Leak 600 Sandwich speakers
Paulos
driver, 3½" paper cone mid and a plastic dome tweeter (I know, most of
the 600s had a Sandwich mid as well, but not this pair).
The mid drivers in both were stone dead (rattle croak fluff) and as result I
need to fit some different mid units. The original mid units had around 16
ohm impedance, I believe, and the new ones 8 ohms; some work is therefore
going to be needed on the crossover points as the current values will be
well off for 8 ohm drivers.
Does anyone out there have any technical information about these speakers:
existing crossover
frequencies, bottom end driver impedance, tweeter impedance, a crossover
schematic would be amazing but, I suspect, unlikely to exist in the wild,
Thielle Small params for the 12" driver would be more amazing still but I
guess even more unlikely.
I am thinking about designing new boxes and dropping the crossover frequency
between bottom and mid a bit as I have to attack the crossovers anyway, so
any info whatsoever would be a big help.
TIA
Paulos
Eeyore
Paulos wrote:
Have you considered the possibility of repairing the mid drivers ?
Graham
Phil Allison
"Paulos"
>
> I recently came by a pair of Leak 600 Sandwich speakers: Sandwich 12" bass
> driver, 3½" paper cone mid and a plastic dome tweeter (I know, most of
> the 600s had a Sandwich mid as well, but not this pair).
>
> The mid drivers in both were stone dead (rattle croak fluff) and as result
> I
> need to fit some different mid units. The original mid units had around 16
> ohm impedance, I believe, and the new ones 8 ohms; some work is therefore
> going to be needed on the crossover points as the current values will be
> well off for 8 ohm drivers.
>
> frequency
> between bottom and mid a bit as I have to attack the crossovers anyway, so
> any info whatsoever would be a big help.
** Know the old story about " My Father's Axe " ??
It was a wonderful axe that lasted him all his life.
He changed the head three times and the handle twice !!
........ Phil
Paulos
really good (with or without a tweak or two) that deliver thunderous bass
and cost around 40 quid a pair (plus an extra tenner in this case for the
replacement mid drivers).
Me...I'm not too bothered how original they are or they stay ; I'm only in
it for the sounds!
Paulos
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:5106eoF...@mid.individual.net...
Phil Allison
"Paulos Top Posting Audiophool "
>
>>> I recently came by a pair of Leak 600 Sandwich speakers: Sandwich 12"
>>> bass
>>> driver, 3½" paper cone mid and a plastic dome tweeter (I know, most of
>>> the 600s had a Sandwich mid as well, but not this pair).
>>>
>>> The mid drivers in both were stone dead (rattle croak fluff) and as
>>> result I
>>> need to fit some different mid units. The original mid units had around
>>> 16
>>> ohm impedance, I believe, and the new ones 8 ohms; some work is
>>> therefore
>>> going to be needed on the crossover points as the current values will be
>>> well off for 8 ohm drivers.
>>>
>>> I am thinking about designing new boxes and dropping the crossover
>>> frequency
>>> between bottom and mid a bit as I have to attack the crossovers anyway,
>>> so
>>> any info whatsoever would be a big help.
>>
>>
>>
>> ** Know the old story about " My Father's Axe " ??
>>
>> It was a wonderful axe that lasted him all his life.
>>
>> He changed the head three times and the handle twice !!
>>
>>
>
> Hmmm...in that case could you suggest a pair of 3 way speakers that sound
> really good (with or without a tweak or two) that deliver thunderous bass
> and cost around 40 quid a pair (plus an extra tenner in this case for the
> replacement mid drivers).
** Well - cleary not those Leak 600 piles of shit.
Arguably one of the worst sounding brand name speaker ever sold.
> Me...I'm not too bothered how original they are or they stay ; I'm only in
> it for the sounds!
** Then you need to spends a few more pounds - Mr Tightarse.
........ Phil
harrogate3
Phil, why be so agressive? People have different likes in sound
quality and it is likely that the Sandwich suits the OP's likes. A
friend of mine has a pair (and has had for a couple of decades) and
for the size of his room, the equipment that he uses, and above all
the type of music that he listens to, they suit him perfectly. I have
heard many speakers in my time and I like them.
You would probably disagree with my likes. I had a pair of the big
Transmission Lines designed by Dr Arthur Bailey and published in
Wireless World in 1971 (or was it 1972?) They could push your windows
out with organ pedal notes but were the easiest speakers I've ever
listened to, albeit they had little stereo imaging. I went from them
to a pair of Spendor BC1's that I still have but don't use. They were
superb for detail but very warm sounding and lacking bass detail
compared with their predecessors. I now have KEF Q5's, which although
they are good I wish in some ways I had never bought - and I like KEF.
I have heard many others, by the likes of Mission, Gale, NEAT, AE and
others and most of them I wouldn't give house room - but that is
largely because they don't suit my musical tastes and those are very
broad believe me.
So can we have a little decorum on this group please - as it is most
of the time. If the OP likes them then help him resolve his problem,
don't blast him for being an idiot for buying them in the first place.
By the way, my BC1's were ex-BBC and cost me £80 plus £30 for a pair
of new original grilles - and I won't part with them unless there is
no other option.
--
Woody
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
David Houpt
> quality and it is likely that the Sandwich suits the OP's likes. A
> friend of mine has a pair (and has had for a couple of decades) and
> for the size of his room, the equipment that he uses, and above all
> the type of music that he listens to, they suit him perfectly. I have
> heard many speakers in my time and I like them.
>
Hi
I couldn't agree more with this.
I had tried loads of modern speakers until I came across the Tannoy
Yorks that I owned for some years. They were great and the only reason I
sold them was that we were moving into a small apartment from a huge house.
I then bought a pair of modern speakers but couldn't live with them as
hifi. They are now acting as possibly the most expensive computer
speakers ever!
I have ended up with a pair of Tannoy Lancasters with 12" Monitor Golds
in them as the only way that I can get that Tannoy sound back. They are
not as good as the Yorks however (sob).
Ah well....
It just goes to show that it really is about personal taste in the end.
Regards
David
Phil Allison
"harrogate3"
> Phil, why be so agressive?
** Why ask loaded questions - cunt brain ??
...... Phil
Phil Allison
"David Houpt"
> Phil, why be so agressive? People have different likes in sound
>> quality and it is likely that the Sandwich suits the OP's likes. A
>> friend of mine has a pair (and has had for a couple of decades) and
>> for the size of his room, the equipment that he uses, and above all
>> the type of music that he listens to, they suit him perfectly. I have
>> heard many speakers in my time and I like them.
>>
>
>
> I couldn't agree more with this.
** Proves you are a fucking half wit.
> It just goes to show that it really is about personal taste in the end.
** Fine.
Then DO NOT COME HERE PRETENDING TO THE WHOLE
WORLD YOUR PERVERTED TASTE IS FACT !!!!
Like all the other ASININE, audiophool , PITA morons do.
........ Phil
jasee
transmission line monitors, Tannoy monitor gold (or even grfs!) ) These were
well revued at the time however it was noticeable that the Leak speakers
never received good revues!
Phil Allison
"jasee"
** Not a single one.
Even the kindest were barely luke warm.
The Leak 600 was a god-awful pile of shit.
....... Phil
jasee
ISTR it's main feature was a very rigid cone which was stood on by 'Mr
Leak', probably the most useful thing you could do with his speakers was to
stand on them :-)
He produced some nice sounding early transistor amplifiers.
Dave Plowman (News)
jasee <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> ISTR it's main feature was a very rigid cone which was stood on by 'Mr
> Leak', probably the most useful thing you could do with his speakers was
> to stand on them :-) He produced some nice sounding early transistor
> amplifiers.
Is the smiley missing?
--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
jasee
> In article <51482gF...@mid.individual.net>,
> jasee <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> ISTR it's main feature was a very rigid cone which was stood on by
>> 'Mr Leak', probably the most useful thing you could do with his
>> speakers was to stand on them :-) He produced some nice sounding
>> early transistor amplifiers.
>
> Is the smiley missing?
No, actually I think he did the stereo 30 and the stereo 70?
jasee
"jasee" <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:514gd9F...@mid.individual.net...
To rephrase my nonsense above, actually I think Leak produced some nice
sounding early transistor amplifiers the Stereo 30 and the 70. They weren't
_that_ will revued but to my mind they sounded good. In those days there was
a 'transistor sound' and quite a bit of noise as well.
Dave Plowman (News)
jasee <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
I was given a Stereo 70 and thought it one of the worst sounding (quality)
amps I'd ever heard. Just not in the same class as their valve gear. And
not nearly as good as Quad managed with their first solid state efforts.
--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment
Eiron
> In article <514inkF...@mid.individual.net>,
> jasee <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>To rephrase my nonsense above, actually I think Leak produced some nice
>>sounding early transistor amplifiers the Stereo 30 and the 70. They
>>weren't _that_ will revued but to my mind they sounded good. In those
>>days there was a 'transistor sound' and quite a bit of noise as well.
>
>
> I was given a Stereo 70 and thought it one of the worst sounding (quality)
> amps I'd ever heard. Just not in the same class as their valve gear. And
> not nearly as good as Quad managed with their first solid state efforts.
One of these?
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~vic3d/audio/leak/cctStereo70.gif
It seems rather short of current sources, long-tailed pairs and current
mirrors
but I suppose transistors were more expensive in those days.
--
Eiron.
jasee
"Eiron" <e1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:514llbF...@mid.individual.net...
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> In article <514inkF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> jasee <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>>To rephrase my nonsense above, actually I think Leak produced some nice
>>>sounding early transistor amplifiers the Stereo 30 and the 70. They
>>>weren't _that_ will revued but to my mind they sounded good. In those
>>>days there was a 'transistor sound' and quite a bit of noise as well.
>>
>>
>> I was given a Stereo 70 and thought it one of the worst sounding
>> (quality)
>> amps I'd ever heard. Just not in the same class as their valve gear. And
>> not nearly as good as Quad managed with their first solid state efforts.
Strangely, I moved on to a Quad 44 and 405 which really was horrible IMO, so
bad that I part exchanged it for a Radford SPA50 (the one with the slider
front controls) now that _was_ a good amp.
I never could abide valve amps.
harrogate3
2N3055 outputs? Agreed they were bad.
However I built myself a power MOSFET power amp and used a Stereo 70
up to the volume control as the preamp. I went from there to a Quad
33, then a Toshiba CY15 and none were any better (were even worse!)
until I got a Cambridge C70 and then a NAD312 which I still have and
use.
Paulos
Had you thought of seeing a shrink? If you get this excited and abusive over
the merits or demerits of a pair of cheap 2nd hand speakers, I think you
badly need one.
Paulos
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:513sddF...@mid.individual.net...
Phil Allison
"Paulos"
** Fuck off !!!!!
- you ASD fucked, tenth witted, top posting wog PRICK !
...... Phil
Andy Evans
current crop?
Various models available from Fountek, Aurum Cantus, Dayton, HiVi etc
Jim Lesurf
Actually IIRC 'Leak's' first transistor amp was a design essentially nicked
from someone else. I have one in a cupboard, and it looks like poor design
and construction to me. Only have it because someone gave it to me along
with a Troughline tuner.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
jasee
> In article <514gd9F...@mid.individual.net>, jasee
> <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <51482gF...@mid.individual.net>, jasee
>>> <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> ISTR it's main feature was a very rigid cone which was stood on by
>>>> 'Mr Leak', probably the most useful thing you could do with his
>>>> speakers was to stand on them :-) He produced some nice sounding
>>>> early transistor amplifiers.
>>>
>>> Is the smiley missing?
>
>> No, actually I think he did the stereo 30 and the stereo 70?
>
> Actually IIRC 'Leak's' first transistor amp was a design essentially
> nicked from someone else. I have one in a cupboard, and it looks like
> poor design and construction to me. Only have it because someone gave
> it to me along with a Troughline tuner.
What was the model? I remember the Troughline tuner. I still remember the
stereo 70 as being good though even with the audium 90s and ionofanes I
eventually used it with
Dave Plowman (News)
Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually IIRC 'Leak's' first transistor amp was a design essentially
> nicked from someone else. I have one in a cupboard, and it looks like
> poor design and construction to me. Only have it because someone gave it
> to me along with a Troughline tuner.
I agree. The edge connectors on some boards were of very poor quality -
not at all what you'd expect from Leak. Electrolytics were short lived too.
--
*I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize *
harrogate3
"Jim Lesurf" <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ea70ae...@st-and.demon.co.uk...
> In article <514gd9F...@mid.individual.net>, jasee
> <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > > In article <51482gF...@mid.individual.net>, jasee
> > > <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >> ISTR it's main feature was a very rigid cone which was stood on
by
> > >> 'Mr Leak', probably the most useful thing you could do with his
> > >> speakers was to stand on them :-) He produced some nice
sounding
> > >> early transistor amplifiers.
> > >
> > > Is the smiley missing?
>
> > No, actually I think he did the stereo 30 and the stereo 70?
>
> Actually IIRC 'Leak's' first transistor amp was a design essentially
nicked
> from someone else. I have one in a cupboard, and it looks like poor
design
> and construction to me. Only have it because someone gave it to me
along
> with a Troughline tuner.
>
> Slainte,
>
> Jim
>
If I remember correctly - but I may be wrong - the Stereo 30 was
designed by Cliff Collinson who also designed a number of Wharfedale
speakers for Gilbert Briggs (after he bought Leak) and subsequently
designed the Quad 33/303 for Peter Walker. He left and set up Castle
Acoustics with his son.
But that is from what I remember of a lecture CC gave to our radio
club nearly twenty years ago, so I could be worng.
Jim Lesurf
<ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> > Actually IIRC 'Leak's' first transistor amp was a design essentially
> > nicked from someone else. I have one in a cupboard, and it looks like
> > poor design and construction to me. Only have it because someone gave
> > it to me along with a Troughline tuner.
> What was the model?
Relying at this point on memory, IIRC it was the 'Stereo 30'.
There was an long 'letter' in Hi Fi News some years ago which finally made
public the story of how Leak nicked the design, then threated to sue the
real designer if they ever complained or told anyone at the time. My
unreliable memory is that Jack Dindsdale was the actual designer, but that
may be wrong. Would need to find the magazine to check.
> I remember the Troughline tuner.
The one I have radiates/leaks IF like a sieve and has an IF that would be
far too narrow and non-flat to give decent stereo, despite the way some
people have fitted decoders since. That said, the impressive thing is that
it still works at all - particularly as the board was buried in about a cm
of the 'fluff of ages' when I got it. Had to replace the oscillator/mixer
valve to make it work, and re-solder a few things. But it then worked.