advertisement


Upgrading Yamaha NS-1000Ms

Looking back over some 1975 tech notes for the JBL L50s I am currently refurbing I was, in light of the suggestion that the 1973 NS1000 network design may have been technologically hamstrung compared with the likes of LSPcad/ Xsim etc that are available today, somewhat surprised at the sophisticated analysis tools employed in the day. I find it hard to believe those same tools weren't available to Yamaha- if they weren't Yamaha would have developed them such are the resources within the company.

https://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?4551-L50.
 
Last edited:
It is astonishing that some self-appointed internet expert with a copy of REW or whatever thinks he knows more than a company that has been around since 1887 and operates at the very top of the market in everything from concert grand pianos, guitars, brass, drums, cutting-edge synthesisers, motorbikes etc etc. Yamaha are a truly amazing company. Even in 2023 exceptionally few loudspeaker manufacturers have proven capable of engineering a beryllium mid unit. Yamaha did it in 1974! I find the whole thing comedic to be honest. If I owned a pair of NS1000s I’d restore them as close to factory fresh as I could possibly achieve and certainly lack the arrogance to assume I could “improve” them. With iconic classic kit this good current owners are really curators for future generations. It is a huge shame to see such kit butchered IMO, and anything not fully reversible is just that to my mind.
 
I completely agree that they obviously knew what they were doing, as do many manufacturers of many things, but that doesn't mean that there's no scope to improve on a design many years later though does it?

This is from the owner's manual for interest

Owners Manual extract
 
There exists at least one person on DIYAudio who has returned to the Yamaha crossover design after having a Troels one.
 
Back in the 70’s we were fully capable of doing accurate loudspeaker measurements. I have seen images of strobes used with high-speed photography measuring cone breakup back in the mid 60’s.

The main advantage of the technology used today is not the functionality but the reduced cost. This has put complex measuring tools in the hands of nearly anybody, including people that may not fully understand how to use the equipment. As others have said, the technical people in the large multinational corporations were experts and they had teams of professionals rather than a single individual, Test results and reports would have been reviewed and authorised my multiple technicians and engineers before any design decisions were made. I think we can trust the end-to-end design process and controls used the Yamaha engineering team; Yamaha knew what they were doing even to down to the “cheesy” crossover components they chose to use.

LPSpinner.
 
One good thing about the powerful tools now in the hands of us plebs is you get great threads like S-Man's DiscoCat.
 
After the NS1000 Yamaha bought the NS1000X which used the same crossover apparently (CF bass driver, same mid and treble). This was followed by the NS2000 which also have a CF Bass driver, but bigger than the X, along with new mid and treble drivers. Crossover points were maintained across all of the speakers but, the crossover in the NS-2000 were updated

NS2000 Brochure extract 2

Improvement in the layout as well as component choice. Retrofittable to NS1000s perhaps without being disrespectful to the original design?

My experience was overwhelmingly positive and even once the crossovers I have were made, a change to the Inductor for the bass was an improvement.

Reversible though as I say
 
LPSpinner said:
Back in the 70’s we were fully capable of doing accurate loudspeaker measurements. I have seen images of strobes used with high-speed photography measuring cone breakup back in the mid 60’s.

The main advantage of the technology used today is not the functionality but the reduced cost. This has put complex measuring tools in the hands of nearly anybody, including people that may not fully understand how to use the equipment. As others have said, the technical people in the large multinational corporations were experts and they had teams of professionals rather than a single individual, Test results and reports would have been reviewed and authorised my multiple technicians and engineers before any design decisions were made. I think we can trust the end-to-end design process and controls used the Yamaha engineering team; Yamaha knew what they were doing even to down to the “cheesy” crossover components they chose to use.

LPSpinner.
Click to expand...

i’ve met quite a few speaker designers and they range from the type you describe to rank amateurs with wonky ideas. If you look at Harbeth, all their designs are supposedly voiced by ear by one man.

As far as CAD, I find XSim and REW very useable. Vituix CAD is beyond me!
 
I have used XSim for a few projects where I have had to re-tune the Xover after replacing the speaker drivers with alternate drivers. It's not bad for the price (free). The only issue I do have is you need to be able to measure the driver to generate the response and impedance files for your particular driver. Sometimes you get lucky and can find them on the internet, but not always.

LPSpinner
 
On the X you get to the crossover by removing the woofer. The crossover is attached to the bottom of the cab.
 
Ah, I stand corrected. I'd read the crossovers were the same on the 1000 and the X and assumed it was behind the rear panel. The crossover on the 2000 is also behind the woofer and the rear panel is too small to add the additional binding posts needed for an external crossover sadly. I would be very interested to hear the difference at some point though as the change the new crossover bought was dramatic
 
LPSpinner said:
I have used XSim for a few projects where I have had to re-tune the Xover after replacing the speaker drivers with alternate drivers. It's not bad for the price (free). The only issue I do have is you need to be able to measure the driver to generate the response and impedance files for your particular driver. Sometimes you get lucky and can find them on the internet, but not always.

LPSpinner
Click to expand...

I don’t see how XSim can work properly without actual driver-in-box measurements of your speaker.
Any difference in driver to microphone distance will cause phase errors and although there is a correction for driver offset (“mod delay”) there’s no way of knowing what value to put in there. I had this problem when trying to model LS3/5As with tweeter and bass/mid measurements from different sources.
 
S-Man said:
I don’t see how XSim can work properly without actual driver-in-box measurements of your speaker...
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree, for a new, blank sheet designs. I was replacing unrepairable drivers in an existing speaker with newer equivalents. I am more interested in the transfer function of the crossover and the interaction with the impedance curve of the replacement drivers.

Sometime the driver manufactures will make the frd and zma files available based on their own in-house measurements and sometimes enthusiasts will post files based their own measurements. My approach is to use the these frd and zma files to determine any likely crossover modifications to accommodate the replacement driver.

No, It’s not perfect; but a bit of XSim modelling allows you to get close as long as you know the impedance curve of both the original and replacement drivers.



LPSPinner
 
Last edited:
Tony L said:
The thing that amazes me is how the basic format of the NS1000 (or Ditton 44, AR3A etc) has all but faded into history. To my mind that format of a decently-sized 3-way with a 12” infinite baffle bass driver and designed for close to wall or even bookshelf use is arguably the most logical form-factor for a hi-fi speaker. Infinitely more sensible that the typical tall narrow ported box that needs to be pulled right out into the room to stand any chance of not booming or sounding hollow. I’ve made this point many times before, but if I was ever asked to specify a loudspeaker or slap the pfm brand on anything this form factor would be top of the list. I really like the form and ease of positioning.
Click to expand...

+100%
I couldn't agree more.

Probably why I run similar late 1980's 3-way MAGNATS, fully pimped with refreshed crossovers...
(Not mine below BTW - but near identical...)

img_20210623_143016.jpg


Like many here, I could invest another $10K or more on alternative speakers, but I've never heard any sub $30K speaker that sounds better than these.
 
SONDEKNZ said:
+100%
I couldn't agree more.

Probably why I run similar late 1980's 3-way MAGNATS, fully pimped with refreshed crossovers...
(Not mine below BTW - but near identical...)

img_20210623_143016.jpg


Like many here, I could invest another $10K or more on alternative speakers, but I've never heard any sub $30K speaker that sounds better than these.
Click to expand...

They're lovely, what model are they?

BTW. My son travelled to live in Hangzhou. He arrrives today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top