ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 02, 2013, 03:40:34 pm

Title: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 02, 2013, 03:40:34 pm
Hello everyone I am looking at getting a tms4 rig together does anyone have thoughts on it. I'm looking for a starter rig.   And should I go with tms4 should I bypass the internal crossover and go with active type of system.   I'm also looking for amp recommendations.  Thank guys  8)
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Jack keaton on February 02, 2013, 07:53:00 pm
Hello everyone I am looking at getting a tms4 rig together does anyone have thoughts on it. I'm looking for a starter rig.   And should I go with tms4 should I bypass the internal crossover and go with active type of system.   I'm also looking for amp recommendations.  Thank guys  8)

first thing is look up what "active type of system" means. Then read about what crossovers/BI and TRI amping are.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 02, 2013, 09:37:37 pm
first thing is look up what "active type of system" means. Then read about what crossovers/BI and TRI amping are.

Ok to specify should I tri amp them and use an xta or bss mini drive processor
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Ivan Beaver on February 02, 2013, 09:42:20 pm
Ok to specify should I tri amp them and use an xta or bss mini drive processor
And as with all loudspeakers-the end result is not dependent on bi or tri amped, but rather HOW WELL the actual alignment is done.

A poorly done bi or triamped loudspeaker can easily sound worse than a passive.

Just using a "processor" does not guarantee better results-despite what many think.  As with all things-it is not so much the tool-but rather how well you use it -that determines the final result.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 02, 2013, 09:56:15 pm
And as with all loudspeakers-the end result is not dependent on bi or tri amped, but rather HOW WELL the actual alignment is done.

A poorly done bi or triamped loudspeaker can easily sound worse than a passive.

Just using a "processor" does not guarantee better results-despite what many think.  As with all things-it is not so much the tool-but rather how well you use it -that determines the final result.

No doubt about that I have smaart 7 and the tools to properly set up the processor my main question is can I get more out of them by tri amping them or should I just set them up in the factory configuration
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Steve Payne on February 03, 2013, 01:54:30 am
first thing is look up what "active type of system" means. Then read about what crossovers/BI and TRI amping are.

I am sure you know that the TMS4 dates back 5 generations in the Turbosound evolution.  They sounded pretty good in their day, but a lot of advances have been made since then.  By todauy's standards, the TMS4's will not play very loud, whether bi or tri amped.  What is your application?
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Ivan Beaver on February 03, 2013, 10:52:29 am
No doubt about that I have smaart 7 and the tools to properly set up the processor my main question is can I get more out of them by tri amping them or should I just set them up in the factory configuration
Since you have the "tools" to properly measure them, then why not go ahead and measure them and then repo9rt back to us.

As Steve said-the TMS4 is an old box and the processing available back then was very different than it is now.   We can do a lot more now.

I think it would be a good experiment to try a couple of different setups and show the data.

That is the BEST way.  Unless you are using "period" processing-any guesses would be purely that-and not based on facts.

But my guess is that going triamped would yield the best results-because you will better control over the time aspect-since the drivers are all separated in time-some adjustment is probably needed.  "Back in the day" that was not so easily done.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Nick Enright on February 03, 2013, 11:35:00 am
I am sure you know that the TMS4 dates back 5 generations in the Turbosound evolution.  They sounded pretty good in their day, but a lot of advances have been made since then.  By todauy's standards, the TMS4's will not play very loud, whether bi or tri amped.  What is your application?

not very loud?

135db peak on 900w <-factory data sheet.

They are old, but triamped as part of a quad system with modern digital processing I think they'd likely sound pretty good. Looks like the 18 isn't horn loaded, or truly horn loaded, so pattern control falls off below 250, and they don't go low at all.

You won't be able to ever use these for a national rider, but as an owner of a ~3 decade old system bands used to playing on MI gear will be blown away from the clarity you'll be able to achieve.

I'd fit a sub, preferably horn loaded, below them (well lots of subs). say 30-35Hz -> 60-70Hz

Tri-Amping will get you more control of the X-over from M to HF, but then you've got to be good with the settings, and set you limiters up right.

in bi-amp mode looks like a GX5 for the M/H and a GX7 for the Lows. (limited properly of course- and there's thousands of others, these are just cheap and roughly in the right power range)

This is not an investment, If you get them cheap enough you can make some money off them, but I wouldn't think that you could build a business model around them.

You don't want to hurt the drivers, re-cones are likely either scarce or expensive, or both.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Ivan Beaver on February 03, 2013, 12:18:30 pm

 Looks like the 18 isn't horn loaded, or truly horn loaded, so pattern control falls off below 250, and they don't go low at all.

"Horn loading" takes on 2 different "aspects".  One is as an acoustic transformer which increases the sensitivity of the driver.  The other is as a "waveguide" which controls the coverage pattern of the sound.  Sometimes one or the other is utilized and sometime both at the same time-depending on the design-driver size etc.

One very misunderstood concept is that by simply sticking a driver on a "horn" it gets louder.  It can-up to a certain freq at which the size of the driver feeding it is to large.  At that point no more "horn gain" can be had (from the acoustic transformer action).  But by narrrowing the pattern the output can increase.

Horns can also only provide gain down to a certain freq (determined by expansion rate and mouth size).  So in a way a horn is a "bandpass" device.  It is how well the top and bottom ends are controlled that affects the effective benefits.

Typically bass horns (yes there are a very few exceptions) do not control the pattern and are just acoustic transformers.

The pattern control comes from the midrange and HF devices.  Below that the sound is pretty much becoming omni-as would be expected.

The "horn" that the 18" is loaded onto is typical of Turbosound devices-and not like other types of horns.  It is also short-which greatly affects the low freq extension.  Also "back in the day" we did need to go as low as we do now-the musical demand simply wasn't there.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Art Welter on February 03, 2013, 01:13:29 pm
The "horn" that the 18" is loaded onto is typical of Turbosound devices-and not like other types of horns.  It is also short-which greatly affects the low freq extension.  Also "back in the day" we did need to go as low as we do now-the musical demand simply wasn't there.
The TMS 4 bass horn design is similar to many short "bent" or folded horns.
Although 45 Hz is not particularly low by today's standards, there are many that still feel it is "low enough".

To put it in perspective, the "old"  TMS 4 has the same low corner and roll off as the "new" DSL ML 412, AKA the IHOP.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Steve Payne on February 03, 2013, 01:45:02 pm
not very loud?

135db peak on 900w <-factory data sheet.

They are old, but triamped as part of a quad system with modern digital processing I think they'd likely sound pretty good. Looks like the 18 isn't horn loaded, or truly horn loaded, so pattern control falls off below 250, and they don't go low at all.

You won't be able to ever use these for a national rider, but as an owner of a ~3 decade old system bands used to playing on MI gear will be blown away from the clarity you'll be able to achieve.

I'd fit a sub, preferably horn loaded, below them (well lots of subs). say 30-35Hz -> 60-70Hz

Tri-Amping will get you more control of the X-over from M to HF, but then you've got to be good with the settings, and set you limiters up right.

in bi-amp mode looks like a GX5 for the M/H and a GX7 for the Lows. (limited properly of course- and there's thousands of others, these are just cheap and roughly in the right power range)

This is not an investment, If you get them cheap enough you can make some money off them, but I wouldn't think that you could build a business model around them.

You don't want to hurt the drivers, re-cones are likely either scarce or expensive, or both.

Good luck!

Nick, Loud is a relative thing.  You've got lot's of good suggestions for the OP.  They are all of course, basically putting lipstick on a pig.  But I am sure you know that.  I have the same TMS4 brochure/spec sheet tucked into my bottom right hand desk drawer.  It's been there a long time.  It may say 135db peak, but I spent about 4 years in the driver's seat of a 16 box TMS4 rig.  It was bi-amped and without subs, exactly as it was designed to be used. Turning it into a quad amped 4way system as you suggest would surely make it better, but nonetheless the Fane 10s are the Achilles heal. A system is only as good as it's weakest link.  If you try to push these boxes and get them "loud", get out your check book.  Maybe Jim Brooks will chime in on this.  He ran a TMS4 system configured much as you are suggesting, I believe.  He now runs an Aspect Wide system, which is Turbo's wide dispersion, "low output" version of an Aspect.  It would be interesting to hear his comments.  I ran a 16 box TMS4 rig, followed by an 18 box Floodlight rig, followed by an 18 box Aspect 880 rig and currently have a 32 box Flex rig.  I can tell you that everytime I moved to the next generation Turbo rig I pickup up about 6db real world usable output.  Really.  And so I stand by my statement, the TMS4s will not play very loud.  I asked the OP what his application will be.  If he is going to be providing for bar bands that are used to MI level gear, he should be able to make them very happy.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 03, 2013, 03:46:11 pm
Nick, Loud is a relative thing.  You've got lot's of good suggestions for the OP.  They are all of course, basically putting lipstick on a pig.  But I am sure you know that.  I have the same TMS4 brochure/spec sheet tucked into my bottom right hand desk drawer.  It's been there a long time.  It may say 135db peak, but I spent about 4 years in the driver's seat of a 16 box TMS4 rig.  It was bi-amped and without subs, exactly as it was designed to be used. Turning it into a quad amped 4way system as you suggest would surely make it better, but nonetheless the Fane 10s are the Achilles heal. A system is only as good as it's weakest link.  If you try to push these boxes and get them "loud", get out your check book.  Maybe Jim Brooks will chime in on this.  He ran a TMS4 system configured much as you are suggesting, I believe.  He now runs an Aspect Wide system, which is Turbo's wide dispersion, "low output" version of an Aspect.  It would be interesting to hear his comments.  I ran a 16 box TMS4 rig, followed by an 18 box Floodlight rig, followed by an 18 box Aspect 880 rig and currently have a 32 box Flex rig.  I can tell you that everytime I moved to the next generation Turbo rig I pickup up about 6db real world usable output.  Really.  And so I stand by my statement, the TMS4s will not play very loud.  I asked the OP what his application will be.  If he is going to be providing for bar bands that are used to MI level gear, he should be able to make them very happy.

Steve that is exactly my intentions smaller bar and djing gigs where I need good accurate sound for smaller venues I can't and don't want to compete with you or the other guys of your magnitude in the state I'm more looking to fill a smaller but not speaker on sticks market in the area


And also guy If I do go this route I will be adding sub boxes to the mix most likely double 18 horn loaded subs

What kind of replacement for the drivers are out there? i know the fanes no longer exist and rc kits for the originals are not practical even if you can find them. I have read that the HF are not to hard to find but what about the other two drivers are there replacements out there that work well in the boxes.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Ivan Beaver on February 03, 2013, 04:37:13 pm
but what about the other two drivers are there replacements out there that work well in the boxes.
If I am not mistaken-the woofer is a EV EVM18B.  You should be able to get kits for those easily and pretty cheap (as compared to some other recone kits.).  I would get the 18B proline kit-since the voice coil has additional "treatment" on it.  Of course you won't turn it into a proline without the heatsink-but it is a step up from the regular kit.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Simon Ryder on February 03, 2013, 05:06:28 pm
Nick, Loud is a relative thing.  You've got lot's of good suggestions for the OP.  They are all of course, basically putting lipstick on a pig.  But I am sure you know that.  I have the same TMS4 brochure/spec sheet tucked into my bottom right hand desk drawer.  It's been there a long time.  It may say 135db peak, but I spent about 4 years in the driver's seat of a 16 box TMS4 rig.  It was bi-amped and without subs, exactly as it was designed to be used. Turning it into a quad amped 4way system as you suggest would surely make it better, but nonetheless the Fane 10s are the Achilles heal. A system is only as good as it's weakest link.  If you try to push these boxes and get them "loud", get out your check book.  Maybe Jim Brooks will chime in on this.  He ran a TMS4 system configured much as you are suggesting, I believe.  He now runs an Aspect Wide system, which is Turbo's wide dispersion, "low output" version of an Aspect.  It would be interesting to hear his comments.  I ran a 16 box TMS4 rig, followed by an 18 box Floodlight rig, followed by an 18 box Aspect 880 rig and currently have a 32 box Flex rig.  I can tell you that everytime I moved to the next generation Turbo rig I pickup up about 6db real world usable output.  Really.  And so I stand by my statement, the TMS4s will not play very loud.  I asked the OP what his application will be.  If he is going to be providing for bar bands that are used to MI level gear, he should be able to make them very happy.

With modern processing, they can sound pretty decent.

You can expect around 100db+ at 15 meters out of a single box running pretty much flat out. For pro standard rock and roll, I would be looking for 110dB+ at the same distance.

You could upgrade the 10" in it - but that would drastically alter the character of the box.

Subs wise, a pair of TSW721 under each box would be ideal as a match and give a very decent height to the stack.

It may be that this box works well for you, though trying a pair of Floodlights would not be a bad idea if you can
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 03, 2013, 06:53:14 pm
With modern processing, they can sound pretty decent.

You can expect around 100db+ at 15 meters out of a single box running pretty much flat out. For pro standard rock and roll, I would be looking for 110dB+ at the same distance.

You could upgrade the 10" in it - but that would drastically alter the character of the box.

Subs wise, a pair of TSW721 under each box would be ideal as a match and give a very decent height to the stack.

It may be that this box works well for you, though trying a pair of Floodlights would not be a bad idea if you can


But again with the "LOUD" issue would 4 or 6 a side in a 100 to 800 person venue not be enough stacked on 4 2x18 horn loaded subs a side not be enough for a DJ
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Tim McCulloch on February 03, 2013, 10:06:07 pm


But again with the "LOUD" issue would 4 or 6 a side in a 100 to 800 person venue not be enough stacked on 4 2x18 horn loaded subs a side not be enough for a DJ

With a nominal coverage of 70 x 60, how do you propose to stack and aim them?  Do you need 140 of horizontal coverage?
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 03, 2013, 10:13:04 pm
With a nominal coverage of 70 x 60, how do you propose to stack and aim them?  Do you need 140 of horizontal coverage?

It is a wide room and the stage is kinda of "god wing" to the whole room so I will have people beside the stage   

T if this T represents the stage I have people on both sides of the vertical line and my pa would be pointing away from the T at the base of the T

I know it's a weird venue
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Steve Payne on February 04, 2013, 09:53:44 am


But again with the "LOUD" issue would 4 or 6 a side in a 100 to 800 person venue not be enough stacked on 4 2x18 horn loaded subs a side not be enough for a DJ

Zachary,
  Just some thoughts from a guy who has logged thousands of hours on various Turbo rigs.  If "LOUD" is on your list of performance needs, the TMS4 should not be a consideration.  It will not get "LOUD".  It will toast the 10" in frustration trying.  If you are considering tri-amping a TMS4 and putting subs under it, then consider using a Turbo rig that was designed that way from the ground up.  Floodlight is a MUCH better box than TMS4.  Sharing the bandwidth between a 12" and 6.5" that a TMS4 asks a 10" to handle makes all the difference.  Clarity and SPL improve dramatically.  A much better sounding system.  Horizontal pattern control is also much better with the Floodlight.  In many ways, you can think of the TMS series as a prototype for the Floodlight.  General sound characteristics are the same, but every aspect of performance is greatly improved.  A major consideration also is that replacement parts for TMSs are non existent.  To the best of my knowledge, you can still get kits and diaphragms for Floodlights.  A Floodlight with a pair of 721s under it is a pretty respectable system.  I haven't bought or sold any in quite a while, but I would guess current market value is in the +/- $800 US each.  I don't mean to rain on your parade if you have found TMS4s at a great price, but I want to make sure you have your eyes wide open. If you decide to go the TMS4 route, 1. You will almost surely find their limitations sooner rather than later.  2.  When you find that limit, (the 10") you will have to replace it with something other than the custom Fanes originally used which substantially alter the sound. At that point, you will no longer have TMS4s.  Wishing you success with whatever you decide.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 04, 2013, 09:35:18 pm
Zachary,
  Just some thoughts from a guy who has logged thousands of hours on various Turbo rigs.  If "LOUD" is on your list of performance needs, the TMS4 should not be a consideration.  It will not get "LOUD".  It will toast the 10" in frustration trying.  If you are considering tri-amping a TMS4 and putting subs under it, then consider using a Turbo rig that was designed that way from the ground up.  Floodlight is a MUCH better box than TMS4.  Sharing the bandwidth between a 12" and 6.5" that a TMS4 asks a 10" to handle makes all the difference.  Clarity and SPL improve dramatically.  A much better sounding system.  Horizontal pattern control is also much better with the Floodlight.  In many ways, you can think of the TMS series as a prototype for the Floodlight.  General sound characteristics are the same, but every aspect of performance is greatly improved.  A major consideration also is that replacement parts for TMSs are non existent.  To the best of my knowledge, you can still get kits and diaphragms for Floodlights.  A Floodlight with a pair of 721s under it is a pretty respectable system.  I haven't bought or sold any in quite a while, but I would guess current market value is in the +/- $800 US each.  I don't mean to rain on your parade if you have found TMS4s at a great price, but I want to make sure you have your eyes wide open. If you decide to go the TMS4 route, 1. You will almost surely find their limitations sooner rather than later.  2.  When you find that limit, (the 10") you will have to replace it with something other than the custom Fanes originally used which substantially alter the sound. At that point, you will no longer have TMS4s.  Wishing you success with whatever you decide.

Steve thanks for your great information you have a wealth of knowledge on these topics
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Steve Payne on February 04, 2013, 11:05:06 pm
Steve thanks for your great information you have a wealth of knowledge on these topics

There are lots of folks here that know a whole lot more than me about a whole lot of things audio.  I just happen to have a lot of practical experience with Turbosound speaker systems.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Nick Enright on February 05, 2013, 11:30:15 am
Nick, Loud is a relative thing.  You've got lot's of good suggestions for the OP.  They are all of course, basically putting lipstick on a pig.  But I am sure you know that. ....

you're absolutely right steve, and honestly I've never used these boxes. {TMS-4}  I happen to have several custom replicas of the MH-102 built in the mid '80s. Though they're loaded with a bit different drivers. (TAD TM-1201 / DAS K8) and they're loud enough that 1 per side (90deg) covers a 500 capacity room.

Although it took be a bunch of experimentation to work up processor settings, and they are driven with an amplifer per driver to provide plenty of dynamic headroom.

(325w per 16ohm HF, 800w per 8ohm MF)

I will say that they've been heard over 1mi away and still retain enough clarity to allow the vocals to be intelligible.

I spent almost nothing on them, around 1600 for the four I have (along with 4 BH550)  and they've paid me back in spades over the 6 years since I bought them.

Still I'd rather have something newer, they're big/heavy, and a single Nexo eAf would run circles around them.

Here's the thread from when I bought them:
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,109771.msg1024426.html#msg1024426

Edit: I've never used the TMS-4
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Guy Morris on February 05, 2013, 03:53:17 pm
you're absolutely right steve, and honestly I've never used these boxes. I happen to have several custom replicas of the MH-102 built in the mid '80s. Though they're loaded with a bit different drivers. (TAD TM-1201 / DAS K8) and they're loud enough that 1 per side (90deg) covers a 500 capacity room.

Although it took be a bunch of experimentation to work up processor settings, and they are driven with an amplifer per driver to provide plenty of dynamic headroom.

(325w per 16ohm HF, 800w per 8ohm MF)

I will say that they've been heard over 1mi away and still retain enough clarity to allow the vocals to be intelligible.

I spent almost nothing on them, around 1600 for the four I have (along with 4 BH550)  and they've paid me back in spades over the 6 years since I bought them.

Still I'd rather have something newer, they're big/heavy, and a single Nexo eAf would run circles around them.

Here's the thread from when I bought them:
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,109771.msg1024426.html#msg1024426


Lovely! TMS 4 from Turbosound they are a classic box!  Yes time has moved on 5 generations but put a TMS 4 up against some other boxes and the TMS4 will deliver very well. I have d&b /Martin and KV2 on inventory but still retain these boxes for certain applications and they do sound good.

It is best to understand that they were meant as a full range box to deliver vocals and certain instruments down to 45hz  and then for extra thump you would place a 718 or 218 for the Sub end. For Jazz /Blues or disco playback in intimate (500 peeps) they are very good but not megawatt powerful.
Tony Andrews (now F1) originally designed these boxes and he is very much a purist. When I was refurbishing mine he took the time at PLASA to advise me to keep it all original with the drivers to ensure integrity of the sound. So Precision Devices  PD 10/18 and an EV CD103 are under the bonnet in each box.

The box is actually 'time aligned' physically by the horn depth between each driver and it's in a two way format (mid/HF via passive x/over) so it virtually is plug and play.

I retained the original BSS FDS 360 X/over with the 250hz X/o card (stereo unit) and a rack of Crest CA9s to drive the box the spec sheets state 450watt RMS and 900 Watts program power (old term) the bass driver is 300w mid/HF 150w so mega amps are not required for these boxes!

I have had mine from new and actually added another identical pair in 2011 to give me 3 boxes a side (70 degree dispersion) along with some 718 and 218 subs I do treat them now like a vintage sports car but they work sound great and still earn money whats not to like!

A lot of threads on the forum about the TMS 4   not often a box gets to earn this status!




Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Steve Payne on February 05, 2013, 07:01:23 pm
Guy,
Everything you say is spot on.
In summary, TMS-4:
[√]  Warm
[√]  Smooth
[√]  Punchy
[√]  Pleasing
[X]  Loud

 :)
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: James Feenstra on February 06, 2013, 08:21:08 pm
If you need some I know of a bunch up in Canada (and TMS3s as well) that will go for a good price!
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 08, 2013, 01:09:29 am
Well everyone I now have 8 Tms4 in my possession and 2 more on the way stay tuned for more details

Anybody know where to get turbo blue or something very close

Thanks for all your opinions and information 
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Steve Payne on February 08, 2013, 07:59:44 am
Well everyone I now have 8 Tms4 in my possession and 2 more on the way stay tuned for more details

Anybody know where to get turbo blue or something very close

Thanks for all your opinions and information

I've got some I don't need.  PM me.
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: James Brooks on February 08, 2013, 09:58:16 am
I hot rodded my TMS4 system to the max. JBL 10", JBL 18", EV horn driver, digital crossover with extensive Smaart testing, the works. I made a lot of $ with that system. But it doesn't compare to the new Aspect wide system I have now. If you're looking for a nice sounding, not very loud system, use the original components, including the passive crossover, and have at it. Push the system hard (a boost at 400 hz) and the 10" speaker will die. Carry spares. Realize that by todays standards the system DOESN'T array. A used Turbo Flashlight system would, in my opinion, be a better starter system. Once you have a system with REAL pattern control and DOES array properly, it's hard to go back.

Jim Brooks
Casper Band
Richmond, Va
Title: Re: Turbo TMS4 opinions
Post by: Zachary Zimmerman on February 08, 2013, 01:06:40 pm
I hot rodded my TMS4 system to the max. JBL 10", JBL 18", EV horn driver, digital crossover with extensive Smaart testing, the works. I made a lot of $ with that system. But it doesn't compare to the new Aspect wide system I have now. If you're looking for a nice sounding, not very loud system, use the original components, including the passive crossover, and have at it. Push the system hard (a boost at 400 hz) and the 10" speaker will die. Carry spares. Realize that by todays standards the system DOESN'T array. A used Turbo Flashlight system would, in my opinion, be a better starter system. Once you have a system with REAL pattern control and DOES array properly, it's hard to go back.

Jim Brooks
Casper Band
Richmond, Va

Yeah I think besides tri amping them I'm going to stay original. I am very aware that they are not aspects and I don't expect them to be. Thanks for ur insight about ur hot rodded results