Printable View
i , think , imho , the only thing(s) wrong with tannoys' are , in their favour , the duals' are fabulous , the biggest prob , the cabs were designed yonks ago , so how about almost 5foot x 15 or 12 ish x 30 inch deep , quarter wave , with a decent attentuated tweeter running with the tannoy tweeter , not in front or behind , but just there , that as a sound i think would impress
Just out of interest has anybody heard the Tannoy DC10/ DC8 or indeed compared them to say Turnberrys?:)
Hi yes, I have. I listened to DC10s and DC10a's and to my mind the Turnberrys are far better, the Kensingtons better still. The Definition range IMHO are fashion boxes and do not show what the DC drivers are capable of. the Turnberrys and Kensingtons are far in a way better to my ears...more musical, more involving. I found the DC10s lacking in bass and quite strident at higher volumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarzan
The System 10 DMT are rather good, they use a plastic coned relative of the Turnbury unit. A friend has a pair and I've heard them sounding very well.
The system 10 DMT and the System 12 DMT both use plastic cones and the System 15 uses a paper cone. All the prestige range use paper cones. The DMT10s aren't really comparable with the Turnberrys and whilst very efficient and an easy load, require a little more damping as they have higher cone inertia. They can be driven nicely with low powered amps and do have a great midrange but the styling isn't to everyone's tastes. There was a pair knocking about for sale priced at around £650 recently. Given the choice of the DMT range or the DC range, I'd take the System 15 DMT over the DC10 any day.Quote:
Originally Posted by walpurgis
Plastic cones can sound very good. I had a pair of System 1000 Tannoys and a pair of System 800 at the same time, both of which had plastic cones. I kept the System 800, they were better. They sound absolutely lovely.
I loved the old cheaper DC2000 and 3000's. Huge fun and who cares about absolute fidelity. Put it this way, they didn't scream or screech at you and if placed with some care and used with a suitable amp with good damping, they boogied really well and went loud too, given half a chance :)
They can indeed! Harbeth are a prime example of that. I have some fond memories of an old set of Mission 710s I had (late 1970's?) which were great fun .Quote:
Originally Posted by walpurgis
Agree with David too that the older and cheaper DC2000's are good fun and can boogie. I'd rather have them than the DC10's!
I've used the DC1000 and DC2000. The DC1000 was the cleaner sounding of the two. The extra bass unit in the DC2000 seemed to cloud the imaging slightly for some reason. Both good fun speakers though, if a bit coloured and as Dave suggests they did go ridiculously loud for their size.
The little Tannoy i6 unit is another very good one. It normally comes in a horrible, undersized, plastic weather proof cabinet, but the driver is a cracker and if mounted in a sensible cabinet with its crossover, it sounds extremely good. They are the same driver as used in the System 600 and can be picked up very cheaply on ebay from time to time. Well worth keeping an eye out for.
Lol... Have you ever owned any long enough, with the right system, to get a proper handle on what they sound like? ;)
Also, as they don't fit into your 'era of acceptance', dude, I'm not surprised what your feelings are! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Andr'e,
I own two pairs of seventies Tannoys and they are here strictly on the strength of their abilities. I don't give a toss about image, appearance, or basically what anybody else thinks, the sound I get is all that matters.
If the preceding parts of the system aren't right you can make Tannoys sound pretty bad. Get it right and it is SO right!
Shame you're not nearer, I could get you round here for 're-education'.
Geoff.
+1 :)Quote:
I don't give a toss about image, appearance, or basically what anybody else thinks, the sound I get is all that matters.
Me neither, regarding the former. Nothing could be further down my list of priorities!
All vintage Tannoys have a different sound, so people are bound to prefer certain ones over others. I pretty much like them all, on the end of the right system, although some of the 70s HPD-era models can be a little bright and 'shouty', especially with solid-state amps.
Marco.
Were any of them that he had valve amps? If so, which ones were they, or were the amps your mate had all solid state? :)Quote:
I doubt you could re-educate me, one certain ex mate used to change amps more often than his under kecks, however ive heard many different combo's with em, so it was never the combo's..
Marco.
I do accept wholeheartedly that you don't like them (and you're entitled to your opinion), but what's annoying about you, daftee, is that you never explain WHY. I like proper explanations for things.... Informing us that you don't like MGs them tells us nothing useful other than you don't like them! ;)
Oh, and I know you have an ABR fetish, s'ok, I can relate to that :eyebrows: So tell us, WHAT exactly is it you don't like about Monitor Golds, etc? I promise that no-one will bite your head off! :D
Marco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rare Bird
I think the point is that with the wrong amps, it's easy to get completely the wrong idea about Tannoys.
If you haven't heard them with the right amps then you don't really have sufficient information to come to that conclusion.
The real proper Tannoys don't need additional bass radiators anyway, they may add bass but will always muddy the sound compared to a proper dual concentric, appropriately encased and amplified.
I also pointed out that ive heard loads of combo's (both tube & Transistor with em btw)
i think , all imho , tannoys are missunderstood , their design etc was for the whole perfect , 50 years ago , the bass / mids are way out there , then they fall down , i really really think (as per previous post) there is a lot more can be had from tannoy duals'
Sorry, Tommy. I don't get what you mean by "then they fall down" :scratch:
Marco.
I disagree Tam. When tweaking the crossover and later when experimenting with active, I did lots of measurement. They are putting treble out there right up to where microphone response falls off. Lack of Tannoy treble response is a myth. The fact is they are voiced to make music, not to compete with gee-whiz hifi speakers which overemphasise the treble region to make an impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by wee tam
I've actually tried four different brands of supertweeter with mine to see what impact that might have, in all cases the result was less musical.
There were speakers (Cambridge R50s - which I've owned - and various KEFs spring to mind) back in the 60s and 70s that did the extended treble response thing and none of them can hold a candle musically to the coherence and 'rightness' of a Monitor Gold.
they die above 13/14 khz , everything below is a right thing , everything above is missing :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I totally agree, Tom, but it's rather interesting when I swap from my Lockwoods and pop the Celestion 66s onto the end of the system... I can say for a fact that the 66s are defo more extended at the top-end, and in a way which isn't in the slightest "gee-whiz hifi"! ;)Quote:
I disagree Tam. When tweaking the crossover and later when experimenting with active, I did lots of measurement. They are putting treble out there right up to where microphone response falls off. Lack of Tannoy treble response is a myth. The fact is they are voiced to make music, not to compete with gee-whiz hifi speakers which overemphasise the treble region to make an impact.
I've actually tried four different brands of supertweeter with mine to see what impact that might have, in all cases the result was less musical.
There were speakers (Cambridge R50s - which I've owned - and various KEFs spring to mind) back in the 60s and 70s that did the extended treble response thing and none of them can hold a candle musically to the coherence and 'rightness' of a Monitor Gold.
It's one of the reasons why I bought the 66s, as they have a totally different presentation from Tannoy DCs, but do the same 'musical thing' in their own inimitable way, which is equally as enjoyable.... It's nice to have a choice :)
Marco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wee tam
Bit of a fallacy .. I could show you the measurements (if I could find the graphs).
that being the whole point tom , most people do not have the capabilities to "tweak" have to put up with what they get , imho , a 4/5 foot quarter wave to speed the bass up / dig deeper , and a very carefully selected tweeter , running in tandem would lift them to another level , all of ccourse imhoQuote:
Originally Posted by montesquieu
My point is that it's a matter of voicing, not a question of lack of response. There is information up there it's simply not over-emphasised. I have no time whatever for Dalis and the like with their ribbon tweeters and rising treble response as advocated by people who prefer to hifi to music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Ah, I getcha now... I think it was the overuse of commas! Maybe try using a wee full-stop now and again... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wee tam
I certainly wouldn't say that everything above was missing (defo not the case with mine), otherwise I would notice that effect very easily when I swapped back from using the 66s.
However, the Celestions most certainly extend higher up into the frequency range, which is easily heard with the right music, and indeed I'm sure that the effect could be measured, but it's a subtle difference, rather than a glaringly obvious one.
I love the 66s, but after a few days of listening to music through them, and returning to my Lockwoods, there's always a feeling of 'ah, now I'm home'! :)
Marco.
I do agree, although in my opinion, the difference in the high-frequency response between the Celestions and my Tannoy MGs is likely there in the measurments. For me, it's defo not a voicing thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by montesquieu
However, that doesn't stop me from overall preferring the Tannoys! Ultimately, I enjoy their style of musical presentation more :)
Marco.
have to agree marco , love the sound that tannoys bring , could very easily live with them everyday , but , and there is a but , i think with a bit of modern design , they could be , simply the best , soz about the poor english , and yes whilst entriged listening , still think a wee bit more could be squeezedQuote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Fair enough, dude. However, you don't need to make 15 MGs "larger sounding", because they're fooking "larger sounding" enough!! :eek: ;)
I think half the problem is that you don't really like BIG speakers. All the speakers you've said you've liked on here are what I would term as 'titchy'. Personally, I couldn't live with anything smaller than my 66s, as I like deep bass, and especially SCALE... :exactly:
If I used the speakers you like on the end of my system, whilst I might like the sound, I'd wonder where the bass had gone!!
YMMV :)
Marco.
Entering the latest discussion a little late but I'm with Marco and Tom. I was told in no uncertain terms that the Turnberrys needed super tweeters (by someone who happened to sell them) but there's plenty of detail there. Unlike my old Proac speakers that were designed to wow on first impressions but actually tend to make your ears bleed after 20 minutes listening, I can listen to the Tannoys all day without treble fatigue. They are voiced very naturally IMHO, although its true that there are speakers out there with a flatter response across the audible bandwidth. That doesn't matter when they are so musically involving and when most music bought today is mastered and engineered so that whatever your speakers measure at, the replay depends to some extent what the studio monitors were that the engineers used for mastering....and many still use Tannoys!
Have a look at this graph (link below) those who still mistakenly believe that all vintage Tannoys are rolled off. The top line on each graph shows the "flat" response befoe applying any roll off or energy drop to accommodate different room acoustics. Those graphs are still more than acceptable today and much flatter in the 50 to 100Hz region too where many of todays compact floor standers and stand mount speakers have an artificial hump built in (usually where port tuning kicks in) so have a more natural bass presentation too. This is an actual measurement from the 315HPD and puts to bed the myth that they don't do treble or that it rolls off after 14KHz:
http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/images/Page8.jpg
Here's a publicity sheet for the Monitor Gold with response graphs.Quote:
Originally Posted by montesquieu
http://i50.tinypic.com/1zfs941.jpg
There is significant but slightly reduced output beyond 20kHz and I believe the treble output actually extends to around 30kHz, but is dropping steeply by that point.
Look similar to the link I just posted for the HPDs Geoff!
Here it is as a jpg:
http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/images/Page8.jpg
Which idiot told you that Tannoy DC tweeters roll off? Certainly wasn't me!!!!! If anything, a super-tweeter (the early Tannoy models being nothing of the sort!) may just possibly tame the ripples in the pepperpot design, which are measurable if not directly audible. Somewhere out there, there are modern plots taken of the more recently tweaked Tannoy drivers, and they're MUCH smoother right through the treble..
I don't want to start this all off again, but the Turnberry SE's I heard were actually very smooth and almost sweet in a "BBC Derived" kind of way - and I mean this as a compliment. No lack of treble, just a lack of ringing or nasty tinselly peaks!
Great point David RE the super tweeters. I hadn't considered the smoothing effects of the super tweeter.
Must admit that the treble on the Turnberrys is one of the things I like about them! Where they are fussy is around the crossover point and their behaviour depends largely on what amp is driving them. As Tom has alluded to, get the amp wrong and one can be forgiven for coming away with a poor first impression but get it right and its a different story entirely. Very amp dependant IMHO and worth putting the mileage in to get the right amp match.
I may try some refurbed quads (33/303) with the HPDs out of curiosity as these were often matched with them originally.
An original 44/405 drove Cheviots superbly I remember and of course the 33/303 was a classic Top End match to Lancasters/Chatsworths and Yorks et al from the early 70's. Not sure about the stock 33 in modern times (I love the looks and feel though) but a well fettled and set up 303 is a rather lovely thing IMO and absolutely perfect for driving the Tannoy approx 11 ohm load of this period :)
I think that shows pretty clearly what's going on. Has anyone got response graphs for Celestion 66 Studio Monitors?Quote:
Originally Posted by walpurgis
Audibly, I'm sure that the combination/crossover points of the midrange units and tweeters results in the 66s having a more extended high-frequency response than any Tannoy DCs. I'd like to see some measurements to prove that what I'm hearing is right :)
Btw, I loved this bit from the ad:
If only that principle were universally true of audio equipment these days!! :rolleyes:Quote:
Change should be made for improvement - not for just the sake of change...
Marco.
The early Tannoy "super-tweeter" only went to 28kHz in any case and rolled in at around 9kHz as I remember..
Marco, the HF2000 tweet should be good for 30kHz I reckon although all the plots I ever saw only went up to 20khz. The main issue for this one, the Coles equivalent and the KEF T27 was actually lower down, where they needed a fairly high crossover point to integrate well. Your 66's will be fine I think since the mid dome "should" work up to this frequency better than the cone driver in the 44's for instance.
I'll have a rummage. No promises, but I may come up with something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Cool. I'd appreciate that, Geoff :)
Marco.
Yes, you posted yours while I was still posting mine. I didn't know we'd be nearly duplicating. Still, it all adds to the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reffc
The mention of a super tweeter smoothing effect may well have some merit and I'd tend to go along with that to an extent until it's proved wrong.
However, having done a lot of experimentation with 'supertweeters' (as such), I have found that the best type of tweeter to use with Tannoys is a high quality horn tweeter, maybe the tonal characteristics blend in with the output from the Tannoy horn unit better, or deliver a similarly shaped wavefront, I don't know, but it seems to be the case. My favourite was a pair of hefty 8 ohm Isophon horns (which I still have) with good output to about 23khz. These were rolled in very high using a 0.22 microfarad cap, using an 'L' pad to adjust.
Regardless of top end extension 'supertweeters' definitely seem to enhance the subjective impression one gets from some speakers.
By the way, I believe Celestion used to quote an upper limit of 40kHz for the HF2000 (KEF quoted 30kHz for their T27).
Classic Tannoy DC's roll off quite sharply at about 15/16kHz.
Anyone who thinks Tannoy could produce a CD that was intrinsically flat from 1.2kHz to 20Hz is living in cloud cuckoo land.
The ageing Tannoy crossovers can be improved upon but its more about flattening the response than increasing the frequency range.
This link gives some good curves of what is achievable.
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/tannoyMG15.htm
I've had 15" Tannoy DC's in large cabinets, used in both passive and active configuration, and IMHO they are better than most current day designs in many ways. However, I prefer BTH K10A's as they produce more articulate bass than the Tannoy's, are comparable in the mids and articulate HF much better than the Tannoy's, even though they only go about 1kHZ higher. All in all much more enjoyable speaker to listen to but unfortunately not as common as the Tannoy's. :exactly:
Just my personal experience though.
I recollect the BTH drivers. Whiteley Stentorian and Altec also made similar types of designs. There were others I believe but they escape me at the moment (probably the couple of beers I've had). I've heard the Altec units in their 'Stonehenge' speaker many years ago and it was a good sound, but not as good as the then current Monitor Golds.
I'm not sure why you say the Tannoys roll off steeply above 16kHz. The output may get uneven higher up but it extends beyond 20kHz at a reduced level of only a few db.
I've not bothered and it's not really important, but I may have a bash at measuring the treble extension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reffc
Thanks Paul.:)
That would be interesting, as it would explain the extra extension I'm hearing with the 66s, in comparison with my Monitor Golds :)Quote:
Originally Posted by walpurgis
I know that Tom's not had much success so far with super-tweeters, and his 15 MGs, but I'm convinced that if the right ones could be found, then genuine improvements would be made.
I've never used super-tweeters with speakers, but one thing that puts me off is something I read about them putting more strain on the partnering amplifier (or adversely affecting it in some way), which if true, would concern me.
How exactly are super-tweeters connected - where do they go at the amp and speaker end? I've never done it before.
Marco.
Hi Andy,
Fair enough, but it wasn't mine, when I heard those ones that chap was selling one time, a few years ago on AoS, after his father had died and left him the speakers. Remember the ones? I hadn't heard of BTH speakers then and you told me all about them, and also the chap who was selling them when he joined AoS.Quote:
Originally Posted by BTH K10A
I was interested in buying the BTHs, and so drove to see him, taking my Croft and Copper amp with me. They were pretty good, but to my ears, nowhere near as good as my 15 MGs. However, maybe those weren't the best examples? :)
Marco.
Probably the best Tannoys I heard are Tannoyman Westminster, then closely followed by Marco's Lockwoods. That might change if Marco decides to go active in the future
A lot of Tannoys unfortunately have left me unimpressed so guess a lot of their sound comes down to implementation I know both Marco and Tannoyman has spent a lot of time and effort getting them right and both have different thoughts about getting the best out of them
I also like Westies, but unlike you dude, I've not yet had the pleasure of listening to them in a home environment, only at shows.
It'll be interesting what you think next time you pop up and have a listen to the Lockwoods, as since the last time you visited, my system has undergone a number of improvements, which of course are revealed in all their glory by the 'wide-open window' nature of the Lockwoods, thus in turn improving the sound they now produce quite drastically..... :eyebrows:
It's been a while since you visited! ;)
Marco,
Yes far to long perhaps sometime in spring
I think people like us the systems we have are constantly developing its just the way we wired up, its a journey without end
And some of us have tiny rooms that won't house a pair of sky scrapers the inability to crank the volume up is a no no anyway :unfair:
Hence the mission ive always been on is speakers that give everything possible from a decent size cabinet at very low level..However i am more than happy.
Lol ;) latter I be pumping up the volume :gig: