IMF 5/36 midbass units (these were IMF's answer to the B110 which I'm guessing they developed either due to frustration with B110 production inconsistencies and/or wanting to reduce costs),
To my layman's eyes, the 5/36 driver looks very similar to the B110, so I'm curious as to how IMF were able to avoid that resonance when KEF seemingly weren't?!Looking at the response my guess is IMF wanted to get shut of the nasty out of band resonance, which they appear to have done very successfully indeed. That is the bad point of the B110 for sure and the requirement for the notch filter.
JR149 ..... with my Rogers A100 Amp and T100 Tuner
Unfortunately not, my Garrard 401 is in the loft but this system is also plugged into my digital system via a computer and Synology NAS so can replay all my digital music via JRiver Media player and still sound's amazing due to the JR149 speakersTHAT'S 'classic'!!!!
At the risk of going off topic, is their another source apart from the T100 and is it period correct?
Jim
I know for sure that JR149 speakers used Focal 5N401 woofers, not KEF B110.
It was actually Focal’s first customer!
This has been discussed already to some extent in this thread. I had Hartle's Type 24 crossovers and was fooled for some considerable time into believing they were an improvement over the originals, but they weren't. They're voiced with a more forward upper midrange which reduces the perception of depth and also makes the top octave sound drier and less airy. Also, they don't have the same baffle step correction as the originals so have weaker bass output. I uploaded measurements comparing their frequency response with the stock crossovers. See posts #298, #302 and #304. The Type 24's saving grace is that it's made to much closer tolerances than the original crossovers and so should give better pair matching (assuming your drivers are well matched in the first place).The interesting question with these is whether the Type 24 crossover is a good or a bad thing.
That's interesting as here in the UK the number of mk1's greatly outnumber the mk2's. For every ten mk1's I see on the used market, I'm lucky if I see one mk2. Which country are you in?I stand corrected then Tony!
I’ve only seen mkII versions, probably.
But they still sound awful and remove the sparkle of the originals, I have a pair languishing in the shed never to see light of day.
I'm only pleased that I'm not the only one to have realised their flaws.
That's interesting as here in the UK the number of mk1's greatly outnumber the mk2's. For every ten mk1's I see on the used market, I'm lucky if I see one mk2. Which country are you in?
This has been discussed already to some extent in this thread. I had Hartle's Type 24 crossovers and was fooled for some considerable time into believing they were an improvement over the originals, but they weren't. They're voiced with a more forward upper midrange which reduces the perception of depth and also makes the top octave sound drier and less airy. Also, they don't have the same baffle step correction as the originals so have weaker bass output. I uploaded measurements comparing their frequency response with the stock crossovers. See posts #298, #302 and #304. The Type 24's saving grace is that it's made to much closer tolerances than the original crossovers and so should give better pair matching (assuming your drivers are well matched in the first place).