Tannoy Monitor Golds

[Richard C.]

My take on vintage Tannoys is this. Feel free to shoot me down!

Tannoy took longer to adopt stereo than others out there. As a consequence a lot of the careful matching of speakers both visually and electrically simply didn't happen back then. There isn't much you can do about visual mis-matches but you can certainly ensure that your drive units are well matched and that your crossovers are a reasonable facsimile of each other, be that due to ageing components or.wide tolerances because of the procurement process was geared towards mono use.

An interesting observation, Cable Monkey and hardly deserving of being shot down but not entirely accurate.

True, Tannoy did regard the newly introduced stereophony as something not to be taken too seriously. Remember that the first forays into this brave new world were centred on sounds of A4 Pacifics charging across the room and thundering out the window. There were many records of this sort whose essential purpose was to demonstrate as dramatically as possible the supposed three-dimensional aspects of this new medium. It hardly required the reproductive qualities of a DC Tannoy to replicate this - most people were satisfied with the new, wide radiograms becoming available to cater for this burgeoning market. It was not until later and, specifically, Decca's introduction of their FFSR system and the recording of "serious" (we're not going there again!) music that a playback system of "serious" quality became necessary. It was at this point that Tannoy began to consider entering the stereo field.

I'm afraid that the notion of "wide tolerances because the procurement process was geared towards mono use" is quite wrong. All domestic Tannoy products, including the Full Range models, were constructed to very close mechanical and electrical tolerances as well as performance parameters. For these reasons alone, the possible differences of individual examples of the same model would have been indistinguishable to anything other than laboratory precision test equipment, thus guaranteeing uniformity of performance. I agree that the same compliance did not necessarily extend to West Norwood cabinets, particularly with regard to visual appearance as there was little effort made to "match" these for use in pairs and retailers usually sold them as a couple of individual speakers anyway. Of course, it was common for mono systems to be supplemented with an additional speaker to accommodate the new stereo and so it was no less common for the speakers to be of quite different production ages. Back then, people neither noticed nor cared.

 

[Cable Monkey]

Thanks for your insight Richard. I actually don't mind being pointed in the right direction. Sharing knowledge is my favourite thing!

 

[Pac1]

An interesting observation, Cable Monkey and hardly deserving of being shot down but not entirely accurate.

True, Tannoy did regard the newly introduced stereophony as something not to be taken too seriously. Remember that the first forays into this brave new world were centred on sounds of A4 Pacifics charging across the room and thundering out the window. There were many records of this sort whose essential purpose was to demonstrate as dramatically as possible the supposed three-dimensional aspects of this new medium. It hardly required the reproductive qualities of a DC Tannoy to replicate this - most people were satisfied with the new, wide radiograms becoming available to cater for this burgeoning market. It was not until later and, specifically, Decca's introduction of their FFSR system and the recording of "serious" (we're not going there again!) music that a playback system of "serious" quality became necessary. It was at this point that Tannoy began to consider entering the stereo field.

I'm afraid that the notion of "wide tolerances because the procurement process was geared towards mono use" is quite wrong. All domestic Tannoy products, including the Full Range models, were constructed to very close mechanical and electrical tolerances as well as performance parameters. For these reasons alone, the possible differences of individual examples of the same model would have been indistinguishable to anything other than laboratory precision test equipment, thus guaranteeing uniformity of performance. I agree that the same compliance did not necessarily extend to West Norwood cabinets, particularly with regard to visual appearance as there was little effort made to "match" these for use in pairs and retailers usually sold them as a couple of individual speakers anyway. Of course, it was common for mono systems to be supplemented with an additional speaker to accommodate the new stereo and so it was no less common for the speakers to be of quite different production ages. Back then, people neither noticed nor cared.

Good posting Richard and its refreshing to hear someone with some decent insight into Tannoy manufacture.

Tannoy put a lot of work into tolerances in manufacture of drive units and their crossover circuit design and it's true to say took great pains to ensure that differences between drive units and crossovers was very small, admirably so for the day. As someone who works almost on an daily basis with Tannoy vintage equipment, I have seen my fair share of crossovers for example which didn't always use matching components but the values were always the same and tolerances not at all bad for the day. The problems really came with some component quality of things like switches, and 4 pin connectors which were fairly rudimentary. The switches particularly never seem to measure well between different crossovers but that's sort of to be expected at the age.

It is true to say that things like voice coil insulation has improved over the years allowing greater power handling. Whilst there may may now be greater differences between drive units than when new, it is unlikely that those differences existed at point of original sale. Tannoy were early proponents of using measured acoustic response too and so it was a relatively straightforwards affair for them to check performance against what we might now call "master curves". That's more than most manufacturers were doing at the time.

As you say Richard, cabinets did start to improve towards the late 1960's but there was, and remains quite a bit of room for further improvement imho (as a designer of cabinets) to appreciably reduce colouration. They did get it right with a number of models, but the basic boxes from the Lancasters to the Ardens were fairly lacking in a number of respects. To be fair, the importance of the contribution of the cabinet was possibly less of a concern than the improvement in actual build quality and build/design costs had to be kept reasonable to ensure that their models remained affordable for the domestic markets.

 

[Richard C.]

I might add as a corollary to my earlier submission that a more dedicated approach to the subject was adopted in the case of the Tannoy amplifier.

Originally, this was the company's take on the ubiquitous 5/20 Mullard and as might have been expected, was a high quality product. With the advent of stereo, a balance knob was added to the pre-amp which was joined by a second main amplifier. Simples!

But I always thought their brick-red paintwork a little out of character. Not many about these days.

 

[Richard C.]

As you say Richard, cabinets did start to improve towards the late 1960's but there was, and remains quite a bit of room for further improvement imho (as a designer of cabinets) to appreciably reduce colouration. They did get it right with a number of models, but the basic boxes from the Lancasters to the Ardens were fairly lacking in a number of respects. To be fair, the importance of the contribution of the cabinet was possibly less of a concern than the improvement in actual build quality and build/design costs had to be kept reasonable to ensure that their models remained affordable for the domestic markets.

Interesting.

I think it has to be admitted that Tannoy's approach to cabinets was somewhat ambivalent. Earlier on, much effort was spent in producing designs to provide the best audio performance of a specific model of driver. This gave us drawings for the GRF, Autograph etc. which were intended for those who wanted to construct something of more substantial scantlings than the "off the peg" product from the works, the joinerwork of which was never wonderful. In a previous post I've recounted Fountain's comment that "I'm not a bloody furniture maker". I've also previously suggested that the performance of the Lancaster was hardly superior to that of the cardboard box in which it was delivered; an extreme and liverish view perhaps but the Lancaster came to epitomise the change of company attitude which brought the economies of manufacturing introduced in later years and under different administrations. Woodworking was an expensive element in the overall cost and was usually the first to attract the bean-counters' attentions.

A possible comparison might be made with contemporary Pye and HMV gramophones. These were hardly HiFi (although they were far from dreadful) but they sold well at the more expensive end of the market due to their really excellent cabinetwork - the Pye Black Box was rather special in this respect but for Tannoy to adopt this quality of woodworking would have put their sruff out of reach of the domestic market, as Pac1 so rightly observes.

I suspect that the balance of manufacturing costs shared between hardware and boxes was improved after Harmanisation - the later cabinets do look better made but I wonder if they sounded any better?

 

[John]

I'd be very surprised if the DMT cabinets didn't sound better.

 

[Pac1]

Interesting.

I think it has to be admitted that Tannoy's approach to cabinets was somewhat ambivalent...I've also previously suggested that the performance of the Lancaster was hardly superior to that of the cardboard box in which it was delivered; an extreme and liverish view perhaps but the Lancaster came to epitomise the change of company attitude which brought the economies of manufacturing introduced in later years and under different administrations. Woodworking was an expensive element in the overall cost and was usually the first to attract the bean-counters' attentions.

I suspect that the balance of manufacturing costs shared between hardware and boxes was improved after Harmanisation - the later cabinets do look better made but I wonder if they sounded any better?

Yes, agreed.

Some of the later cabinets did indeed sound better but were still pretty coloured and lacked any real fundamental design improvements. Comparing Lancasters with later Mansfields highlights the point. The Mansfields seemed to be a more rigid and better made cabinet but nothing fundamental changes in their design although they were slightly better finished.

Autographs and early Westminsters to one side, real design progress wasn't made until the advent of the later Prestige series which had more thought applied to their execution although manufacturing cost pressures still meant that finish could be well below par of other manufacturers at similar price points. A lot of this was down to obvious challenges with managing cost of manufacture and outsourcing such an important element of the loudspeaker (cabinets were for a while made in India as I was told, later under pressure from major Far Eastern markets, being relocated to Europe and I believe Poland with final assembly in Coatbridge).

I had a pair of Turnberry SEs and felt a little cheated at receiving a pretty unfinished cabinet surface and a pot of wax and a cloth in the box for "upkeep" when it was obvious they'd not been near a finisher!" . Later versions, from what I have seen, are better, but still not in the same league as having a bespoke pair made to fine furniture standards in terms of finish.

 

[Tony L]

A pack of 20mm m5 washers turned up today that I'd ordered from teh eBays. I bought them to go between the Tannoy's mounting bolts and driver basket rear as the ones I was using were m6 and far smaller in overall diameter and as such I'd not done them up tightly as they didn't fit properly. I installed the new washers and tightened them a good bit tighter than they were, but certainly not Linn/stupid tight. I screwed the backs back on and sat down to play a couple of CDs and things sounded surprisingly different and most certainly worse! This was not a good move! No fault of the washers, which are great, it's the tightness that was the issue. I've now got the eight bolts/washers spun-up gently until the bolt stops then just a quarter turn from there, i.e. enough that nothing could ever come loose, but not tight in the grand scheme of things and they are now sounding bloody superb. With the bolts too tight they gain a rather peaky character in the upper mid/low treble and sound a bit edgy, with them as I now have them set that big easy effortless Tannoy thing is here in abundance with a beautifully open and natural mid/top. I mention this as it is clearly a critical parameter and one worth playing with if one has similar speakers. I'm not alone in finding this, I noticed something similar on this rather interesting Tannoy/Leak blog. He's gone further and is using felt washers.

I've been very sceptical of tightening things too much after having a good chat with the sadly missed Tom Fletcher from Nottingham Analogue who firmly believed tight screw/bolt interfaces kill the sound in most things, certainly his decks sound very wrong if overtightened and wonderful if correctly installed. His view was his turntables should be 'tightened to the point they don't fall apart!'. It is the way I have my 301 installed in it's plinth.

Just a quick update on this as I've now tried the felt washer trick:

I bought a couple of packs of Fender strap-button felts (link) and some 2BA brass washers and the blog writer is entirely correct IMO. I'd already figured out this was a critical interface with vintage rear-mount baffles as very small differences in bolt tightness can make or break the sound to my ears. Too tight and that brightness that badly setup Tannoys can have arrives, too loose and the bass becomes too loose. The felt washers lift it to another level, the midrange is now magical, a BBC-like naturalness and sense of space but coupled with real life-size heft and full natural bass. Not a hint of edge, grain or glare at the top end. I used all eight bolts rather than the four in the blog site as I like the idea of spreading the load given it is such a crazy big and heavy driver.

As suggested in the blog I suspect this is all down to resonance control and probably avoiding any metal to metal contact. The 2BA bolts and felt/brass washers are, by pure fluke, sized perfectly - the bolts are narrow enough to miss touching the basket and the felt/brass washer combo holds the assembly in place securely. Tightness is still an issue and I'm finding, as with most things in audio, 'Tom Fletcher tight' rather than 'Linn tight' is where one wants to be. If you are using classic thin-wall Tannoy cabs I can't recommend this one highly enough, with these Lockwoods it has transformed the 'very good' into the 'bloody amazing'! FWIW I've found the exact same thing with BBC cabs, the screws holding the baffle and back door on really do not want to be tight, just gently screwed up until they stop and maybe 'an hour' from there, nothing more. Anything beyond that and the mid starts to thin-out - the same thing that happens with the Tannoys. How this all translates to modern high-mass rigid Tannoy designs or front-mounted drivers is anyone's guess, I suspect it may be a tip for the classic Guy Fountain period speakers only. Give it a go!

 

[RickyC6]

Nice Blue Note comp.

 

[Tony L]

Nice Blue Note comp.

It's a lovely big heavy book, and a real bargain at £30-ish (link). The matching Verve book sits atop the other Tannoy!

 

[djdstone]

That's CHristmas sorted

 

[Tony L]

That's CHristmas sorted

Indeed. Everyone needs huge Tannoys.

 

[RickyC6]

It's a lovely big heavy book, and a real bargain at £30-ish (link). The matching Verve book sits atop the other Tannoy!

Ah right; there's a compilation with same title.

 

[djdstone]

Nice - shame it's only on CD?

 

[ToTo Man]

Just a quick update on this as I've now tried the felt washer trick:

I bought a couple of packs of Fender strap-button felts (link) and some 2BA brass washers and the blog writer is entirely correct IMO. I'd already figured out this was a critical interface with vintage rear-mount baffles as very small differences in bolt tightness can make or break the sound to my ears. Too tight and that brightness that badly setup Tannoys can have arrives, too loose and the bass becomes too loose. The felt washers lift it to another level, the midrange is now magical, a BBC-like naturalness and sense of space but coupled with real life-size heft and full natural bass. Not a hint of edge, grain or glare at the top end. I used all eight bolts rather than the four in the blog site as I like the idea of spreading the load given it is such a crazy big and heavy driver.

As suggested in the blog I suspect this is all down to resonance control and probably avoiding any metal to metal contact. The 2BA bolts and felt/brass washers are, by pure fluke, sized perfectly - the bolts are narrow enough to miss touching the basket and the felt/brass washer combo holds the assembly in place securely. Tightness is still an issue and I'm finding, as with most things in audio, 'Tom Fletcher tight' rather than 'Linn tight' is where one wants to be. If you are using classic thin-wall Tannoy cabs I can't recommend this one highly enough, with these Lockwoods it has transformed the 'very good' into the 'bloody amazing'! FWIW I've found the exact same thing with BBC cabs, the screws holding the baffle and back door on really do not want to be tight, just gently screwed up until they stop and maybe 'an hour' from there, nothing more. Anything beyond that and the mid starts to thin-out - the same thing that happens with the Tannoys. How this all translates to modern high-mass rigid Tannoy designs or front-mounted drivers is anyone's guess, I suspect it may be a tip for the classic Guy Fountain period speakers only. Give it a go!

Fascinating findings Tony. So did you buy the felt washers, 2BA brass washers, and bolts, or were the bolts you used the stock bolts?

 

[Tony L]

Fascinating findings Tony. So did you buy the felt washers, 2BA brass washers, and bolts, or were the bolts you used the stock bolts?

The bolts are right for my Lockwood cabs, the baffle has threaded metal inserts so the driver just bolts in from the back. I just bought the rest to fit the bolts. The felt guitar strap washers are a tight fit over the bolt, but that's probably a good thing as it keeps them nicely centred. I don't know what bolts are fitted to Lancasters, Yorks, GRFs etc, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't the same thread pattern. It's pretty standard for 50s and 60s UK kit, e.g. Quad and Leak are BA threads too.

 

[snowman_al]

Oooo, late Christmas present anyone?

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/710-5...0001&campid=5338728743&icep_item=181968753555

 

[cooky1257]

I'd give 'em a miss, re-foam doesn't look good to my eyes, surround rim should be glued to the rear of the cone.

 

[Pac1]

I'd give 'em a miss, re-foam doesn't look good to my eyes, surround rim should be glued to the rear of the cone.

Yes, well spotted. They're usually cut with a small notch to allow the Girdacoustic ribs to part fit through at the back with part of the rib glued over the base of the surround notch. It's a faff to do so some don't bother but it is the proper way to do HPDs.

 

[sybil]

Yes, well spotted. They're usually cut with a small notch to allow the Girdacoustic ribs to part fit through at the back with part of the rib glued over the base of the surround notch. It's a faff to do so some don't bother but it is the proper way to do HPDs.

Is this really the case though? I think at the factory the Girdacoustic ribs were fitted to the cone after the surround (see here: http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/recone1.html) therefore to fit the surround under the ribs requires their (at least partial) removal and reinstatement. The surrounds being glued to the rear of the cone is only enabled due to the sequencing of construction.

Cutting the notches out to clear the ribs will allow the cone to be rear mounted maintaining the factory appearance but does mean that cone-surround interface is marginal (1mm?) at eight points around the circumference. I think it is better to have the full width of the surround lip glued to the cone lip (5mm all round) on the front if you are not going to go to the extent of removing and replacing the ribs (which in itself is a risk).

Obviously full cone replacement is preferable, but do yourself or Cooky have any other objections to the front attachment of replacement surrounds beyond appearance? Nearly all of the recones I see are glued to the front of the cone lip without any cutting of the surround lip.