View Full Version : Mission 762i monitors
Being there is alot of UK guys here,I was wondering if anyone has any comments on the mission 762i book shelf speakers.
I have never seen a review or heard much about them.
I have had a pair in daily use since getting them for a whole $6.00 U.S.
Rare Bird
02-05-2010, 20:58
Being there is alot of UK guys here,I was wondering if anyone has any comments on the mission 762i book shelf speakers.
I have never seen a review or heard much about them.
I have had a pair in daily use since getting them for a whole $6.00 U.S.
But they are from the 90's!
But they are from the 90's!
Yes, but I hear alot of people talking about menny other older modles.
The Argonauts ect...
There must be some who have had them here?
I sold Mission from the mid seventies to the mid noughties and NONE of them could be fairly called "Monitors" - a bit like a Garrard SP25 being called a "Transcription" turntable back in the day.....
Mission speakers from the early eighties onwards were characterised by a tinselly, "waspish" treble, although the 762i was more of a thud-box tbh, although not unpleasant. The 700LE were better from this period as I remember.
If you want a better cheap speaker of this size, the B&W 602 mk1 or 2 with some extra filling in the box would be better I think..
Yes, but I hear alot of people talking about menny other older modles.
The Argonauts ect...
There must be some who have had them here?
I know the original 700 which are similar to 762i and they were very good. Also had the smaller 731LE which were good but very small speakers, from about 1994 I think. Top build quality. More neutral than Wharfedale Diamond which was similar size/price and more sophisticated top on 'em. But I still preferred the Diamonds. Mission don't seem to be the brand of choice for the UK Enthusiast/Audiofool though, possibly because they 'lack character'?
The original 700 wasn't the same balance as I remember, being a bit more mid-forward and with a better bass. A sort of bridge between the funky 710/20/30 era and the later fizz-bang models.
The original 700 wasn't the same balance as I remember, being a bit more mid-forward and with a better bass. A sort of bridge between the funky 710/20/30 era and the later fizz-bang models.
Yes they had great bass and a very 'hi-fi' i.e superficially impressive sounding top as I remember. I liked that at the time:)
They were great with a Rega deck and arm with an A60 or Creek 4040 or NAD 3020 at the time. I suspect too crude by todays standards although their musical heart was in the right place I think.
Rare Bird
03-05-2010, 12:34
I suspect too crude by todays standards although their musical heart was in the right place I think.
Is that the same bollox as the saying a bit long in the tooth now! Dave i'm not being funny but i find todays hifi crap tbh
They were rough and ready, with rapidly crumbling foam suspensions, but they always entertained and transcended their faults I thought.
As for modern speakers, you obviously haven't heard the new harbeth models, nor the old fashioned looking (but not necessarily sounding) Tannoy Prestige models, both brands making the likes of Kudos and Neat sound like tinny transistor radios in comparison...
Beobloke
03-05-2010, 21:39
I had a pair of Mission 707s which were great speakers, and I made the mistake of 'upgrading' to their replacements, the 762is. Bloody 'orrible things IMHO - $6 sounds about right....
As far as I'm concerned, the 70/707/737Renaissance/770Freedom/780Argonaut range were the last decent loudspeakers to bear the Mission name.
I'd disagree about the 770F and Argonauts - ugghh!
We sold a number of 753's though, fine with Arcam in a largish room so you could get 3 to 4 metres away from 'em..
I am suprised at some of the coments on the 762i.
I was able to swap them back and forth with Audio Note K's.
Granted mine are very well broken in with a cap and internal wire upgrade and mabey the ones you listened to where not secured to 100 lb. lead shot filled bases.
I will say this after listening to them for 4 years now.
and haveing owned alot of speakers.
They are midrange forward and there sound is much like an up side down smile from a stroke victem with the left side slightly paralized after 60hz. They do go down to 45hz. but with some very noticable loss of DB.
The ANK's by comparison where more even across the board. but had an odd overall vailed dark sound not just in there bass but even vocals and horns,cymbles sounded dark and distant, no sizzle and strings had less vibrato than the Missions.
The ANK's bass responce is understated and there 90DB. is also very conservitivly stated more like 91DB. in the pair I sampled.
I just prefure to hear a little string and fret noise makeing things seem a little more real.I felt the ANK's lacked attack.
The Missions have there fault but to say they are fizz and thump is not very accurate.
What little lowend they have needs to be secured to stands,if you just sit them on a table or shelf the bass is loose and boomy with no definition. But blue tacking them to something solid made a huge differance that can't be argued by even a passive listener like my wife.
If she could tell a differance it's night and day.
The Missions just look cheap in black PVC clad cabnets.
But then agein the ANE/D in chipboard wrapped in viynil contact paper sounds much better than it looks too.
What is it with great British speakers being placed in cabnets one step up from the cardboard boxes they ship in?
Is MDF that expencive there?
http://www.audionote.co.uk/products/speakers/an-k_01.shtml
The 762i is at th extream right in the thumbnail of the Mission spec sheet doc.
If I am reading the ledure right it states -6db.from 70hz. and + or - 2db. above that to 20khz.
I would discribe this as about right. With the whole mid range at 92db.@1watt. with a little roll off at the top.
To call these bass monsters would just be wrong.
They were rough and ready, with rapidly crumbling foam suspensions, but they always entertained and transcended their faults I thought.
As for modern speakers, you obviously haven't heard the new harbeth models, nor the old fashioned looking (but not necessarily sounding) Tannoy Prestige models, both brands making the likes of Kudos and Neat sound like tinny transistor radios in comparison...
The 762i have rubber surounds.
No disrespect, and if you like them, then fine :)
Audio Note speakers are ancient and outclassed designs which NEED expensive boutique cables and crossover bits to even work at all these days. they use very cheap drive units and have massive crossover problems which are hidden by the amps they're most often used with and also the greater listening distances they favour. use close up and their faults are all too easily hidden IMO and experience.
Perhaps you should try some Spendor SP1's (available for £300 or so) on lightweight stands supporting them at the corners. Perhaps then you may get an inkling of what I'm on about,
Can the spendors be driven with a 20w per channel amp to a decent volume?
Rare Bird
25-10-2010, 00:03
I use early 80's pair of '737' (Audax Tweeter) i love em always did.. I bought em when they came out & managed to get another pair just this year..The Modern floorstanders i was using this year were just horrible,good riddence to em.welcome home '737'
Can the spendors be driven with a 20w per channel amp to a decent volume?
A very late reply, but I used BC1's with both Quad II originals and also a radford STA25 and never had amp-stress problems.
Rare Bird
25-10-2010, 10:22
Gimmi 'SP1' over 'BC1' anyday .. :)
I really like my 753's, but agree that they are useless unless you can get 10 feet+ away from them.
The little 771e's that I'm forced into using at the moment don't seem to suffer from the 'tinsely' treble issue. In fact I'm beginning to quite like them despite the obvious lack of bass and scale.
Rare Bird
25-10-2010, 10:39
What i kick myself for not hearing at the time were the Mission '717' & '727' in Active
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.