PipeChat Digest #3023 - Thursday, August 8, 2002
Re: Shot" speakers
  by "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@VASSAR.EDU>
Re: the pricing of pipe organs
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>

(back) Subject: Re: Shot" speakers From: "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@VASSAR.EDU> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:47:07 -0700   > >>My Allen dealer does not insist on, but recommends Allen speakers = every >>>10-15 years. > >>You mean REPLACE them? you've got to be kidding. What "wears" out? > >Speakers are moving parts, vibrating anywhere from 32 to 32,000 hertz (I >think those are the numbers). The cone, which is moved by the voice = coil, >is attached to the frame, which does not move, by a membrane of a = flexible >material -- I've seen foam rings, linen-like material, and composite or >resin based stuff. This ring, called a surround, can deteriorate to the >point where it fails, and then the speaker cone will vibrate wildly. If >this condition is allowed to continue too long, you could blow the >amplifiers. > >Often in older electronic organs, this deterioration contributes to a = harsh, >buzzy-sound. > >Dennis   Dennis, having dealt with the sound business for a great number of years, the only part that fails is a voice coil that opens up or overheats and starts rubbing, If all that is intact, the suspension ring could fail as you state also, which can be replaced at a fraction of the cost of the new speaker. I thought I mentioned that fact earlier. Moreover there are speaker repair outfits that will re-coil or even re-cone your driver, again ususally at a fraction of the original cost. Certainly much less than overpriced ......well I wont say... but the initials are RS.   John V   (Believes in recycling speakers as well as organs)  
(back) Subject: Re: the pricing of pipe organs From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:46:44 -0500   On 8/7/02 2:45 PM, ronseverin@aol.com wrote:   > The self fulfilling prophesy comes into play. Anybody > playing by the customers rules will find it impossible to succeed. In = repair > or rebuilds even after a careful inspection, one can't foresee all the > ramifications of the work. We only find that out as we go about it. = These > hidden problems will not be addressed because they are not in the = contract. > Nor should they. The customer can then come back and say, you did a > lousy job. If the contract is written carefully enough, they won't be = able > to say that, as we addressed the problems previously agreed upon. This > is the bugaboo of rock solid pricing. If there was more trust, all of = the > problems then could be addressed as they are found and priced = accordingly. > Then the job could be judged fairly and completely.   Hi Ron,   The kind of contractual problems we experience these days puts me in mind = of an example I noted while an architectural student and articling draftsman years ago.   At school, we reviewed the plans and specs for a building on campus that = had been erected in the 1920's. For a large, 5 storey, limestone school building, there were only 3 drawings - main floor plan, other floors' = plan, elevations. And only 30 pages of specs, basically saying build me a good quality limestone building. Most of the contract for a major building was actually a handshake between the buyer and the builder. All the rest was left to faith that the contractor would do a good job. And he did.   At the firm I was articling at, we were designing a School of Art for the same university, a two-storey limestone building, quite a bit smaller than the one described above. We produced 260 pages of drawings, including details of every window and door, every built-in cupboard, the location of every lightswitch and plug, etc. Specifications ran over 500 pages to = ensure that the contractor did a good job with quality material. No faith = involved. And frankly a poorer job resulted.   What a shame. The lengths we now have to go to, the expense we now have to incur, all because we no longer are able to trust one another's integrity.   TTFN, Russ Greene