I got these given my wifes sister and ive not really paid any attention to them till now, does anybody have any idea of age.
I need to replace the midrange and tweeter on both speakers, wonder where i can find spares?

Thanks
David
-

-

I'm no expert on later stuff, but those look to be 1970s/1980s vintage.

I have to ask why do you need to replace the mids and tweets? I'd be inclined to get a look at the crossovers or do a check that it's not bi-wired. Otherwise they look likely to be B good speakers!

Unless they are part of a set that you want to keep original, you'd be better off just replacing them entirely. Mids and tweets would cost more than another good set of speakers.

Sorry to pop your bubble, but...


Those are 1980's Fisher speakers. Likely from the Sanyo era. (Basically, Sanyo made them, Fisher stuck their name plate on them) They have no real value whatsoever. Someone might buy them for $20 at a thrift store because they "look like they would sound good" and that's the only reason they sold in the first place, if they weren't bundled with a stereo system. They "look like" good speakers.

Fisher was known for it's electronics, not it's speakers (with a few exceptions, such as the X or XP series). If you personally like the sound of them, go ahead and fix them. However, I'd recommend you browse craigslist, thrift stores, etc. and you can pick up a good set of speakers for under $50, which would likely be equal to or more than it costs to fix those. The classic "good speaker" test was that if it was heavy, and used real wood veneer, it's worth a shot.

Yep, there were many manufacturers from back then that would jazz up a speaker's appearance to make them look impressive, even though they were run of the mill. One big giveaway is when they use plain paper cones for tweeters. Oh, and my how they loved those big colored woofer cones...if it's white or red, they must sound better

I'm guilty of owning a pair of "jazzed up" 80's speakers myself. Mine are Sansui's, 12" woofers, 4" midrange, and 1" tweeter. They are pretty average, light yellow paper cone, cloth surround on the woofer, paper midrange with a mylar dust cap, and a mylar tweeter with "diffuser". They aren't bad for what they are, and sound surprisingly good, actually. A whole lot better than the system I had up there for years, a Sears AM/FM/MPX/Tape/Phono/8 Track unit with 2 4" speakers in massive particleboard cabinets.

I'm not an audiophile(phool?) by any means, but I have learned what makes a quality speaker system. Will what I have compare to a McIntosh system with Cerwin Vega speakers? Of course not, but for the budget I allow myself to spend on audio stuff, it's very good. I can't justify spending $2,000+ on an amplifier, so I won't get the [insert audiophile feature-describing words] that McIntosh or Audio Research has.

Instead, for $10-200, I can buy real good stuff second hand, from estates of people that bought real nice stuff (Pioneer Reference Elite series, anyone?) when it was new, and enjoy a system that someone paid $1,000-10,000 to build in the 1970's-1980's, for pennies on the dollar today. Contrary to what some people think, just because it's "old" doesn't mean it isn't good. Heck, you put a "average" 30-40wpc 70's audio system beside a Xuaynang stereo system sold at the big box stores that has "650 WATTS!" in all caps slapped on the front of it, and the "old junk" will blow it out of the water. People these days don't know what good sound is. As long as it plays the music on the iPod well enough for them to hear the words, they don't care.


Sorry for the derail

I kinda like derails!

But I've always said that you can't put a price tag on sound...the only thing that matters is that it sounds good enough for YOU.

I still think that when it comes to speakers, ebay is where it's at. You can buy high end speakers that cost thousands of $$$$ when new for a small fraction of that. It's not hard to find a high quality pair of speakers on there for $100, and sometimes less.

This is true. My favorites are estate/yard sales though (even thrift stores!)

I got a pair of Pioneer CS-99A's with JB cones for $20 at a thrift store. Mint. Pathetic bass though, seeing how it has 18" woofers. Going to try and build a new crossover to deal with that.

Got a complete Pioneer Reference/Elite setup from an estate sale (with the gold plating and wood side panels) for a grand total of $17, (I almost passed out when it hit me) as well as various other components that I got for pennies and resold to further my hobby budget

they where free and no your not bursting a bubble, i removed one of the tweeters and looked behind it, yes they are sanyo units.
quality ends there and they sound like crap, i think they need the crossovers replacing.
I am not going to bother probably part them out and break down the chipboard cabinets, they are in worse state than the picture shows.
Like i said the wifes sister pasted them on to me and i had never even tried them, reason i wanted new midrange and tweeters is the cones are damaged on both.
They are not worth my time and effort, looks like the trash pile for them, Fisher in name only.

"Fisher in name only."

That sums it up perfectly. Fisher had begun to get a bad name for themselves in the 70's and early 80's by "cheapening" their lineup (build quality-wise) to increase profits. People initially bought them, work spread, and people moved on to Fisher's competition. Fisher, then decided to sell to the "average household" by marketing rebadged products with the Fisher name on it at attractive pricing, making average joe think "Man, I can get a Fisher for Kenwood/Pioneer prices!". Average Joe didn't know that Fisher began to lower the quality of their products, and thought Fisher 198X =the same Fisher that made those expensive tube amps his boss has. Most people still think any Fisher product is the top-of-the-line. Speakers like that are the result of Fisher losing their original target market. Eventually, in order to appeal to the average consumer, they bought cheap components, made them as cheaply as possible, jazzed them up to look impressive, and sold them. Thus, your speakers.

Keep in mind, I own a early 90's Fisher Studio Standard RS-727 integrated receiver. It's a Sanyo product, but it does it's job, and it does it well. It looks nice, because all the gold plated stuff (which I highly doubt is gold plated) is still shiny, and it puts out 80 wpc, which powers the Sansui's nicely. It's no audiophile system, but it plays Dire Strait's "Brothers in Arms" LP just fine.

By the 1970's Fisher wasn't Fisher any more. Avery Fisher sold the company, and gave his money to build Avery Fisher Hall for the NYPhilharmonic. An importing firm, based in southern Calif, bought the name, and stuck it on Asian import goods.....as continues today.

--Chuck

I couldn't help but reply to this!
Oh, you are SO right! I'm laughing at your description because it is so true, and actually would be sad if it wasn't funny.
But it's worse than you describe.
I have recently seen "1500 WATTS!" on some really el-cheapo HT stuff.
Run with a little table lamp type zip cord, and has a 5 amp fuse?
Maybe someone here can explain to me how this stuff only draws maybe a couple hundred watts, but supplies 1500 watts (divided to channels) to the speakers?
Is there something about the laws of physics that I don't understand? Well, there is a lot I don't understand, but that's not my point here.
lol
Mark D.

I looked into that a few years back, and I can't recall the exact method they use to calculate it, but they essentially list the "peak wattage" and then exaggerate it a bit to get that number.

For example, my Pioneer car radio is listed at 200 watts output (50x4), but the RMS is only 22x4, so 88 watt total (realistic) output. So, the realistic output is 2.27 times less than the stated output on the box. Newer radios are limited to 17 watts RMS, so that's 2.94 times less than what it says on the box.

So, let's go with "600 WATTS!!!!"

I can tell you, a $60 stereo system with a CD player, FM radio, etc. will put out a MAX of 10-15 watts RMS/channel. That's being generous.

Keep in mind, RMS is what we hear when playing music. 22 watts RMS is the most the amplifier is designed to put out under normal circumstances. Peak, is the maximum output the amplifier can handle for a split second before it fries.

What I imagine these companies do, is manipulate the variables on these 20 watt amplifiers until they find the peak wattage they will produce a signal at before they instantly fry. If that's 630 watts, that's what they put. If it's 1500 watts, that's what they slap on the front.

So, some college student goes to buy a radio, assume 1500 watts is the actual amount produced, and thinks "Wow! What a deal!" and buys it, only to either be disappointed, or blissfully ignorant.

I've held a 2000 watt amplifier (yes, a Peavey 1000x2 amplifier) and it's over 100 pounds. Those Xuanyang radios weigh maybe 10 pounds total. The Peavey drew nearly 17 amps. I bet that radio cranked draws enough current to equal 2 light bulbs.

written by Iqbal Khan this gives some explanation to the stupid figures quoted.
P.M.P.O Acronym for peak momentary power output.This term refers to the maximum power output achieved for a speaker system under perfectconditions. PMPO is a controversy term, as many feel it is used as a marketing ploy, since theperfect conditions on which PMPO are based are next to impossible to achieve in a homewhere the speaker system is set up. The PMPO of a speaker is actually based on themaximum power output in a very small period of time (microseconds). Since no musical notelasts for such a short amount of time this peak performance cannot be reproduced in realusage of the speaker. The PMPO value is often seen listed as "watts PMPO" on productpackaging. PMPO is also called peak music power output.The alternative to PMPO is RMS (Root Mean Square), which is an accurate mathematicalrepresentation of a speaker's power output, measured over time rather than a fewmicroseconds.RMS Acronym for Root Mean Square.RMS is the process used to determine the average power output of the speakers over a longperiod of time. RMS is derived from an equation which produces the most mathematicallyaccurate measure of a speaker's power output. The RMS value is often seen listed as "wattsRMS" on product packaging.The alternative to RMS is PMPO (peak momentary power output) which represents peakoutput measured in microseconds rather than over a long period of time.It is clear now that Real Power Measurements is in RMS not in PMPO , what I have noticedis that where1600 Watts P.M.P.O is written the system is not more than5 watts R.M.S isn't that abusive for audio system holders that is written 6000watts P.M.P.O but it is fact that those system contain audio amplifier of not more than 50 wattR.M.S.

Everybody's correct on those...not worth the price of replacement parts, even if you found the parts used on eBay.

The above power ratings are duly noted. I've seen the same myself too many times, and I laugh.
But I've never understood another power measuring method that used to be used by some amplifier makers. It was called IHFM. Never was sure what that was.
And, there was simple peak power, which I assume took the peaks of the waveforms on a test audio signal and determined the peak power from that, which was usually about double the true RMS rating.

I don't understand what that guy, Iqbal Khan, is saying when he refers to "speaker power output"
My understanding has always been that the output from a speaker is measured in decibels. The output from and amplifier would usually be measured in watts, no matter what type of formula used.
I have yet to find a way to measure the wattage output from a speaker, but I suppose someone, somewhere, has that figured out.
And those speakers that this thread is really the topic of, really won't do a lot of decibels at three feet.

William D., I have a question for you.
In your statement:



That 17 watt limit? Is that a law or something? Is this relatively new? If so, what is the supposed purpose of this?
Just curious.
Mark D.

An outstanding overview of power measurement and standards:

http://www.long.ru/as.pdf

Where "IHFM" came from:

http://www.bassboy.com.au/getreel/class ... rticle.htm

Or how about how they measure distortion nowadays (at 1kHz)? They pick one of the easiest parts of the audio spectrum to reproduce without high distortion levels, and use that as their distortion figure. That same amp that is listed as .01% distortion today would probably be in the nieghborhood of 10% if measured by the old standard.

Hi Mark,

I don't know if it's a Federal limitation or not, but I know when I bought my Pioneer car radio, it was rated at 22/channel RMS. A year later, when I went to buy a nice radio for my truck, every radio I looked at was 17 watts/channel. IIRC, there is some kind of "standard" that was updated in 2007-2008, and I think the 17 watt limit was a part of it.