The HiFi and Home Theater thread...what gear are you listening to?

[chuckmiller]

Between Rick, Walter, and others here there is nothing you cannot learn about old school Hi-Fi. It's awesome.

[Rdenney]

I’m a cheapskate dilettante—I read about the great ones of the audio world and what they did, and then try to find worn-out and therefore cheap examples of their designs.

(Just as with watches, the historical research is much of the fun for me.)

Walter is the real deal—he is and was on a first name basis with those same great ones. In fact, he IS one of those great ones, if you include business savvy as part of what makes them great.

Rick “hoping for a needed trip to Boston or Connecticut once things open up” Denney

[wschofield3]

Just bought a vintage pair of Canton bookshelf speakers for the bedroom we use for working out. I have a SMSL chifi Bluetooth POS integrated amp (think Krell 300i but without,...well,...any...of its qualities except that it is really light and compact) that I will use until it annoys me too much—I play music from my phone. But it’s limited to plain Bluetooth from my iPhone.

Then, I’ll stick a Bluetooth receiver onto an old 40-watt Kenwood integrated amp. I’m thinking of an ifi Zen Blue receiver, which will play my high-sample files that my iPhone sends as AAC files.

If that isn’t loud enough, I’ll throw my Carver amp and a spare Adcom preamp at it. That would exceed current redhead tolerance, though, so one step at a time. She doesn’t know about the speakers yet.

I have a pair of the little Andrew Jones-designed Pioneer SP-BS22 speakers in my office that I thought about duplicating, but I don’t love how they congest in the lower mid bass. They sound just like ported speakers, and my ears seem to be calibrated for acoustic suspension. The Canton GL260 from back in the 80’s have a reputation for good enough bass not to strictly need a sub-woofer, which would be a no-go, and they are sealed cabinets (woofer’s 50% bigger, too). They have a similar 2” dome tweeter to what ADS/Braun was using at that time, which I’ve always thought sounded nice.

We shall see. Should be here Wednesday or Thursday.

Rick “just completing his tour of small, sub-$200, front-ported or sealed speakers, and missed out on a cheap pair of Polk RT25i’s” Denney

If the Canton's are the models I remember selling back in the day, they have a great, solid cabinet and a metal perforated grill - and they sounded very good. Similar in tone to the KLH of the day, accurate, and fairly open, but a bit more articulate than the KLH's and AR's. You are correct, they are not bass champs, but for the size, they did OK.

You should be fine with the Kenwood - but if memory serves me correctly, they were not the most efficient with decent bass extension from that small cab.

If you want to look at modern examples of great speakers in that range, Andrew's ( a dear friend of mine) current ELAC's are quite good, and the Wharfedale Diamond series, designed by Peter Comeau (another good friend) just keep getting better with every iteration.

[Rdenney]

I looked at the Elac Debut speakers and they looked really good. But these Cantons were much cheaper (maybe false economy—we’ll see) and more entertainingly obscure.

And I do like the little Pioneers despite the mid-bass congestion. They are great for the office, where I can put them close to me and not push them very hard. They have great clarity over the rest of the spectrum and I don’t feel like I’m compromising much. I’m running those with an Adcom GFA535, a Kenwood C1, and a Cambridge CD player.

I keep having to remember I paid a hundred bucks for them brand new.

If the Elacs have what the Pioneers have plus a cleaner bass, I’m all for it.

If the 40-wpc Kenwood isn’t enough, I have the 150-wpc Carver PA amp and several
preamps to choose from. But the Kenwood would look the best in that room.

One thing is for sure—the micro Dahlquist ALS-3’s I’m currently using do not have any bass at all. Very strange little beasts—outfitted with two tweeters and another tweeter it would seem. The woofer is two whole inches of raw power.



The “amp” is in the middle. It also suffers from small-man syndrome. Final system will be one shelf down, which is why a rear port wouldn’t work.

Here’s where those speakers belong:





Rick “moving this stuff to the motorhome” Denney

[tribe125]

That motorhome is a lovable looking beast. What is it, and does it really need a double rear axle?

[Rdenney]

That motorhome is a lovable looking beast. What is it, and does it really need a double rear axle?

It is a 1973 GMC Motor Home. They were made for six model years through 1978, about 13,000 in total. They came in two lengths, 23’ and 26’, and this one is the shorter model.

It’s the only motor home entirely made by one of the US Big Three automakers. GMC made these in their Galaxy plant in Lansing, Michigan.

The drivetrain is front-wheel-drive from an Oldsmobile Toronado, which is the same as the one used in the Cadillac Eldorados of the day, but for the engine. The engine is an Oldsmobile 455 (7.4 L) big block V8. Thirsty but plenty of torque.



The rear wheels are not mounted on axles, but rather on spindles—the rear suspension is entirely outside the frame.

Here’s the rear suspension after I converted it to disk brakes:



I also converted the front to more robust steering knuckles and 12” brakes.

The transmission runs alongside the engine, and the drive power is transferred using a chain drive. The chain is 2” wide and runs on 6” cogs. The half-shafts to the front wheels go under the front of the engine.

Because it’s a front driver, the floor behind the cockpit is only 14” off the pavement all the way to the back.

To answer your question, the rated loaded weight ranged from 11,700 pounds to 12,800 pounds. Mine is pretty light and weighs about 9500 pounds on the road. 4000 or so sit on the front wheels and the rest are on the back. The maximum weight that tires for the 16” wheels can carry is about 2600 pounds (Load Range E with 80 psi pressure), which isn’t enough in the back for two of them to carry the rated load. They would have had to go to much larger and heavier commercial truck wheels and tires to use just two. So, yes, they needed 4 tires in the back.

The usual configuration would be a dually rear axle, but that doesn’t work with the independent suspension and would invade the interior space too much. But it would ride like a school bus. The tandem wheels are suspended by an air bag that connects them, so the wheels will step over bumps. There was a video comparing the GMC to a Winnebago Brave driving over 4x4 lumber spaced out on the pavement. The GMC maintained stability and even a tolerable ride, but the Winnie lost control. Add to that the low pressure needed by the light load in each tire, and the design is as smooth and comfortable as a car.

GM stopped making the big Olds and Cadillac engines after the second oil crisis and GMC lost access to the drivetrain—that’s why they had to stop production. The remaining big blocks in the GM stable (mostly the Chevy 454) could not be mated to the transmission.

Thousands of these are still on the road, all of which must have better paint than mine. But I saved mine from the junkyard. The paint is bad but the drivetrain is tip-top and the interior amenities are all updated. The house body is made from high-strength aluminum, and the skin is aluminum above the waist and SMC below (the same fiberglass material GM used for Corvettes). The frames can rust out but these can last like airplanes. Mine is 47 years old and I put it on cruise control on the Interstate at 70 mph with one hand on the wheel.

A late-70’s pair of funky Dahlquist speakers seems about right for a GMC.

Rick “since you asked “ Denney

[mlcor]

It is a 1973 GMC Motor Home. They were made for six model years through 1978, about 13,000 in total. They came in two lengths, 23’ and 26’, and this one is the shorter model.

It’s the only motor home entirely made by one of the US Big Three automakers. GMC made these in their Galaxy plant in Lansing, Michigan.

The drivetrain is front-wheel-drive from an Oldsmobile Toronado, which is the same as the one used in the Cadillac Eldorados of the day, but for the engine. The engine is an Oldsmobile 455 (7.4 L) big block V8. Thirsty but plenty of torque.



The rear wheels are not mounted on axles, but rather on spindles—the rear suspension is entirely outside the frame.

Here’s the rear suspension after I converted it to disk brakes:



I also converted the front to more robust steering knuckles and 12” brakes.

The transmission runs alongside the engine, and the drive power is transferred using a chain drive. The chain is 2” wide and runs on 6” cogs. The half-shafts to the front wheels go under the front of the engine.

Because it’s a front driver, the floor behind the cockpit is only 14” off the pavement all the way to the back.

To answer your question, the rated loaded weight ranged from 11,700 pounds to 12,800 pounds. Mine is pretty light and weighs about 9500 pounds on the road. 4000 or so sit on the front wheels and the rest are on the back. The maximum weight that tires for the 16” wheels can carry is about 2600 pounds (Load Range E with 80 psi pressure), which isn’t enough in the back for two of them to carry the rated load. They would have had to go to much larger and heavier commercial truck wheels and tires to use just two. So, yes, they needed 4 tires in the back.

The usual configuration would be a dually rear axle, but that doesn’t work with the independent suspension and would invade the interior space too much. But it would ride like a school bus. The tandem wheels are suspended by an air bag that connects them, so the wheels will step over bumps. There was a video comparing the GMC to a Winnebago Brave driving over 4x4 lumber spaced out on the pavement. The GMC maintained stability and even a tolerable ride, but the Winnie lost control. Add to that the low pressure needed by the light load in each tire, and the design is as smooth and comfortable as a car.

GM stopped making the big Olds and Cadillac engines after the second oil crisis and GMC lost access to the drivetrain—that’s why they had to stop production. The remaining big blocks in the GM stable (mostly the Chevy 454) could not be mated to the transmission.

Thousands of these are still on the road, all of which must have better paint than mine. But I saved mine from the junkyard. The paint is bad but the drivetrain is tip-top and the interior amenities are all updated. The house body is made from high-strength aluminum, and the skin is aluminum above the waist and SMC below (the same fiberglass material GM used for Corvettes). The frames can rust out but these can last like airplanes. Mine is 47 years old and I put it on cruise control on the Interstate at 70 mph with one hand on the wheel.

A late-70’s pair of funky Dahlquist speakers seems about right for a GMC.

Rick “since you asked “ Denney

That is very cool, and quite contemporary in terms of something to travel in during a pandemic...

[tribe125]

Thanks, Rick.

I have no possible use for such a beast, and I wouldn’t fancy the maintenance, but what a thing.

[chuckmiller]

I forgot to try the @ symbol.

Between @Rdenney , @wschofield3 , and others here there is nothing you cannot learn about old school Hi-Fi. It's awesome.

[chuckmiller]

Did that work?