-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
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
-
Well Well...
Rat Shack?!!!1 Hell I go back to "Lafayette Electronics"!!!!
Da Worfster
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freewillisdead112
They are from 1984-ish
!977 if you have the early 4024
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
-
To 3lb:Advice,not advise,noun not verb.dOih9ye3
-
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
=]
-
Sir Terrence the Terrible:
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.
-
History lesson II
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
restore job
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
-
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!
-
So, no one knows the answer to my questions?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40424a
.......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, Realistic Mach Ones 40-4029, Realistic LAB-1500..and counting-
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raddek
...My 4024A's have 8ohm woofers, so are they the better versions? ...
Don't you mean 6 ohm-??
Quote:
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.
-
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 there are many vintage enthusiasts there including a very vocal and enthusiastic Mach One group
-
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
This is what the RS people told me when I ordered the last two woofers they had in stock, so I agree with this.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
|