My Realistic Mach One Restoration

[Freewillisdead112]

So I just bought a pair of 4024 realistic mach ones from a local that are beat, i mean BEAT. looking like they came outa si-fi movie.
Now im just playing, there not bad.

I do have sorta a plan of what needs to be done.......,.,.,.,.,.

They are the originals so they do have the long lasting surrounds, but there long past there day so they need to go...

So were...
Re-surrounding
Wet-looking the woofers
Re-Insolating
Possible internal wire/crossover work
Pulling out a indented dust cap
If even possible....putting in a banana plug port in the back.
Fixing the huge chunk missing in on the side
Sanding down inperfections
Re-finishing
Sealer
Sanding edges of board to stain as well.
try and find a mint l-pad, mine has cracks everywhere

this should be a living hell, but its worth it seeing that they sound fantastic!!!


<a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/?action=view&current=P8080288.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/P8080288.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/?action=view&current=P8080292.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/P8080292.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/?action=view&current=P8080294.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/P8080294.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/?action=view&current=P8080295.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/P8080295.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/?action=view&current=P8080298.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/P8080298.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/?action=view&current=P8080302.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/P8080302.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/?action=view&current=P8080303.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy84/freewillisdead112/P8080303.jpg" border="0" alt="speakers"></a>

[thekid]

Howard's Restor-A-Finish and 0000 steel wool will bring back most cabinets without the need for sanding and re-staining. Howard's Feed-N-Wax will keep them that way. About 20minutes worth of work versus a couple of hours.

http://www.minksemporium.com/Demonstration.html

[Feanor]

So I just bought a pair of 4024 realistic mach ones from a local that are beat, i mean BEAT. looking like they came outa si-fi movie.
Now im just playing, there not bad.

I do have sorta a plan of what needs to be done.......,.,.,.,.,.

They are the originals so they do have the long lasting surrounds, but there long past there day so they need to go...

...



Free, sorry, but I think you are wasting your time restoring this junk. It will be a lot of work to get a nice result, and I'm not sure how you will repair the missing venier on the corners (for example). Even it you succeed, the resale value will be minimal

-- Not to mention the sound quality. I remember the Mach I when it was the latest thing from RS; I didn't have the least interest at the time despite the relatively low price.

My earnest advice is to hurl these POS in to the nearest trash receptical. Get yourself some other vintage speakers of greater inherent qualty -- Advent, Dynaco, AR, KLH, JBL, KEF -- and spend your effort to restore them instead.

[Freewillisdead112]

i think they sound quite good, thank you very much. im young and have all the time in the world to have a fancy stereo system. These are going to be for load, jumping around the house fun. and they sound quite pleasant at low levels.

thanks for your kind input though.

[Feanor]

... These are going to be for load, jumping around the house fun. and they sound quite pleasant at low levels.

thanks for your kind input though.

They might work in the garage or basement.

[Freewillisdead112]

there going in a second bedroom when im finished with them, there not for critical listening or anything serious, just a blast from the past!

they honestly dont sound that bad

[JoeE SP9]

Feanor is only echoing the sentiments of a lot of members here. I believe you have started a thread about this at AK under the name PrestonP. I know you will get a different response there. Most of those guys are more concerned with vintage than sound quality. There are quite a few people there who have Mach Ones and like them. I don't really understand that at all. Mach Ones, Cerwin Vega's and other "Frat House" speakers make lots of noise on a few watts. To my ears that's the only thing they have going for them. Contrary to Cerwin Vega's ad; Loud is not good no matter how clean it is when it doesn't sound like music.
A pair of AR's, Advents, KLH's or JBL's will walk all over those Mach Ones. The time and money you are going to sink into Mach Ones would be better spent on a pair of those I just mentioned.
It might be an ear opener for you to go somewhere and listen to some good gear. Doing that would give you an idea how good gear sounds. At the very least it would give you some kind of target to aim for sound quality wise. On a personal level, I don't like any speakers in a box but I'd take any of the ones I mentioned over Mach One's.

Save your money and buy some decent gear. It will sound better and you'll be more satisfied in the end. People that are satisfied with the sound of their system stop tweaking and play music. Most of the posters at AK change gear like I change socks. I have a post there that politely raises the question.

Could it be?
"People that are happy with the way their system sounds just play music. People that tweak and constantly swap speakers and other gear in and out are basically not satisfied with their systems."

[Freewillisdead112]

Feanor is only echoing the sentiments of a lot of members here. I believe you have started a thread about this at AK under the name PrestonP. I know you will get a different response there. Most of those guys are more concerned with vintage than sound quality. There are quite a few people there who have Mach Ones and like them. I don't really understand that at all. Mach Ones, Cerwin Vega's and other "Frat House" speakers make lots of noise on a few watts. To my ears that's the only thing they have going for them. Contrary to Cerwin Vega's ad; Loud is not good no matter how clean it is when it doesn't sound like music.
A pair of AR's, Advents, KLH's or JBL's will walk all over those Mach Ones. The time and money you are going to sink into Mach Ones would be better spent on a pair of those I just mentioned.
It might be an ear opener for you to go somewhere and listen to some good gear. Doing that would give you an idea how good gear sounds. At the very least it would give you some kind of target to aim for sound quality wise. On a personal level, I don't like any speakers in a box but I'd take any of the ones I mentioned over Mach One's.

Save your money and buy some decent gear. It will sound better and you'll be more satisfied in the end. People that are satisfied with the sound of their system stop tweaking and play music. Most of the posters at AK change gear like I change socks. I have a post there that politely raises the question.

Could it be?
"People that are happy with the way their system sounds just play music. People that tweak and constantly swap speakers and other gear in and out are basically not satisfied with their systems."

ive heard good gear. ive heard great gear. I never said that the machs sounded like god pee'd but they are cool and retro, im socking fifty bucks into them not a million. throwing them into a bedroom with a okay receiver for when the guys are over playing xbox. def not for critical listening, thats what i plan to put my money into a dedicated 2 channel system. and the jbls i traded for these on a sonic note were quite worse in my eyes/ears. there nore brassy tin to the machs but at low levels...which they will always be at, they sound quite okay for the 80 dollar eqiv of what i paid for them.

Ive heard b&w, martin logan, paradigm, jbl, klipsch and all different types of speakers. and ill agree 100% that they are in a whole other world then the machs, but they will fit well in my planned retro room im setting up, just for ****s and giggles.

hays for horses sir!

[emaidel]

[QUOTE=JoeE SP9]

Save your money and buy some decent gear. It will sound better and you'll be more satisfied in the end. [QUOTE]

I strongly agree with this, and Feanor's comments. My initiation to this business was my 14-year stint at Lafayette Radio (Radio Shack's major competitor), whose private label speakers were sold under the "Criterion" brand. To me, restoring either a Realistic Mach something or other makes about as much sense as restoring an old Criterion: none were that good to begin with, so why bother?

Still, my primary objection to the initial poster isn't the question about restoring speakers, but his appalling English. He may be only 19, but I too was 19 (a looonnngggg time ago!) and at 19 I knew how to use capital letters, apostrophes when printing a conjunction, and knew the difference between "their," "there," and "they're."

I find it a bit insulting to read something written in a manner that ignores standard English as a matter of "style." We are not very young teenagers here texting to one another, but (hopefully) mature individuals attempting to communicate with one another. Let's try to write the language we speak as it was meant to be written.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I find it a bit insulting to read something written in a manner that ignores standard English as a matter of "style." We are not very young teenagers here texting to one another, but (hopefully) mature individuals attempting to communicate with one another. Let's try to write the language we speak as it was meant to be written.

weigh to much werk, ware wood the instant gratification be doing things wright :D

[Freewillisdead112]

Chill out, im just trying to fun with something older then me. I'm not rolling in money like alot of you are. This Is just something to do for fun, not for any real reason. It's fifty bucks not a million.

And I'm young, I don't have to spell everything right or make a perfect sentence. This is a forum not my college thesis paper.

Relax, as I said, I'm building a real two channel for the living room, this is only for fun. You can feel free to buy me a good speaker to restore, and i kindly will.

Until then, I'm going to mess around with my mach's

Enough proper english?

[JoeE SP9]

First, it's "Trying to have fun". "Trying to fun" is unbelievably bad grammar.

Most of us are not rolling in money. A lot of us have kids your age who are going to college on our money. In my case I've been paying >$25K a year for my son's education. This is his senior and last year I'm paying for. Finally, I'll have some discretionary income!

We have been involved with this hobby for a while. In my case for 41+ years. Consequently, we have knowledge acquired over time about things relating to decent sound. Those same years have allowed the accumulation of some pretty good sounding gear. Please note, none of us started with the kind of gear we have now.

The time and money you intend putting into Mach One's would be better spent on something worth it. The JBL's you sold would be a better project than the Mach's. They would also sound much better after the work is done. Bear in mind, JBL's are nowhere near my favorite speaker. AR's, KLH's, Advent's or NHT's are all higher on my list.

Sure this is a forum but it's not twitter, texting or a site where poor grammar and misspelling are the norm. The members here write as if they were holding a conversation with a friend. Although I've never met any of you guys I feel as if we are friends. At the very least we are certainly kindred spirits in our mutual addiction.

If you want advice and camaraderie from the members here it would behoove you to write in a manner that will make us want to respond. We try to compose and write our posts in a literate and intelligent way. It's simple courtesy that should make you want to respond in a like manner.

[emaidel]

First, it's "Trying to have fun". "Trying to fun" is unbelievably bad grammar.

Most of us are not rolling in money. A lot of us have kids your age who are going to college on our money. In my case I've been paying >$25K a year for my son's education. This is his senior and last year I'm paying for. Finally, I'll have some discretionary income!

We have been involved with this hobby for a while. In my case for 41+ years. Consequently, we have knowledge acquired over time about things relating to decent sound. Those same years have allowed the accumulation of some pretty good sounding gear. Please note, none of us started with the kind of gear we have now.

The time and money you intend putting into Mach One's would be better spent on something worth it. The JBL's you sold would be a better project than the Mach's. They would also sound much better after the work is done. Bear in mind, JBL's are nowhere near my favorite speaker. AR's, KLH's, Advent's or NHT's are all higher on my list.

Sure this is a forum but it's not twitter, texting or a site where poor grammar and misspelling are the norm. The members here write as if they were holding a conversation with a friend. Although I've never met any of you guys I feel as if we are friends. At the very least we are certainly kindred spirits in our mutual addiction.

If you want advice and camaraderie from the members here it would behoove you to write in a manner that will make us want to respond. We try to compose and write our posts in a literate and intelligent way. It's simple courtesy that should make you want to respond in a like manner.

I was afraid I'd get angry responses from other members telling me not to be so critical, and to leave this poor lad alone. The above-quoted posting said what I felt better than I could have, or did. Thanks!

[JoeE SP9]

I was afraid I'd get angry responses from other members telling me not to be so critical, and to leave this poor lad alone. The above-quoted posting said what I felt better than I could have, or did. Thanks!

You and Feanor gave me the courage to write that post. The "dumbing" down of America is something I'm not to happy about. My post was just a protest against it. It's good to know I'm not alone in my feelings. Thanks to both of you!

[Freewillisdead112]

First, it's "Trying to have fun". "Trying to fun" is unbelievably bad grammar.

Most of us are not rolling in money. A lot of us have kids your age who are going to college on our money. In my case I've been paying >$25K a year for my son's education. This is his senior and last year I'm paying for. Finally, I'll have some discretionary income!

We have been involved with this hobby for a while. In my case for 41+ years. Consequently, we have knowledge acquired over time about things relating to decent sound. Those same years have allowed the accumulation of some pretty good sounding gear. Please note, none of us started with the kind of gear we have now.

The time and money you intend putting into Mach One's would be better spent on something worth it. The JBL's you sold would be a better project than the Mach's. They would also sound much better after the work is done. Bear in mind, JBL's are nowhere near my favorite speaker. AR's, KLH's, Advent's or NHT's are all higher on my list.

Sure this is a forum but it's not twitter, texting or a site where poor grammar and misspelling are the norm. The members here write as if they were holding a conversation with a friend. Although I've never met any of you guys I feel as if we are friends. At the very least we are certainly kindred spirits in our mutual addiction.

If you want advice and camaraderie from the members here it would behoove you to write in a manner that will make us want to respond. We try to compose and write our posts in a literate and intelligent way. It's simple courtesy that should make you want to respond in a like manner.

I guess things are just not the same when your used to having things that make things more simple. Texting without having to use correct words or whole words as that. My bad If I was not as proper as I should have been. I guess I can blame the age I am living In for that.

And as for the Jbl's, they were far to muddy and the tweeters were screamers. I didnt feel that they were worth my time to try and fix. I also was not able to open them up, as the speaker was for some odd reason sealed in place. I was scared to damage them by tearing the woofer out.

Was this really that bad of a move? They have better seperation then the jbl's had, but the jbl's had more of a fidelity to them. So i agree they were a better speaker, but i was bored with them and thought It would be fun to fix something of random.

Could I have some model numbers to some REAL vintage speakers worth my time? I must have been really dooped If you guys hate them that much.

[02audionoob]

I must have been really dooped If you guys hate them that much.

As you've probably seen mention here, the folks at vintage-oriented forums are not nearly as hard on the Mach One as some of us here at this forum. I thought you like the sound of the Mach One speakers better than your JBL's. If so, why worry about the criticism they get here?

[Freewillisdead112]

im just curious of the way they would sound next to a vintage "hi-fi" speaker. I've never heard a quality old speaker.

I wanna hear what what makes them better, so if i had model numbers of some i could watch for stuff on craigslist and go take a listen if I could. I dont have a good speaker to put next to these to know what I'm missing.

Thats all, I'm keeping them no matter what anyone says.

They look cool as hell!

[JoeE SP9]

im just curious of the way they would sound next to a vintage "hi-fi" speaker. I've never heard a quality old speaker.

I wanna hear what what makes them better, so if i had model numbers of some i could watch for stuff on craigslist and go take a listen if I could. I dont have a good speaker to put next to these to know what I'm missing.

Thats all, I'm keeping them no matter what anyone says.

They look cool as hell!


If you like them that's all that really matters. They just happen to be "Frat House" type speakers. That is, they like Cerwin Vega's (another "Frat House" speaker) will play loud with little power. Lots of beer as an anesthetic is needed to keep listening fatigue away.

Vintage speakers from that era tend to fall into two approaches. The "East Coast" school represented by AR and KLH are smooth and laid back with very good deep bass. The "West Coast" school represented by JBL have an in your face mid-range with very aggressive highs. Personally the JBL sound has never appealed to me. AR's and KLH's I can listen to for a while. Mach Ones to my ears are very similar to Cerwin Vega's. They (once again) to my ears combine the worst of both schools.

Other speakers contemporary to Mach One's
Original Advents, Smaller Advents (no model numbers)
Acoustic Research AR-3, AR-2
KLH 6, 23, 17

All of the above sound better than Mach One's in my opinion.

[MikeyBC]

At least he's not trying to restore a pair of Mach 1 4029's or the Mach 2's the 4024's were at least half decent in their day (much better than the 4029's introduced in 1982) and seem to have a bit of a cult following.

The surrounds look good enough to me...if you get replacements chances are they wont fit well and they'll be cheap foam...might just ruin a perfectly good woofer...if there are no holes leave them alone.

as for the cabinets...just bondo the corners and re-veneer the whole thing. You can buy oak veneer at home depot.

[JoeE SP9]

At least he's not trying to restore a pair of Mach 1 4029's or the Mach 2's the 4024's were at least half decent in their day (much better than the 4029's introduced in 1982) and seem to have a bit of a cult following.

The surrounds look good enough to me...if you get replacements chances are they wont fit well and they'll be cheap foam...might just ruin a perfectly good woofer...if there are no holes leave them alone.

as for the cabinets...just bondo the corners and re-veneer the whole thing. You can buy oak veneer at home depot.

Agreed, the surrounds do look good. Bondo would work. Plastic wood may be even better.

[Freewillisdead112]

the surrounds just look nasty, I might not even fix the corner, when there on the floor you can not see the missing part. I would love to just buy/build a grill and call it a day. It's going to cost 18 bucks to restain them, thats a bette route then whole new shabang. Not to handy here.

I made sure they were the 24's or I was not going to take the trade. I ready that these sound alot better and have a better build then the 29 and 2's. They sound quite fanstastic at low levels, about as clear as my jbls were but with more depth and seperation. It might be bad to say, but I've never heard a song where you could tell which side of the set the cymbol was hitting. It's quite nice I must say.

My paradigms I had were so warm you could fall asleep listening to them. It was to damn relaxing. Then these on the other hand your jumping to turn down when louder songs come on. Very straight forward sound, but not always a bad thing. I think my Int. amp just Is not powerful enough to power them after notch 2 out of 10, I can for sure sence a clip.

I just don't know If It's worth spending money to power them more. I need a new receiver and or Integrated amp soon as my lamps are going out so mise well.

Oh and I had a pair of cerwin vega ls-12's about 3 months ago and these sound 43454543393450345304 times better then they did. I could not take the tweeter one more second so off they went. I only paid 30 bucks for them and sold them for 75 so i was happy!

[Freewillisdead112]

Agreed, the surrounds do look good. Bondo would work. Plastic wood may be even better.

Bondo?

Please excuse me, single mother child.

[thekid]

I apologize in advance for offending some of the established members here but I feel obligated to respond to some things that have been said here.

I recall FA posting a thread a few weeks back on the topic of how to revive this site. My response to this thread was that IMO new blood gets chased away because of overly critical responses or inter-member flame throwing that ignores the OP.

Here in this thread we have a perfect example of what I was trying to say. The newbie here has been told that he is wasting his time with these and his grammar is poor. Would anyone be surprised if he decided not to come back??

I just remember my own initial experience here was different and even though I waxed poetically about a pair of RtR speakers and my Bose 201's I was generally given enough information and encouragement to come back and learn a more (though I am still a relative naif re gear) and pursue this hobby. Had the responses I had received to my mediocre gear and newbie questions been along the lines of some the responses here it may have been different.

I am not saying we can not be honest but there are ways to provide information and encouragement w/o seeming to be judgemental or harsh. I appreciate the members here everytime I flip the power switch to one of my many pieces of gear that I have picked up since those early. Let's give the new faces in the crowd the same opportunity.

[JoeE SP9]

Bondo?

Please excuse me, single mother child.
Is that because you don't know what Bondo is? It's sort of "plastic wood" for car dents. It's easy to work with. You can mold it, sand it and put veneer over it. It's available at most auto supply stores. It's also reasonably priced.
One of the good things about Mach One's is, they don't need much power. How much power does your integrated produce?
One last comment. Almost any speaker that's not a tower type or panel will sound much better on stands. A stand that raises the speaker high enough to put the tweeters at ear level when listening is highly recommended. If you are economizing you could use one or two cinder blocks under each speaker. wrap black plastic trash bags around the block. Tape them shut and tuck the ends out of site. Even if you don't like the results the cost is virtually nil.

Raising speakers makes the treble cleaner and clear. It also firms up the bass and removes the muddy sound floor placement causes.

[3LB]

The newbie here has been told that he is wasting his time with these and his grammar is poor. Would anyone be surprised if he decided not to come back??

Agreed.

I peruse the speaker forum every now and then just incase there are any interesting DIY threads going, and was quite saddened to read most of this post. :nonod:

I do have to agree that those Mach One's are not worth a lot of money and effort as far as resale value goes, but if a person was wanting a good set of speakers on which to practice restoration technique, it may as well be these. I don't know exactly how old this young dude is, but if we remember right, we all had different tastes in gear when we was youngins. Hell, I'd still rather own a set of Klipsch Cornwalls than any speaker I've heard since...if I were inclined to buy speakers instead of build them myself. Those Mach Ones with the flaired horn are going to sound different from a lot of current designs, especially in a world where DSPs determine imaging as much as design. Sometimes its not always about sounding better, just different, and in audio, its ok to keep a harum.

Finding exact replacement drivers for that particular speaker, speaking of the horn mid/tweets, could be somwhat of a challenge. It depends on whether or not the midrange driver unit can be seperated from the back of the big horn (if its threaded that'd be great). The smaller tweeter might be replaced with a tad bit of alteration to panel in which its mounted, and L-pads are easy to replace. Any of these drivers can be sourced at Parts Express dot com. We could talk Theil/Small parameters later, but I doubt the crossovers in these things are anything more than 1st order capacitors, making driver replacement a lot less complicated. Some older Ratshacks' cabinets are actually pretty good. Back in them days, double-sided veneered cabs were the cheap cabinet of their day, but in these times, a sheet of double-sided veneer will cost you pert near $70-$80! Few mass market speaker manufacturors use anything that expensive today. Too bad that these have corner damage. If its just impact damage, then you could fill it and stain it to serviceable effect, but if the cabs have water damage, then any repairs you perform is just, well...chasing your tail. If particle board gets too wet, its history.

As far as correcting grammar goes, I understand where this is coming from... we want to help, but we have wonder to what extent we'll be listened to anyway, given that attempting decent grammar within a text is usaully (not always) a good indicator of a person's apptitude and comprehension. Nobody wants to spin their wheels, nor watch someone else spin their wheels. However pertinent the advise on grammar was, such things are better suited for a PM. None of us here practise perfikt grammer anyhoo.

[Freewillisdead112]

Im not going anywhere. I am starting to understand why these are not getting such high accolades. I am watching a movie as we speak and I'm hearing nothing but tweater and midrange distortion. I think im going to get rid of them as soon as possible. Kinda upset I fell for a couple good reviews.

Is this my integrated amp or the speakers or the crossover caps?

Once again, I'm sorry about my spelling. I honestly did not think It was a big deal.

I am here like everyone else to learn. And learning takes time, mistakes and wasted money.

And my Integrated amp 50x2

[Luvin Da Blues]

Once again, I'm sorry about my spelling. I honestly did not think It was a big deal.

I am here like everyone else to learn. And learning takes time, mistakes and wasted money

Take it all in context. A lot of us are nearing or are at our "Arctic Blonde" stage of life and we were raised a bit differently. Stick around, lots of very knowledgeable people here. I came here a couple years back with a very mediocre system, many thousands of dollars later and still not completely content.

:23:

[JoeE SP9]

Im not going anywhere. I am starting to understand why these are not getting such high accolades. I am watching a movie as we speak and I'm hearing nothing but tweater and midrange distortion. I think im going to get rid of them as soon as possible. Kinda upset I fell for a couple good reviews.

Is this my integrated amp or the speakers or the crossover caps?

Once again, I'm sorry about my spelling. I honestly did not think It was a big deal.

I am here like everyone else to learn. And learning takes time, mistakes and wasted money.

And my Integrated amp 50x2
When you get an almost unanimous "diss" of a speaker it should tell you something. Over at AK the response is completely different. As I said earlier, many of the members over there are more interested in vintage than sound quality.
Yes, it's probably the capacitors in the crossovers.They are old and are probably failing or have failed. Rebuilding them would definitely improve the sound. Since you already have them you might consider doing a direct replacement of the crossover parts. It would not be expensive, would improve the sound and would be good practice if you are going the vintage route speaker wise.
Most of us have made mistakes with speakers and other gear. That's why we were so adamant about Mach speakers. It's gratifying to know that you are hearing why most of us think they don't sound very good. We're just trying to save you money!
Ported or horn type speakers tend to be more efficient than sealed box (acoustic suspension) speakers. 50 WPC should be more than sufficient for efficient speakers in a small to medium sized room. Of course, if you are listening at "head banging" levels 50 WPC may not be enough.

[3LB]

I'm hearing nothing but tweater and midrange distortion.
Is this my integrated amp or the speakers or the crossover caps?

I guess if you can unload them fast, then I'd do so, but if you can't, don't trash 'em, crack them open and use them as a learning tool. It's best not to fuss with something if yer afraid of breaking it.

It could be the caps in your x-over, it could be the drivers, it could be the L-pads. Old drivers tend to dry out and are more prone to distortion that before. If the sound of the horn presentation suits you, then by all means, keep the large horn - surely the driver is replacable. The smaller tweeter may have a replaceble diaphram, but I doubt it. It may even be a simple piezo (I'd have to see it). The woofer is easily replaced with a "budget woofer" or a slight upgrade, but it should be replaced by a woofer that will operate under optimum performance that cabinet. Take those drivers out and take pictures of those and lets have a look at them.

The L-pads are usually speayed with a lubricating oil from the factory and over a period of years, will turn to something similar to varnish. This will cause poor conductivity resulting in dropouts and distortion. Take that panel off and see if the pots have a tiny hole or opening anywhere - spray some electrical contact cleaner in them a work the control knob(Ratshack used to carry it). *try this first*

Most x-over caps are rated to around 60v to 70v, giving them an effective wattage rating of 100watts. That supposed to mean that that cap will maintain its effective crossover property at 100watts, even with a new electrolytic caps, rated at 100v, can still lose effectivness at high volumes, resulting in distortion. You can keep it simple, as I'm sure RS did, and stay with the -6db x-over, but use at least a 400v poly cap, which will never break down at high volumes and in my experience, introduces no significant artifact.

I'd be surprised if that woofer had an inductor (also called a coil or choke) for a x-over. Most manufacturers and designers rely on a woofer's natural rolloff, but if your midbass and/or midrange soounds muddy, that be why. Unless it was a two way and I were crossing in a mid or tweet around 7khz or 8khz, I'd never leave off a coil to aid in woofer rolloff (I'd never do anything like that anyway unless it were a PA speaker). But, i'd use at least a 18g, open aircore coil, and right now, they're a tad pricey, depending on their size (open aircore inductor have the least resistance, and are therefore more efficient).

And this is all contingent on whether or not the cabinet is salvagable. Try cleaning the L-pads and see if they sound more better.

[Freewillisdead112]

I opened the L-pad yesterday and the corners snapped off most of the plastic. Everything think looked clean in there, there was screws holding in the "mid-range" driver so i do think it could be replaceable. My camera Is not here at the moment so I shall tape pictures later.

Everything looked clean and the corner of the speaker is not through the board. This just surface damage. And no, these speakers do not have water damage. Just cup marks and drunken party damage (from what I picked up from the last owner).

I took out the woofer last night, and boy is it light. For how large the surrounds were i figured it would be a monster.

[Freewillisdead112]

today, I hooked them up to a Aiwa mini Hi-Fi Receiver/cd player. This receiver Is 6 ohm. I lost alot of low end boom/slam but cleaned up the highs and mids alot. I am really starting to think that theres something wrong with my Integrated amplifier.

Any thoughts why a garbage stereo would sound better then a stereo I once loved?

[budgetaudio76]

Me time Read?!! Since when do i have time! Of cous=rse i have time, As much i like to say taht i dont have time to do much of any thing because im a single parent. But i like to read about others perspective of music production thru stereos. Hell i take time to do that. negative comments or not. I do the things i do because i enjoy the hobby. Nothing more nothing less.

Take a look in my sig and youll understand. you cant hear what i hear thru my ears when i am listening to music.

[JoeE SP9]

today, I hooked them up to a Aiwa mini Hi-Fi Receiver/cd player. This receiver Is 6 ohm. I lost alot of low end boom/slam but cleaned up the highs and mids alot. I am really starting to think that theres something wrong with my Integrated amplifier.

Any thoughts why a garbage stereo would sound better then a stereo I once loved?

There could be something wrong with your integrated amp. Try the mini speakers on it. If they give the same kind of results, you have found the problem.

[Freewillisdead112]

I don't have the speakers to the mini, It was a garbage day find.

I dont have access to anything really to try and fix this.

[thekid]

Free

Hang in there and chalk these up as a learning experience, I have more than a few learning experiences sitting in my garage....

If you have been bitten by the vintage gear bug you might want to try some of the thrift shops in your area or Craigslist you'd be surprised what you can find. Vintage speakers there often run $20-$25 so you can roll the dice a little w/o spending a lot of coin and enjoy the thrill of the hunt. With a little patience and research you can find some good vintage speakers such as early KLH,Advents or Dynaco's. You can also find vintage gear that can be brought back to life with some cleaning and a few bulb replacements.

Good luck and good hunting!!

[Freewillisdead112]

kls's are on there all the time, not so much advent and dynaco. At least I didnt spend a wazoo!

[Freewillisdead112]

I see those all the time on cl. Ima have to get me a pair. People are greedy here on CL, they wanna charge insane amounts for old, crap things. I am going to pay for audiogons blue book so I can kinda get a jist on what I should be spending.

And I got the jbls for my birthday, so I really didnt loose a penny.

Some guy wants to trade me his mirage M-190i for them?????

[Freewillisdead112]

I have been getting alot of hits on these from CL so I think they shall be gone very soon. For a decent pair of bookshelfs that is!

[Macho_Honcho]

Hi all. Okay.. I know this thread is a several days old.. But it is still smoldering enough to warrant MY two cents. After reading this thread it seems that there are questions pertaining to the Radio Shack Mach One speakers that need answering, and hopefully someone will find this interesting. The ORIGINAL Thompson Electronics version of the Mach One, RS model 4024a, after thirty two years with no attention paid to the dried up ELECTROLYTIC capacitors in the crossovers, does and should sound like crap. Later the same box dimensions were used to produce similar looking 4029s in various countries for much less. Fewer screws, inferior drivers, much CHEAPER.. (Not to be confused with less expensive.) I digress.. So you have, or had a model "4024(a)" Mach One .. FYI, Without changing model numbers, Radio Shack (Tandy Corp.) slowly and quietly "de-contented" these 4024 speakers between '77 and '79. Yes, they all had the same model number.. 4024.. The original Mach Ones actually had veneer on the BOTTOM of the cabinet. (check yours?) By mid '78 the bottoms were spray painted brown .. to cut costs? ;) Of course we all know what happened later with the cheaper drivers, and x-over parts. I am here to tell anyone that gives a hoot, that you need to hear an original pair of 4024's complete with the veneer on the bottom, and the original drivers. I have a pair.. here's what I did to get them into shape for actual LISTENING. New MUNDORF 10 watt resistors, to replace the cheapie sand filled wire wounds. New CLARITY CAPS for the signal path into the horn and tweeter, and SOLEN caps everywhere else. I left the original air core inductors intact. Yes the inductors are cheap, and I may replace them eventually, but so far this simple upgrade has taken these speakers from "FRAT HOUSE" to actually being very listenable. This was just a project.. I am always tinkering.. I have owned these speakers for decades. I actually have two pairs. Yes pairs, .. there are two of them. They are just for display.. they see some use when I am feeling sentiMENTAL. They are pushed by a Sony TA-N77ES for power, and they can really SOAK it up. The tweeters and horns are Phenolic dome compression drivers. Much like police sirens. Amazing that the tweeters can get all the way up to beyond 20Khz! I did spend a bit more on the crossover parts (Madisound.com) than $50, but every penny was money well spent. I would put them up against ANY consumer grade big box store speaker at ANY price. They of course will not hold a candle to my line arrays, and will never be for really critical listening.. Sometimes you drive the restored '65 Stingray, instead of the new Porsche 'cause you like the feel of a big V-8. I do not like Cerwin Vega, and never will. Sloppy , greasy , muddy, kid stuff. Not even in the same league with the original RS Mach one. Trust me, I know. .. .. On another "note".. I just finished going through a $4000 pair of Salk Sound V3's. You would think that for that much money, not only would they sound GREAT, (unimpressed) but the crossovers wouldn't be mounted on masonite peg board with components siliconed and wire tied into place.. You would think that for $4000, the screws holding the drivers in place would be tightened into threaded inserts of some kind.. T-nuts anyone? Wood screws, just tightened down into bare wood? (PARTICLE BOARD) Are you kidding me? My Mach Ones are certainly more well made than that! Even if they are also particle board boxes. BTW.. The horn section is completely sealed.. pry off the back panel, and take a deep breath of some thirty year old asian air! This concludes my CRAZY rant! Comments? Are I usin' bad words and stuff and junk? All in fun! Cheers!

[JoeE SP9]

Mundorf resistors, Solen and Clarity caps is a lot of money to try to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. In they end they are still sows ears.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hi all. Okay.. I know this thread is a several days old.. But it is still smoldering enough to warrant MY two cents. After reading this thread it seems that there are questions pertaining to the Radio Shack Mach One speakers that need answering, and hopefully someone will find this interesting. The ORIGINAL Thompson Electronics version of the Mach One, RS model 4024a, after thirty two years with no attention paid to the dried up ELECTROLYTIC capacitors in the crossovers, does and should sound like crap. Later the same box dimensions were used to produce similar looking 4029s in various countries for much less. Fewer screws, inferior drivers, much CHEAPER.. (Not to be confused with less expensive.) I digress.. So you have, or had a model "4024(a)" Mach One .. FYI, Without changing model numbers, Radio Shack (Tandy Corp.) slowly and quietly "de-contented" these 4024 speakers between '77 and '79. Yes, they all had the same model number.. 4024.. The original Mach Ones actually had veneer on the BOTTOM of the cabinet. (check yours?) By mid '78 the bottoms were spray painted brown .. to cut costs? ;) Of course we all know what happened later with the cheaper drivers, and x-over parts. I am here to tell anyone that gives a hoot, that you need to hear an original pair of 4024's complete with the veneer on the bottom, and the original drivers. I have a pair.. here's what I did to get them into shape for actual LISTENING. New MUNDORF 10 watt resistors, to replace the cheapie sand filled wire wounds. New CLARITY CAPS for the signal path into the horn and tweeter, and SOLEN caps everywhere else. I left the original air core inductors intact. Yes the inductors are cheap, and I may replace them eventually, but so far this simple upgrade has taken these speakers from "FRAT HOUSE" to actually being very listenable. This was just a project.. I am always tinkering.. I have owned these speakers for decades. I actually have two pairs. Yes pairs, .. there are two of them. They are just for display.. they see some use when I am feeling sentiMENTAL. They are pushed by a Sony TA-N77ES for power, and they can really SOAK it up. The tweeters and horns are Phenolic dome compression drivers. Much like police sirens. Amazing that the tweeters can get all the way up to beyond 20Khz! I did spend a bit more on the crossover parts (Madisound.com) than $50, but every penny was money well spent. I would put them up against ANY consumer grade big box store speaker at ANY price. They of course will not hold a candle to my line arrays, and will never be for really critical listening.. Sometimes you drive the restored '65 Stingray, instead of the new Porsche 'cause you like the feel of a big V-8. I do not like Cerwin Vega, and never will. Sloppy , greasy , muddy, kid stuff. Not even in the same league with the original RS Mach one. Trust me, I know. .. .. On another "note".. I just finished going through a $4000 pair of Salk Sound V3's. You would think that for that much money, not only would they sound GREAT, (unimpressed) but the crossovers wouldn't be mounted on masonite peg board with components siliconed and wire tied into place.. You would think that for $4000, the screws holding the drivers in place would be tightened into threaded inserts of some kind.. T-nuts anyone? Wood screws, just tightened down into bare wood? (PARTICLE BOARD) Are you kidding me? My Mach Ones are certainly more well made than that! Even if they are also particle board boxes. BTW.. The horn section is completely sealed.. pry off the back panel, and take a deep breath of some thirty year old asian air! This concludes my CRAZY rant! Comments? Are I usin' bad words and stuff and junk? All in fun! Cheers!

Holy ****aki mushrooms, somebody with some real knowledge and history of the Mach One speaker. I still have 3 pairs the original 4024(originally purchased 4 pair) model built in 77 with the veneer unsprayed bottoms. They sounded significantly better than the later incarnations and are very listenable even when compared with some speakers produced today. Back in the day Stereo Review ranked these speakers the second best sounding of its time, as it had more strengths than weaknesses. I replaced the same exact parts as you did include the air core inductors. I loved these speakers so much that later I had the mids and tweeters upgraded with new drivers, and purchased a new crossover system that time aligned the drivers. By the time I finished, I almost had a new speaker sans the cabinet and woofer. The original woofer complete with rubber surrounds was so good, I never replaced it. From what I understand (from the RS engineers at the time) they began downgrading the speaker to control costs, and make them manufactureable for the masses. The real originals were hand built, and used high quality parts, and were well tuned(this took awhile to do) which made them VERY expensive and difficult to reproduce in large quantities. There were also was not a lot of them built or sold until the cheaper lesser quality ones came on the market. They are an extremely rare find now, as they have been abused and neglected too much to sell.

I am of strong belief that Freewillisdead has the later incarnation of the 4024. I gave my son one pair of the real originals that I took extremely good care of, and left them unaltered from its original form. They still sound pretty darn good, but not nearly as good as my upgraded ones. The thing I liked about them is that they did not have the horn coloration that the later models had, and actually had a very sweet airy high end. The bass was clean, went deep(it was really flat to 20hz) and a very good driver to driver balance - something that was very difficult to achieve at the time. The later models sounded dirty and rolled off in comparison, so I completely understand why many folks here dislike their sound. Like all things their internal part do degrade over time, and require replacing if you want them to sound good. Freewillisdead, unless you have the woofer with the rubber surround you will have to ditch the woofer. There are no more original woofer drivers because according to RS I bought the last six they had in stock many, many years ago(and I still have them just in case the others fail). You will also have to replace all of the parts that Macho Honcho mentions in his post. If you are willing to make the investment of money and time, those speakers will sound significantly better than they do now.

I still own those three pairs of upgraded Mach Ones and use them in a hometheater in my vacation get away. I converted two of them into subwoofers by just removing the drivers, L-pads and crossover, and sealing the front panel. They still have the original woofer, and it plays back extremely loud and clean. Three are used for the front channels behind a woven acoustically transparent woven 110" screen. One sits idle and carefully packed to keep dust away - I have not figured out what to do with it. While this hometheater is not my besting sounding one, it has a very good sound to it(minus the annoying horn colorations), and when mated with with a fairly decent 100 watt per channel stereo amps(they don't need this much power to achieve theatrical levels), and combined with six custom designed and built speakers with horn loaded tweeters (incorporating the same tweeter drivers as my fronts) makes for a very authentic sounding big movie theater sound.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Mundorf resistors, Solen and Clarity caps is a lot of money to try to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. In they end they are still sows ears.

Upgrading to them makes a pretty good sounding sows ears. You really need to hear them with their internal parts upgraded before calling them sows ears. I suspect you have never really heard the original models, just their later incarnation. The first original models were not sows ears, but they were not a silk purse either. But neither were a lot of speakers manufacturered during that period. They definitely sounded better than many speakers of their time.

[thekid]

Sir T

Glad to see a regular weigh in on these a bit on the positive side. A lot people and some here are quick to dismiss RS gear. Many audio people think of the RS of today was the same as RS of 30+ years ago and that is just not the case. RS was probably the largest electronic/audio retailer back in the 60's-70's and as such was able to get a lot of quality manufacturer's to produce quality gear under the RS brand names. I am not saying all of their was great or that they produced quality speakers as consistently back then as AR,Advent etc who were the big speaker names back then but there are some quality RS speakers out there that are more than listenable to for those into vintage gear. Do a little research and learn abouth those that are worth picking up at the right price. Older RS gear consistently flies under the radar of your average "audiophile" and hopefully it will stay that way for those of us who like to buy on the cheap..... :D

[Worf101]

Rat Shack?!!!1 Hell I go back to "Lafayette Electronics"!!!!

Da Worfster

[thekid]

Rat Shack?!!!1 Hell I go back to "Lafayette Electronics"!!!!

Da Worfster

Well I was going to mention Lafayette in my rant but I figured most people here would not know what the heck I was talking about. Lafayette receivers though often fall into the same trap as RS gear. Do not get alot of respect from the the high end crowd but based on what some of their gear goes for on the Bay I'd say someone appreciates them. My Gladding-Claricon reciever is the same as a Layette LR-4000 or 5000 I think. Built in Japan and then rebadged by Lafayette.

[JoeE SP9]

Like Worf101, I go back to Lafayette Electronics. Worf, wasn't Criterion their in house speaker line? I heard Mach One's when TRS was major in the stereo business. I didn't like them then. I'm almost 62 now and still don't like them. I've been using planars since I got some MG-1's in 1976.

[Boatman1]

Don't let them bully you, show me another set of speakers that look as cool, I also have a pair hooked up to a Realistic sta 2000 and they sound good listening to 70s Rock on a Album. Everyone has there own taste, just be you.

[JoeE SP9]

No bullying is necessary. Doing a listening comparison is all that's necessary. HPM-100's sound better than Mach One's. I don't like them either.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No bullying is necessary. Doing a listening comparison is all that's necessary. HPM-100's sound better than Mach One's. I don't like them either.

Isn't this a personal opinion Joe? Were the Mach Ones you heard the originals from 77-79, or the ratchet down ones? Regardless, you probably do not care for horn loaded speakers, and that is something I can understand. However, the originals were the most non horn sounding horn loaded speakers I have heard up to that time. I have since heard many custom designed horn loaded speakers that didn't have the traditional "honkiness" that most horn loaded speakers have, and now I am a lover of this design(at least one designers design anyway!)

From what I remember of the HPM-100, they didn't sound any better than the original Mach Ones. I think the HPM-1100 got in the same ballpark in the bass, and both speakers reach 25khz. I know the HPM-100's could not keep up with the original Mach Ones in maximum output with low distortion. Keep in mind, not a lot of original Mach Ones were sold. Far more of the later designs were sold than the original. There were few chances to hear the originals back then, and next to none of them have survived over time.

[Freewillisdead112]

They are the original with no straypaint here. I never sold them. Alot of peope interested till they saw the condition. Will It make that much of a change if I replace the parts in the crossover?

[MikeyBC]

Cant hurt, even by replacing the caps with the cheap Bennic brand would probably help as the proper value would be restored...the old ones are probably way out of spec by now.

[Freewillisdead112]

Cool. I think I could do that. They are from 1984-ish so I bet the sand filled crappy stuff could use a change. If I put quality music through them it sounds okay (kinda distorted) but with fanstastic seperation and speed. I really think clipping is the reason for the distortion. Ima try and find a cheap 100 watt high current to see if it makes any change. If not im only out 20 bucks from CL

[MikeyBC]

They are from 1984-ish


!977 if you have the early 4024

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Cool. I think I could do that. They are from 1984-ish so I bet the sand filled crappy stuff could use a change. If I put quality music through them it sounds okay (kinda distorted) but with fanstastic seperation and speed. I really think clipping is the reason for the distortion. Ima try and find a cheap 100 watt high current to see if it makes any change. If not im only out 20 bucks from CL

If they are from 1984, they are not the originals. The originals were produced from 1977 to 1979 only. Everything after that are the dummied down ones.

[Bill K Davis]

To 3lb:Advice,not advise,noun not verb.dOih9ye3

[Freewillisdead112]

oh i thought i read that was the year for the 4024's somewhere. I dont have the spray paint on the bottom so I guess they are the originals. My buddy and I are going to grab some sand paper, oil, feed n wax and a six pack and clean up the one that can be fixed up on the simple. =]

Anyone know about what thickness would i need of wood or what not to build new grills. I wanna put white ones on it after i got the dark walnut finsh done.

I don't have the slightest idea how to do crossover stuff and nor does my buddy. would I be better off taking a GOOD picture of the crossover for yall to see so you could let me know who does what and what needs to go?

Thanks alot guys, your always alot of help

=]

[JoeE SP9]

Sir Terrence the Terrible (http://forums.audioreview.com/member.php?u=221830):
Just wanted to let you know. I went to check out the original Mach One's when they were first introduced. One of my buddies heard them and wanted me to hear them. True they weren't "horny" sounding. They are probably the best speakers TRS ever sold under their own name. It's just that they were introduced after I'd been seduced by planar's.
I was using planar's, having switched to MG-1's in 1976. After those MG-1's nothing in a box has "worked" for me since. In 1978 I was using a pair of MG-2's, in 1980, MG-3's. In 1981 I bought a pair of Acoustat Model 3's. Since then only ESL's have been in my listening room.

[40424a]

Mention Harmon-Kardon and people who know the product "then" will know a fine product. Mention Kenwood and people in the know reflect back to the days when power didn't necessarily mean harsh.

Before Kenwood was a household name they made equipment for a more familiar name, that's correct Radio Shack. Harmon Kardon too made equipment for R.S. Back then many people waltzed into R.S. wondering "have I not seen that before with a different brand name?" YES!

Radio Shack is barely a shadow of it's former days, that aside Radio Shack did sell products that people could take seriously without breaking the bank. Including speakers with lifetime warranties, that they backed up, possibly even to this day. Name another company that had the guts to do that (regardless of the economic consequences or gamble). None that I'm aware of.

It's easy to smack down something you don't know or understand, which is why those of us who know otherwise, simply smile or laugh. Soon to own 4 pristine first generation Mach One's. While my Mach Two's can't hold a candle to my V.A.Haydens, they do make the old house shake, rattle and roll, better than my 12" 120 watt sub. The Mach Two's will soon have to step aside.

Later!

[harley .guy07]

My friend from California owns a pair of the origional mach 1's and I am in the process of trying to talk him into taking them out of storage and bringing them to my house so we can hear them through my Adcom 545 MK2 amp. I myself have never heard them but would be interested in hearing what everyone has been debating about for a while now. I am not sure if I will like them or not but it would be worth the time and effort just to see the kind of speaker the shack made back then.

[Jason_1976]

i see you guys keep saying they made these from 1977-1979 they really came out new in 1976. they had a lifetime warranty in 1976 and in the 1977 catalog they changed the warranty to a 5 year warranty. check out www.radioshackcatalogs.com

http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/catalogs/1976_small/ this will show you the cattalog. page 47 you will see the mach one and it says lifetime warranty. I just wonder if you bought them new in 1976 and still had your sales slip if they would owner the warranty.

[theebadone]

Cool project, Realistic made some pretty decent equipment back in the 70s. The machs were their top of the line speakers back then, and worth a restore job, if you like the sound of them. Remember its only (your ears) you have to please. After restoring them hookin them up to one of their receivers, from the same time era would be even cooler. I still keep an eye out on my local cl for one of their receivers i lusted after when i was a teenager. The sta-2100, would still give the pioneers and sansui a good run for their money. My latest restore project. A set of votts A7s, was a fun project also. :D

[Raddek]

Alright. I just need to clarify some things about my Mach One's.. So, from what I have read from here, any Mach One with the catalog number 4024A is Crap? ONLY the Mach One's with the catalog number 4024 are the ones to buy? I have a pair of 4024A's with the false bottoms, but with the 'rubber-like' surrounds on the woofers. Do these not use the same drivers or crossovers as the 4024's? Can someone please clarify to me where they found this information and maybe have some pictures of the differences in crossovers, because I've found no other place where people mentioned a difference sonically between the 4024 and 4024A's saying they're the 'exact same'. I've also read that the 8ohm woofers are the better ones with the dual wound brass voice coils and rubber or 'rubber-like' surrounds (compared to the 4ohm versions). My 4024A's have 8ohm woofers, so are they the better versions? Also, How do I find out what year my speakers were made? I'm just full of questions, aren't I :) ... Thanks for the replies!

[Raddek]

So, no one knows the answer to my questions?

[Cu-Melter]

.......Before Kenwood was a household name they made equipment for a more familiar name, that's correct Radio Shack. Harmon Kardon too made equipment for R.S. Back then many people waltzed into R.S. wondering "have I not seen that before with a different brand name?" YES!

Radio Shack is barely a shadow of it's former days, that aside Radio Shack did sell products that people could take seriously without breaking the bank. Including speakers with lifetime warranties, that they backed up, possibly even to this day. Name another company that had the guts to do that (regardless of the economic consequences or gamble)....
It's easy to smack down something you don't know or understand, which is why those of us who know otherwise, simply smile or laugh. Soon to own 4 pristine first generation Mach One's......

Yes, Indeed. I've been lurking here and noting the stereo-typical Realistic Frowners. Alot of these posts are nothing more than sheer prejudice attitudes reflecting ignorance. To those of us that are really in the know, the vintage realistic is a well guarded secret. I currently use Realistic Mach Ones 40-4029 for the simple reason that they are more efficient than the 4024s that I have...ie- less power for a very nice listening window.

I have two models of the Mach Ones...the 1st generation 4024 w/the veneered bottoms and the 3rd generation 4029 ferro fluid models. I have the owners' leaflets that came with both units. Describing these speakers as a cheaper version of the 1st generation simply is a farce of the highest order. Shack and Fostex engineers looked at ways to streamline production and improve on an already successful launch of Shack's loudspeaker. An interesting note was the increased efficiency of the 4029. 4024 was rated @100 wpc rms....while the 4029 power rating was increased to 160 wpc rms.

This was one of the main goals of improving the Mach One series. People were blowing the 1st generation and the lifetime warranty was simply eating away at the profit margins of the day. Ferro-Fluid cooling solved alot of the callbacks and warranty issues. Ferro-Fluid is always there and is dormant until called upon. And it reacts almost at the speed of light in its ability to pull heat away...

Efficiency was also improved by replacing the rubber surround w/foam. This is a no-brainer. The rubber was simply too stiff and the 1st generation did require more power to really show its colors. However, the market strategy for putting 'loud speakers' into all the home in America wasn't going to stand long. Most serious audio enthusiasts don't care about blasting the paint off of their walls, shattering their windows, or making enemies of their neighbors. Head banger crowds will atest to the 1st generation machs for this reason... True audio enthusiasts seldom crank their amps to a level people can't talk over.

Today's banger-rap crap music doesn't sound any better on any speaker.

In any case, to all those who spit on Radio Shack Mach Ones, I'm thankful.
I have 2 new pair of Mach Ones (in the box, never opened) on layaway from a good friend and vintage vendor. As long as audiophile wannabeez continue to regurgitate all the slander against the Mach One 1st, 2nd & 3rd generation, more people will have the opportunity to locate these little gems and afford to bring them home.

Realistic STA-2080 (http://www.frontiernet.net/~dreagh/Mach/STA-2080_Lg.jpg), Realistic Mach Ones 40-4029 (http://www.frontiernet.net/~dreagh/Mach/MyMachs_Lg.jpg), Realistic LAB-1500 (http://www.frontiernet.net/~dreagh/Mach/LAB-1500.jpg)..and counting-

[JoeE SP9]

I'm sorry that someone maligned your beloved Mach 1's. Get over it. If you like them that's your business. Yes, they play quite loud on only a few Watt's. If volume is what you want then they will satisfy you.
Many audiophiles feel differently because we want good sound to go along with high volume. Frankly, Mach 1's don't really sound all that good. As far as high volumes are concerned my ESL's are rated to produce 110db at 10 feet in a 15' x 22' x 8' room. Of course they need a lot of Watt's to do so, but 110db should be loud enough for anyone. It's certainly loud enough for me. Plus, my stats sound really good!!!!!

BTW:
Welcome to AR.

[Cu-Melter]

...My 4024A's have 8ohm woofers, so are they the better versions? ...
Don't you mean 6 ohm-??

I'm sorry that someone maligned your beloved Mach 1's. Get over it...
My ego doesn't bruise that easy. And it makes for great fun reading slang postings against the Mach Ones series speakers....
What's really fun is posting real world facts about a very good speaker and watch everyone go out of their way to spew more slang against them.

One thing posters are always omitting. Good speakers don't work w/o good receivers.

[JoeE SP9]

I've never owned a receiver. My current speakers are not really receiver friendly. I know there are some good receivers out there. Most of the good ones are "vintage". I have heard the older TRS receivers were built by Pioneer. Vintage Pioneer gear is prized in many circles.
You might want to take a look at www.audiokarma.org (http://www.audiokarma.org) there are many vintage enthusiasts there including a very vocal and enthusiastic Mach One group

[Cu-Melter]

Yes, Indeed.
From the late '60s to mid '80s...RS contracted the most popular receiver makers to assemble their product lines. Some models were merely relabeled units. Pioneer, Kenwood, Sony for their amps/receivers... Technics & Dual for their turntables... Akai for their Reel-Reel line.... Fostex of Japan for their speakers and microphones.

[mortimer]

Radio Shack has never listed a 4024a catalog number in any catalog from 1976-1981. 4029 was introduced in 1982 with liquid cooled mids and tweeter.

As mentioned above about the warranty I think since the only place where the "a" was seen in a catalog number was on the speaker themselves, I believed it was used to identify if they were lifetime (4024 in 1976) or 5 year warranty (4024a from 1977-81) There doesn't seem to be any physical difference between them thus leaving only 2 generations of Mach 1's

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Radio Shack has never listed a 4024a catalog number in any catalog from 1976-1981. 4029 was introduced in 1982 with liquid cooled mids and tweeter.

As mentioned above about the warranty I think since the only place where the "a" was seen in a catalog number was on the speaker themselves, I believed it was used to identify if they were lifetime (4024 in 1976) or 5 year warranty (4024a from 1977-81) There doesn't seem to be any physical difference between them thus leaving only 2 generations of Mach 1's

This is what the RS people told me when I ordered the last two woofers they had in stock, so I agree with this.


4024 was rated @100 wpc rms....while the 4029 power rating was increased to 160 wpc rms.

When I asked about this, they said that they rated the 4024 in a very conservative fashion in the first place, and that they could handle 160 wpc just like the 4029 could.


This was one of the main goals of improving the Mach One series. People were blowing the 1st generation and the lifetime warranty was simply eating away at the profit margins of the day.

This information is inconsistent to what they told me. I was told a 4024 has never been returned for blown drivers, not the 4024, 4024a or the 4029. I was told that what you termed as a improvement was really a way of cutting the cost of the speaker itself. I have three pairs of 4024's, and one pair of 4029. When you inspect the drivers of both generations, the 4029 drivers look different, and the crossover unit is pared down. One thing is for sure, if the 4029 is an improvement over the 4024, it is not based on listening to the two generation of the speaker. The original 4024 had a very clean overall sound with a silky smooth mid and treble response. The 4029 had a noticeable "honkiness" in the midrange that sounded very clouded and hard, and the upper frequencies did not have the smoothness of the 4024.