JKent

Sorry about the brevity of my 1st post. Was on my phone. The most important improvement for these speakers is a re-cap. The original black and red caps are usually garbage. Yes--the tweeters will be improved with new caps. So how's the push test? It shpould return slowly now. In my experience Roy's goo can make a BIG difference in the woofer response. YMMV and of course Roy's the authority on this. Glad to hear there was no previous application of anything. It's terrifying what some people have used to seal their surrounds. btw, the 22As have crappy caps too. Hope you replaced them.

1) Yes 2) Whenever

Don’t be intimidated. The Fives aren’t that bad, it’s just those double caps that can be confusing. I’ve done a lot and am happy to help.

Well, I don't think that would be any match for the "big McIntosh monster amp" so you may be disappointed 😀

Ah. Finally found the thread: I no longer have these. They're like "baby Model Fives" and my photos reminded me how important it is to strip and refinish them! Before was dull and lifeless, after refinishing the wood looked beautiful. They also look a lot like the OLAs. Dynaco A-25 or AR-4x. I don't know what to say about resealing the woofer surrounds. It's an "aperiodic" design so you're right--not airtight. Maybe Roy could advise you on this. Don't put too much stock in my subjective listening. I compared them to AR-2ax's and preferred the ARs. I did not have KLH Fives on hand at the time, nor AR-3a's. Those would not have been fair comparisons. aybe a better comparison would be the OLA, MFWIW High Fidelity wrote of the Thirty-Three "..it had a full-bodied, well-balanced, transparent quality that—by comparison to former KLH speakers, seems to put the performers a bit 'more in the room." YMMV

If you like the speakers go with new surrounds. Best way to keep original sound and probably the most economical option.

PM sent.

I still have new pots available.

Yeah, and I don't know about you but most of us here are "of a certain age" and our acuity for high frequencies ain't what it once was. But having said that, I do think they add a little something to my restored 3a's (with tweeters expertly rebuilt by Chris). YMMV

A valid question. Some people don't care for the "rolled off highs" that go with the "New England Sound". MicroStatic literature touted their 180 degree radiation and flat frequency response from 3.5 to 25kHz. They made a lot of claims but they also received a lot of positive reviews. Here's a quote from Stereo Review: “To our ears, the designers of the Microstatic have, with four little cone tweeters, captured much of the characteristic smoothness and lack of coloration of a good electrostatic tweeter without a trace of harshness or accentuated hiss levels. And unlike the situation with most electrostatics, there is a thoroughly dispersed sound pattern. . . . unfortunately, after you have been living with a Microstatic for a while, turning it off may make your system sound as if its built-in tweeter has blown out—the difference is that striking!” And they were talking about new speakers at the time.

Steve, I didn't go by specs, I measured my MS & 4x (photo below). I'm thinking the earlier ones may have been bigger. Although they called both versions MS-1 (I think), the later ones like mine had 4 Peerless tweeters all the same small size. Earlier ones had 2 small tweets in front and 2 larger ones on the sides. Maybe (and this is just a guess) Micro/Acoustics realized the goof and made them smaller. Some of the earlier threads have posts by Carl and Vern showing the early versions with larger outter drivers but I could not find any cabinet measurements. One photo even showed a newer version on top of an older but it's not clear how the sizes compare.

or maybe a physically smaller tweeter, like the HiVi T20-8 (4-20K)? Lots of options I suppose. I did build some cheap supertweeters but they were single-driver, not arrays.

I wanted to reply to this old thread but it's archived: https://community.classicspeakerpages.net/topic/8325-microstatic-tweeter-array-revisited/ In it, Carl asked "Has anyone bought and used a Pyle HF Piezo horn tweeter array sold by MCM? The 6 tweeter array is similar to the Microstatic design, only this one has 4-27 kHz & 97 dB eff". I should have read that more carefully. I just bought a pair. They're inexpensive and seem well made but they're really big and that 97db efficiency makes them way too loud for our inefficient ARs. I could rig up some L-pads but size and PA system look just don't work with ARs. btw, in that same thread Steve mentioned the MicroStatics being too wide to fit atop AR-4 series speakers. I checked and they are actually 1" narrower (4x is 10-1/8" wide, MicroStatic array is 9-1/8"w). I still like the MicroStatics but seeing what folks are asking for them I was thinking about selling mine. But I don't think the MCM unit is a good replacement.

I "had" a pair of 2a's. The grille does come off but not easily. There's glue and, IIRC, nails. But if you do get the grille off you can get inside by removing the woofer and maybe at least figure out where the terminals are. I suspect that Gene is right and they weren't moved, just covered up.

Ah. Missed that. I was looking at the OP’s info. Yeah—changing the surrounds from foam to rubber will very probably affect the sound. I just edited my previous post to remove the erroneous assumption. Thanks for pointing that out.

There is some disagreement on this subject but shimming is the only way to ensure the VC is centered. AND it has the added benefit of allowing you to position the cone up or down as you work on the surrounds. My advice: Always shim.

Could that whole back panel be removable? I’d try prying it off. From the pics it looks like a frame of maybe 1/4” walnut around the new panel. If you’re lucky it may be attached with velcro. Just a thought.

Hey Fly Welcome to CSP. First, if they sound good I'd say your $20 was well spent. But these are not classic KLH speakers and not even "real" KLH. They look to me like the 9500 series. Or possibly 3 pieces from the 6-piece 9900. If you google KLH 9500 you'll find pictures. KLH was originally an American company based in Cambridge, MA in the late 50s/early 60s. In the mid 60s it was sold to Singer and continued to make good products. In the late 60s (I think) they were sold to Kyocera and produced some good radios. But after that the nake "KLH" was sold (I forget to whom--think it was sold a few times) and they produced a bunch of mass-market products built in Taiwan. That's where your sub/sat setup comes in. Recently the name was sold again, this time to an American company that's trying to resurrect the glory days. The new speakers are very expensive. So enjoy the speakers and if you ever come across any KLH (or AR, Dynaco, Avid, etc classic speakers made in the USA we're here to help. Kent

Thanks for the kind words. I personally don't think it's a big deal. I use double bananas with the original binding posts and they work fine. But new 5-ways such as those Larry used certainly look nicer. Or you could go a little nuts and get some nice Cardas binding posts. No argument from me. And the 91s certainly deserve first class treatment IMHO. Good luck with the resto.

Good to know. I always found the Erse film caps to be a good buy. Here's my 91 xo.

Robert Understandable. You can list them "as is" in the For Sale section of this forum. Tell people where you are and how much you want. The service is free. Kent

You’re my new hero

Right. It also seems upside down. The woofer is usually on the bottom when floor placed. Someone did a lot of quality woodworking on these. Looking forward to you solving the mystery. Keep us updated.

You’re right Gene. That’s why MicroStatic sold those add-on supertweeters specifically for AR and KLH.

And it is. I believe the 2-ax “mid” is a tweeter and the driver in question is a supertweeter.