advertisement


Replace the 'Briks in an otherwise all Linn setup ?

Lick of matt-black all round maybe..

p0v14.jpg


..mind you I do find them intrinsically ugly, even with a lighter wood finish on the front:

30uu4ja.jpg


That's probably one of the main drivers (no pun intended) behind looking for a change I suspect.
 
I too own a pair of briks and would be hard pushed to move them on. As a result I own a few other pairs of speakers too, and my recommendation if you fancy a change would be to stick with something to give equal quality and scale.

I would personally suggest checking out a pair of Wilson Benesch Square 2 , even at rrp a seriously good speaker for the money, and even better value if you can find a used mint pair, plus you'll enjoy the quality of appearance too. They'll give you the bass you desire, whilst also having the same quality of the briks.

My other suggestion would be to book some demo time at a PMC stockist, and see if any of their models tickle your fancy, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
 
I've not seen a pair of Isobariks with mis-matched tweeters before. I wonder what that does to the electrical characteristics and their sound?
I've read some reports too that the seals fail on the bass drivers which is, of course, very bad news for the performance of an isobaric pair.
Perhaps there is more needed for these 'bariks than just a spruce up?
 
Those are the original ceramic tweeters from the keltik.

Quite possibly the worst tweeter ever fitted to a Linn speaker.

I really don't think you can classify the sound as representative.
 
I readily defer to your superior knowledge gentlemen. If forced to choose between throwing money at restoring/repairing the Isobariks, and the option of changing to something else - even just for the hell of it, I think the latter is going to come out ahead.
 
-alan- said:
I readily defer to your superior knowledge gentlemen. If forced to choose between throwing money at restoring/repairing the Isobariks, and the option of changing to something else - even just for the hell of it, I think the latter is going to come out ahead.
Click to expand...

you may want to hang onto them for a few months after you change them out for something new... people seem to have a way of missing them once they are gone. they are pretty unique... though i also might ask if youre not even curious to hear what briks are supposed to sound like (i.e. swapping out the tweeters with something better or more 'spec' than what was put in there before you got them...? they ARE kind of ugly but maybe there's a finish that can sort of make it liveable...? i know i know... i do love a lost cause though..
 
-alan- said:
Valid point about the room size. Looking back at most of the recommendations, they are generally fairly beefy sized units. From a simple physics perspective, does the size of the room rule out going for much smaller boxes - or is that too simplistic a view ?
Click to expand...
It depends on how much you value visceral bass. I have a much more modestly sized room (5.7 x 4 x 2.7m) and the choice of loudspeakers (all sealed) with woofers ranging from a piddly 5.25" to full 12". The little 5.25" Ergo E-IX reaches almost as low as the 12" Yamaha NS-1000M, but there is absolutely no denying the Yamaha sound far more effortless.

Shifting air for LF is like stirring a pail of paint. You can do it (with much vigour and effort) with a knitting needle or (to better effect) with a broad paddle. You might like to look up Hoffman's Iron Law. Boxed loudspeakers are constrained by volumetric size, efficiency and bass extension. Small boxes sacrifice efficiency or bass extension. Often both. You have to choose what you're willing to compromise.
 
A large space is most aesthetically filled with sound from a number of small speakers. If you need bass add a nice sub woofer that can be hidden away.
 
Alternative remedial solution = 4 new tweeters + a sub + some foam covers ?

A bit of googling suggests c. £200-250 for proper tweeters, and £140ish for foam. How do you go about connecting a sub into a system like mine, and how much would you pay for one that wouldn't sound dreadful ?
 
To the op , those early briks were ok in 1979 but you can here the cabs esp in the mid, add to that the phasy suck out mid range effect of the driver /xover and its not hard for the later ones to completely blow them away.

I would get shut of them as they are on chancer bay and get some later ones, then you will have some briks.
 
david ellwood said:
A large space is most aesthetically filled with sound from a number of small speakers. If you need bass add a nice sub woofer that can be hidden away.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Bose Satellites and Acoustimass is what the OP is looking for to replace his 'Briks. :rolleyes:
 
James said:
You have a huge volume of air to shift in your room. You'll need something with at least a 12" woofer or perhaps 15" to do your room justice. How about a pair a nice pair of vintage JBL, Tannoy or, heck, even Naim DBL?
Click to expand...

James , not one of your suggestions addresses the issue of the speakers being brute ugly!

to fill a large space with a solution that isnt brute ugly is either expensive or satellites with sub.

If sound quality were the issue i'd suggest refinishing the bariks with new hyqaphon tweeters, professionally reveneered and convert them to active operation.

It might be cheaper just to replace the bariks with a nice newer vintage pair that are ready for active.

Certainly the old boxes he has at the moment are unlikely to be performing optimally.

As ever it all depends on budget.
 
Mike Reed said:
Subs with Isobariks? Think I've heard it all now !:)
Click to expand...

For some source material, I think a sub would be quite useful with Briks.

They have good tuneful bass, but IMHO it's not especially powerful; you can get a much more visceral experience from a good 12" or 15" woofer.

People have scoffed when I've described the Isobarik bass as "lean", but compared to my Signifers, it is exactly that.
 
DavidY80 said:
For some source material, I think a sub would be quite useful with Briks.

They have good tuneful bass, but IMHO it's not especially powerful; you can get a much more visceral experience from a good 12" or 15" woofer.

People have scoffed when I've described the Isobarik bass as "lean", but compared to my Signifers, it is exactly that.
Click to expand...

looking back I think they are crude in the treble, shouty in the mids and a bit light in the bass. They don't image and look awful. Other than that they are a damn fine loud speaker!
 
MVV said:
looking back I think they are crude in the treble, shouty in the mids and a bit light in the bass. They don't image and look awful. Other than that they are a damn fine loud speaker!
Click to expand...

Yes, that is my recollection of mine (early ones) except that I never had a criticism of the excellent bass. They weren't supposed to image; they were 'wall of sound' speakers. Backs to the wall speakers don't image well, anyway; you need free space position for that. They were, however, surprisingly good in either a high-ceilinged big room or a small, pokey one.
 
I wonder how many Linn sold?...my guess is they are more popular than many think. When Active they can really bring music alive but you need to push them hard with volume...there's a point where the wall of sound becomes immersive.
 
david ellwood said:
James , not one of your suggestions addresses the issue of the speakers being brute ugly!
Click to expand...
Beauty and eyes of beholder notwithstanding, function should dictate form. The OP has a big room to fill with the limited power of his Linn amp. How many satellites do you think that could drive satisfactorily?

BTW, loudspeakers don't get much uglier than the 'Brik.
 
Well considering it's currently driving four B139s four B110s and two pairs of tweeters I reckon three pairs of two-way speakers would represent an easier load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top