I've searched for it, but have yet to find any actual published sensitivity rating for the DQ-10s (and I have done a lot of searching through the literature). However, the DQ-20 is spec'd at 86dB/2.83V/m. As both speakers use the same woofer in similar enclosures and design philosophies and given how those aspects tend to be the anchor to sensitivity ratings for the typical design (tweeters and midranges usually have to be padded down to match the woofer's output as is the case in the DQ-10 as well), the DQ-10s sensitivity should be roughly the same or within a couple of dB on the lower side. (Within wiggle room of comparison with other speaker designs since sensitivity is one of those numbers manufacturers most fudge for marketing reasons.)
|
Hello,
I¡¯m interested in finding the published sensitivity for the DQ-10. Can one of you share that information?
?Thanks,
Andy
|
The phrase "patented speaker" in the clip was of interest, so here it is:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PALL&s1=dahlquist.INNM.&s2=jon.INNM.&OS=IN/dahlquist+AND+IN/jon&RS=IN/dahlquist+AND+IN/jon
The earlier one seems to be the DQ-10
-----Original Message----- From: Patrick Will <pandrewwill@...> To: [email protected]Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2020 6:51 am Subject: Re: [DahlquistSpeakers] driver testing John van Son thank you so much!? Your shared clip inspired me, so I searched for and found the whole document from which your Dahlquist article came from -- "High Fidelity's - Buying Guide to Speaker Systems - 1976 Edition .? (See page 28, starting with the first paragraph at the bottom of the left side column for the Jon Dahlquist piece.)? Looking through this guide today is a mind blowing trip down memory lane to 1976 -- when sound and speakers were king, and video was only an afterthought.? I bet I am not the only one who gets nostalgic looking through this guide, which for a $1.50 in its day was a real bargain and a treasure trove of information!
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 1:50 AM John van Son < jpvanson@...> wrote: DQ-10s aren't dipoles. From High Fidelity in 1976:
?
|
Patrick - thanks for sharing this!! Forgot just how much this special issue covered on speakers - virtually everything you'd even need to know. Fun seeing all the old ads I remember as well. Wonder how many of these brands are still alive today?
|
John van Son thank you so much!? Your shared clip inspired me, so I searched for and found the whole document from which your Dahlquist article came from -- "High Fidelity's - Buying Guide to Speaker Systems - 1976 Edition .? (See page 28, starting with the first paragraph at the bottom of the left side column for the Jon Dahlquist piece.)? Looking through this guide today is a mind blowing trip down memory lane to 1976 -- when sound and speakers were king, and video was only an afterthought.? I bet I am not the only one who gets nostalgic looking through this guide, which for a $1.50 in its day was a real bargain and a treasure trove of information!
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 1:50 AM John van Son < jpvanson@...> wrote: DQ-10s aren't dipoles. From High Fidelity in 1976:
?
|
DQ-10s aren't dipoles. From High Fidelity in 1976:
?
|
My bad! I should read me postings before hitting send. You aren't going to
drag me into court, are you?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of John Joseph McVeigh Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:54 PM To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [DahlquistSpeakers] driver testing On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:23:34 -0700, Ed Lindsey wrote: My room is 20 ft. x 30 ft with 10ft ceiling, or 6000 sq. ft. And I
thought that was big.. Nothing when compared to 85,000 sq. ft. Is
there any chance you are living in a retail outlet? A room with floor dimensions of 20 ft x 30 ft and with a 10-foot ceiling will have an area of 600 square feet and a volume of 6,000 cubic feet. J.J. McVeigh, Attorney At Law Butler, Maryland USA Practice before the Federal Communications Commission Member: NY, DC, and USPTO Bars
|
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:23:34 -0700, Ed Lindsey wrote: My room is 20 ft. x 30 ft with 10ft ceiling, or 6000 sq. ft. And I
thought that was big¡. Nothing when compared to 85,000 sq. ft. Is
there any chance you are living in a retail outlet? A room with floor dimensions of 20 ft x 30 ft and with a 10-foot ceiling will have an area of 600 square feet and a volume of 6,000 cubic feet. J.J. McVeigh, Attorney At Law Butler, Maryland USA Practice before the Federal Communications Commission Member: NY, DC, and USPTO Bars
|
I hear you!? Building a retirement home in the White Mountains of Arizona.? Need to move somethings to other collectors, but it¡¯s harder than taking it with.? Oh, and parts for a floor-standing three way arrived today. ? As for the ESL 57¡¯s, many collectors cherish them.? I am not one who would want to live with their limitations and flaws.? Give me a restored pair of DQ-10¡¯s with the DW-1¡¯s and an LP-1.? They aren¡¯t perfect either, but they certainly are more robust, easier to maintain and can sustain volumes that fill a largish room. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of w e Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:45 AM To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [DahlquistSpeakers] driver testing ? Can't take issue with the nostalgic aspect of the 10's Ed. Bought mine in 1975 while in high school. Saved like a miser so I could get them. My dad was furious I blew my hard earned $ on something he thought was so unnecessary for a teenager to own. Frankly, he was probably right, but I had to have them as I was big into audio back then. Fast forward to today. I accept that the 10's are, if I'm being perfectly honest, the poor man's version of the Quad ESL. In fact, as time has gone by I've only become more accepting that Jon wished he could have designed the ESL57, but Quad got there first, so he took to cobbling together a "clone" that wouldn't violate intellectual? property, and was as close as he could get in shape and look to the ESL 57, the tradeoff being use of more accessible, cheaper, andgenerally "marketable" components ("what the hell is an electrostatic what??). Read into it what you wish, but I always found it very interesting that he was a "one and done" speaker designer. After the 10 was finished, he never took up another product and handed the reigns over to Carl M. Will always wonder why....
Presently I have two sets of 10's, two DQ subs, and LP1 from the DQ line. Two Hafler DH500 amps, and one Nelson Pass designed Adcom 555 amp. Love them all.? But alas, with my retirmement looming next year and the downsizing that comes with that, I suspect I'll have to bite the bullet and thin the herd, and sell off maybe half.
?
|
Agreed, and for what it's worth, I happen to love the 10's, flaws and all, or I wouldn't have invested what I have to own 2 pairs, with subs and an LP1. Thats a lot to lug around and make fit into a home if you aren't committed to them!?
|
You make a good point w e.? The DQ10¡¯S open baffle design makes them behave much like a dipole which can minimize room interaction, however spacing any speaker too far apart will seriously compromise and degrade soundstaging and imaging. ? ? That being said I think most if not all can agree on these points: ? 1)????? All Loudspeakers are flawed and imperfect reproducers of recorded music. They, like phono cartridges, are transducers which convert energy from one form to another. 2)????? There have been a plethora of speakers (cartridges) manufactured through the many years of hifi, and every one of them sound different to the human ear. Tons of variability. 3)????? ?There is no perfect speaker, ?Jon Dahlquist himself came to that sobering conclusion when designing the DQ10 as have many other designers thru the years. 4)????? The kind of speaker chosen for a hifi system has more influence on the total sound character of that hifi system than any other component in the chain. 5)????? The DQ10, though flawed and imperfect, is imho to this day still a musically satisfying speaker. I believe Harry Pearson (always a big fan of the DQ10) used the term ¡°gestalt¡± when describing the Dq10¡¯s sound, meaning an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of w e
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 1:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DahlquistSpeakers] driver testing ? Just my opinion here, but seems like you're overinterpreting and confusing the 10's ability to "recreate" a great sounstage with actually using them FOR a sounstage. Not the same thing. You've never seen a 40 foot, stacked tower of DQ-10's on each side of a Stones concert, right? Right speaker, but in the wrong place IMO.
But hey, if you like using them that way...run with it man. I'm fine with white wine with steak, so to each their own!!
|
Sam - some of what you say may be true, subjectivity taken in account, but there is no denying Jon was so impressed with the Quad (as noted in numerous places) it served as his motivation for creating the 10. So if he were avaiilable today, he himself might take issue with some of your claims.
I for one pay little attention to anything said about sound characteristics of speakers, and even less when it comes to electronics. Unless you were to get a large group into the same room, optimized for acoustics, conduct exhaustive, double blind A/B comparisons, and then be able to replicate the same results again to get universal agreement on which speaker is better than another - it's just tomato/"tomahto" opinion based on listener subjectivity and other biases you can't measure.?
Is the 10 one of the top 5 speakers ever? Maybe. I'l never know (and frankly neither will anybody else). But audiophiles love to rate/rank and create lists of the top whatever, so I guess its fun and generates interesting debates.
|
Re: Broken Mounting Board
More Picts of another board I have. I have 3 -4 woofer redone as well.?
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:38 PM dina hirsch < rdajr1079@...> wrote: Not sure which board your looking seeking. I picked up a couple of spare driver boards awhile back mostly for the drivers themselves. See it what I have is what u need. ?
Hello all,
One of my DQ10s suffered a fall a long time ago resulting in a broken Big Dome Midrange mounting board where the tweeter board mounts. I cobbled together a fix that works fine, but have some time now and would like to replace the Masonite? 4¡± x 6¡± board. I thought I would ask here before I start trying to cut out a new board...
Does anyone have a board available from a parted out set, along with some of the original mounting screws. I don¡¯t need the speaker, it¡¯s fine. I know originally the steel mounting brackets are riveted to the board.? So a board with brackets would be a bonus.? If I can only get (or make) a board I¡¯ll remove the rivets and attach with screws.
Thanks much, and let me know what they¡¯re worth to you. I¡¯m located in Gainesville, GA.
Mike
|
Haha, Nothing ordinary about them other than the piezo. If you can hear it then you must be related to Spock. But a cheap ol Radio Shack SPL meter does hear them. So they really do serve a purpose.?
Actually they are just the opposite of ordinary. And the real truth is they consist of mostly high quality German drivers. Even made before the MBA's footprint became permanent. And they are fully capable of fatefully reproducing anything you throw at them. It they don't the issue is upstream equipment and not the speakers. At least providing they are still stock.?
Actually conventional dynamic designs set the bar not planars. Maggie's don't even come close and are devoid of realistic dynamics. And are threadbare and soft overall. Stats aren't much better. Ribbons forget about it. All are challenged to produce anything other than a narrow window to fit your head into. Plus stats and Maggie's are next to impossible to match proper subs to.?
I've had them all in and out the door thru the years. And the only speaker I liked more was the Beveridge. Big Acoustats were a close second. But like all of the planars best of luck keeping them running.
DD?
Just my opinion here, but seems like you're overinterpreting and confusing the 10's ability to "recreate" a great sounstage with actually using them FOR a sounstage. Not the same thing. You've never seen a 40 foot, stacked tower of DQ-10's on each side of a Stones concert, right? Right speaker, but in the wrong place IMO.
But hey, if you like using them that way...run with it man. I'm fine with white wine with steak, so to each their own!!
|
Re: Broken Mounting Board
Not sure which board your looking seeking. I picked up a couple of spare driver boards awhile back mostly for the drivers themselves. See it what I have is what u need. ?
Hello all,
One of my DQ10s suffered a fall a long time ago resulting in a broken Big Dome Midrange mounting board where the tweeter board mounts. I cobbled together a fix that works fine, but have some time now and would like to replace the Masonite? 4¡± x 6¡± board. I thought I would ask here before I start trying to cut out a new board...
Does anyone have a board available from a parted out set, along with some of the original mounting screws. I don¡¯t need the speaker, it¡¯s fine. I know originally the steel mounting brackets are riveted to the board.? So a board with brackets would be a bonus.? If I can only get (or make) a board I¡¯ll remove the rivets and attach with screws.
Thanks much, and let me know what they¡¯re worth to you. I¡¯m located in Gainesville, GA.
Mike
|
Re: Broken Mounting Board
Not sure which board your looking seeking. I picked up a couple of spare driver boards awhile back mostly for the drivers themselves. See it what I have is what u need.
?
Hello all,
One of my DQ10s suffered a fall a long time ago resulting in a broken Big Dome Midrange mounting board where the tweeter board mounts. I cobbled together a fix that works fine, but have some time now and would like to replace the Masonite? 4¡± x 6¡± board. I thought I would ask here before I start trying to cut out a new board...
Does anyone have a board available from a parted out set, along with some of the original mounting screws. I don¡¯t need the speaker, it¡¯s fine. I know originally the steel mounting brackets are riveted to the board.? So a board with brackets would be a bonus.? If I can only get (or make) a board I¡¯ll remove the rivets and attach with screws.
Thanks much, and let me know what they¡¯re worth to you. I¡¯m located in Gainesville, GA.
Mike
|
?
Hello all,
One of my DQ10s suffered a fall a long time ago resulting in a broken Big Dome Midrange mounting board where the tweeter board mounts. I cobbled together a fix that works fine, but have some time now and would like to replace the Masonite? 4¡± x 6¡± board. I thought I would ask here before I start trying to cut out a new board...
Does anyone have a board available from a parted out set, along with some of the original mounting screws. I don¡¯t need the speaker, it¡¯s fine. I know originally the steel mounting brackets are riveted to the board.? So a board with brackets would be a bonus.? If I can only get (or make) a board I¡¯ll remove the rivets and attach with screws.
Thanks much, and let me know what they¡¯re worth to you. I¡¯m located in Gainesville, GA.
Mike
|
Just my opinion here, but seems like you're overinterpreting and confusing the 10's ability to "recreate" a great sounstage with actually using them FOR a sounstage. Not the same thing. You've never seen a 40 foot, stacked tower of DQ-10's on each side of a Stones concert, right? Right speaker, but in the wrong place IMO.
But hey, if you like using them that way...run with it man. I'm fine with white wine with steak, so to each their own!!
|
Can't take issue with the nostalgic aspect of the 10's Ed. Bought mine in 1975 while in high school. Saved like a miser so I could get them. My dad was furious I blew my hard earned $ on something he thought was so unnecessary for a teenager to own. Frankly, he was probably right, but I had to have them as I was big into audio back then. Fast forward to today. I accept that the 10's are, if I'm being perfectly honest, the poor man's version of the Quad ESL. In fact, as time has gone by I've only become more accepting that Jon wished he could have designed the ESL57, but Quad got there first, so he took to cobbling together a "clone" that wouldn't violate intellectual? property, and was as close as he could get in shape and look to the ESL 57, the tradeoff being use of more accessible, cheaper, andgenerally "marketable" components ("what the hell is an electrostatic what??). Read into it what you wish, but I always found it very interesting that he was a "one and done" speaker designer. After the 10 was finished, he never took up another product and handed the reigns over to Carl M. Will always wonder why....
Presently I have two sets of 10's, two DQ subs, and LP1 from the DQ line. Two Hafler DH500 amps, and one Nelson Pass designed Adcom 555 amp. Love them all.? But alas, with my retirmement looming next year and the downsizing that comes with that, I suspect I'll have to bite the bullet and thin the herd, and sell off maybe half.
?
|
Commercial property around here is practically free. ?I was able to purchase a 3-story laboratory facility to house my machine shop. ?The 3rd floor administrative area was all cubicles. ?I emptied it and transformed the space into a giant, man cave. ?Houses my collector cars, firearms, tournament pool table and television theater. ?My logic in speaker spacing and listening distance is to replicate a sound stage.
|
SpongeSound
Ed Lindsey