluminium washer on the back of the woofers is essential and helps realign the damping on the 24w75, without the washer the alignment goes way out and is underdamped. Sounds terrible without it. the foam on the back does nothing but try to stop bugs! It disintegrates with time anyway as did the foam surrounds which were OK for several years in the right climate, but ultimately all will fail. I'd be surprised to know of any originals still operating. We were the first to change these over to rubber surrounds and the first to make the 30W100 in this way before Dynaudio changed and stopped supply to all OEM's. Original Solen caps were used and are very stable - however definite improvements can be made with changing inline caps in mids the tweeter. On the Black Knight, which was the marketing name used to sell into the USA and also sold into Aus, the drivers are all dynaudio. Later called the Regent the only change was the tweeter from the D28AF to the D28/2. Mids and woofers continued to be 17W75EXT and 30W100. the felt on the woofers is important and helped control a resonance in the polyprop dust cap which reared up in the midrange - same treatment and reason for use on the Sovereigns. Felt on the 17W75EXT was for the same reason. There was a little mass loading going on as well so the felt is important. The Sovereign used the 17W75 standard, not EXT as the extended frequency response wasn't needed on the Sov being a 4 way rolling in to the D52AF (later D52/2) dome mids. Just for info, the Princess was chosen by several recording studios for their mastering speakers as the mid balance and detail was very natural. The Dunlavy SCIV was probably his most popular speaker after going back to the US and starting DAL. It was a VIFA line up, as was the Duntech Marquis PCL500, and later C4000. Having custom W21 woofers which gave the Marquis a perfect .707 critically damped bass response to 45Hz and off the shelf M10MD mids and D26TG tweeter. Dunlavy had the theory, if it measured correctly then it must be correct. Didn't matter about the cost of the drives, as long as they reproduced the measurements he deemed they needed to it was fine. Nice theory, but a little flawed. But that's another story. Anyway, hope that's of some interest. Don't hesitate to ask if you have questions - I'll try to stretch the memory! Cheers! Simon
  14. You'd want to be very careful what you say about others, especially when it's completely wrong. Ben worked at VAF over 20 years ago and at that time owned Rega P3 and was learning the ropes. He stated working for CAV and since then his passion and experience in turntables has increased to the point were he's probably forgotten more than most will ever know. He presents himself as a TT expert now because he is. He travelled at his own expense to LINN Glasgow and underwent the intense LINN service training. He's also undergone other specific training and is one of a VERY few that understands and can set up turntables correctly. He is an extremely competent audio professional respected within the industry for his honesty, reliability and knowledge. As far as his passion for turntables goes - he personally owns 48 turntables, over 100 carts and numerous tone arms - all purchased to explore and understand as much and as many combinations as possible. He is our trusted go to for service and support and has now rebuilt and professionally set up over 30 turntables for us.
  15. So the I-25 is definitely a jump up from the I-91. Exactly the same size, but with the new coax driver, it's another level. More bass extension but more definition and extension in the top end as well. really liking these new drivers. We'll possibly put it into a more compact cabinet again like the I-90, but at this stage we're just enjoying it as a more full range speaker.
×
×
  • Create New...