• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Realistic Minimus-7 Measurements

MAB

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
2,739
Likes
6,340
Location
Portland, OR, USA
I have an old pair of Realistic Minimus-7 speakers. They were from the previous owner of our house, installed as outdoor speakers. They spent 30+ years under an awning. I removed them from the outdoor spot a few years ago and put them aside, they were in surprisingly decent shape despite being covered in dirt and cobwebs. I got the pair out of storage and decided to take some measurements, see if they match previously published data. For instance Archimago's excellent review:

The Minimus-7 was introduced in 1978:
1727031269661.png

There are a bunch of iterations. My pair are 40-2030C, which I believe are from the mid '80s. Archimago's test is an earlier version.

Here they are, just out of storage:
1727040655700.png


There isn't much to them except slick design:
1727040704476.png


Once you have them apart, I recommend washing them with soap and water. ;)
1727068468039.png


The tweeter LC network uses a 0.4mH inductor and a 4.7uF capacitor.
1727041384248.png

The woofer has no filter.

The individual driver measurements in free-air; woofer on left, tweeter on right:
1727044302972.png


The woofer has some evidence of resonances, the impedance slope varies starting at ~2kHz. The tweeter is odd with a double-peak.

Prior to disassembly I had measured both speakers' on-axis frequency response in my room. Both of the speakers are closely matched, small 1dB difference at the 3.5kHz resonance, but within 0.5dB over the rest of the frequency range.
1727044646863.png


I took horizontal and vertical measurements of the speaker at 1 meter on a turntable in 10 degree increments. These measurements were with the grille on. These were merged with nearfield measurements of the woofer using VituixCAD:
1727067018908.png


Bass rolls off below 200 Hz, large peak at 3.5kHz. I have never liked the sound of the Minimus 7. The midrange hump is difficult. The lack of bass and upper treble exacerbates my dislike. That being said, I am awestruck that after 30 years outdoors in the Pacific NW the measurements indicate the speakers work as Minimus 7 should. And sound similar to others I recall.

This measured result is similar to older measurements I have seen of the 40-3030C model, for example:
1727069923418.png


Archimago's test of the earlier version of the Minimus 7 has slightly better bass extension, similar 3.5kHz treble peak.
All of the various models need to reduce the level and integrate the tweeter differently, it's ridiculous!:eek: The peak at 3.5kHz sticks out like a sore thumb being right near the crossover frequency where the directivity is also changing rapidly. Even worse sounding with no bass. It's very distracting to listen to.

The resulting horizontal and vertical directivity plots are similar to Archimago's as well:
1727068272339.png


Where is that peak coming from? The tweeter.
1727078677918.png


Rich in odd HD at 3.2kHz, the tweeter's peak is a distortion machine! In a compression test you can see it actually result in positive compression at high volume due to energy sprayed in the tweeter's distortion components!
1727078432369.png


The woofer is a bit ragged with resonances above 2kHz at the same frequencies the blips in the impedance slope occur:
1727070522867.png


1727071117504.png

The tweeter and the woofer are perhaps competing to make the midrange bad.:mad:

I know there are some simple proposed tweaks for the Minimus 7. A better crossover that lowers the tweeter level, and reduces the peak. And a crossover for the woofer.;) The industrial design is fantastic. And the speakers are incredibly weatherproof, durable, and look good. Taming the tweeter/midrange crossover point would help make them completely appealing.
 
Last edited:
:facepalm: Gads. I have at least two 'salvaged from an original four. Not sure why.. Thought of 'repair, maybe up grade'.. Oops.
 
The crossover was probably designed on paper, without taking the double hump in tweeter impedance response into account. The woofer starts to break up shortly above 1 kHz while the tweeter isn't ready for prime time around 3... what's not to like?
As bad as the woofer's breakup mode, that teeter is an amazing distortion generator at 3kHz!
 
I never liked them. I do have a pair here, but only for archival/sentimental reasons. The ads and Visonik (and also, later, Canton) minispeakers were so much better.

If anyone really feels the need to... umm... polish a pair of these (so to speak):
 
I never liked them. I do have a pair here, but only for archival/sentimental reasons. The ads and Visonik (and also, later, Canton) minispeakers were so much better.

If anyone really feels the need to... umm... polish a pair of these (so to speak):
I always wondered about the Visonik, I never recall hearing any. The pictures I saw looked similar to the very ADS, which I liked very much.
 
Ten sweeps of an SD-062 tweeter from a Minimus 77, 2.83V/8Ω, at eighteen inches on axis, no smoothing. Roll off is high because there is a 22 µF cap in series with the tweeter. I set this up in a small aluminum project box to use as a timing reference for REW. I have another with a 47 µF cap in series that I haven't tested with yet.

m77twt.png


NOS Minimus 77s.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
I always wondered about the Visonik, I never recall hearing any. The pictures I saw looked similar to the very ADS, which I liked very much.
They (e.g., the Visonik Davids) sounded good. Not sure how they'd measure ;) -- but pretty sure they'd look better than the Minimus-7.
Radio Shack's branded loudspeaker systems of the 1970s and beyond tended towards the terrible -- at least relative to my ears and taste.
They sold a few decent-sounding drivers in the same era, but I suspect it was more of a "monkeys and typewriters" sort of thing rather than any deliberate effort on their part. ;)

WARNING - off-topic (mostly) & typically ego-centric aside follows! :( Sorry! :p

I quite like these Radio Shack drivers, e.g., the 40-1354 twincone 5-1/4" pincushion frame driver. R/S sold these for many years for use as car speakers. This pair is slightly modified (phase plugs added to smooth out the treble a bit) and installed in mass-loaded folded quarter-wave tube drivers designed back in the 1990s by a fellow called Bob Brines. My friend Mike Berg built the cabinets for me, nearly 30 years ago now. :facepalm:





11 years ago. :eek:
 
I heard these back in the 80s when I was in high school. My memory was that they put out a much more full sound than would seem possible for their size. Given the price and technology back in the day, they seemed pretty good. I heard far worse sounding speakers for twice the price and four times the size in those days. Like Those BIG wide boxes with thin walls, giant woofers, mid and tweeter that came with so many consumer systems.

So props to these given context.

I suppose a comparable niche today might be the Amazon echoes and small Sonos speakers and the various cheap Bluetooth speakers that produce huge sound for their size and price. But which are in no way accurate. But sound quite good for very casual ambient listening at lower volumes etc. of course those can take advantage of dsp, simulations and advanced driver tech unavailable back then.

I mean, the miniumus were no Bose Acoutimass…
 
Last edited:
I had a pair of these in the 80’s in a Toyota SR-5 pickup. Radio Shack sold matching metal brackets that I screwed into the sheetmetal behind the kick panels. Had some nice head unit and an amp driving them. Loud as hell. With the baffles facing the driver and passenger, the “image” was good compared to other in-door solutions. For their time and size, they weren’t bad. Like any small speaker, they benefited from a small room, or in this case, pickup truck.
 
I know a guy who has 3 sets of the of Minimus-7s, all in the same room, run by 3 Carver TFM-15 amps, with a Carver preamp and a Magnavox cd player. He seems very content, with the system
 
The minimus 7 was my first "Hi-fi" speaker with my old Sansui 2000A. Very good pairing. What I remember about these was that the bass was pretty good for its size and with a small bass boost, it was happy to do 50hz. Anything below 50hz, it was just nothing.

The only thing I can think of that's a modern version of "Bare Minimum" crossovers in speakers is the Polk T15. Just the like Minimus 7, they were making them for 20+ years. The Polk T15 is just a modern rebrand of the R15. The R15 was just a poor man's RTi28.
 
The minimus 7 was my first "Hi-fi" speaker with my old Sansui 2000A. Very good pairing. What I remember about these was that the bass was pretty good for its size and with a small bass boost, it was happy to do 50hz. Anything below 50hz, it was just nothing.

The only thing I can think of that's a modern version of "Bare Minimum" crossovers in speakers is the Polk T15. Just the like Minimus 7, they were making them for 20+ years. The Polk T15 is just a modern rebrand of the R15. The R15 was just a poor man's RTi28.
They also had a couple matching small receivers that were meant to go with the Minimus 7 speaker, that had a build in bass boost circuit tailored just for the speaker.
It made them quite bearable bass wise.
I mean no one expects great bass from a tiny woofer in a very tiny box, but for its size it was almost surprisingly good.
 
They also had a couple matching small receivers that were meant to go with the Minimus 7 speaker, that had a build in bass boost circuit tailored just for the speaker.
It made them quite bearable bass wise.
I mean no one expects great bass from a tiny woofer in a very tiny box, but for its size it was almost surprisingly good.
Those little receivers were quite attractive, too.

1729341372605.png


1729341473968.png


source (in case it's not obvious from the screenshots :facepalm:): https://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/flipbook/1979_radioshack_catalog.html
As to the Minimus 7. Yeah... not a fan. :eek:
Limited LF isn't their problem (it comes with the territory). Pretty much everything else is their problem. :(
They have two advantages: they're attractive, well made, and cheap. Three. Three advantages*.

______________________
* No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
1729341676993.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
Gads!! :D I have a pair of Minimus 7's I bought back in the day. They are still in the basement somewhere. I used them as computer speakers until a couple of years ago when I replace the with Pioneer XP-B522-LR's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
I actually remember listening to this one the STA-11 with Minimus 7 speakers.

Actually with the bass boost on and adjusting the "mid" control down a bit, they became listenable and not bad at all. Not great mind you, but for the size and all.
 
(Marky looks around nervously, lowers his head and speaks softly, tentatively... furtively)
"I... I... wouldn't mind having one of those little STA-7 receivers."

This conversation didn't happen. Got it?!

:cool:
 
Not to get too far off topic, but years ago had a pair of somewhat similar sized mini speakers from Radio Shack, called the Minimus .5 They were honestly a very cheap 4" full range speaker that in some key ways sounded actually better and smoother than the more expensive Minimus 7 model.

It has been far too long to remember exactly how they sounded, but I had a pair of Minimus 7 and when I A/Bed them, found the cheap one to be better without that big midrange peak, but also a smoother rolled off top end, and about similar bass.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
Back
Top Bottom