Telefunken HL 870 CD - A look Inside

Рет қаралды 12,391

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 23

@peterofenbaeck405 5 жыл бұрын

It looks like the midrange and high range speakers are of better quality than the bass speaker. Because the bass speaker has a relatively big diaphragma and a small magnet, I assume that the Loudspeaker box will have a loud but not very controlled bass reproduction and that it will not go far below 60Hz. The crossover network ist surprisingly complex for such a lower end speaker.

@thepoweroffluteflutecovers5775 5 жыл бұрын

I think that these speakers wont have so much bass, very tiny magnet

@shaun9107 5 жыл бұрын

@@thepoweroffluteflutecovers5775 True , 3 way are more for detail but suffer bottom drive . Make good satellites or surround

@paolopancini7641 2 жыл бұрын

Il wufer e bello a banda larga sono a 8 om però?

@yvesboutin5604 5 жыл бұрын

A ridiculously small magnet for the woofer and coils in the crossover next to each other! Telefunken has dropped the ball on that design!

@djijspeakerguy4628 3 жыл бұрын

I have some Sonys with similarly tiny magnets, and they are extremely efficient speakers. Full my room with sound with probably only a watt or two. They don’t go super low though, but they didn’t need to in the 70s!

@yvesboutin5604 3 жыл бұрын

@@djijspeakerguy4628 Ok, I get your point, but what I don't understand is why companies don't make the effort to create better products to be number one compared to their competitors! Mediocrity is so common place nowadays!

@djijspeakerguy4628 3 жыл бұрын

@@yvesboutin5604 They seem to try. There are many modern speakers that use only average components, similar to this, but somehow manage to sound good. I think that sometimes, to make a speaker that sounds really good for the least amount of money possible is all these companies are doing. Sony really made a good speaker with the newer 3-way budget bookshelf speakers though, probably better than my vintage ones now that I think about it. However, that is probably the best thing Sony made since like the ES range from the 80s/90s. Other than any products I mentioned, Sony has been, like you said, mediocre. So have others like Klipsch, Pioneer, even Polk and some of JBL. Bose was probably the first to miss out on sound, focusing more on being user friendly and good looking, and I think they possibly started this trend.

@yvesboutin5604 3 жыл бұрын

@@djijspeakerguy4628 I think that is a fair analysis of the situation. I am sure Bose will disagree with you. When I work on a restoration/modification project I always try to bring a balance in quality between drivers, cabinet structure and damping, and the crossover parts and topology. Why put high end drivers in a poorly designed cabinet with cheap crossover or going overboard with a granit cabinet and putting basic grade drivers. I don't put 100 $ crossover parts in a 200 $ speaker. The idea is to achieve the best result with the budget allowed for the project. Am I making any sense?

@djijspeakerguy4628 3 жыл бұрын

@@yvesboutin5604 yeah, you are definitely making sense. On another topic, I love the Onkyo receivers, but I hate their speakers. Why? Because they make false claims! The stickers on the back of many of their larger satellite speakers produced from the early 2000s onward say either 110 or 130 watts on the back. I have opened all of mine up, and found dramatically undersized 2.5 inch drivers that say 25 watts on the back! I prefer my Bose acoustimass instead of my Onkyo because guess what, the Bose is more intelligible with vocals! I actually don’t mind the acoustimass, but that’s just because I was given it to me for free, with the Onkyo receiver no less! It is actually better than the bulky 10 inch sub that came with the Onkyo! That is a 10 inch driver at least, but a cheap 80 watt one that claims to be 230 watts on the box, which is almost as bad as the satellites! Onkyo should’ve stuck to making receivers! My two tx-sr500 budget receivers are not a bad product!