"Woody" wrote in message
...

"Triffid" wrote in message
...
James Brownlie pibbled:
Anyone got any idea of quality/ read any reviews on Wharfedale
Denton
speakers. Just found an old pair in my attic.


They started off with Denton 1's which were a little-known single driver
model. Quite sought after on ebay if that's what you've got. They were
square ISTR.

--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.
Strawberries are purely optional.



Never was a Denton 1, in fact never an anything 1 from Wharfedale. How
could
you know it would sell and you might develop it to a MK2?

In respect of the single driver I think you are getting mixed up with the
Shilton which was a mite smaller and had a single driver - the Denton
always
had two.

I've got a pair from mid 70's and dug them out recently for a comparison
with a pair of KEF Cresta 10 (I think they are) of mid 80's vintage, and a
pair of Aegis 1 bought late last year but still boxed. I have to admit
that
in a small environment (the kitchen) the Dentons sounded by far the best
with the Aegis the worst. Put them in an 18x12 lounge where they have to
shout a bit and the strain began to show, far more than on the Aegis 1's.
Having said that I think on balance the Dentons were my preference.


--

Woody



Very interesting that you should prefer the single drivers, was it the
sound stage? or a better dynamic range? or a more coherant sound?

You may find this link interesting;
http://fullrangedriver.com/tiki-page...FullrangeIntro

Jem

My humble efforts are here;
http://www.jrbham.btinternet.co.uk/tqwp/

"Jem Raid" wrote in message
...

"Woody" wrote in message
...

"Triffid" wrote in message
...
James Brownlie pibbled:
Anyone got any idea of quality/ read any reviews on Wharfedale
Denton
speakers. Just found an old pair in my attic.


They started off with Denton 1's which were a little-known single
driver
model. Quite sought after on ebay if that's what you've got. They
were
square ISTR.

--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.
Strawberries are purely optional.



Never was a Denton 1, in fact never an anything 1 from Wharfedale. How
could
you know it would sell and you might develop it to a MK2?

In respect of the single driver I think you are getting mixed up with
the
Shilton which was a mite smaller and had a single driver - the Denton
always
had two.

I've got a pair from mid 70's and dug them out recently for a comparison
with a pair of KEF Cresta 10 (I think they are) of mid 80's vintage, and
a
pair of Aegis 1 bought late last year but still boxed. I have to admit
that
in a small environment (the kitchen) the Dentons sounded by far the best
with the Aegis the worst. Put them in an 18x12 lounge where they have to
shout a bit and the strain began to show, far more than on the Aegis
1's.
Having said that I think on balance the Dentons were my preference.


--

Woody



Very interesting that you should prefer the single drivers, was it the
sound stage? or a better dynamic range? or a more coherant sound?

You may find this link interesting;
http://fullrangedriver.com/tiki-page...FullrangeIntro

Jem

My humble efforts are here;
http://www.jrbham.btinternet.co.uk/tqwp/



Not knowing who you are aiming the comment at, note that as I said in my
response, the Denton always was a two-way unit - it was the Shelton (not
Shilton as I said earlier) that was a single driver and I (thankfully) never
had any of them!.

Unlike most modern speakers both the Shelton and the Denton were infinite
baffle (i.e. sealed box) designs.


--

Woody

"Woody" wrote in message
...

"Jem Raid" wrote in message
...

"Woody" wrote in message
...

"Triffid" wrote in message
...
James Brownlie pibbled:
Anyone got any idea of quality/ read any reviews on Wharfedale
Denton
speakers. Just found an old pair in my attic.


They started off with Denton 1's which were a little-known single
driver
model. Quite sought after on ebay if that's what you've got. They
were
square ISTR.

--
Despite appearances, it is still legal to put sugar on cornflakes.
Strawberries are purely optional.



Never was a Denton 1, in fact never an anything 1 from Wharfedale. How
could
you know it would sell and you might develop it to a MK2?

In respect of the single driver I think you are getting mixed up with
the
Shilton which was a mite smaller and had a single driver - the Denton
always
had two.

I've got a pair from mid 70's and dug them out recently for a
comparison
with a pair of KEF Cresta 10 (I think they are) of mid 80's vintage,
and
a
pair of Aegis 1 bought late last year but still boxed. I have to admit
that
in a small environment (the kitchen) the Dentons sounded by far the
best
with the Aegis the worst. Put them in an 18x12 lounge where they have
to
shout a bit and the strain began to show, far more than on the Aegis
1's.
Having said that I think on balance the Dentons were my preference.


--

Woody



Very interesting that you should prefer the single drivers, was it the
sound stage? or a better dynamic range? or a more coherant sound?

You may find this link interesting;
http://fullrangedriver.com/tiki-page...FullrangeIntro

Jem

My humble efforts are here;
http://www.jrbham.btinternet.co.uk/tqwp/



Not knowing who you are aiming the comment at, note that as I said in my
response, the Denton always was a two-way unit - it was the Shelton (not
Shilton as I said earlier) that was a single driver and I (thankfully)
never
had any of them!.

Unlike most modern speakers both the Shelton and the Denton were infinite
baffle (i.e. sealed box) designs.


--

Woody



Sorry Woody it was Triffid I was aiming the comment at, but I'd like to know
anyone's feeling about simgle drivers.

Jem

In article , Woody
wrote:

Unlike most modern speakers both the Shelton and the Denton were
infinite baffle (i.e. sealed box) designs.

Although one 'feature' of the version of the Denton available in the late
1960's was that the rear wall of the cabinet was made of a relatively thin
layer of wood, and hence was somewhat more flexible than the front and
sides. This may have had effect upon the speaker and made it less of an
infinite baffle than is common.

There were various speakers back in the 1950's and early 60's that
deliberately used 'flimsy' panels to fiddle about with the resonances, etc.
This seems to have died out as an idea, though no doubt someone will
re-invent it in due course as a major new advance. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
There were various speakers back in the 1950's and early 60's that
deliberately used 'flimsy' panels to fiddle about with the resonances,
etc. This seems to have died out as an idea, though no doubt someone
will re-invent it in due course as a major new advance. :-)

Wasn't the first to do this accurately the BC1? On the principle that you
can't make a perfectly resonance free cabinet speaker, so use CAD to
assess those resonances and make them work for you?

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Jem Raid
wrote:


Sorry Woody it was Triffid I was aiming the comment at, but I'd like to
know anyone's feeling about simgle drivers.

Well, my preferred speakers are Quad ESL63's and 988's. I'll leave it to
you to decide if these can be called 'single driver' or not, though... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
There were various speakers back in the 1950's and early 60's that
deliberately used 'flimsy' panels to fiddle about with the resonances,
etc. This seems to have died out as an idea, though no doubt someone
will re-invent it in due course as a major new advance. :-)

Wasn't the first to do this accurately the BC1? On the principle that
you can't make a perfectly resonance free cabinet speaker, so use CAD to
assess those resonances and make them work for you?

I'm not sure when the BC1 was designed/released. However my recollection is
of a speaker called something like the 'CQ' that appeared around 1960. This
was well before the days of 'CAD' being more than a role for Terry Thomas.
:-) I'll need to dig out the relevant copy of HFN when I go to where I am
keeping them to check. I'll pass on the 'CQ' being 'accurate'. ;-

There was also a speaker similar in principle to the 'isobarik'.

Maybe I should do some pages on 'old weird speakers' as people seem to have
forgotten a lot of these. Sometimes the wheels are re-invented, sometimes
forgotten.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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

In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
There were various speakers back in the 1950's and early 60's that
deliberately used 'flimsy' panels to fiddle about with the resonances,
etc. This seems to have died out as an idea, though no doubt someone
will re-invent it in due course as a major new advance. :-)

Wasn't the first to do this accurately the BC1? On the principle that
you can't make a perfectly resonance free cabinet speaker, so use CAD to
assess those resonances and make them work for you?

I'm not sure when the BC1 was designed/released. However my recollection is
of a speaker called something like the 'CQ' that appeared around 1960. This
was well before the days of 'CAD' being more than a role for Terry Thomas.
:-) I'll need to dig out the relevant copy of HFN when I go to where I am
keeping them to check. I'll pass on the 'CQ' being 'accurate'. ;-

There was also a speaker similar in principle to the 'isobarik'.

Maybe I should do some pages on 'old weird speakers' as people seem to have
forgotten a lot of these. Sometimes the wheels are re-invented, sometimes
forgotten.

Slainte,

Jim

Nothing weird with the old BC1's I've got still fine sounding and a
credit to the designer))
--
Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes


Maybe I should do some pages on 'old weird speakers' as people seem to
have forgotten a lot of these. Sometimes the wheels are re-invented,
sometimes forgotten.


Nothing weird with the old BC1's I've got still fine sounding and a
credit to the designer))

No doubt. :-) As I'm sure you're aware, I was really thinking of some of
the lesser-known items like the 'CQ', not the BC1's.

In fact, I suppose you could argue that the LS3/5A also exploits the
flexibility of the box panels rather than tries to make them perfectly
rigid. :-)

Been looking though old mags, etc. Haven't yet found the review I was
thinking of, but have unearther the CQ 'tetraq' add-on tweeter, which as
the name implies, is rather an unusual shape. Looks a bit like the old milk
cartons with just four sides. Two photos of it look like quite different
shapes as 2d views play tricks on your sense of perspective and depth! The
review said it was excellent, though... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Nothing weird with the old BC1's I've got still fine sounding and a
credit to the designer))

No doubt. :-) As I'm sure you're aware, I was really thinking of some
of the lesser-known items like the 'CQ', not the BC1's.

In fact, I suppose you could argue that the LS3/5A also exploits the
flexibility of the box panels rather than tries to make them perfectly
rigid. :-)

Given that they are both LS3s ie designed by the same department of the
BBC, it's not too surprising. ;-)

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.