pch300, yes, your explanation is appreciated and logical.
My goal in this has never been to achieve "original" sound, or else I would have demanded the OEM parts. There's a slight problem with that, however; the manufacturer of the equivalent OEM parts does not sell them to repair shops. The cost to do a rebuild of these drivers with new parts is in the thousands, and a very important consideration for me was to absolutely avoid shipping them. Having experienced three different shippers (DHL, FedEx and UPS) absolutely destroy speakers shipped to me, that's not an option. Even custom shippers I have seen with skids having lift trick forks stuck through the box. So, in order to attempt an "original" sound one is forced to go to HHR to get parts, and by necessity spend quite a bit more on rebuild. That's where the choice not to seek spending thousands on this comes into play.
And, it was the correct choice, imo. Who can say how much degradation would happen to the sound if the putty was dried out? Only a direct comparison to a new unit, kept pristine, would suffice. All this discussion of the sound being altered is moot. The rebuild was successful in the end mostly because of my foam removal. The driver was terribly constrained until I half emptied the cabinet to let the driver work more freely. That changed the sound from the treble on down. I strongly urge anyone with a vintage set to consider whether they wish to do such a fix. Again, this is a Do At Your Own Risk activity, given the potential for there to be asbestos in the foam.
This is all conjecture, the discussion that I and others are engaging in, as regards the original sound and whether I am achieving anything close to it by using alternative surround and spider. Do I care if the unit has "original" sound? Not at all. Frankly, given my work with the foam removal I saved this speaker. It was on the disappointing side with longer and closer listening than the first impression ("sublime"), and I went at it with a goal to make it much better. I did. So, frankly, I could care less whether I'm achieving original sound. If I'm going to keep a vintage speaker, it had better perform at least in the range of my others. If it's not going to do that, it will go by�e bye.
This community lives on conjecture. Daily I see people saying, "I think..." in reference to comparison of products that they have never used or never compared actually. This is no different. None of you can say what the original could sound like in comparison to this unit with inexpensive parts. The fact is that with the foam removal, my "version" would likely sound far better than the original. But, again, only a comparison with it would matter, and we're not going to have that. So, moot point.
The modified speaker just makes it into the category of worthiness to stay, to be used as nice foil to others. When I set up a formidable set like the Kingsound King III electrostatics, there is an adjustment period for soundstage - there always is when changing speaker tech. But, once that accommodation to the radically different dispersion pattern happens, oh, my the King III is in SUCH a different class in terms of refinement. It makes the Ohm sound relatively muddy, even after the fix. But, that, too should be expected. You're not going to get that level of definition and cleanness from a mixed material omni. Not going to happen, especially when, imo, desperation fixes such as putty are used.
My analysis is that the intent to be novel, to use avant-guarde materials was a top priority, and the putty was a fix. I think the metal would ring like a bell and had to be calmed. Why would anyone produce a speaker like that? Novelty of soundstage, and for sales as putatively superior. You will notice that Ohm speakers today do not use mixed materials. It's just not anywhere close to ideal. And, it doesn't sound close to ideal, either. Between the full range driver and the omni dispersion, it's a fairly distorted result, with less accuracy and more atomized, ballooned soundstage. I accept that as a result of the technology used, and as a pleasing alternative to more traditional speakers. It's fun to listen inside a "bubble" soundstage, or what I call the "mushroom cloud" soundstage.
If I recall correctly from visual memory, my drivers do not have any putty; they have foam across both sections of metal, titanium and aluminum. I'll have to look again to confirm. So, another missed opportunity to have "original" sound - and to avoid what appears to be an original potential for failure of the driver. Knowing about the putty would I want it? Would I seek it in restoration? I can't say for sure, but with the sound I have, I sure would not seek it. If that's not "original" sound, who cares? I'm not going to sell these or try to showcase them as if restored to original.
One thing is for sure; as long as that foam would remain jammed into the cabinet to suffocate the driver, this was not a great vintage speaker. Now, with my fix, it is. Let's keep in mind, too, that if a person seeks the HHR restoration, they are not getting the "original" sound anyway. If they were, that would be a tragedy. Purportedly, they are getting a vastly superior sound quality. But, again, unless a speaker is compared directly, no one can say that the difference between them would be great. Theoretically, with the improvements in materials and build the HHR should be noticeably superior, but you're not going to have certainty on that apart from a direct comparison - or perhaps, measurements. Again, this is no comment on the quality and sound of HHR, as I have not used an HHR speaker.
So, basically, my response to the foam, putty, surrounds, spiders, etc. as not yielding the "original" sound is - who cares? Only someone who would theoretically have the OEM parts and seek a perfect reconstruction of it, without any help/parts to improve it. The old speaker is not coming back, and I don't care. I'm not starting a museum, and the only thing that matters in this instance with this set is performance. Now, I have it. What the performance was before, I really do not care. :)
My goal in this has never been to achieve "original" sound, or else I would have demanded the OEM parts. There's a slight problem with that, however; the manufacturer of the equivalent OEM parts does not sell them to repair shops. The cost to do a rebuild of these drivers with new parts is in the thousands, and a very important consideration for me was to absolutely avoid shipping them. Having experienced three different shippers (DHL, FedEx and UPS) absolutely destroy speakers shipped to me, that's not an option. Even custom shippers I have seen with skids having lift trick forks stuck through the box. So, in order to attempt an "original" sound one is forced to go to HHR to get parts, and by necessity spend quite a bit more on rebuild. That's where the choice not to seek spending thousands on this comes into play.
And, it was the correct choice, imo. Who can say how much degradation would happen to the sound if the putty was dried out? Only a direct comparison to a new unit, kept pristine, would suffice. All this discussion of the sound being altered is moot. The rebuild was successful in the end mostly because of my foam removal. The driver was terribly constrained until I half emptied the cabinet to let the driver work more freely. That changed the sound from the treble on down. I strongly urge anyone with a vintage set to consider whether they wish to do such a fix. Again, this is a Do At Your Own Risk activity, given the potential for there to be asbestos in the foam.
This is all conjecture, the discussion that I and others are engaging in, as regards the original sound and whether I am achieving anything close to it by using alternative surround and spider. Do I care if the unit has "original" sound? Not at all. Frankly, given my work with the foam removal I saved this speaker. It was on the disappointing side with longer and closer listening than the first impression ("sublime"), and I went at it with a goal to make it much better. I did. So, frankly, I could care less whether I'm achieving original sound. If I'm going to keep a vintage speaker, it had better perform at least in the range of my others. If it's not going to do that, it will go by�e bye.
This community lives on conjecture. Daily I see people saying, "I think..." in reference to comparison of products that they have never used or never compared actually. This is no different. None of you can say what the original could sound like in comparison to this unit with inexpensive parts. The fact is that with the foam removal, my "version" would likely sound far better than the original. But, again, only a comparison with it would matter, and we're not going to have that. So, moot point.
The modified speaker just makes it into the category of worthiness to stay, to be used as nice foil to others. When I set up a formidable set like the Kingsound King III electrostatics, there is an adjustment period for soundstage - there always is when changing speaker tech. But, once that accommodation to the radically different dispersion pattern happens, oh, my the King III is in SUCH a different class in terms of refinement. It makes the Ohm sound relatively muddy, even after the fix. But, that, too should be expected. You're not going to get that level of definition and cleanness from a mixed material omni. Not going to happen, especially when, imo, desperation fixes such as putty are used.
My analysis is that the intent to be novel, to use avant-guarde materials was a top priority, and the putty was a fix. I think the metal would ring like a bell and had to be calmed. Why would anyone produce a speaker like that? Novelty of soundstage, and for sales as putatively superior. You will notice that Ohm speakers today do not use mixed materials. It's just not anywhere close to ideal. And, it doesn't sound close to ideal, either. Between the full range driver and the omni dispersion, it's a fairly distorted result, with less accuracy and more atomized, ballooned soundstage. I accept that as a result of the technology used, and as a pleasing alternative to more traditional speakers. It's fun to listen inside a "bubble" soundstage, or what I call the "mushroom cloud" soundstage.
If I recall correctly from visual memory, my drivers do not have any putty; they have foam across both sections of metal, titanium and aluminum. I'll have to look again to confirm. So, another missed opportunity to have "original" sound - and to avoid what appears to be an original potential for failure of the driver. Knowing about the putty would I want it? Would I seek it in restoration? I can't say for sure, but with the sound I have, I sure would not seek it. If that's not "original" sound, who cares? I'm not going to sell these or try to showcase them as if restored to original.
One thing is for sure; as long as that foam would remain jammed into the cabinet to suffocate the driver, this was not a great vintage speaker. Now, with my fix, it is. Let's keep in mind, too, that if a person seeks the HHR restoration, they are not getting the "original" sound anyway. If they were, that would be a tragedy. Purportedly, they are getting a vastly superior sound quality. But, again, unless a speaker is compared directly, no one can say that the difference between them would be great. Theoretically, with the improvements in materials and build the HHR should be noticeably superior, but you're not going to have certainty on that apart from a direct comparison - or perhaps, measurements. Again, this is no comment on the quality and sound of HHR, as I have not used an HHR speaker.
So, basically, my response to the foam, putty, surrounds, spiders, etc. as not yielding the "original" sound is - who cares? Only someone who would theoretically have the OEM parts and seek a perfect reconstruction of it, without any help/parts to improve it. The old speaker is not coming back, and I don't care. I'm not starting a museum, and the only thing that matters in this instance with this set is performance. Now, I have it. What the performance was before, I really do not care. :)