|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.169.32.131
I'm the guy who found a decent pair of Burhoe Acoustics two-way speakers, the "Light Blue" model, in a thrift store for $10. The foam surrounds on the woofers were shot, so I pulled out an extra "no-name" set of high-end woofers with very heavy magnets (Audax?) and swapped them out. In the process, I did my very first soldering ever -- fun!Anyway, they sound great -- more bass than before, but not boomy or flabby at all. Running in tandem with my Goodmans Magnum XLRs and powered by a Kyocera A-710 integrated amp, they are phenomenal.
I didn't expect much from the Burhoes because of their simple design and layout, but boy was I wrong. These are keepers, and the heavy wood veneer cabinets are built to last.
Now that I can solder, I'm thinking of all sorts of experiments I can try with in my mad speaker scientist's lab ...
Follow Ups:
...I still have the original Light Blue woofers and will get them refoamed when I have some extra cash. The whole reason I grabbed the Burhoes when I saw them, despite owning far too many speakers already, was because I'm a fan of his designs.For the time being, I'll just enjoy these speakers with the woofers I have on hand. I bought them for another project and will probably end up using them as originally intended -- to replace the woofers and tweeters in a set of mid-'70s BSR two-way speakers that had great solid wood cabinets, but very unimpressive drivers.
To tell the truth, I've been working up the courage for the past two years to do a refoam job myself -- I'm all thumbs and worry that I'll do permanent damage if I screw up. But now that I overcame my resistance to soldering, maybe that's the next logical step.
I do have a pair of EPI M-90 woofers that need a re-foam; maybe that's a good place to start. Refoaming advice/tips are welcome, although I know a search of the archives here will give me lots of great dope on how to do it right.
The gap in the voice coil of every EPI/Genesis/Burhoe woofer I have ever run across was a mile wide and very easy to center. Use a AAA 1.5 volt battery to "self align" the coil even.I have even epoxied the tweeter magnet back on old Masonite EPI tweeters. With a Walkman powering the tweeter you can manipulate the magnet around (gently) until the sound "comes in". Then just let the epoxy harden.
EPI is very easy to DIY "backshop" repair.
--
Al G
You've compromised a great set of speakers from a person who has spent a lifetime designing speakers. Get the originals refoamed and put them back in. These speakers are not high on most radar screens but are very well respected in the community that knows of them.
How do you know he compromised them? The original poster said they sound phenomenal and in my book phenomenal is pretty good. This guy might have the golden ears and instead of asking what he's done in detail he gets scolded because he's modded a cheap speaker. You do it all the time but it's somehow OK?
John........
John, have you every designed and built a loudspeaker system? How did it sound to you?
Not sure who you think is scolding him, but if you think it is me then you need to talk to my kid to find out what I am like when I am scolding.Some speaker designs are designed as an integrated system, cabinet, stuffing, etc. and voiced and not computer or spec developed. Burhoe while not as recognized as say Kloss is a genius in creating holistic systems and not simply speaker systems.
While "retired" he was able to create what he could not do and that was a system that was not limited by accountants, production managers, etc. He and Sequerra probably were the last of the low volume, no budget system designers and developers who do not demand gigadollars and were low production and high quality.
Changing out the woofer would be akin to taking a pair of Futtermans and replacing the driver circuits with say a driver from a Dyna ST70. Yes, would work and maybe sound decent but just a compromise.
FWIW, I am not a fanatic for keeping things orignal; just look at my McIntosh C28 with the gold jackset I had installed over the objections of the tech and others.
You've missed the point of my post entirely and by condescendingly adding that "Changing out the woofer would be akin to taking a pair of Futtermans and replacing the driver circuits with say a driver from a Dyna ST70." are continuing to deride the first posters efforts. Without hearing his newly modded speakers you, and others, have no idea whether they represent an improvement or not. And, the idea that certain designers or products are somehow special and filled with some sort of undefinable genius when when they were built and sold they were midfi at best is absurd. I'm not knocking EPI stuff. I had a pair of 100s when new in the 70's and an old pair of 70s now but they are what they are and that's nothing more than better than average box speakers. There is a market for vintage speakers and to argue that Burhoe's stuff is somehow more remarkable than than the market thinks it is just doesn't make sense.
John...
-Without hearing his newly modded speakers you, and others, have no idea whether they represent an improvement or not.The poster himself sad that he basically just bolted a driver that he had lying around, in a box. I suppose it is possible that he might get a good result but the odds against it are astronomical! It is very unlikely that he would even approach midfi. I do not think Brian is required to listen to every haphazard mixing of boxes and driver to come to his conclusions. You don’t have to put your mouth over the exhaust pipe of a running but to know you wouldn’t like it.
Designing products at a price point can often take more engineering skill than a price is no object. The fact that you are not particularly fond of EPI does not negate the success of the company nor the fact that many people thing very highly of the speakers today.
Brian makes a very valid point that it is unwise to haphazardly change a well thought out and executed design. More so, given that this is a cost-is-no-object design.
I think the Futterman analogy is correct. Why are you getting so upset when the orginal poster is not?
I'm not upset in the slightest and I never said I wasn't fond of EPI stuff. If you would actually read my post you'll see that I own them and I'm pretty picky. The original poster said the newly modded speaker sounded phenomenal. Not "OK" or "not bad", he said they sounded phenomenal. What part of phenomenal do you guys not understand and who cares how he got there if the result is phenomenal. For anyone to argue that that is not the case without hearing them first shows that their opinion is nothing but hubris. If you feel the need to defend Brian's position try doing it without misquoting me or leaving out important points of the post just because it suits you. Or, just let Brian do it himself.
John....
I did "actually" read you post. I saw that you owned them and said "they are what they are and that's nothing more than better than average box speakers." I did not detect much fondness in that statement, but I was not trying to misrepresent you opinion. I can accept that someone can be fond of an average box speaker. Hopefully, you can accept that a person could think otherwise even when they had acutally read you post.The original poster claimed that the speakers sounded "penominal" in comparison with drivers with a trashed surrond. He also was not familliar with the brand, paid only $10 and was not expecting much. In this context I suspect his assesment was correct.
Brian ponted out that this was an all out effort from a top desingner which makes a huge change in the context of the evaluation. My read is that he was trying to be helpful, not critical. After all, the original poster could bring the speakers to original specs with new surrounds.
Once again you are just making stuff up. The original poster did not just say they sounded better than they did with blown surrounds. He said:
"Anyway, they sound great -- more bass than before, but not boomy or flabby at all. Running in tandem with my Goodmans Magnum XLRs and powered by a Kyocera A-710 integrated amp, they are phenomenal."And Brian never pointed out that they were an all out effort by Burhoe. If you would take the time to go to Human Speakers' site you'd see that Burhoe does not in any way descibe the Light Blue as TOTL. It's more of a modern derivation of the EPI 100 with a port. Not that there is anything wrong with that because Burhoe thought there was a market for a better than average 2 way for people on a budget.
For whatever reason you seem to think that it's impossible to improve on the past but history constantly proves people like yourself wrong. Burhoe himself thinks he improved on his past work but the market seems to have disagreed. Likewise the original poster seems to think he's come up with something special and I believe him. Why is that so hard to understand?
John...
The line you quoted says, "more bass than before". They did not have blown surrounds before? How wound he have any other standard to compare them too?I did go to the human speakers sight and you have a valid point that Light Blue was not top of the line, but the description is hardly lackluster (note that I am not saying that you have expressed the opinion that they are lackluster). It states, "The Light Blue Burhoe, with its tall, flat silhouette, offers the kind of accuracy and lack of distortion that, until now, has been available only from loudspeakers in the luxury class." This does not negate my argument.
"For whatever reason you seem to think that it's impossible to improve on the past."
Funny that you would make this statement, given you first claim that I am "making stuff up". It takes a leap of Kirkagardian proportions got form my assertion that "Brian makes a very valid point that it is unwise to haphazardly change a well thought out and executed design." to its "impossible to improve on the past". I certainly agree that is very possible to improve upon the past and I hope we keep doing it.
If you would like to civilly discuss my assertion that it "is unwise to haphazardly change a well thought out and executed design", and "The poster himself said that he basically just bolted a driver that he had lying around, in a box. I suppose it is possible that he might get a good result but the odds against it are astronomical!” maybe we can achieve something positive. I would be happy to continue our discussion. You seem to be taking this as more than a discussion.
Dave
I have no idea what your argument even is so how do we even have anything to discuss. My point all along, so I'll stick with it, is that the original poster seems to have hit upon something whether any of you thinks it's possible or not. His haphazard mod appears to have worked wonders because he claims the results to be phenomenal and it doesn't matter to me that you and Jerry think Burhoe is some sort of genius so you find it unlikely. It's irrelevant in this case because I have no reason not to believe the first poster. He seems rational and he has nice equipment and I'll assume he has no reason to lie.So, your assertion that "it is unwise to haphazardly change a well thought out and executed design" is clearly proven false in this case so there's really no point in arguing it. The poster did exactly that and the result were phenomenal and it's not like they were ever irreversible even if the result were poor.
I don't have a dog in this fight and, all along, I've merely pointed out that I have no reason to doubt the original poster and that I've never found Burhoe to be that much a genius which I find to be an extremely overused word on this forum.
He certainly could have gotten lucky and may well have gotten phenomenal results. Lightning does strike twice in the same place and people do win the lotteries. That does not change the odds of winning the lottery of having lightning strike twice in the same place. Luck is not a methodology. Even if this was an instance where the person got lucky, one instance is not sufficient to statically prove false my assertion.The point I want to make is that he should try new surrounds on the original driver before he makes his final judgment, given the care that went into the original design. I would agree with you that genius is an overused term here. I reserve that term more for people like Albert Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci, but I do thing that Burhoe used sound engineering principles in his designs.
Burhoe's designs became less successful as time went on so whatever genius he possessed didn't manifest itself in the marketplace. The guy at Human speakers seems to blame marketeers but Burhoe's final designs appear to be exact copies of the stuff Epicure couldn't give away so I might have called him more of a savant but I didn't because I was trying to be nice. What bugged me was Jerry's comment about Burhoe's following because the line appeared to be lifted directly from Human's site and if you take the time to Google him you get nothing. How much of a genius can the guy be if no one chronicles his success'. By the way, have you ever built a set of speakers? A lot of time a haphazard approach works wonders because unlike a cautious approach you don't know what you are going to get which can be a very good thing. It has nothing to do with being struck by lightning and more to do with a willingness to take chances which all really great designers have. Incremental improvement can always come later. As to your desire for the guy to try surrounds I would first ask if the original poster even knows he has the original drivers and if he really wants to rebuild a speaker that had zero commercial success when he has already got phenomenal results without spending a dime. I love how guys like you and Jerry are never unwilling to tell some one else to spend their money based on absurd recollections and assumptions. So, it's just my opinion but your assertion was false even before this example popped up.
John..
Look at the beginning of the post. Tapehead@Cincy will be refoaming.
I tend to agree that the term genius is bit strong in the case, but I have never met Burhoe. One of the most intelligent people I have me painted cars for a living.With regard to speaker design, I have not come up with a finished product, but I am in the process of designing a high efficiency ported speaker. I recommend that you read Vance Dickerson's "Loudspeaker Design Cookbook". It explains very clearly, the relationship between driver’s parameters and cabinet design. When you read it, you will see that there are far too many significant variables for the random approach to have any chance of succeeding. You would have to keep cuuting and trying for a thousand years to have a chance of lucking out! I have read and reread it many times and have read many articles on speakers design (AudoXpress, jblpro.com, pispeakers.com). There is also quite a lot of good information in the High Efficiency Asylum. No one with any experience in the subject has suggested trial and error as a viable methodology.
I did do the bolt a driver in a box thing with my father, in the 60's quite a few times, without good results. I have been involved in audio since them, I also sold audio equipment in the 80's and heard many successful and unsuccessful designs. I have yet to see anyone get a good result with bolting drivers in a box, but I have had to suffer through a few auditions of such attempts. In each case, the builder thought it sounded wonderful, yet there were glaring error in the designs.
Designers could get good results before the Theil/Small parameters were published, but it involved quite a bit of trial and error. Designers would go through many steps of build, measure, and tune and would have built many prototypes before settling on a design.
Can you name any respected speaker design that was the result of haphazard design? What are your speaker building credentials?
nt
might sound super-duper-freakin-phenomenal.the guy has a pair of correct drivers that just need to be refoamed and then he can hear what the designer intended the speaker to sound like.
well almost..........the speaker was voiced with certain equipment and without the same equipment and room it will never sound exactly the same but i digress.....
you are right htough that if it sounds great it soungs great and that is all that matters.
all we are saying is give the original driver/design a chance and learn a new and valuable skill at the same time.
i didnt read any of the posts as scolding him.
use a soldering iron now as it will open up a lot of other possibilities for you.another skill is refoaming drivers.
i highly recommend you get the right size surrounds for those original drivers and refoam them to hear what burhoe really intended them to sound like.
just because a driver fits a hole doesnt mean its the right driver for the speaker.
By replacing the original woofer, which rolls off naturally with no crossover. Refoam man!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: