Phil Allison wrote:

As I just carefully explained and you have stupidly ignored.

No, I didn't, read it again.

** It does not get any better with re-reading.

Lets take the entire quote, typo included:

What was claimed to me was that the saturation would protect the woofer,
thank you Phhil.

Read it againg until understood. Notice the thank you. Those that are able
to read english will realize that I sum up what was said to me and thank you
for correcting that misinformation. Just what is your complaint about?

Mindlessly spreading false information is just as BAD as originating
it.

Yes.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Have you forgotten your medication?

.... Phil

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

"Peter Larsen is a ****ing IDIOT "

Phil Allison wrote:

As I just carefully explained and you have stupidly ignored.

No, I didn't, read it again.

** It does not get any better with re-reading.


Lets take the entire quote, typo included:

What was claimed to me was that the saturation would protect the woofer,
thank you Phhil.

Read it againg until understood. Notice the thank you.


** Err - the " thank you " is for what exactly ???????

Who the **** knows ??

Massive ambiguity alert .....



Those that are able to read english will realize that I sum up what was
said to me and thank you for correcting that misinformation.


** How strange that you left those four, last crucial words out.

I can read English with the very best - shame you cannot write it.


Just what is your complaint about?


** Alluding to you own unspoken thoughts is the act of a ****ing imbecile.

And something autistic mental defectives do constantly.

One very clear way of denitrifying them.

Like Swastikas on a Nazi uniform.


Mindlessly spreading false information is just as BAD as originating
it.

Yes.

** More mindless ambiguity.

Wot a Nazi.


..... Phil

"Phil Allison"


One very clear way of denitrifying them.


** LOL

MS spellchecker strikes again ....

( should be "identifying" )



..... Phil

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:


A system with B139/B110/T27 probably had a recommended max amplifier
rating of around 150Watts. Using an amplifier of considerably more power
and then using that for a party constitutes no small amount of abuse
IMHO.

I read in a 1978 Hi-Fi News review on the R105 MK1 for which KEF
suggested an amp of up to 200Watts that "astonishing levels of electric
bass guitar were tolerated 500Watts without damage." Admittedly it
doesn't say how long for.

....nor if there was damage the writer didn't notice. I still recall being
in a hifi dealer's where they extolled how wonderful the speakers being
played were. And I finally managed to get them to check and find one of the
tweeters was damaged. They were hearing what they'd become used to and
wanted to promote, not what the speakers actually sounded like.

It can also be hard to judge on such power 'ratings' for two reasons.

Firstly in ye olde days a lot of the music people played wasn't heavily
level-compressed. So the actual average power was a lot less than the peak
power. That means that amps rates in terms of "continuous sinewave power"
values had to provide large values to pass much lower average-power musical
signals. Alas these days a lot of music may be very level-compressed...

Secondly, the actual power being dumped into the speaker would have
depended on its impedance at the relevant frequencies. Whereas the amp
rating would usually assume an 8 Ohm resistor.

So it can be a question of what was actually meant by the values quoted.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
That C.J. Rogers design used a Cambridge Audio R50 crossover.
If you
used A B139/B110/T27 with a 250w amp at a *party* rather than
a tea
dance you would have melted the voice coils.

Friend of mine had some large free-standing KEF's for that
application
no end of times they went off for repair..

We used to run a rather upmarket market disco with a couple of
Tannoy
Yorks driven by a water cooled QUAD 303 -.

Loud and oh so clean;.

I did but KEF was happy to effect a repair at a very
reasonable price.
Probably better to use a digital crossover and multi-channel
power amps
these days. One of those Behringer jobs with 4th order L-R
and
adjustable delay?

I wonder how much of a problem ferrite saturation really is?
Any test results on the internet?

Have to say that the above does paint a slightly unfair picture
of KEF
speakers. I am of an age when as a young man many (if not most)
of my work
colleagues aspired to own KEF loudspeakers. Of all of them I
can only
recall one person who had blown a KEF drive unit in his R104s
(T27)
because a plug/socket had become partially disconnected (DIN if
I recall
correctly).

A system with B139/B110/T27 probably had a recommended max
amplifier
rating of around 150Watts. Using an amplifier of considerably
more power
and then using that for a party constitutes no small amount of
abuse IMHO.


[snip]

I had that kit - with the addition of a pair of Coles super
tweeters - in the TL design by Dr Arthur Bailey published by WW
in 1972.

IMSMC they were rated 50Wrms system.


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

On 07/11/2013 15:59, Eiron wrote:
On 07/11/2013 08:15, RJH wrote:

I am interested as I'd like to build. Main issue nowadays seems to be
finding drivers and crossovers equivalent to those used in the original
designs.

http://www.falconacoustics.co.uk

Cambridge R50 crossovers and 4001G supertweeter.
All you need now is a pair of old KEFs from ebay....


Thanks - I'd forgotten about that site, seems better than Wilmslow.

--
Cheers, Rob