Jump to content

Replacement woofer from Simply Speakers


Guest dsurkin

Recommended Posts

Guest dsurkin

I saw this advertised on their web site (eBay partner) for about $130. They describe it as a direct replacement for the woofer in a Large Advent.

Has anybody had experience with this woofer? If so, does it sound as good as the original?

--Dean L. Surkin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I saw this advertised on their web site (eBay partner) for

>about $130. They describe it as a direct replacement for the

>woofer in a Large Advent.

>

>Has anybody had experience with this woofer? If so, does it

>sound as good as the original?

>

>--Dean L. Surkin

Hi Dean;

I would suggest looking at ebay, just to name one source, for a used, as in needing to be re-foamed, woofer.

Run a request on our, "wanted", forum for example, there may be members with available used woofers for a reasonable cost.

They usually go for $20 - $35.00 each plus S&H +/- on ebay and need to be re-foamed (kit $20.00 +/-) as well.

The new woofer is a physical drop-in, but not necessarily an identically sounding woofer, as is the case, with most all new replacement drivers, for most all brands.

If you are unable to obtain either, then a new one is another viable but more expensive option.

Great classic speaker.

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... sure LOOKS like the original all metal frame woofer (not the masonite, of course)...

It also says that it's a new Advent part.

That being said, I would agree that if you can refoam speakers, look for a good used one on the bay. I have had very good luck with the ones I've gotten from there.

And, use the surrounds from RSSounds or the equivalent. They have a large roll and are very pliable. I have seen some that aren't very good.

Regards,

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Hmmm... sure LOOKS like the original all metal frame woofer

>(not the masonite, of course)...

Hi Doug;

I am not an expert here.

The masonite woofers, the earliest woofers, is my understanding.

Later, and I do not know the reason, woofers were made without the masonite ring.

A rumour here in Vancouver many, many years ago was, that Henry Kloss bought up some railway carloads full of the frames, maybe surplus or a mistake, for a song and adapted them.

If that rumour is true, then Henry was way ahead of his time and good at recycling.

I haven't seen any other reason, that I am aware of, for the unusual masonite ring, disregarding cone versus frame size.

Maybe someone else will come along shortly and offer more insight into this issue.

>It also says that it's a new Advent part.

>

>That being said, I would agree that if you can refoam

>speakers, look for a good used one on the bay. I have had very

>good luck with the ones I've gotten from there.

>

>And, use the surrounds from RSSounds or the equivalent. They

>have a large roll and are very pliable. I have seen some that

>aren't very good.

It is a problem that will not go away, unless manufacturers start to use butyl, neo-prene, rubber surrounds, cloth, even Polypropylene or other long lasting material.

Built in obsolescence, I believe that Europeans would not allow it over there decades ago.

I am sure we will hear more about this issue now as well.

I can appreciate if there is not obsolescence, then we will have speakers that are not abused for many decades.

Manufacturers do not make repeat sales if they follow my idea.

Look at the surround sales and service industry that foam rot started up.

I would imagine a good number of speaker owners, and I do not mean any sterophiles, will discard their rotten speakers.

An owner of AR-LST's I met, were given to him for free from a friend, who had discarded his 2 woofers with rot and installed 2 Radio Shack woofers.

Read how many members find speakers, $20.00 thrift shop specials, out by the garbage, dumpsters and the dump just to mention a few locations.

It does give good reason alone to move to the USA, and become a dumpster diver.

Also with all the sales outlets for the surrounds, how many have a brand and model number molded onto it.

How many brands and manufactures are there?

How often do sources change their suppliers?

With all of the industry created, there doesn't seem to be a responsible manufacturer putting their name on them, so at least we can be consistant in what we buy.

We have no standard of quality that we can pass on to other members, and be sure that the parts we bought last month are from the same source last year.

Of course when the foam does rot we will blame that company, right?

EPI used butyl originally, AR used the cloth surrounds originally, KLH also, Dynaco used all butyl in their classic woofers, and NHT used it with their 12" woofer just to name a few.

So we know what worked before the foam came along.

You may see Dynaco A-25's selling on ebay now and they will still be playing many decades from now, unless abused.

I think I hear someone saying, who likes the A-25's. lol

I can't solve the problem, but there is an opportunity, as in a need, for a quality, durable surround.

If the manufacturer of the speaker doesn't care about our needs there is an opportunity for a third party that does.

>Regards,

>Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Hmmm... sure LOOKS like the original all metal frame

>woofer

>>(not the masonite, of course)...

>

>

>Hi Doug;

>

>I am not an expert here.

>

>The masonite woofers, the earliest woofers, is my

>understanding.

>

>Later, and I do not know the reason, woofers were made without

>the masonite ring.

>

>A rumour here in Vancouver many, many years ago was, that

>Henry Kloss bought up some railway carloads full of the

>frames, maybe surplus or a mistake, for a song and adapted

>them.

>

>If that rumour is true, then Henry was way ahead of his time

>and good at recycling.

>

>I haven't seen any other reason, that I am aware of, for the

>unusual masonite ring, disregarding cone versus frame size.

>

>Maybe someone else will come along shortly and offer more

>insight into this issue.

>

>>It also says that it's a new Advent part.

>>

>>That being said, I would agree that if you can refoam

>>speakers, look for a good used one on the bay. I have had

>very

>>good luck with the ones I've gotten from there.

>>

>>And, use the surrounds from RSSounds or the equivalent.

>They

>>have a large roll and are very pliable. I have seen some

>that

>>aren't very good.

>

>It is a problem that will not go away, unless manufacturers

>start to use butyl, neo-prene, rubber surrounds, cloth, even

>Polypropylene or other long lasting material.

Santoprene appears to be the rubber surround material of choice these days. Yes, foam is still around. However, if you study the pricing from dealers who sell raw drivers you'll see that speakers with foam surrounds sell for less than equivalent speakers with rubber surrounds.

>

>Built in obsolescence, I believe that Europeans would not

>allow it over there decades ago.

>

>I am sure we will hear more about this issue now as well.

>

>I can appreciate if there is not obsolescence, then we will

>have speakers that are not abused for many decades.

>

>Manufacturers do not make repeat sales if they follow my

>idea.

>

>Look at the surround sales and service industry that foam rot

>started up.

We'll probably never know for sure, but I believe foam was the popular surround years ago because it was cheap(er) and it worked. I also suspect no one knew of the potential for foam degradation that occurs over time. We now know it takes 10-20 years for surrounds to start failing. How do you test for that phenomenon, presuming you have a suspicion up front there will be rot in the far distant future?

Elevated oven temp. tests are the standard for artificial aging studies. However, I don't think they would help here. It's my understanding that ozone contributes heavily to the accellerated aging of polyether foam.

>

>I would imagine a good number of speaker owners, and I do not

>mean any sterophiles, will discard their rotten speakers.

>

>An owner of AR-LST's I met, were given to him for free from a

>friend, who had discarded his 2 woofers with rot and installed

>2 Radio Shack woofers.

>

>Read how many members find speakers, $20.00 thrift shop

>specials, out by the garbage, dumpsters and the dump just to

>mention a few locations.

>

>It does give good reason alone to move to the USA, and become

>a dumpster diver.

>

>Also with all the sales outlets for the surrounds, how many

>have a brand and model number molded onto it.

I don't think that will happen because a single surround could fit dozens of different woofers from different speaker companies. There are literally hundreds of speaker models being offered by numerous speaker manufacturers with models changing almost on a yearly basis like automobiles. How does a foam supplier support that kind of complexity with brand and model number into?

>

>How many brands and manufactures are there?

Way too many. Hey, but that's free enterprise.

>

>How often do sources change their suppliers?

That's probably a question considered proprietary to most speaker manufacturers.

>

>With all of the industry created, there doesn't seem to be a

>responsible manufacturer putting their name on them, so at

>least we can be consistant in what we buy.

Most cones are marked with code numbers. Many speaker frames and woofer magnets are similarly marked. Good suppliers of repair parts have a wealth of information that helps identify the correct replacement after-market part if given this info.

>

>We have no standard of quality that we can pass on to other

>members, and be sure that the parts we bought last month are

>from the same source last year.

>

>Of course when the foam does rot we will blame that company,

>right?

>

>EPI used butyl originally, AR used the cloth surrounds

>originally, KLH also, Dynaco used all butyl in their classic

>woofers, and NHT used it with their 12" woofer just to

>name a few.

Auto speaker manufacturers were quick to switch to rubber becuase foam didn't last long with severe weather and environmental changes.

>So we know what worked before the foam came along.

>

>You may see Dynaco A-25's selling on ebay now and they will

>still be playing many decades from now, unless abused.

>

>I think I hear someone saying, who likes the A-25's. lol

>

>I can't solve the problem, but there is an opportunity, as in

>a need, for a quality, durable surround.

>

>If the manufacturer of the speaker doesn't care about our

>needs there is an opportunity for a third party that does.

>

>>Regards,

>>Doug

>

Remember, it's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Carl.

Another good write-up from you, as usual, in response to my comments.

I am not familiar with the rubber type surround material now in use for some brands of speakers.

>

>Santoprene appears to be the rubber surround material of

>choice these days. Yes, foam is still around. However, if you

>study the pricing from dealers who sell raw drivers you'll see

>that speakers with foam surrounds sell for less than

>equivalent speakers with rubber surrounds.

>

brand and model number molded onto it.

>

>I don't think that will happen because a single surround could

>fit dozens of different woofers from different speaker

>companies. There are literally hundreds of speaker models

>being offered by numerous speaker manufacturers with models

>changing almost on a yearly basis like automobiles. How does a

>foam supplier support that kind of complexity with brand and

>model number into?

>

The identification or lack of was in regards to only the foam replacement surrounds.

When a new member asks us where do they buy surrounds, usually one or two sources are mentioned.

It would be nice if there was at least brands and models which everyone can identify to.

As is, we are at the mercy of whoever sells them.

Even the comments on the angle and size of the roll have been mentioned, thickness, and we have differnces here as well.

The, "Magic Glue" for the surround repair, also seems to have no name, manufacturer, and only available at a very high cost per ounce.

I've seen Elmers White Glue and Eileens (spel) brands mentioned.

>>How many brands and manufactures are there?

>

>Way too many. Hey, but that's free enterprise.

>

>>

>>How often do sources change their suppliers?

>

>That's probably a question considered proprietary to most

>speaker manufacturers.

My source was not the manufacturer, but where and whom we buy from.

>>With all of the industry created, there doesn't seem to be

>a

>>responsible manufacturer putting their name on them, so

>at

>>least we can be consistant in what we buy.

>

>Most cones are marked with code numbers. Many speaker frames

>and woofer magnets are similarly marked. Good suppliers of

>repair parts have a wealth of information that helps identify

>the correct replacement after-market part if given this info.

>

>>

>>We have no standard of quality that we can pass on to

>other

>>members, and be sure that the parts we bought last month

>are

>>from the same source last year.

>>I can't solve the problem, but there is an opportunity, as

>in

>>a need, for a quality, durable surround.

>>

>>If the manufacturer of the speaker doesn't care about our

>>needs there is an opportunity for a third party that does.

>

>>

>>>Doug

>>

>

>Remember, it's all about the music

>

>Carl

>Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

>

Thank you again, Carl for your very welcome and insightful comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The identification or lack of was in regards to only the foam replacement surrounds.

When a new member asks us where do they buy surrounds, usually one or two sources are mentioned.

It would be nice if there was at least brands and models which everyone can identify to.

As is, we are at the mercy of whoever sells them."

You are absolutely right about this one Vern. I've argued recently within the AR forum about the lack of technical specifics evident within the AB Tech web site regarding AR replacement drivers.

My foam supplier has special catalog pages of the most popular foam surrounds matched with specific vintage woofers where applicable. At least there's some guidance in this regard. Similar to the AB Tech situation, there are no technical specs and I have to take the suppliers word their recommendations are the most accurate duplicate of the original.

I have refoamed many different types of woofers and have learned to assess each one when I get it to work on. There are a large number of surrounds available and I always choose the closest one possible. Let's face it, the original parts are no longer available. So, it's unrealistic to expect the exact same material, compliance roll size, etc, etc, etc that was originally used. It must also be understood that original surround did not perform exactly the same throughout its entire lifetime. It had to have changed in its compliance and resiliancy over time due to stress and environmental factors. The sound we have enjoyed with those original surrounds indeed changed ever so inperceptably that we didn't notice the change. However, when the old, original surround finally fails and a new one replaces it a relatively short time later, our audio memories are quick to notice a potential step change rather than that creeping change which occured over time.

So, how can we judge with any certainty which is the original, correct sound?

Remember, it's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern made "replacement" Advent woofers are often like looking for the Holy Grail. Sound matching is at best-twitchy. Much better to find a used original on ebay or wherever and replace the surround yourself. I think I can hear a difference between the early masonite and the metal rings....but then again, I'm sometimes prone to fantasy.;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shep, I'm in the same boat as far as believing I can hear a difference between the masonites and the all-metal.

Really inconclusive but it bugged me enough to replace the all-metal woofers that were installed in my Walnuts when I got them with masonites. OK, maybe it was more that they SHOULD be masonites in these vintage 1975 units. I don't believe Advent had the all-metal woofers at this time.

For Vern, as far as why Advent used the masonite ring, they needed to use a deeper frame for the increased travel of the VC and an 8 inch frame did not meet this criteria. So Henry, ever the cost concious, used a 12 inch frame and used the masonite ring to adapt the smaller cone to the frame.

But, who knows, maybe he did get a boxcar bargain. :^)

Later, they evidently decided to make a proprietary frame to eliminate the ring. If you look at the two closely, you will see that the cone is further toward the magnet end of the speaker in the all-metal frame woofers than in the masonites. The VC former is visible above the spider in the masonites and not in the all-metals.

I agree that it's too bad that there isn't more standardization with the replacement surrounds. Some, like RSSounds, are excellent and others are very poor with a very small roll and much too stiffness. With these, you can feel the surround obviously having an effect on the travel of the cone.

Measurements made by some of our esteemed friends of the parameters after refoaming serve as a very good guide as to which ones are better.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest One-Shot Scot

>Shep, I'm in the same boat as far as believing I can hear a

>difference between the masonites and the all-metal.

>

>Really inconclusive but it bugged me enough to replace the

>all-metal woofers that were installed in my Walnuts when I got

>them with masonites. OK, maybe it was more that they SHOULD be

>masonites in these vintage 1975 units. I don't believe Advent

>had the all-metal woofers at this time.

>

>For Vern, as far as why Advent used the masonite ring, they

>needed to use a deeper frame for the increased travel of the

>VC and an 8 inch frame did not meet this criteria. So Henry,

>ever the cost concious, used a 12 inch frame and used the

>masonite ring to adapt the smaller cone to the frame.

>

>But, who knows, maybe he did get a boxcar bargain. :^)

>

>Later, they evidently decided to make a proprietary frame to

>eliminate the ring. If you look at the two closely, you will

>see that the cone is further toward the magnet end of the

>speaker in the all-metal frame woofers than in the masonites.

>The VC former is visible above the spider in the masonites and

>not in the all-metals.

>

>I agree that it's too bad that there isn't more

>standardization with the replacement surrounds. Some, like

>RSSounds, are excellent and others are very poor with a very

>small roll and much too stiffness. With these, you can feel

>the surround obviously having an effect on the travel of the

>cone.

>

>Measurements made by some of our esteemed friends of the

>parameters after refoaming serve as a very good guide as to

>which ones are better.

>

>Doug

Doug:

In regard to the woofers, the New Advent loudspeaker has an Achilles' heel. If you turn the four woofer attachment screws enough, you will invariable find that one or more of the screw holes becomes stripped. The mounting board of the New Advent is made of particle board and the centers of the screw holes average a distance of 1/2" to 5/8" from the edge. I am assuming that the this problem is just as bad, if not worse in the original Advent, because it appears that the screw holes for the Masonite woofer are about 1/4" from the edge.

One solution that has been offered is to rotate the woofer in either direction and drill all new holes. This method compromises interior esthetics, and if this procedure is repeated often enough, the edge of the woofer mounting hole will look like Swiss cheese. While it might be possible to rotate the Masonite woofer 360°, the mounting hole flares on the New Advent woofer basket will be blocked by the cabinet and a complete rotation will not be possible.

Whenever I encounter a stripped speaker mounting hole, I continue to turn the screw clockwise until all of the loose particle board comes to the surface. (So far, I have not had a tweeter screw hole become stripped). The original screw holes were pre-drilled, so the holes go completely through the mounting board. After removing the screw, I fill the hole with Minwax Wood Filler and thoroughly tamp it down with a small Phillips screwdriver until the filler comes out the back end of the hole. Then I pack in as much filler as the hole will allow and let it dry for at least 8 hours. Next, I take a 3/32" drill bit and drill completely through the filler, before re-installing the screw. So far, I have not had a repaired screw hole strip out.

Usually, the tweeter is secured with four smaller Phillips screws and the woofer is secured by four larger Phillips screws. However, I did find two A4 cabinets which used the smaller tweeter screws to secure both the tweeter and the woofer. Apparently, the Advent factory ran out of the larger screws and used the smaller screws on the woofer.

In regard to woofer surround materials, I too have noticed a huge difference between the thick, small-roll generic surrounds when they are compared with the correct, larger roll surrounds made of thinner, more-flexible material. I still have two New Advent woofers which were "professionally" re-foamed ten years ago and they have the thick surrounds. These two woofers are installed in a pair of Utility cabinets, along with a pair of dented tweeters. When the cone movement of these woofers is compared with the cone movement of properly re-foamed woofers, it becomes obvious that the thick surrounds drastically restrict cone excursions. The funny thing is that some people equate thicker surround material with better quality. One person even implied that my thinner, factory-style surrounds were cheap, inferior imitations of the thick surrounds. I showed him a woofer with an original, partially-rotted surround and he could easily see that the thinner surrounds were a nearly-identical match in size, shape and thickness, while the thicker surrounds were noticeably different. An A/B test of bass-heavy music quickly convinced him that the bass was indeed restricted in the woofers with the thick surrounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way to fix stripped screw holes is the "toothpick method."

Just stuff pieces of toothpicks into the hole until they are fairly tight and then install the screw as usual. Make sure you start turning the screw right away or you will push the pieces through.

It usually works well.

As far as surrounds, this is a case where heftier is NOT better, as Scot said.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...