Cool story bro

people were using their ears, then

Sure you’re not talking about the NS-10m as the studio reference?

@@rapfreak7797 Oh. Every dubbing stage or control room had NS-10s on the console. I think I have a pair in my garage in fact.

The 94 earthquake in Los Angeles was caused by the NS-1000's thunderous bass

Hi 👋 Tom, if you’re not going to repair these loudspeakers as stock I would look at selling them to the vintage collector to retain fair blue book or slightly below blue book and then purchase a brand new pair of GR Research speakers. These loudspeakers will sell for the price of a cup of coffee even with 1,000 in DIY modifications. They will sell for many cups of coffee ☕️ without any modifications. The drivers are in fine condition but are older and measuring there dc resistance at the crossover frequencies may or maybe not part of the original voice. Other t/small may not be available as well. Danny builds new loudspeakers that can easily match the drive units for his own designs and supports artistic integrity of the loudspeakers cabinet 🗄️ . If a change in sound is needed,then change the loudspeakers. If you are going to keep the Yamaha for aesthetic and or nostalgia then by all means improve them however you like 👍 Cheers.

I plan on using them@@gg.6967

@@gg.6967 The NS1000 is going up in value like crazy, 750 euros 10 years ago, today 1200-1500.

Wow! You got lucky enjoy the restoration process it should be fun

FYI I bought these new in 1977 and they haven't been the outstanding speakers that many think they are. Danny's kit might be the fix to make them sound better. I had saved a rebuild suggestion from another website that probably does some of the things Danny's kit does. The bottom line is that they always sounded a little too bright and the woofer sounded weak. I understand where you are coming from, but the chance to fix the factory issues and enjoy these speakers better than factory is worth it to me.@@gg.6967

Not all were crap.. Radford speakers for example used all air core inductors and poly caps in their crossovers. All non ferrous materials in the cabinet and binding posts. Litz wire throughout. 1975.

@@hastingspiper9266 and the slightly later 104/2 which was another stunner from Kef (they sit beside my Radford M180s:)

Very few did and most had low quality crossovers not to mention at the time they all used chipboard ( particle board ) to build their cabinets, which is low quality. The NS1000m were one of the few loudspeakers that was built right ( even that has chipboard cabs ) weighs in at 68 lbs I think, braced ( most speakers were not then ) well damped etc... sold for over 20 yrs... I don't think there is another manufacture in history that has done that. Obviously a few people liked them.

Totally agree!

I've listened to well over 500 speakers in my lifetime, from the Magneplanar Tympani's down to the venerable Rogers LS3/5a's, and everything in between. As a musician, I've played through just about everything that's out there. First off, let me say that the Sheffield Thelma Houston disc is phenomenal. When the horns kick in on "I've Got The Music In Me", it brought tears. The Tympani's did true justice on that cut. Until...the NS1000M's. The clarity was like glass slowly cracking...you could actually feel her vocals in your spine. I would like to enter another album, Earl Klugh's Finger Paintings. The cut "This Time", was a sonic miracle. There's a sound of clip clop/castanets in the background. They start 4 feet BEHIND your left shoulder, continue across the stage, all the way to BEHIND your right shoulder! I've never heard such clarity and separation in my life! That started a lifelong crusade to one day have a pair in front of me. That started over 40 years ago, and I still hold onto that dream... One can dream, am I right?

I lust after them too but have yet to find a pair that I wanted to buy that wasn’t way overpriced. In the interim I bought a pair of Celestion Ditton 551 and upgraded the tweeters to Morel 448. I haven’t daydreamed about the NS-1000 in a long time…..

​@@asterixx6878 An old-school crossover that is "calculated" will often maintain relatively even impedance through the band, or at least, level through each drivers band, with peaks at resonances and sometimes crossover points depending on whether they targeted an acoustic or electrically flat crossover calc. These were often the norm back when amplifiers were sensitive to differences in load across the band, and in some cases, these designs actually did sound better on those old amps that would generate different levels of gain into different levels of impedance. Modern crossover designs can largely ignore concerns about maintaining a flat impedance curve, as modern amps act like near-perfect-gain devices into a wide range of impedance, since they have effectively 0 ohm output impedance. 3 ohms is a good lower limit to aim at to ensure the resistance of wire and crossover parts doesn't start to dominate the circuit too much, though I like to aim for 5+ ohm when feasible. A simulated crossover built for the modern world, will have obvious signs of acoustic corrections, like slanted impedance curves, and especially more noteworthy lumps and bumps around crossover frequency as the summation of 2 drivers is carefully corrected and aligned to produce flat acoustic response in-phase on target. It would be remarkably rare to see a pair of drivers sum flat with a "calculated" crossover that produces a classic impedance curve. If you show me an impedance curve that looks like the designer was either targeting a flat impedance curve, or that wound up that way due to calculated component values, I will assume that the acoustic response of the system has NOT been tuned flat through modern measured/simulated crossover design.

Just got done reading all the comments, 7 hours after your post. And this is the best post of all

Thanks for enlightening on the collectability of NS 1000s..Nobody has known this for the last 25yrs

The old jbls sound great thougb

​@@matthewtaylor7355 what you are talking about? Troel Gravesen done it mate .

wondering the same thing... Could it be to "hide" the fact that these adjustments can be used to achieve some of the same improvements he did with the redesign? hmmm....

I have a bunch of measurements showing what happens with the adjustments. I left them where they measured the best (the 0 position) for the stock measurements.

I would consider taking them out of the signal path all together. There could be a gain in quality from eliminating them.

@@JR-ho5qm We did not include their use in the upgrade.

​@JR-ho5qm & what add resistors ? No difference

Although I didn't have the capacity to redesign the crossover I did a full rebuild on a pair of 1985 Klipsch Forte 1's, I did the cabinet bracing and no res that had been recommended for the 3's, used Dynamite on the horns, rewired with Danny's wire, and put the crossovers outboard and used really nice parts. And the difference with just the parts and really working on dampening some resonances was enormous. I also use Danny's kit on a pair of RP600m's and that was killer. If I have the resources I would love to see what he would do with the Forte one!

@@chelillingworth9466 If you like a big three way speaker like that then consider our Brute model.

@@dannyrichie9743 I just saw pictures of the internal bracing on the brute.... That is absolutely amazing especially after seeing how the fortes are constructed...super impressed with those brute cabinets!!! So tempting

@@chelillingworth9466 For clean uncolored bass, that is the way it has to be.

That is kind of like having people taste fresh verses soured milk and asking them which one they like.

@@dannyrichie9743Good answer Danny👌👍

My buddy helped me in a single-blind test (pushing the A-B buttons on the receiver) for the B&W CDM-1NT speakers (I owned two pair at the time). The GR-Research upgrade made this speaker sound fuller, richer, and more 3-dimensional. At first I didn't like it - I was used to the "house sound" which turned out to be nothing more than a scooped out middle, at best. After a while, I was starting to comprehend what was really happening. The non-upgraded speaker sounded like a hollow tin can in comparison. I wouldn't have noticed the difference if I hadn't tried this upgrade. If you have the time to do it, I highly recommend it. What I've seen since I did that upgrade over a year ago is that to get these type of crossover components already built-in, you have to spend $15K plus for a pair of consumer-grade speakers. This one continues to be one of those dirty little secrets in the industry, but the DIY movement is slowly bursting that bubble. And even if you decided to just upgrade what you have with better components, you are not benefitting from Danny's engineering, which corrects other errors in the original design.

@@dannyrichie9743 Then it should be really easy for the listeners, and a great marketing video for GR Research!

They have more bass too which would make things sound better. There may be some who feel the old speaker has "better vocals" due to the increased midrange output. Also level matching speakers with such varying response can be tricky as with some songs speaker A will seem louder, with other songs speaker B will sound louder

You should definitely get the kit. It’s allot of fun!

There is a big difference in a room response measurement and a speaker measurement (zero room reflections). That fatigue you speak of is mostly due to the resonances issues that I notched out.

Most DSP system's have a lot of bottlenecks that limit performance in the end. Doing it right is a LOT more expensive than a passive filter, and it leaves a lot of room for good electronics.

You do make a big point, something that Danny doesn't do and feels unnecessary to do as his measurements tells all. In comparison take a look at Troels Gravesen upgrade kit on these ( 6 yrs ago ) designing a new crossover he then listens to them ( not a single unit ) and adjust if necessary, read his comments, its worth it.

Reading messages like this is always funny to me. Do you really think a response curve that is choppy and all over the place will sound better than a smooth and accurate one? Is a high level of driver resonance better than less driver resonance? Is extreme comb filtering (cancellation) in the vertical off axis better then an improved driver integration and being more in phase over a wide range? Is extreme cabinet resonances better then a cabinet with damped out resonances? Is the smearing effect of cheap electrolytic caps better then the clean signal transfer of top level poly caps? Is the smearing caused by iron core inductors better then the cleaner sounding air core inductors? Are the cheap and old sand cast resistors better sounding then new noninductive wire wound type? Is the thin and old oxidized internal wire with PVC on it better then new four 9's pure solid core Copper in polyethene? Are the push on style connectors that take only bare wire and have steal parts in them better then tube connectors? There was also nothing phenomenal about this speaker. It is a dated vintage speaker that was hard to listen to in the beginning. Comparing it to what we did with it is like showing up to a new car dealership in a covered wagon and asking the salesman if they have any new cars that ride as good as your covered wagon.

@@cruise2023 I have had his work sent to me as well: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a96jmbSals7Qqok.html That one was a disaster that was one of the biggest transformations that I have done.

@@dannyrichie9743 Well thanks for replying , even it it was in a condescending manner. History and numbers do not lie. These speakers have had glowing reviews ever since they were produced and still do ! There are revered as iconic speakers and with good reason, because although you may not think so , they do sound great, even now. They were made out of market leading materials, sold in the hundred of thousands and were designed in the height of the HIFI era , which meant that a lot of thought would have gone into their design by the Yamaha team, probably in the hundreds in number - and yet you believe you can better the sound. Music is about listening - it is a shame you don’t provide real proof of the success of your designs with comparisons of before & after. I wonder why ?

@@highfell1 They are iconic and ahead of their time in some ways. However, in their stock form they don't hold a candle to even our least expensive kits, and they are not even close. They are in no way any performance bench mark. By todays standards they are a joke. What do you want? Do you want me to make some in room recordings for you to play back as a compressed KZfaq file through your laptop? That bottlenecks hearing what we've done. The proof of the improvement is a given. Questioning the results is a little insulting. They have been improved in every way. Imagine showing up at a hot rod shop that does upgrades on sports cars and they tell you they have added a super charger. The engine makes 200 more horsepower. They changed the converter to let it launch at a higher rpm. They changed the suspension to allow it to transfer weight to the rear wheels. They swapped out the rear tires for drag radials for better traction, and other modifications to improve performance.... They you say to them, but did you have a race of the stock version compared to the new version to see if it really does run faster? They already know that everything they did makes the car faster. They do it all the time. They know the result of each and every modification. Upgrading speakers for us is the same way. We know the exact result of every single part, every wire, and every change. We know exactly what happens when we add No Rez to the cabinet walls. We do all of this all the time. It's our jobs. We are professional in the field. We know what the results will sound like compared to stock. We've bad listening comparisons of every single part. The proof is clear.

Ear level of 1000s and 690s are at centre of the speaker as manuals says! Anyway I agree with mods but they are amazing even without any mod. And if someone decide to do mods do it step by step starting from dedicated stands!

What was the height of the stand?

The NS-1000M surrounds are not chrome, they're anodised aluminium - and play next to no part in the overall sound. The metal driver grilles are more invasive, but again relatively quiet.

The haircut style is called the Avalon it's in the Paul Mitchell book of modern hairstyles and was sculpted by Zohan he likes it's silky smooth 😂😂

@@BostonMike68 The haircut style is called Middle Class As*hole

They sound much better

why would you hear about something that doesn't exists? I provided measurements in the comments section showing measurements of a couple midrange drivers. This mid is definitely one of the best.

Keep in mind that I am not measuring a room response. I am measuring the speaker only without room reflections.

⁠@@dannyrichie9743 thanks so much for the response! Yeah, fantastic. I’ve been going off my gated measurements but again I’m sure you have a much more sophisticated measuring configuration than my mere UMIK-1 haha. Thanks for the honest breakdown of this.

@@Bombo503 you don't need anything sophisticated. Place your UMIK-1 right next to the midrange grill, turn off tweeter, run a sweep tone. Run the decay analysis in REW and you won't find the resonance at 1.8kHz. Your approach with tramping and digital crossover is the best approach from technical point of view, assuming you are using good quality components.

@@Bombo503 what values you have used in dsp for active crossover if you can share that?

I have both speakers, and the 500M's are a lot easier on the ears with most SS amps. If you own a good class A tube amplifier however, the 1000M's cleans their clock.

@@user-bc6ok1yh4s That is the key… a good class A tube amp. I love mine with the NS-1000’s

We have tools today that companies didn't have back in the 70's and 80's. So it is no surprise that we can find issues quickly and easily that they could not see and address back in the day. Also keep in mind that customers don't send us great speakers that they love and don't want to change. They send in speakers that don't sound they way they wish they did. So we typically get the cheaply made or problematic models.

We tried them in different positions and left them where the response was the most linear (0 settings). When we redesigned them it did not put that stuff into the signal path for obvious reasons.

That's funny I also have a pair of DX-7's from Japan but I live in Thailand strange that Coral made these about 10years before the Yamahas I wonder if the the drivers were supplied to them or paid by Yamaha to copy or use as Coral made a whole load of drivers themselves

We're game to work on most anything that gets sent our way.

Maybe you are right. I would need to hear them. About what year were these made? I also would love to see them tested through GR-Research. My bet is they are pretty messed up compared to a new $800 speaker made today. But then again there are tons of bad $2,000 made today.@@hastingspiper9266

You couldn't be any more correct, so well said!

For the 1000M's intended purpose and design, they were the best.

moreover the midrange was mentioned on Martin Collloms' book as the lowest distortion midrange ever tested.

Keep in mind that the response is also dictated by the size of the baffle, surface reflections, and edge diffraction. So any application will make the response very different.

Zaph didn't do in box measurements of tweeters. I can't recall if he used IEC baffle dimensions but you are seeing a wonky tweeter further exacerbated by baffle diffraction. Likely the typical 2khz hump followed by 3Khz dip or thereabouts for a baffle this size

Send one in.

I recently attempted to upgrade my NS-500’s only to find the access panel to the crossover components encased in a clear thick resin layer. Don’t really know why or what a solution might be.

The L100's / 4311's are more enjoyable, as I still own both of them. The NS's are cool & rarer but more desirable as collector's item rather than a speaker.

I think you are wrong. He worked for Pioneer not YamahaJBL 100 and NS1000 äre very different beasts!

I have it. It is perhaps one of the most technologically advanced as far as speaker designs go in recent times and it plays ball against any high end Wilson, Magico, etc at any price. It required all the sim/tooling/novel prove-in for that brand new xylon application , not to mention all the smart engineering built into it for resonance control, etc. The doofuses at Wilson bought drivers from somebody else, i.e., Focal, put it in a box and charged the dumb dudes 80k. Go figure.

You might be right.

Danny did the NS10M back in 2013. When I was setting up the kit page for the NS1000, I went ahead and made a page for the NS10M kit as well, showing the before & after measurements. It was an equally big transformation.

@@Hobblesmrkat I shall go dig it out ,,, they were nasty little things , but those white cones were everywhere .

The cabinets probably aren't even braced and the pot binding posts probably rings like crazy too. I see diy guys spend tons of money on components and use those little plastic binding posts cups for $3 😢

@@BostonMike68 Well he said it has 1 bracing, but yeah, as long as we don't know the thickness and the material of the cabinet itself, it can't really prove anything.

@ThomasL yeah I don't know they probably used a decent thickness.

Yes and no. If the ringing is caused by the basket, it can be wrapped with insulation putty rope. If the ringing is caused by the cone, then about the only thing you can do it put plasticine or something lightweight like a bit of foam tape on it. The issue is you are adding weight to the cone, so it will not respond as fast. Back in the day, it was common to see speakers with a bit of poster putty stuck to the cone. Ringing like this is why so many of us hate metal drivers. They tend to ring and sound harsh and fatiguing. Paper cones do not ring, but suffer from break-up (the cone itself flexes). Some modern composites have some self-damping like paper, but are stiff enough to resist break-up. They tend to be a bit heavier than paper, so sound less crisp. It is all a compromise. The ideal cone material has the lowest possible mass, the highest possible stiffness, and the highest possible self-damping characteristics. In the real world, you really only get to pick two of the three.

@@joshua43214 Aerogel sandwich, a la Mission. low mass, good damping, middleing stiffness a little better than paper. Or you could go with doped paper. As in all things engineering, it's a series of trade offs and where you want to make them.

@@englishsteve1465Yes, aerogel has some real potential, its main issue is brittleness. It might turn out to be really good for midrange drivers

Why don't they make cones or domes out of carbon fibre? Too expensive? They build whole cars out of that stuff.

@@scotth6814 see magico

That is done by matching drivers to have the same timbre. Not really a measurement than is easily measured directly, so it done by ear most of the time

and the best musically trained or talented ears are satisfied? Measurement wise i guess it must exhibit same harmonic components at transition region. Anyway this was a question in my head for a while, and none of the excellent diy/audiophile would speak about it, but will emphasize on the grand pianos lowest notes or pipeorgan or guitar or bass drum kicks

If it is box caused there is a delay or it doesn't follow an amplitude peak. I did a video a few weeks ago on spectral decays. Watching it might help.

He won't be getting my pair anytime soon. Interesting topic and opinion though.

Probably a lot.

They were bypassed.

No, we would never want to degrade the signal with those controls.

@@dannyrichie9743 makes sense. Thank you!!!

Speakers can measure "flat" and still be very fun and engaging, dare i say "exciting," to listen too without having a boosed treble or bass. Just as there are speakers that measure really well, but also sound very dull. But in the end it's if you are getting what you want out of your speakers that matters.

This video is for you: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kJaYi9h23rTbmGQ.htmlsi=fy2_Vm6p2ljSMhYg

😀

Go for it, read up on " Troels Gravesen Loudspeakers " upgrade on the NS1000m, had good comments to say about them besides the negatives, did it 6 yrs ago.. cost is cheaper than Dannys which includes high quality parts.

I am very familiar with them, but have never worked on one of them.

Yes, a third order.

The professional level Clio measuring system.

They're gone.

Danny upgraded some NS10Ms sent back in 2013, I put up a page for the NS10M right after getting the NS1000M page up. The page includes the before & after measurements. It was also a big transformation in performance from the stock.

@@Hobblesmrkat thats a very interesting mod! it looks like some extra filtering on the woofer to bring down the classic midrange hump.

What does that do exactly?

@@PTS74 Alter the character of the speaker. It vibrates less.

Or in the case of this upgrade, line it with No Rez. That eats up the cabinet resonances.

​@@dannyrichie9743 The original thick felt-like material lining will do this job quite nicely. No need to remove/replace. The cabinets on these are actually built incredibly well with Baltic Birch grade plywood. Far beyond their original price point at 1K. I have owned/restored at least 10 pairs of these over a 20+ year period. Also if you are an original crossover enthusiast (like myself), it is my understanding, the Silver caps Yamaha used were of very high quality and self-healing. (No need to replace those) I do replace the 47uf & 2.7uf electrolytics and leave everything else intact (typically use Mundorf E-cap series or sometimes opt for more expensive film caps if my budget allows). Also these speakers are very sensitive to the electronics you use to power them. (You cannot simply use a mass market receiver or amplifier to power them (including Yamaha electronics) and expect great results) For example, I use a 30 watt Class A Pass Labs Aleph 3 in conjunction with an Audible illusions 3B tube preamplifier and this complete combo sounds absoluetly incredible!!! (with the factory crossover design).

Nope, not interested. Definitely not going to reuse them.

there are only a few electrolytic caps in this crossover since most of them are paper in oil caps.

This upgrade requires working drivers. Check to see if all of your drivers are working. If so then this upgrade will get them up and going again.

There is really no such thing as a universal crossover. That would be like offering a universal tire that fits all cars. Chances of it working out very well at all are pretty slim.

@@dannyrichie9743 parts express sells them but I don't know about there quality? Looking for something better but don't have the knowledge

@@mattm2684 Crossovers have to be designed for each application.

Lots of hifi companies still use a multi-driver approach.

That's a good idea for a video.

@@intothevoid9831 true, but I think there was a clear shift from large faced boxes with multi sized drivers all over to tall vertical stacks of multiple similar cones, and now I see lots more single driver options popping up as hi-fi. But yeah some companies still do the front arrangement set up. Id be curious to know why. I'm sure there is also some aesthetic nostalgia going on as well.