I've been working on going through my files and searching the net to better fill out the DQ-10 revisions tracked in the Wiki. I'm currently at eleven with a few not worth mentioning because they just involved changing brand of capacitors and resistors, but not type. (Wouldn't mind any input if someone has examples of other revisions so I can fill things out better. There's some conflicting information I'm trying to sort out.) So, near as I've been able to tell, by serial number 29093 when factory mirror-imaged baffles were introduced, the design of the functional bits were finalized. By that time, the crossover hadn't changed since s/n 22000 and remained what it was until production was ceased in the low 50000s in 1988. The only change that happened is that oak trim rails were added as an option in 1981.
?
So, your s/n 47xxxs coming out in the mid to late '80s are newer, but functionally the same as the others that came out in the early '80s. Near as I can tell, there's no reason to not just stick with the pair in better condition and call it good.
?
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
This thread got a bit off track, so I'll pose my question another way. Is anyone aware of a tangible difference between a pair in the 37,000 serial range and the 47,000 range. Any significant changes that would leave one to keep one pair over the other
if you need to get down to just one pair?
I have upgraded the caps on the 37,000 serial pair (got them before the other one). The 47,000 pair has the original x-over. Both pairs have had surrounds and grill cloth replaced, so equal on those measures.
|
This thread got a bit off track, so I'll pose my question another way. Is anyone aware of a tangible difference between a pair in the 37,000 serial range and the 47,000 range. Any significant changes that would leave one to keep one pair over the other if you need to get down to just one pair?
I have upgraded the caps on the 37,000 serial pair (got them before the other one). The 47,000 pair has the original x-over. Both pairs have had surrounds and grill cloth replaced, so equal on those measures.
|
Re: DQ-10 with a powered sub
I can’t speak to the Klipsch sub in particular, but in my opinion a musical sub can be a good match and should not require constant adjustment with a remote. ?When my DQ-10’s & 1W were in a dedicated 2ch room the sound suffered from ?muddiness using the MX-1. ?The system sounded much tighter using my preamp and a bridged Sony TA n55 ES attenuated 50 % to protect the 60w 1W driver. ?More recently I integrated the 10’s into the living room 5.1 system using the HT bypass of my 2ch preamp and my NHT SubOne which is ported and plate amped. The SubOne controller has level and flat or video contour settings and just fills the bottom end nicely for music set to flat. ?FWIW at first I tried the speaker level cross over of the SubOne and the same lack of detail/muddiness returned. In my experience speaker level cross overs are the real culprit. BTW the 10’s magical imaging, soundstage, detail, et all are not wasted at all on movies with a good soundtrack.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 10, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Samuel Crider <dieseldude1@...> wrote:
? Greetings Ted,
Imho regardless of perigee or cost. If it has a plate amp, or is vented in any way, it is a compromise. Unless all your seeking is inaccurate theater style bottom end. And if that's the case then buy a mate and run a pair preferably with a LP1.
The LP1 is a wonderful piece of equipment. But requires real human interaction on the selection of the 6db pass cap. Which means the end result will vary from the best on down to the worse. All depending on the owners ability to select the correct cap for his particular system. Imagine that..?
If you really desire bass reproduction on the same level as the 10's mid-range up. The same physics apply today as did in 1980. Which calls for "fast" subs preferably with AlNiCo magnets in a sealed enclosure. Two forward firing 10" woofers per channel does the trick nicely. Driven by a bi-polar class AB1 high damping factor amp. Like a 600+ DF. Usually the subs only require about half the power of the 10's. So even 120wpc will normally work. A stock LP1 is all that is needed for a Xover.?
Translation, when comparing full range with the Klipsch. You will likely first think the bass reproduction is improved. And it will be deeper. But chances are you will soon find yourself growing tired of it. As no matter where you set all the settings it just won't properly hook up. Whatever you do don't use the Xover in the Klipsch and then feed signal back to the mains. As that will degrade whatever signal you already have feeding the 10's.?
Have a great weekend.
DD I used a polk with a remote vol and crossover selector. It wks fine , in fact it can produce more low freq then my 2 dq1’s . The remote is critical to me though otherwise your adjusting volume with every cd or piece u stream.? On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:50 PM Ted Geletka < ted@...> wrote: Happy Friday everybody...
I have been watching auctions on DQ-1Ws, DQ-LP1s and DQ-mx1s.? From what I'm seeing, 1Ws $200-250, MX1s $150-225, LP1s $200-300.
A local fella is selling a clean Klipsch R-110SW locally for $200.? This has a built in selectable crossover points and should eliminate the need for a
LP1 or MX1 right?? Anyone see a problem with using the Klipsch?
ted?
|
Re: DQ-10 with a powered sub
The lo1 requires constant fiddling as vol and xo point needs change depending on source. I was always getting up and down.?
For my dq1’s I ended up buying two sub xo from parts express and running the subs from either speaker b out of sane amp or another amp . So when from same amp the vol adjusts with the mains. With sep amp I can adjust vol separately from mains .?
My second set of dq10’s ?I use the polk with remote. Hooked up to speaker B. I adjust vol, xo freq., phase from remote right from my chair. I actually find the powered sub works just as well maybe a bit better then dq1’s because the driver is much more flexible then the stiff dq1’s.. to each his own..
Greetings Ted,
Imho regardless of perigee or cost. If it has a plate amp, or is vented in any way, it is a compromise. Unless all your seeking is inaccurate theater style bottom end. And if that's the case then buy a mate and run a pair preferably with a LP1.
The LP1 is a wonderful piece of equipment. But requires real human interaction on the selection of the 6db pass cap. Which means the end result will vary from the best on down to the worse. All depending on the owners ability to select the correct cap for his particular system. Imagine that..?
If you really desire bass reproduction on the same level as the 10's mid-range up. The same physics apply today as did in 1980. Which calls for "fast" subs preferably with AlNiCo magnets in a sealed enclosure. Two forward firing 10" woofers per channel does the trick nicely. Driven by a bi-polar class AB1 high damping factor amp. Like a 600+ DF. Usually the subs only require about half the power of the 10's. So even 120wpc will normally work. A stock LP1 is all that is needed for a Xover.?
Translation, when comparing full range with the Klipsch. You will likely first think the bass reproduction is improved. And it will be deeper. But chances are you will soon find yourself growing tired of it. As no matter where you set all the settings it just won't properly hook up. Whatever you do don't use the Xover in the Klipsch and then feed signal back to the mains. As that will degrade whatever signal you already have feeding the 10's.?
Have a great weekend.
DD
I used a polk with a remote vol and crossover selector. It wks fine , in fact it can produce more low freq then my 2 dq1’s . The remote is critical to me though otherwise your adjusting volume with every cd or piece u stream.? On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:50 PM Ted Geletka < ted@...> wrote: Happy Friday everybody...
I have been watching auctions on DQ-1Ws, DQ-LP1s and DQ-mx1s.? From what I'm seeing, 1Ws $200-250, MX1s $150-225, LP1s $200-300.
A local fella is selling a clean Klipsch R-110SW locally for $200.? This has a built in selectable crossover points and should eliminate the need for a
LP1 or MX1 right?? Anyone see a problem with using the Klipsch?
ted?
|
Re: DQ-10 with a powered sub
Greetings Ted,
Imho regardless of perigee or cost. If it has a plate amp, or is vented in any way, it is a compromise. Unless all your seeking is inaccurate theater style bottom end. And if that's the case then buy a mate and run a pair preferably with a LP1.
The LP1 is a wonderful piece of equipment. But requires real human interaction on the selection of the 6db pass cap. Which means the end result will vary from the best on down to the worse. All depending on the owners ability to select the correct cap for his particular system. Imagine that..?
If you really desire bass reproduction on the same level as the 10's mid-range up. The same physics apply today as did in 1980. Which calls for "fast" subs preferably with AlNiCo magnets in a sealed enclosure. Two forward firing 10" woofers per channel does the trick nicely. Driven by a bi-polar class AB1 high damping factor amp. Like a 600+ DF. Usually the subs only require about half the power of the 10's. So even 120wpc will normally work. A stock LP1 is all that is needed for a Xover.?
Translation, when comparing full range with the Klipsch. You will likely first think the bass reproduction is improved. And it will be deeper. But chances are you will soon find yourself growing tired of it. As no matter where you set all the settings it just won't properly hook up. Whatever you do don't use the Xover in the Klipsch and then feed signal back to the mains. As that will degrade whatever signal you already have feeding the 10's.?
Have a great weekend.
DD
I used a polk with a remote vol and crossover selector. It wks fine , in fact it can produce more low freq then my 2 dq1’s . The remote is critical to me though otherwise your adjusting volume with every cd or piece u stream.? On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:50 PM Ted Geletka < ted@...> wrote: Happy Friday everybody...
I have been watching auctions on DQ-1Ws, DQ-LP1s and DQ-mx1s.? From what I'm seeing, 1Ws $200-250, MX1s $150-225, LP1s $200-300.
A local fella is selling a clean Klipsch R-110SW locally for $200.? This has a built in selectable crossover points and should eliminate the need for a
LP1 or MX1 right?? Anyone see a problem with using the Klipsch?
ted?
|
1. Dq10’s with clarity caps and mills resistors crossover upgrades. Stands.
2. DQ 10’s woofers prof redone
3. Mx1 recapped
4. One spare board with mid &tweeter 100% functional
5. One spare board with piezo and mid woofer, 100% function.
6. One set original crossover yellow caps
|
Re: DQ-10 with a powered sub
I used a polk with a remote vol and crossover selector. It wks fine , in fact it can produce more low freq then my 2 dq1’s . The remote is critical to me though otherwise your adjusting volume with every cd or piece u stream.?
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:50 PM Ted Geletka < ted@...> wrote: Happy Friday everybody...
I have been watching auctions on DQ-1Ws, DQ-LP1s and DQ-mx1s.? From what I'm seeing, 1Ws $200-250, MX1s $150-225, LP1s $200-300.
A local fella is selling a clean Klipsch R-110SW locally for $200.? This has a built in selectable crossover points and should eliminate the need for a
LP1 or MX1 right?? Anyone see a problem with using the Klipsch?
ted?
|
Happy Friday everybody...
I have been watching auctions on DQ-1Ws, DQ-LP1s and DQ-mx1s. ?From what I'm seeing, 1Ws $200-250, MX1s $150-225, LP1s $200-300.
A local fella is selling a clean Klipsch R-110SW locally for $200. ?This has a built in selectable crossover points and should eliminate the need for a
LP1 or MX1 right? ?Anyone see a problem with using the Klipsch?
http://images.klipsch.com/R-110SW_-_Spec_Sheet_635466333600152000.pdf
ted
|
Greetings,
My guess is 85-86dbish full range. Which is pretty low. But my experience is once bi-amped with separate subs, that seems to go up a tad. Like maybe to 87-88ish. Which dosen't seem like much but it sounds substantial. Perhaps it is due to the subs being more efficient to begin with. Either way it seems like they do slightly rise.
DD
90dB at 1 meter with 7V is approximately equivalent to 85dB at 1 meter with 2.83V.? Any difference could be attributed to the French measurement being at 500Hz. ? ? Hi John,
I remember some measurements closer to 85-90 dB/1 meter, but I no longer have the documents.
Bernard ? Thank you for posting that review. My French is pretty mediocre, but it looks like that 90dB at one meter at 500Hz figure was obtained with an input of 7V. Considering 2.83V into an ideal 8ohm load is 1W, they got a very low figure indeed.
|
90dB at 1 meter with 7V is approximately equivalent to 85dB at 1 meter with 2.83V.? Any difference could be attributed to the French measurement being at 500Hz. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of bc_france Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 8:58 AM To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [DahlquistSpeakers] DQ-10 Sensitivity ? Hi John,
I remember some measurements closer to 85-90 dB/1 meter, but I no longer have the documents.
Bernard ? Thank you for posting that review. My French is pretty mediocre, but it looks like that 90dB at one meter at 500Hz figure was obtained with an input of 7V. Considering 2.83V into an ideal 8ohm load is 1W, they got a very low figure indeed.
|
Hi John,
I remember some measurements closer to 85-90 dB/1 meter, but I no longer have the documents.
Bernard ? Thank you for posting that review. My French is pretty mediocre, but it looks like that 90dB at one meter at 500Hz figure was obtained with an input of 7V. Considering 2.83V into an ideal 8ohm load is 1W, they got a very low figure indeed.
|
Thank you for posting that review. My French is pretty mediocre, but it looks like that 90dB at one meter at 500Hz figure was obtained with an input of 7V. Considering 2.83V into an ideal 8ohm load is 1W, they got a very low figure indeed.
|
Re: [Dahlquist] Re: [DahlquistSpeakers] DQ-10 Sensitivity
85 dB is very close! Officially they were/are 86 dB, or that was the word at the time, in the late 1970's!
On Sunday, October 4, 2020, 07:26:16 PM CDT, GEORGE ABRAHAM gabraham2785@... [Dahlquist] <dahlquist@...> wrote:
? The DQ 10 is notoriously inefficient and my estimate is 85db..which is about the same as my Magnepan SMG.? My DQ 10 has been extensively modded with a custom crossover to support a 4 way design that eliminates the Piezo by changing out the tired Philips tweeter for a KEF T27A tweeter.? Sonically The DQ 10 now sounds quite close to the Maggies.? ?I use a tube preamp to drive a pair of Nad 2200 bridged in mono mode.? ?My only source is twin turntables.
On Sunday, October 4, 2020, 05:59:06 p.m. EDT, Bill Sohne <bsohne@...> wrote:
Hi Guys ? One thing I have noticed over the years....? the DQ-10 love CLEAN power... I originally had a 80 wpc .... and last system was using two carver m1.ot OptII MkII 485 WPC at 8 ohms .....??? never went to max volume but when i opened ( maybe 6 on the volume level? it up they sang... without issue. ? ? Best bill __._,_.___
Posted by: GEORGE ABRAHAM <gabraham2785@...>
 
|
The DQ 10 is notoriously inefficient and my estimate is 85db..which is about the same as my Magnepan SMG.? My DQ 10 has been extensively modded with a custom crossover to support a 4 way design that eliminates the Piezo by changing out the tired Philips tweeter for a KEF T27A tweeter.? Sonically The DQ 10 now sounds quite close to the Maggies.? ?I use a tube preamp to drive a pair of Nad 2200 bridged in mono mode.? ?My only source is twin turntables.
On Sunday, October 4, 2020, 05:59:06 p.m. EDT, Bill Sohne <bsohne@...> wrote:
Hi Guys
?
One thing I have noticed over the years....? the DQ-10 love CLEAN power...
I originally had a 80 wpc .... and last system was using two carver m1.ot OptII MkII 485 WPC at 8 ohms .....??? never went to max volume but when i opened ( maybe 6 on the volume level? it up they sang... without issue.
?
?
Best
bill
|
Hi Guys
?
One thing I have noticed over the years....? the DQ-10 love CLEAN power...
I originally had a 80 wpc .... and last system was using two carver m1.ot OptII MkII 485 WPC at 8 ohms .....??? never went to max volume but when i opened ( maybe 6 on the volume level? it up they sang... without issue.
?
?
Best
bill
|
I just got out one of the instruction manuals that came with my DQ-10, a booklet for each speaker, in an attempt to find a published sensitivity spec; unfortunately, none to be found! It claims, however:
“The recommended power for use with the DQ-10 varies from a minimum of about 60 watts to a maximum of 200 watts, depending upon room size and listening level.”
This is from 1980; perhaps by this time they knew well enough that 30 watts doesn’t quite cut it! lol
Curiously, I also just discovered they came with a five year warranty!
John
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 4, 2020, at 4:45 PM, pbizzigotti via groups.io <orthobiz@...> wrote:
? The introductory brochure says,
“Efficiency is high, and 30 watts are ample for high level listening.”
Talk about unscientific! Ha!
Paul On Oct 4, 2020, at 1:22 PM, bc_france < 91bcoe@...> wrote:
Hi,
What I've found (in the french Revue du Son 1979 page 3/4-enclosed): 90 db/1 meter/500 Hz Hope this can help. Bernard Le?dim. 4 oct. 2020 à?19:04, Andy Heckl < andyheckl@...> a écrit?: Hello,
I’m interested in finding the published sensitivity for the DQ-10. Can one of you share that information?
?Thanks,
Andy
|
The introductory brochure says,
“Efficiency is high, and 30 watts are ample for high level listening.”
Talk about unscientific! Ha!
Paul
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 4, 2020, at 1:22 PM, bc_france < 91bcoe@...> wrote:
Hi,
What I've found (in the french Revue du Son 1979 page 3/4-enclosed): 90 db/1 meter/500 Hz Hope this can help. Bernard Le?dim. 4 oct. 2020 à?19:04, Andy Heckl < andyheckl@...> a écrit?: Hello,
I’m interested in finding the published sensitivity for the DQ-10. Can one of you share that information?
?Thanks,
Andy
|
Hi,
What I've found (in the french Revue du Son 1979 page 3/4-enclosed): 90 db/1 meter/500 Hz Hope this can help. Bernard
Le?dim. 4 oct. 2020 à?19:04, Andy Heckl < andyheckl@...> a écrit?: Hello,
I’m interested in finding the published sensitivity for the DQ-10. Can one of you share that information?
?Thanks,
Andy
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 11:40 AM John van Son < jpvanson@...> wrote: 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.)
|
SpongeSound
Ed Lindsey