The question is, what technical aspects of the Waveform Mach Solo gave them the subjective sound qualities that you heard/remember?
Whatever those aspects are, they would have to be preserved through any modifications.
And "technical aspects" could be things that would be regarded by most today as flaws, eg something like a BBC dip can sound good on solo instruments and/or voices, because it compensates for too-close miking (which is why the BBC had it in their speakers in the first place!).
Yes, I was aware of those issues in raising the sort of thought experiment question.
No guarantee that a different set of drivers and crossover would end up being as pleasing to me. But I think the overall design of the loudspeaker was very compelling, and contributed to the sonic presentation. By the way as far as measurements, Waveform was dedicated to very flat on axis frequency response and obsessed with well-controlled off axis response “ before it was cool “
There was one review back in the day where the Mach Solos where thoroughly measured and the measurements were absolutely superb, super flat across the frequency response and really well controlled off access behaviour. The guy who measured them said they were the best measuring speakers he had encountered. Unfortunately that review is no longer available online.
I would think copy the shape, because milling to fit different drivers is a PITA.
Yes, I was wondering about that.
OTOH, I would suspect a set of NHT xDS cabinets with a custom bass cabinet and 3-way active crossover might just get you there. They're less rounded-over than the Waveforms but not by that much. They use a Seas Excel W15 midwoofer (which you could upgrade to their "hexadym" neo-magnet magnesium model, or neo-magnet "Nextel" coned midrange) and a Seas tweeter.
Thanks, I’ve heard tons of different loud speakers like that. The Joseph Audio Pulsar seem somewhat similar to the above design and also use the Excel woofers that I love . But the Mach Solo still left quite an individual impression on me. I think that egg shaped mid tweeter module really paid dividends.
There was a sort of effortless “ disappearing” and imaging character to those speakers, practically no matter where you sat in the room. Similar to my MBL’s.
Generally speaking, properly designed and built loudspeakers tend to have that knack for 'disappearing' and creating a good stereo image.
Yup. I’ve always demanded excellent imaging and sound staging from my loudspeakers, and as much as a “ disappearing” act as can be managed.
So all of my loudspeakers do that really well.
The Mach Solos really had this “put it all together” quality - a disappearing act that came closer than usual to my MBL’s, but also a sense of power and effortless dynamics and a life-like presence - similar to what people tend to associate with horn speakers (even if that association is sometimes dubious).
That said, since there are so many different presentations and loudspeakers no speaker for me truly, does everything possible.
The two issues I had with the Mach Solos and why I didn’t keep them (aside from the fact I had just bought new loudspeakers) was that there could be a certain “dryness” to the sound, unless perhaps you controlled some room reflections a bit more. But also they lacked the last bit of sonic density and body.
A singer’s voice, for instance could be beamed into the room with astonishing vividness and precision, but it wouldn’t be quite as dense and corporeal as some other loudspeakers (for instance the Thiels I’ve owned).
I would still take my current loudspeakers over the Mach Solo. I LOVE whatever the SEAS drivers and sonotex tweeter seem to be doing in the Joseph speakers, which is one reason I sort of daydream about what those drivers might sound like in the Mach Solo.
But I recognize that everything you do changes something else. Certain drivers might not have the same axis performance, and of course required different moves in the crossover, etc. So it would be hard to keep the things I like constant and just “ make it better.”
