MC-1000: Best Speaker in the World?

[carewser]

I have no idea what "fs" or "Qts" is

 

[beagleman]

I have no idea what "fs" or "Qts" is

This may give you somewhat of an explanation. To go fully into how all these parameters interact is a thread unto itself...gets fairly involved.

https://www.eminence.com/support/understanding-loudspeaker-data/

 

[beagleman]

I am not defending this radio shack speaker by any means, but having heard a few dozen radio shack offerings from the 70s and 80s, admittedly this MC-1000 is surely a very mediocre speaker, but I have also heard worse stuff for sure.

I am not sure I can get my head to wrap around how low the rating is though.
Sure it is very blah sounding overall, but where would that put the stuff I heard that was even worse?

 

[A Surfer]

... but where would that put the stuff I heard that was even worse?

Hopefully in your rearview mirror.

 

[Justin Ayers]

They also owned an AMC Pacer, which could hardly be called a "fine automobile", but AMC's marketing program snagged them - just like the Bose marketing efforts.

The Pacer is underrated today and was well-received when it was unveiled. One mistake that AMC made was changing the grill to be less attractive. It was mainly a victim of the fuel crisis. As I recall, it was the original cab forward design and was supposed to have a Wankel. The poor fuel economy of the Wankel forced AMC to use a simple engine. This resulted in also poor fuel economy, due to the Pacer's weight in particular. However, it was a very reliable engine, unlike some of the competition. I believe the Vega had serious problems and GM did a fantastic job when it tried to use a gasoline engine in diesel vehicles. The Pacer also didn't sport Ford's exploding Pinto gas tank.

As far as the Pacer's looks go, they were also well-received when it debuted. Personally, I find the car much more appealing than anything on the market today. Today's angry dystopian vehicles don't impress me, nor do the snarky ones (VW's most recent Beetle). I'd rather drive a car that's friendly and happy. But, that's not allowed these days unless you spend $150,000+ to get one of those celeb SUVs or whatever the tiny Porches cost. The little guy has to be angry and petulant.

As for people demoing speakers... do shops provide identical soundproofed treated rooms with identical equipment (other than the speakers)? Are the speakers carefully placed to maximize the sound quality? Or, are most showrooms characterized by a lot of equipment being stuffed into a small space that isn't well optimized for sound in the first place? Or, if the showroom is set up well enough, is there much choice? I don't expect many places will have thirty identical rooms so people can demo 30 speakers with no setup time other than popping in a CD. It's easy to blame buyers for being stupid and lazy but if they don't have ready access to high-quality demo facilities what are they supposed to do other than flail around with the flailing word of mouth? They have to rely on measurements from a site like this. Objective measurements are critical when the optimal showrooms I describe aren't available, especially within reasonable driving distance. Of course, how are buyers going to, for instance, know whether or not Martin Logan's electrostatic speakers are a good idea based on the data here? There is no comprehensive resource anywhere that I have seen. Dealers seem to have a small selection of brands they want to showcase and want to do so in the "jumbled room" manner. It's commendable to provide the data the way this site does but one person who isn't a millionaire is going to be hard-pressed to cover the entire industry. If I were wealthy, though, I would send some speakers for testing, like the MLs.

Perhaps I'm quite unusual but I would like to see the objective data and be able to subjectively demo a wide range of speakers in optimal conditions. I am wary of relying on what others think. The evidence, for instance, shows that hearing damage is widespread among young people due to their heavy use of portables in noisy environments. Older people have unavoidable hearing degradation due to aging, in addition to whatever damage they've done. A huge number of people are content with the dreadful YouTube audio, including many posts praising the sound of 480p max videos. People can tell me I'm wrong but I do hear the difference between 320K mp3 and AAC (versus lossless), even on cheap equipment. Statistically random samples also sometimes fail. The sweetener cyclamate was banned because one man of the sample digested it in a manner that caused his body to absorb a much greater amount of it than anyone else studied. If he hadn't been included by accident then cyclamate would have likely not been banned. Outliers can matter.

Also in terms of Radio Shack, despite Consumer Reports giving them good marks, I remember that the quality of their cassette tapes was quite poor. It was no Maxell competitor.

Also, in terms of one poster's complaint about the humorous tone of the review: Your complaint is way over the top. The humor in the review is perfectly harmless. I also think it's very good to have older designs in the data for perspective. I am a big believer in learning from history, understanding the present with more accuracy by having better context.

I also recall a generalization about audiophiles wanting to spend money and buying things for the novelty factor rather than for performance. Of course, this is true for some of them. It's not true for all of them. I have never had the money needed to purchase even one high-quality sound system, even though I care about sound quality very much. The fact that some affordable speakers are well-rated here is heartening, although I will need to get subwoofers. I am a bit concerned about hiss, though. Is it generally the case that relatively-affordable active speakers tend to have noticeable hiss? That's my impression based on the research I've done (reading reviews and comments, not scientific research).

 

[krott5333]

where's the damn panther at?!

 

[carewser]

where's the damn panther at?!

Pinky's in the review but in spite of being the lowest scoring speaker Amir's ever reviewed Pinky kept his head for some reason

 

[Ears of Tin]

Don't let the low price of US $59.95 fool you. This speaker used state-of-the-art components, far better than anything available today. Besides, that was the price in 1978. Today, it would be $5,595

Awesome! That means the pair of MC-1500 I've had in the attic for 40 years will fetch at least $8,000. Any offers?

 

[Surtsey]

I stumbled across this old thread trying to find information on these Tandy Speakers. You guys seem extremely knowledgeable. Any ideas?

 

[MrSoul4470]

I've seen worse for a couple of thousand Euros more. Considering the price this is a great little speaker.
And I think Amir shouldn't worry about that 10kHz peak too much. It sure wouldn't keep him awake as he probably can't really hear it. So can't I. Lots of exaggerating in that "review".

 

[Brutus6844]

You are in for a special treat. I have what could arguably be called the best vintage speaker in the world that is ever produced. That you haven't heard of its designation, MC-1000, is not my issue. Please allow me to introduce you to the Realistic MC-1000:

View attachment 48786​

Don't let the low price of US $59.95 fool you. This speaker used state-of-the-art components, far better than anything available today. Besides, that was the price in 1978. Today, it would be $5,595.

I have not one, but two samples of this beauty! And a beauty it is with its walnut veneer and brownish grill.

OK, you are not here to praise my prized possessions but to see how this marvel of acoustic engineering performs. So let's get into that.

Measurements are performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics) to subtract room reflections. It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

Spinorama Audio Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker can be used. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 48787

What? Maybe I didn't have the polarity of the wires straight. Surely it is a far better speaker than this. Maybe I can change the vertical scale enough to make the on-axis response flat as great speakers should have.

What's that? The directivity index has a lot of ups and downs? Let me see:

View attachment 48788

OK, I confess. The early reflection directivity index should be straight like the arrow that I have drawn. Maybe if you close your eyes, and listen to music with lights off, you won't hear those reflections around your room having little relationship with the direct sound. You know, they make a soup that just might be tasty on the 100th play of Eagle's LP you keep spinning.

If you want a picture of said soup, here it is:

View attachment 48789

You don't need to buy a parametric EQ anymore. You have one built-into this speaker which works wonders for all your music. A nice peak above 10 kHz would do wonders in keeping you awake.

Speaker Impedance Measurements
Here is how the impedance (and phase) of the speaker vary based on frequency:
View attachment 48791

Any little "kinks" in the phase/impedance curves indicates a resonance. And we have plenty of this. Translation: this is a very musical speaker, playing along its own tunes with your band. A solo becomes a duo. A duo becomes a trio and so on. You put in one, and you get two. Or three.

And oh, you can see the same in frequency response measurement:

View attachment 48787

Distortion Measurements
Ignore the low frequencies as these measurements are supposed to be performed in anechoic chamber:
View attachment 48792

View attachment 48793

Fascinating to see the high distortions above 1 kHz.

Advanced Measurements
View attachment 48794
View attachment 48795

View attachment 48796

Spin data is enclosed (main reason for this review).

Eye Candy Speaker Measurement
At 20 kHz, we should just see a narrow cone pushing energy forward:

View attachment 48798


These graphs should have similar color in the center and smoothly fading into blue:
View attachment 48799

This one makes a nice impressionistic painting. What Van Gogh would paint if he measured speakers:

View attachment 48800

Conclusions
Yeh, I know. The golden era of speakers and hifi is long gone. Looked up the MC-1000 online and they go for $150 which proves this thing has appreciated in value. I plan to put then on my desk and listen to music with them to drawn out complains about my speaker measurements....

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

I make this simple: you have money, and I need some of that. So please donate what you can using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

I know this thread is old...but I just HAD to see your review of "the best vintage speaker in the world!"...and it didn't disappoint! You had me at "brownish grill."