SD Acoustics SD1 With Quad 303?

[southall-1998]

Has anyone here tried 303 with the old big SD1's? Will the 303 have enough power to drive these old towers?

S.

[jandl100]

I've no idea about the 303, but the SD1 are superb speakers for the silly-low money they often go for these days.
I paid £220 for a re-foamed pair on eBay auction. :mental:

If the 303 doesn't do them justice, then get an amp that does. You won't be disappointed. I'd imagine a Roksan amp would do rather well. ;)

----- mind you, the SD1 came in a few versions and so I can only really speak for the ones I had. Which ones do you have / are considering, Shane?

[jandl100]

I had a thread on the Wam about my SD1 - don't know if you have access, Shane http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?16929-SD-Acoustics-SD1-speakers

Quite a few SD1 fanboyz contributed - consensus was that they worked well with valves and SETs, and could get a bit tizzy with the more aggressive kind of solid state. So my guess is that the Quad 303 would work well.

[southall-1998]

These are our SD1's. The pic was taken months ago. Sorry for the crap quality.

S.


http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/TDL-STUDIO/12132464_1073648399314840_1500089617300088932_o_zp svdmxezrn.jpg (http://s602.photobucket.com/user/TDL-STUDIO/media/12132464_1073648399314840_1500089617300088932_o_zp svdmxezrn.jpg.html)

[jandl100]

These were mine - very similar

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii114/jandl100/SD1BowersActive.jpg (http://s262.photobucket.com/user/jandl100/media/SD1BowersActive.jpg.html)

[danilo]

Sadly.. when All is said and Done.. the 303 was actually a piss poor amp.
Only redeeming feature/attraction of the thing was it's unique (for the time) packaging.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Sadly.. when All is said and Done.. the 303 was actually a piss poor amp.
Only redeeming feature/attraction of the thing was it's unique (for the time) packaging.

The 303 is actually a very good amplifier. Do you actually use one, or are you just guessing.?
Whilst last made in 1983, it was solidly designed, and can hold its own in the very best audio systems.

Cheers / Chris

[hifi_dave]

The 303 was a very good amplifierand still stands up today. I have used a 303 with the original SD1, as shown, and it worked well. After all these years, I don't recall just how it sounded but I didn't run for cover, that's for sure.

Back in those days, we were using Quad II, Leak Stereo 20 or 60 and Croft OTL amps and all worked just fine with the SD1.

[donmarrese]

Quad 303, once serviced is a surprisingly good amplifier: Simple to service, and there are a few mods out there, even work well with some cheap passive pre -amps like Tisbury...I sold a setup to a client, 303, Tisbury passive, BC1's Thorens 165s and Marantz CD-52 MK2 Sig....I was well impressed with my self! They loved it too!

[donmarrese]

Actually, I know someone who has a pair of SD1's that need re-foaming...any speaker repairer recommendations? and rough price?
Cheers..

[walpurgis]

http://www.wembleyloudspeaker.com/

[Roy S]

the 303 was actually a piss poor amp.


7XMW6Z_Oq38

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Actually, I know someone who has a pair of SD1's that need re-foaming...any speaker repairer recommendations? and rough price?
Cheers..

Use rubber surrounds, foam rots, hence the silliness of re-foaming because in 12-15 months
you are likely just to have to do it all again. Rubber surrounds, last a lot longer.

Cheers / Chris

[donmarrese]

Use rubber surrounds, foam rots, hence the silliness of re-foaming because in 12-15 months
you are likely just to have to do it all again. Rubber surrounds, last a lot longer.

Cheers / Chris

Thanks Chris...those inconescenti (in the know) might raise an eyebrow when leaning towards a non-original repair...rubber or foam? What would you do for your SD1's?

Vote now before the lines close.....

[Beobloke]

Rubber changes the characteristic of the drive unit and will alter its sound. The SD1s are lovely speakers so why compromise them?

Surrounds are available from Good Hi-Fi in the Netherlands for around £20 and re-foaming is not a difficult job if you have patience and a steady hand

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The original material used was ??? very likely not silly foam.

Jerry at post #3 from the wam site " I was a bit concerned about possible foam rot on the drivers, but when I arrived to pick them up the surrounds looked pristine. Yup, the seller confirmed, newly done - should be good for another 15-20 years! I was mighty pleased with that."

Foam would not last 15-20 years, so likely rubber was used. Perhaps Jerry can confirm
With rubber the speaker compliance if it is an acoustic suspension lowers slightly
typically with even better bass response. That is what I found with my AR7's

The image attached shows an AR7 with rubber, and the other image foam rot.
The evidence should be pretty obvious as to the foolishness of using foam.

Cheers / Chris

[narabdela]

Sadly.. when All is said and Done.. the 303 was actually a piss poor amp.
Only redeeming feature/attraction of the thing was it's unique (for the time) packaging.


Wash your mouth out with soap Sir! :nono:



(or buy some Q-tips).

[Beobloke]

The original material used was ??? very likely not silly foam.

Jerry at post #3 from the wam site " I was a bit concerned about possible foam rot on the drivers, but when I arrived to pick them up the surrounds looked pristine. Yup, the seller confirmed, newly done - should be good for another 15-20 years! I was mighty pleased with that."

Foam would not last 15-20 years, so likely rubber was used. Perhaps Jerry can confirm
With rubber the speaker compliance if it is an acoustic suspension lowers slightly
typically with even better bass response. That is what I found with my AR7's

The image attached shows an AR7 with rubber, and the other image foam rot.
The evidence should be pretty obvious as to the foolishness of using foam.

Cheers / Chris

Firstly, I consider that there is nothing 'foolish' about refurbishing a loudspeaker in a way that maintains its original performance as near as possible. If the original driver had worked best with a rubber surround then it would have been fitted with one.

As a second point, the foam used in modern surrounds has a different chemical makeup to those used thirty or so years ago, making future rot much less likely. Equally, it's not unheard of for rubber to perish or harden with age!

[walpurgis]

A change of cone surround material is not necessarily a recipe for disaster. I've done it and had good results.

Tannoy did it with the HPD 295 unit. The early 295 Chevening version using rather short lived foam and the later 295A Eaton variant having synthetic rubber. The only other real difference between the drivers was the back doping on the 295A cone, which would have added a little mass, so lowering the unit resonance slightly. The 12" driver in the Tannoy Balmoral is a low resonance foam surround version of the driver in the SRM 12X which has hard corrugated fabric surrounds on the same cone instead.

[cargar]

Use rubber surrounds, foam rots, hence the silliness of re-foaming because in 12-15 months
you are likely just to have to do it all again. Rubber surrounds, last a lot longer.

Cheers / Chris

That is not the case at all. I refoamed my AR's 9 year's ago - still look as good as the day they were done.It was the first refoam on them and they were built in the mid 70's. !2 months .....i do not think so. :hmm:
If the speaker's were originally foam, re-foam. Rubber , re- rubber

[jandl100]

Use rubber surrounds, foam rots, hence the silliness of re-foaming because in 12-15 months
you are likely just to have to do it all again. Rubber surrounds, last a lot longer. .....

Jerry at post #3 from the wam site " I was a bit concerned about possible foam rot on the drivers, but when I arrived to pick them up the surrounds looked pristine. Yup, the seller confirmed, newly done - should be good for another 15-20 years! I was mighty pleased with that."

Foam would not last 15-20 years, so likely rubber was used. Perhaps Jerry can confirm

Yes, mine had been redone with rubber.

It seemed to work and sound fine, but I hadn't heard them when the original foam was intact so I can't say if the sound was degraded.

Must admit that a re-foam needed every 12-15 months doesn't sound realistic. I'd expect many years before foam rot set in again.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Yes, mine had been redone with rubber.

It seemed to work and sound fine, but I hadn't heard them when the original foam was intact so I can't say if the sound was degraded.

Must admit that a re-foam needed every 12-15 months doesn't sound realistic. I'd expect many years before foam rot set in again.


Here is a site doing re-foaming http://www.audioimprov.com/AudioImprov/Speakers/Entries/2013/1/28_Woofer_repair_on_Radio_Shack_40-5037_Linaeum_Speaker.html
Their own words are " The use of foam surrounds for speakers started in the 1970s. Foam has advantages for performance, but it hardens and cracks after a few years. "

Rubber, yes also eventually deteriorates, with heavy emphasis on eventually, I would estimate 40 years.

Certainly with AR, the original material was cloth, and these last and last. I have a pair of 1970 AR6's
still working- that's 46 years. In fact I have never seen damage to a cloth surround AR.


Cheers / Chris