My Realistic Mach One Restoration

[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:
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.

[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, Realistic Mach Ones 40-4029, Realistic LAB-1500..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 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.