Altec 605 duplex speakers

[toddalin]

We had one in a utility cabinet, and there was no real highs to it. This was ~1975 and everything was original.

But then I recently listened to a pair of studio Super Big Red 604s/Jensens with Master Labs crossovers. These were in 12 cu ft cabinets and the gent brought them here to our home to audition (HUGE). Compared to my L200 w/2405s, they had no highs either..., and we all realized that. Still..., my wife loved their sound.

To each his own.

[Meshplate]

We had one in a utility cabinet, and there was no real highs to it. This was ~1975 and everything was original.

But then I recently listened to a pair of studio Super Big Red 604s/Jensens with Master Labs crossovers. These were in 12 cu ft cabinets and the gent brought them here to our home to audition (HUGE). Compared to my L200 w/2405s, they had no highs either..., and we all realized that. Still..., my wife loved their sound.

To each his own.

Yes I appreciate that testimony. The 604 is no better than the 605 in terms of high end extension, of course not. The size of the cabinet has of course no bearing on HF extension.

I bet that in a blind test no one could tell the difference between a 604 and a 605 in terms of HF alone.

My cabinets are 9.8 cu ft and there is still not that thwacking bass first perfected by JBL. However the 605 was the first shot in the "bass race" making deeper bass than a 604 for a given volume of air.

Bass performance is reason Altec lost out to JBL in the long run because as rock n roll started to drive the industry bass became more and more important.

People see a 604 or 605 today and expect bass to punch them in the stomach.

However you cannot get the kind of Altec high efficiency without a trade off. Even in a 12 cu ft cabinet a 604 alone won't perform like a modern sub. However the bass that it will make will be FAST and tuneful and will really sound like an acoustic bass. Modern low efficiency woofers cannot achieve that.

[Meshplate]

Anyone who believes the 605 is not a great performer might want to listen to them via this video. Good headphones on. I think you might be surprised,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6JVZbikHU

[speakerdave]

Anyone who believes the 605 is not a great performer might want to listen to them via this video. Good headphones on. I think you might be surprised,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6JVZbikHU

Anybody who thinks he can tell what a speaker sounds like from an online video is delusional. There are so many links in the chain, it's not worth talking about, and there could be some you wouldn't think should be there. You don't even know if the sound you are hearing is being originated by the speaker you are being shown, ferhev'n'sake!

[Meshplate]

You don't even know if the sound you are hearing is being originated by the speaker you are being shown, ferhev'n'sake!

That's a comment that betrays you simply haven't watched the video. If you had, you couldn't honestly make that claim.

Actually that is a video from the site of a Japanese operation that sells the best JBL and Altec restorations I have ever seen by making the best quality recordings they can to represent them to their customers. Works for them and their reality-based business.

Anybody who thinks he can tell what a speaker sounds like from an online video is delusional.

First thank you for the "delusional."

Isn't it actually delusional to "know" what a speaker sounds like, although never having heard it, based on hearsay and blather which is the case for 75% of the comments I've read here and elsewhere on 605s? Knowledgable remarks such as they've no HF, the 605 was an exercise in Altec going cheap, or 605s were universally hated by the record industry - all BS claims. Checked who actually used 605s to make some of the most famous records post WWII? Or actually checked the 605's price in period vs 604, or personally listened to 605s to 604s?

[speakerdave]

That's a comment that betrays you simply haven't watched the video. If you had, you couldn't honestly make that claim.

Actually that is a video from the site of a Japanese operation that sells the best JBL and Altec restorations I have ever seen by making the best quality recordings they can to represent them to their customers. Works for them and their reality-based business.



First thank you for the "delusional."

Isn't it actually delusional to "know" what a speaker sounds like, although never having heard it, based on hearsay and blather which is the case for 75% of the comments I've read here and elsewhere on 605s? Knowledgable remarks such as they've no HF, the 605 was an exercise in Altec going cheap, or 605s were universally hated by the record industry - all BS claims. Checked who actually used 605s to make some of the most famous records post WWII? Or actually checked the 605's price in period vs 604, or personally listened to 605s to 604s?

I've scanned the threads. I don't see anyone saying they know what the 605 sounds like who has said they hadn't heard it. I and others (fourteen years ago) were merely talking about its history and the probable explanations for its existence, and its reputation and the technical reasons for its reputation. I, for one, was actually addressing the fact that there were people like you inclined to dismiss the difference between the 604 and 605 as insignificant. Some of them were selling on eBay. That is still going on, of course. There may be reasons to prefer the 605; I don't know. If there are, I would think the people espousing the 605 would be articulating them. But no, the emphasis seems to be on blurring the distinctions.

As for online videos of speaker performance--! What about the room? What about the microphone that is being used, the recording preamp and the ADC? What about your headphones or earbuds? What about your computer's sound processing? It's just ridiculous. It's not just about believing in the people who are making the video; the people you cite are probably quite respectable, but as you say, they do everything they can to gussy up the old pig. I repeat--there are simply too many links in the chain for anyone to know what that speaker really sounds like from that video; plus, the presence of sleight of hand is still possible. It's like believing you know what a speaker sounds like from a magazine review, or worse, a magazine ad. You don't. Why don't audio companies (except Bose, maybe) advertise by playing their stuff on TV or radio, or online, for that matter? Because it's ridiculous.

I'm glad you like your speakers. If it makes any difference, I happen to think it's possible the changed tilt of the woofer response in the 605 could improved the midrange in the combination, but these days I cannot bear to listen to a stock 604-8G and crossover for more than about 40 seconds, so to me the unmodified 604 and 605 would have about the same level of interest.

The real point of all this is the idea of a two-way speaker system with concentric drivers, which was genius, but was from the beginning very difficult with a large woofer and discrete horn, and as you say, has been pretty much mooted by the need for LF extension. Where is the state of that art today? it's in a small concentric midrange tweeter with a beryllium HF driver. Those of us who can't afford the 75 thousand can seek comfort and compensation in earlier technology. I happen to prefer ten-inch Tannoys these days, especially the Manley Labs time-aligned system. But that is really only necessary for near field. Midfield, the three-way JBL LSR32/6332 is simply a better speaker. (They and the Manleys must be played with a woofer for VLF.) I'm sure there are others.

You are extraordinarily defensive about your speakers. Maybe you are not as sure about them as you'd like to be, and you are going around seeking confirmation from others and trying to beat down anyone who differs with you. Much of what you have had to say is clearly highly biased, so quite unconvincing.

[Meshplate]

I've scanned the threads. I don't see anyone saying they know what the 605 sounds like who has said they hadn't heard it.

To quote Don McRitchie, Webmaster of this site, "I've never heard a 605 to compare it to the 604/E/G/K of [sic.] which I am familiar. However, I do know (evidence please?) that there was a severe market backlash to Altec from the studio industry when it was introduced as the replacement (no it wasn't) for the 604C." Those who claim that the 605A/B has no HF have simply not heard them. The 605s have as much, or as little, HF extension as any Alnico version of the 604 "A" through E.

I and others (fourteen years ago) were merely talking about its history and the probable explanations for its existence, and its reputation and the technical reasons for its reputation.

The reason that is given for its introduction is Altec saving some money and trying to make a cheaper product. Once again, this is belied by the fact that the 605 cost exactly the same as a 604D at the time of its introduction. The reputation question I have also dealt with at length. The consensus of the sages here is that the 605 was rejected and furthermore detested by the recording engineering fraternity of the time. This assertion is never backed up by any evidence and is belied by the fact that the 605 was used at the greatest studios (at least by EMI Abbey Road, Motown and Columbia - I am not sure about others) of the era to record some of the most significant music of that or any other time, including 95% of all Beatles' music including Sergeant Pepper's, What's Going On? and Kind of Blue. That was a immense success not an abject failure. Secondly, were the 605A the detested loudspeaker that sages claim it to have been, why on earth would Altec have kept it in production for a decade and even produced a B version of it? The latter facts are also glossed over and ignored by the sages.

I, for one, was actually addressing the fact that there were people like you inclined to dismiss the difference between the 604 and 605 as insignificant.

False. I don't gloss over the differences which were an effort by Altec to produce a speaker that in a 612 cabinet ie the cabinet that booths of the time could accommodate, could produce a semblance of bass extension. I don't know if you have heard a 604C or D in a 612 cabinet, but they produce almost no bass at all. For that sin, the sages pillory the 605 saying it had lighter magnets and was just a way for Altec to make a quick buck on the back of the great reputation of the 604 which at least in "A" through D versions require simply immense cabinets to make bass. It is the 604 A through D versions that were truly not practical because where was the bass? Altec had to do something about it. So they introduced a Duplex based on the 416A woofer with a new suspension surround with the 605, lowering the Fs and raising the Q. For that they will never be forgiven. What I am suggesting is that there are reasons to prefer the 605 to the 604, not just say it is as good as. Another "point" advanced by the sages is that efficiency is a good in itself. The more efficient the better. Obviously that is really a silly argument.

If there are, I would think the people espousing the 605 would be articulating them. But no, the emphasis seems to be on blurring the distinctions.

There are several people including Tom Brennan and Steve Mac to cite just two individuals who are defenders of the 605. In their and my opinion, the 605 is a more coherent and smoother sounding speaker than the 604s I have heard (Ds and Es in 620 cabinets). However, it is my aim to buy some comparable 604s, probably Es to compare them to the 605 personally and side by side, something the sages haven't done. They prefer to pontificate ex nihilo.

As for online videos of speaker performance--! What about the room? What about the microphone that is being used, the recording preamp and the ADC? What about your headphones or earbuds? What about your computer's sound processing. It's just ridiculous.

Well we will have to disagree on that. There are hundreds if not thousands of online demonstrations of all kinds of recording equipment comparisons. While it seems dubious on the face of it, try listening to different videos and while not perfect differences do translate.

If it makes any difference, I happen to think it's possible the changed tilt of the woofer response in the 605 could improved the midrange in the combination, but these days I cannot bear to listen to a stock 604-8G and crossover for more than about 40 seconds, so to me the unmodified 604 and 605 would have about the same level of interest.

Here I have to hoist you by your own petard:you, not me, are the one who is blurring the differences between 604s and 605s here.

The real point of all this is the idea of a two-way speaker system with concentric drivers, which was genius, but was from the beginning very difficult with a large woofer, and as you say, has been pretty much mooted by the need for LF extension.

The alnico Altec 604s and 605s have remarkable midrange. It is a canard that a large high efficiency woofer and compression driver in a two way cannot produce remarkable midrange. It is a time honoured recipe that continues to be employed in large format monitors by TAD, Kinoshita, and Augspurger for example.

Those of us who can't afford the 75 thousand can seek comfort and compensation in earlier technology.

Actually not really. Where can you get a modern Altec coaxial with high efficiency and alnico magnets producing glorious midrange and enough bass and HF to be content wiht? Those are my reasons for listening to vintage drivers.

You are extraordinarily defensive about your speakers. Maybe you are not as sure about them as you'd like to be, and you are going around seeking confirmation from others and trying to beat down anyone who differs with you.

What's wrong with argument especially if backed up by reason, facts and practical experience? Those are acceptable and legitimate ways of making a case. I am not advancing a point of view based on nothing at all like others, nor am I brow beating anyone. What passes for the consensus of the sages here on the 605 is made up from whole cloth in my opinion, based neither on reason, fact nor direct experience. It is a strange thing that on a forum dedicated to Lansing heritage, that heritage seems misrepresented, misunderstood and paradoxically even denigrated.

[speakerdave]

To say the 605 was "lower cost" means it cost less to produce.

I think you are getting ready to sell your 605's, which is why you are so heart-scalded about anybody saying they are almost universally considered inferior to 604's, but it's a plain fact.

You're trolling.

[Meshplate]

I think you are getting ready to sell your 605's, which is why you are so heart-scalded about anybody saying they are almost universally considered inferior to 604's, but it's a plain fact.

You are trolling. Yours is the definition of a trolling ad hominem comment. If you don't know what that means, look it up. Since you can't meet me on the grounds of reason, experience or facts, you shift to personal attack. That is text book trolling and quite Trumpian. Remove it please, and I will do likewise.

I thought I was conversing with someone with a minimum of human integrity.

universally considered

There is nothing "considered" about it. It's an unsupported assertion which is and has been my point from the beginning. Should I discover otherwise I will argue the opposite, but no one has actually performed the experiment.

[Meshplate]

To say the 605 was "lower cost" means it cost less to produce.

I don't know if you know about how products are produced but the design, R&D and tooling costs outweigh the fact that the 605 contains less Alnico V in it. The economical thing for Altec to have done would have been NOT to produce the 605 at all, and just continue with their existing product.