It's great to see so many CONSTRUCTIVE recommendations from my favorite guys, and I'm not blowing smoke up your skirts cuz I know you guys don't wear skirts. it's good to see a site that hasn't blown up beyond human proportions.

I'm pretty sure the Dahlquists are bone stock. I know they need new surrounds, and I want to recap them when I KNOW I'm making an improvement. Some other scattershots:

-I can build the stands myself. Does anyone have any "blueprints" that have been proven to work well? If not, I will come up with something inspired. I already have an image in my mind, but will need to explore whether it is acoustically sound. Might not know until they are built...
How high and at what angle do I want the speakers?

-I have a Niles SA-100 subwoofer amp that I haven't even tried out (throw in with a Luxman R-115). Is it a good candidate to supplement the transnova?

-Is there a thread somewhere floating on the web about the best room placement? Very soon I will probably have the chance to BUILD a room to whatever size I want in a basement. Only limitation is ceiling height (standard). Would love to have input on that design when the time comes.

Good doctor,

I'm off to work in a minute, but I'll try to get back to you about the above.

For now, there's a Dahlquist group at Yahoo that could be helpful.

I got bounced from it as a retaliatory action over something non-related by it's founder, but there's a wealth of info there you may enjoy. Just don't say I sent you.

not comfortable wearing a dress in public I would say.

elroy

Not that there is anything wrong with wearing a dress.

Jim

or their un-mentionables

elroy

Congrats again on the score.

A recap is probably the most noticeable improvement, and that if the caps are the older variety, I'm told.

Second improvement is investing an hour or so to mirror them.

As for the stands, I've seen many varieties built. Mine are on record crates- I took the easy way out.


The Niles SA-100 subwoofer amp- I'm sorry, are you planning on using it for powering the DQs? Might not be a good idea- prolly a class "D" amp, I'd think, and not incredibly advanced. Great for lower notes, but will introduce distortion in the upper range.

Placement? Best, I've been told, is about 6-8 feet apart, 2-3 feet from walls (including back). In order for me to move in my place, I can't place them as such, and they still sound great.

Hey, y'all.
Happy Blossom Festival weekend.
(it's a local thing, but hey, there is a parade AND a carnival._

First, I would use the Niles to power the subwoofer that was recommended to supplement the bottom end of the DQ-10s. I'll use the transnova, or maybe two if I get inspired, to run the DQs.

Second, It figures a Dahlquist group would ban one of the biggest advocates of the speakers. One of the MAIN reasons I am taking the plunge is your advocacy, Paul. If any of your students want the textbook definition of irony...

But it's okay. I got booed out of a Polk forum several years back for suggesting someone could EXPERIMENT with other types of wire, which last I heard do conduct current, as speaker wire. When I said "everyone has Monster cable" most of the genii on the forum thought I meant "everyone."

Third, I have what I consider a novel, if not ingenious concept for stands, but I need to figure out if they work acoustically. I guess that's what makes it a concept.
What would y'all say is the optimal average level of up-tilt for speakers? (Although now that I revisit the concept, that's pretty manageable).

Fourth, I will mirror them. Sometime soon I'll share my truck project.
It's something that I thought doing years ago with earlier Dodges, but have actually nearly accomplished (hours away from fruition!) this time.

Fourth (because that's as high as I can count after a sixpack), Elroy mentioned unmentionables. That's strictly verboten,
but only if you are in Germany.

0h my Goodness when I saw this post I almost broke out my bong and tie dyed tee shirts and Jimmy Hendricks vinyl!!!

Where are you guys going?

DQ-10's are a very good speaker with many sonic qualities enviable even today aside from their tendency to fry the electronics and a bitch to fix. Nevertheless, a great sounding "static".

But the electronics you folks are talking about using and are using makes me wince!

No discussion about the front ends, or the speaker cables. I recall the DQ-10 very cable Dependant...

As for Adcom and Soundcraftsman amps... ouch..............

Among the most one dimensional amplifier creations ever made. even the earlier Hafler DH-500 fell into that category. But they had promise if you sent them to Van Alstine or Musical Fidelity for upgrades and better components.

While the DQ-10's needed much current to make them sing properly the solid state electronics of time were not up to the caliber these speakers needed. Ok, maybe the Holman amp at 100 wpc..... I'll give you that.

The tube amps of the time just didn't have the balls to drive in the lows , i.e. NYAL, GAS, Futtermans, Manleys, Mac's and so on and of course poor damping factors ergo muddy bass.

The quality solid state stuff, like the Levinson and even Mac Solid brought out the best in these speakers. There really wasn't much out there. Though today there is so much out there, why are you folks talking about ancient electronics to drive them.... a meager Bryston 3 b-st or sst will make these babies cook and loud to about 105db and even give a shot to the bottom end as well...

Really folks, I respect your efforts and comments, but get real...trust me on this one..if Dingus wants to chastise me for going off, so be it.... But this period is one I am fully versed and lived through., case closed no discussion.

Hi Gene,

Let me start by saying I never laid eyes on a set of DQ-10´s, let alone hear them, nevertheless that´s no reason to prevent me from commenting on your post.

I don´t see why would anyone want to chastise you for stating your opinion. As with everything in audio throughout its history there has seldom existed a consensus on any subject, and that´s the beauty of it.

Just because you lived through that period and are well versed in it, it doesn´t mean your opinion is the sole valid one and there should be no more discussion on the matter.

As it happens, there´s another member here well versed in that period too, Emaidel, whose opinion is worthy of as much credit as yours, who holds different views. He has ran a pair of DQ-10´s for close to 30 years.

Thedelihaus also owns a set, and despite his far lesser experince compared to yours, his opinion is to be heard also.

As for me, if I ever lay my hands on a pair of these, I will hold all of you guys opinions into consideration on how to best drive them, and then decide for myself.

i dont see that stating an opinion based on one's experience is "going off" by any stretch. civil debate and an open exchange of ideas are always encouraged.

Gino,

Yep- the Crown is a dinosaur compared to many better options nowadays. Note me mentioning folk referring to them as a bit uncivilized.

Nonetheless, at the timeperiod, they were a good choice for a DQ-10 owner.

Were there better? Sure, Audio Research being one of them.

And later, folk claim to have good luck with Carver gear- though Carver gear is approached with either trepidation and skepticism or a warm embrace.

Adcom's 555 is a very good amp- at the time, a bargain for what it delivered and very respected by Stereophile and many, many owners.

Are there better than Adcom? Sure. But for the 80's it was good going. and since it was the 80's, you should break out the coke and Miami Vice duds, not the bong and the tye-dye.

Soundcraftsmen? Good kit, though a bit tough to work on, and claims by some owners that this class "H" amp can be a bit grainy to some ears. Also can be a bit tough for some techs to work on.

If I were shopping today, and on a budget, PSE, B&K, PS Audio, Bryston, and a slew of other mid-90's gear would be on my very short list.

Agreed there has been much progress in amp design since the 70's.


Only thing I disagree on is how sensitive the DQs are to components. Besides avoiding junk, most amps and decent quality gear get along fine with 'em, in my limited experience.

The Thiels, on the other hand, are a tempermental mistress that's at times tough to deal with.

The DQs, Vandersteens, a/d/s/ L1230s, ect- all timid pussycats compared to the Thiels.

I still love 'em though. Heck, I love 'em all, despite any warts any of 'em may have.

I just say spread-em

I dont know about the dq10's but I sure know that a tiny upgrade into the so called "High Fidelity' I am there, there is a huge difference in sound, from the 70's stuff, please dont be dirsespected, I love the vintage 70's recievers, the big bastards, cool looking and all that, but sound wise??? compared to newer good stuff, it doesnt compare, imop.

I wont say it sounds bad though, it does sound good, but really it just doesnt compare. I have alway told dingus that I dont think it can sound any better, but when we did our little shoot out last year, with the vandersteens and the AR9's we were both comparable systems, but scott made some changes, and wow, wow, wow, it got better, that threw my theory out the window, "it cant get any better",

I am not saying that tads stuff sounds better, I just have been blessed that my changes have made a huge increase in better music and i, well here is the thing I am a vandersteen person now, and now I am biased, so paul, damn I wish you could hear my setup, but I do believe the theils would sound great tho. course vandersteen is in my blood.'

elro

I use an Adcom GFA-5800 to drive my DQ-10's and have been thoroughly pleased with its performance and its match to them for well over a decade. It's not only very powerful, but also a high-current design, which goes very well with the 10's.

Nelson Pass, the chief designer of the 5800, calls it to this day, the best-sounding amp Adcom ever made.

I suspect a newer Bryston may sound better, and I'd certainly expect a Mark Levinson amp to sound much better, but 5800's are available used for a song vs. the very high price tag of a Bryston and the almost astronomical price for a Levinson. One of the aspects about this site is its search for value, and a used Adcom represents a tremendous value in finding an amp suitable to drive Dahlquist DQ-10's, whereas a new Bryston doesn't and a Levinson certainly doesn't either.

I used many a different amp to drive these babies in the years I've owned them, and nothing came even remotely close to the match the 5800 offers for them - don't blast someone's choice when you haven't heard the results.

Fairly recently, I had a friend over to my house who is an accomplished musician, a superemely gifted tenor and Grammy-winning recording engineer for the Teldec label. He's very used to hearing what a live orchestra sounds like, and what a well engineered recording of that orchestra should sound like also. I looked forward to whatever he might have to say about the sound of my system, and after playing the third movement of Williams' "A Sea Symphony" for him, which he listened to intensely, I asked him what he thought of the sound of my system (you know - Dahlquist DQ-10's driven by the awful Adcom -geeesshh! - amp). His comment was, "Fantastic!"

He felt everything was in perfect balance, the soundstage was lifelike and impressive, and the maching of the Definitive Technology sub was perfect as the sub never drew attention to itself, but provided the proper amount of heft and muscle to the deeper bass notes without overemphasizing them.

So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Ginovino, Dingus won't chastise you, I am trying very hard not to, you are very much entitiled to your opinion as Jorge has stated, however I personally find that you are boardering on flaming, you seem to have made it a point to bash a lot of peoples gear, some without fact, (GAS was never tube gear, James always and to this day designs SS gear), I suspect in some other cases as well.

Stating that your opinion is "case closed no discussion" you are attempting to say that your opinion and your opinion alone is valid, this is not the case, everyone is entitiled to their opinion.

Now back to a civilized constructive discussion.

Thank you, Jim