Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About batchman

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    mid-ish Massachusetts
  • Interests
    Varied - and variable.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not sure what components were used pre-1500, but from early 1800s to near modern era* most of the capacitors in my numerous crossovers are not of the type to cause concern (I do think I recall one, but not which box it was in ;)). It is however pretty easy to check as a failing electrolytic cap will be discolored or deformed (should be a nice uniform aluminum cylinder) or show leaking dielectric around it. They are usually pretty easy to change, so long as the original sleeve markings are discernible for matching values and ratings; Newark Electronics often has reasonable costs for these and will do USPS shipping (no connection other than long-term customer). As to harshness I've had a couple causes of that. On my original-owner and long-term-primary L-980s (early 1800s) I've always heard a bit of an overstress warning as an edgy harshness - the kind you might use a touch of de-esser for if you were recording vocals - a little before the protection kicks in. In other words at very high and sustained levels, trying to stay just under fuse/polyswitch radar. I've not tried reaching for those levels for some time, but hmmm my wife is out for the day.... I have also heard a general sort of break-up in high frequency when these same drivers were left sitting for a few years (a criminal action on my part). Thankfully some modest regular exercise appears to have helped that. I suspect the nearly-centuries-old ferrofluid may have been to blame ;). There are several posts here about changing that out, either through valued resource Richard So or some others have DIY'ed. Good luck, - Jeff * latest type I own are 2nd gen (I think) center speakers and I've not yet had the pleasure of pulling a crossover to see
  2. All that said, I'm not going back ;). I will however agree there are ways to screw up bi-amp implementation, even though it really is not difficult "people can find a way". First is the outboard crossover, which must be set to the center frequency of the internal crossover. To do this correctly requires knowing that frequency and using a crossover set specifically to that. The crossover should have a steeper rolloff than the internal one (12dB/octave). Second is the power amplifiers themselves. All the channels must be identical. Preferably with no gain adjustments - just amplification, yes-or-no. With those aspects in place, setting the bi-amp switch simply provides a direct path for the woofer (bypassing the low-pass filtering) and leaves the high-pass as-is. When driving a magnet (the drivers), doing so through other magnetics (in the crossover) will reduce the signal - no matter how good those internal components are they cannot be 100% efficient. I believe in my case the bass filled out slightly (no measurements, sorry). The depth of the sound stage certainly increased. I attribute this to reduced contention in the amplifier, quite possibly in damping behavior. That is one spec that is a standout in my power amps, and may be what plays very very well with my ADS boxen - and may explain why it works so nicely for me, and perhaps me alone. Your mileage will apparently vary, - Jeff
  3. To swtuggle, I suspect you're considering the outboard and in-cabinet crossovers as additive, they are not. If my post was not clear, my pre-amplification crossover at 24dB/octave rolloff ensures that the in-cabinet crossover gets all the signal that is intended for it, given a correct match in spectrum setting. To Gerry S, I believe that reason for my change in perceived performance was not from amplifier clipping, as I have heard plenty of that in my time, but due to amplifier headroom - the high slew-rate/delta-A demands no longer need to contend between bands. I will continue to believe these drivers like their current very very much, both low- and high-spectrum, and even though my amplifiers are extremely capable in that regard getting the channels to drive each in-box crossover independently allows "full service, no waiting". And I will vehemently disagree that pro sound folks bi-amp for reliability - complexity, of any kind, will never improve reliability of a core path - failure mode management is the only exception to that rule and is not pertinent to consumer electronics. Again, my upstream dbx presents more than required signal to each channel of in-box crossover, but in bi-amp configuration can deliver a dedicated 20A to each half of cabinet, and while delivering the same 40A in bridged full-range mode I believe splitting that spectrum is why my 1590s "woke up". To your point on subtlety, there was no discernible change to my room correction curves before/after, only in my perceived soundstage. Perhaps this is some limitation in my particular power amp, where the mains power supply can deliver the goods but the PA fets can't help but let the woofer's current demands impact those of the tweeters. Cheers, - Jeff
  4. batchman

    ADS L1590

    Power is not likely the issue. Everybody gets the same channel, 8x200wrms (4 corners bi-amped), and yes, each 20A capable. Why yes, that is a lot of heatsink, now that you mention it... The maths say the 1590s are superior, and I'm not changing my room to prove or disprove it, but I could not blow out a match with the 1590s. Guess I'll keep tryin' ;). Cheers, - Jeff
  5. batchman

    ADS L1590

    I guess it shows ;). Guilty as charged. Yourself? And FWIW, the only 12" driver I've liked for reproducing bass is (drum roll), the L-980. (I play through 15"s, with a side order of 4x10" for "treble pickup moments")
  6. Perhaps the reason I did not have that problem is my crossover uses a 24dB/octave rolloff. I expect this allows full (relevant) bandwidth to each passive x-over in the cabinet. It is not expensive to try - a used dbx 223 is pretty reasonable (and largely indestructible), you just need to be able to sort out your connectors. All I had to do was adapt RCA to 1/4" TS, but some versions are XLR so make sure you know the back panel of what you're buying. In my case I was not able to A/B my L980s, it was the 1590s that "woke up". I had felt those were underwhelming beforehand, never had that concern with the 980s. YMMV, and enjoy your 980s - room placement matters! - Jeff
  7. More than once I have been tempted to take a strip of masking tape and try to pull some fur off my mids & tweets. However, I have always stopped short as it is said it does not affect performance, and since my sticky drivers do sound great, I have not let my OCD get to me. Yet. Your ability to hold off may vary, - Jeff
  8. batchman

    ADS L1590

    Hi Tom, It's late and I lack the time to line-item reply, but my suspicion here is it could easily be "all about the room". Thanks for the treatise, but I will have to agree to disagree on bi-amping not improving sound quality (try it, you'll like it!). My 1590s did not fully impress until I did that, with no other changes - same amp in bridge mode switched to 4 channel, and this amp's stats are unusually linear in both cases. I will stand corrected on my sweep example - which by the way was done at ADS - looking at it in clear light that surely must be the crossover, anechoic rooms aside. No worries on the proper deployment of bi-amping, and no worries about headroom or clipping (dbx BX-1 (x2); clipping is just not going to happen, and damping factor is in rarified space) - it's an output vs thermal thing - the tweeters are definitely the first to fold in high output situations. I realize this is the internet, and on the internet no-one knows I'm a dog, but there's only so much you can ask of a driver this size. I presume this is why the larger format ADS speakers used multiples. Sigh, if only those could survive spousal acceptance... I will say that as original owner of this particular pair of L-980s (series 1, with series II polyswitches) I can say in my room, they outperform the 1590s (also series 1) on imaging (room issue for sure) and in low end (possible room issue, but who can say). I'll go on to say in every room I've enjoyed them in, they have always exceeded expectations on the low end. Although I've owned them ~10 years, the 1590s are still in their first room. Please do not take anything I'm saying as a dig on the 1590s, which I treasure, but on the other hand the specsmanship is close enough that deployment probably dominates results. As to power handling, I have always understood ADS's ratings to be WRMS and was not aware of the difference in the 1590 Series II, but suspect either aggressively marketed or perhaps less conservative ratings considering the I & II (of both lines) are made of essentially the same stuff. Similarly I will offer conjecture that the list price difference was probably due to the added driver, added costs due to the longer cabinets, and what the market would bear in the two very different formats. As a bass player (functional, not professional), I understand distortion, and further, non-linearities in sound systems and most importantly, rooms. That's not the issue. I will add that as I keep three different amps for gigging, and having owned and played through many others, when it comes to drivers - and cabinets - size matters. Again, perhaps this is my particular spectrum of deefness , but I'll stand by *my* 980s outrunning *my* 1590s in *my* room. I'll look forward to proving that to myself, again, when I can "get the room" - which sadly does not happen often enough... (I'll have to re-try the match test) Thanks, regards, and do have a good night, - Jeff PS - IMHO it's high current that these speakers need...
  9. batchman

    ADS L1590

    Welcome to the discussion! The cast baskets on ADS woofers seem to age very well, see attached. Removing them will require a stout hook to grab through a screw hole. The cabinets are well designed also. I've had some boxes that "contribute to non-linearity", but never from ADS (or a/d/s for that matter). I have heard of some success with adding acoustic foam to the front baffle, but not been tempted (yet) to try that myself. Cheers! - Jeff
  10. batchman

    ADS L1590

    OK, I'll bite - you have me curious. My impressions are from owning both, although some of the arguments are moot as at extended levels either box will drive the tweeters into protection - the limiting factor. I'd be doing A/B listening comparisons right now to confirm (I am actually wired for that), but my wife is home ;). In my system, if I were running only the 1590s, I would want a subwoofer. With the 980s, I run a sub only for protection... I had attributed the difference to excursion, curious to hear they're similarly spec'ed. Always appeared visually different to my eye, and recall the 980 as readily able to blow out a match ;). As to the ear, the other aspect is cabinet volume vs driver area - 980 has the advantage there: L980 = cabinet volume 3838in^3, driver area 113in^2 = ~34in^3 per driver in^2 L1590 = cabinet volume 4227in^3, driver area 157in^2 = ~27in^3 per driver in^2 I presumed the dimensions of the cabinet should matter too, as there is wave action (and reaction) inside the box as well. Also please realize the power handling for the 1590 was across two drivers, same rating on L980 for *one*. Granted, it's probably commonality in the crossovers that lead to the consistent rating, if you are sure the voice coils are that similar... Granted frequency specification is similar (I recall a modest edge to L980 LowF) and I do not have matching A/B documentation, but the L1590 spec's down to 28db at +/-3dB. Attached is a sweep from an L980... As to pricing, I think the market was not really seeking office-fridge sized bookshelves ;), and the stands added some to the equation. I believe studio reference was the big target for the L980s. The real market was towers, and buying new then the 1290 would have been the value leader with the wifely acceptability thrown in. Cheers, - Jeff L980 curves.pdf
  11. batchman

    ADS L1590

    Well, as a bass player of over 40 years, I can tell you that the L1590s produce a nice smooth bass line, very very nicely. But the L980s move air like the 1590s cannot even dream of. They can break things . I run both currently, with 200wrms into each path biamped. Power handling spec is the same (yes, I exceed it some) but the result is different. I suspect the damping factor in my amps are contributing to both success at that, and the result. I will say you can hurt the 980 woofers with too much sub-synth content, but only a bass player (deef) would do that ... Cheers, - Jeff
  12. Glad it went well for you, there were folks "in the day" who felt the 1290s produced better imaging than the 1590s due to the narrower width. Cheers, - Jeff
  13. batchman

    ADS L1590

    And yet, on that score, it cannot hold a candle to the L980 - whose 12", with the power handling, cabinet volume and excursion, easily blows out said candle ;). That's why my system includes both, and a 1/2hp a/d/s sub for good measure (for those LFE moments) LOL. Cheers, - Jeff (OK, I confess - I'm a bass player )
  14. batchman

    ADS L1590

    And speaking of better late than never, how's this for a late comment... I can recall at the time, there were opinions (even within ADS I think) that the L1290 could provide better imaging owing to its' narrower baffle board. I have a set of each but have never A/B'ed them. Never actually used the L1290s as "front", hope to in a new setup sometime maybe later this year. I've not been tempted to unplug my L1590s for any reason what-so-ever. Might try stacking 1290s on top for atmos height speakers (overkill, YEAH!) though ;). Cheers, - Jeff
  15. batchman

    ADS L1590

    So I guess I had mis-remembered this. My 1590s and 980s are both series 1, so they aren't identical (mid/tweet) drivers after all. Drat. Not going to try to "cure" that though! Best, - Jeff
  • Create New...