I want to Cry...!!!

Agree - if the original drivers had failed, then replacement would be unlikely these days.

A similar thing happens with cars, people customize and modify slightly older cars; then years later discover that they had ruined what would have been more valuable if left in original state.

But I wonder how they sound??
 
In his defense what else can you do with a set of betas that are toast. No drivers for those, I'd suppose if you live long enough you could eventually find them all on ebay and be able to afford them...;)

Nudell purists usually see hack jobs while imagining someone butchering a set of working upscale Infinity classics. Did Marks do that with his frankenware? I don't recall but I remember many AKers found him abrasive and undesirable.

I expect many purists will be more forgiving of a capable person or speaker company tastefully modding a set of upscale Infinity classics when it's known they were acquired with rare drivers in irreparable condition. We apparently have a tendency to quickly assume the worst case scenario and get defensive on Arnie's behalf. Then secretly imagine someone on a rack. :D - Then we need a while to rationalize, or a drink or something to calm down. It will happen again.

Those Betas look stupid and horrible. :thumbsdn:
 
I apologize to everyone for what I said and what I remember about Michael Marks. I joined AK for the Infinity group in 2007 (7 years ago) in about the last period in time that he was an active presence here. I dug back a bit but I'm not going to spend a lot of time dredging AK to try to remember exactly why I remember him having a bad reputation. I am sorry that I implied or possibly accused him of being less of a good person than he actually is. Marks is an educated, wealthy, and proud man with an interest in audiophile speakers, and Infinity in particular. He was quick to talk about design shortcomings when he saw them. As a purist, perhaps that's one of the reasons I remember him as I do. His participation in the AK Infinity group has been sporadic, few and far between since 2008.

As a classic Nudell era Infinity purist I won't back down from my perspective of Marks' work as "frankenware" for the way he modifies upscale Infinity speakers. I have not heard his rebuilds so I can't rightfully judge the quality of his work beyond how his monstrosities sometimes appear. Testimony from AKers who have spent time with Mark's work will be appreciated.

There is a significant number of highly qualified people who had issues with Nudell era Infinity designs. One of them is Bill Watkins. I think it's difficult for proud, invested purist fans and collectors to find fault when we sit in front of Nudell era designs and hear brilliance.

I found this in a basic post search for Marks and what he had to say about the RS1b in 2007:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1345778&postcount=30
 
Last edited:
I have some nice very original (other than the electrolytics) QLS1 speakers and I'd be glad to criticize them.

First and foremost the "mid-bass coupler" has very poor dispersion especially compared to the domes. These speakers sound very different while sitting compared to standing. I've often wondered why Infinity did not use one or two more of them, it is after all a line source speaker.

Also the original crossover allowed the woofers to "bottom out." It had 1,600 ohms on the 2 ohm tap, later crossovers had 1,100. When I switched to 1,100 I stopped having that problem.

I would love to hear Dr. Marks' "up grades" to decide for myself whether they are improvements or just repairs with the best available components.
 
I think a lot of the 'disagreement' from the purist standpoint of modifying original speakers comes from the perception of the workmanship, and the degree of modification. Take those -1b's that prompted this thread. If they were done like so....

-Perfectly finish the front face of the RD driver so that no screws or frame or anything 'unfinished' remains. The finish of the front face has to match the original wood and finish. Some clever woodworking involved here, so that only the radiating element of the driver is showing.

-Retain the tweeters, or better yet, add a bunch more to make it a true line array. Think Genesis II, 350SE, 2.2, that sort of thing...only with EMITs.

-Retain the original grillwork instead of the funky looking grill frames they put on there. Redo the grilles in perfect new black cloth.

Stuff like this results in better performance if done right, but also in a much less drastic appearance change, and a look that is 'right' for the speaker. Maybe this would satisfy the purist view a little better? I don't know, you guys tell me.

Back to the degree of modification. I always find it interesting that many purists strongly advocate for updating things like capacitors in the crossover network, but often stop there. Well, when you do that the speakers aren't 100% original anymore, and we know that the sound does change. So it always makes me curious...just how much is okay to do on the speakers without losing the 'purist' goal?

I guess I have a slightly different perspective. First, I do agree that there is something very special and very nostalgic about preserving a perfect set of speakers in original condition. And a speaker that has been kept/restored to that condition almost undoubtedly has greater value than a modded one. A perfect set of -1b's is a piece of audio history, and should be valued for that.

From my typical point of view, though, if you're going to take a step like putting new caps in the crossover network (for example), if you REALLY want your money's worth out of those caps- if you really want to hear the improved changes, then you should take other steps as well. Beef up the structure, do some vibration and resonance control, upgrade the electrical connections, whatever. All these little changes each allow the other ones to come through a little bit better, so you really get your money's worth out of each change.

So, I guess it's all about what you're after. Museum quality, or the potential of increased performance by removing cost constraints and incorporating more modern technology. For me, I think if you're going for the second option, it should definitely be done in a way that looks absolutely gnat's ass, though, and should make somebody go "Whoa!!!!" rather than "Ugh!" before the Play button is even pressed.

G~
 
I'll say one more thing....

Even Arnie changes with the times. Everybody does. At the end of Infinity (at least the Infinity that WE love), things changed. When Arnie formed Genesis, you didn't see EMITs and EMIMs. You saw round planar tweeters and the Carver line source ribbon. Then the Carver gave way to the Bohlender-Graebener. So, mods like this are actually using drivers that Arnie himself came to use in various applications.

That said.....EMIMs are still the coolest drivers on the planet, forever! :)

G~
 
I have some nice very original (other than the electrolytics) QLS1 speakers and I'd be glad to criticize them.

First and foremost the "mid-bass coupler" has very poor dispersion especially compared to the domes. These speakers sound very different while sitting compared to standing. I've often wondered why Infinity did not use one or two more of them, it is after all a line source speaker.

Also the original crossover allowed the woofers to "bottom out." It had 1,600 ohms on the 2 ohm tap, later crossovers had 1,100. When I switched to 1,100 I stopped having that problem.

I would love to hear Dr. Marks' "up grades" to decide for myself whether they are improvements or just repairs with the best available components.

For the record, I can't say I have the same issues with my QLS-1's....so more evidence that because of the highly influential differences in room acoustics and associated equipment, observations in audio regarding the performance of any single piece of gear is to be limited to a case by case basis. I've commended the mid bass coupler on several occasions for its ability to seamlessly integrate with the rest of the drivers and actually marveled that it was able to do this in spite of being a single driver paired with line sources of mids and tweeters. And as far as the Watkins driver bottoming out...I only experienced that before I had extensive bass trapping in my room and used some EQ boost at the frequencies where I had nulls and was playing at higher than normal listening volumes.

No, the QLS-1's aren't perfect, but they do a remarkable job of stepping up their game with every improvement in gear or acoustics you offer up for them.
As an owner of Altec 19, JBL L250, Magnepan MG-IIIa, Acoustat Spectra 22, and prior owner of a few other highly regarded designs I can say with absolute confidence that one has to have a pretty critical ear to find fault with the QLS-1's when they're at or near the top of their game.

- Michael
 
Last edited:
Not sure I can agree that statement, but I think they sure rank up there with some of the most overpriced drivers on the planet.

Ya, there's just something about them that I like. I can't explain it, it's an emotional thing. It must be an impression that was formed when I was a teenager and first heard the big Infinity's.
 
Even Arnie changes with the times. Everybody does. At the end of Infinity (at least the Infinity that WE love), things changed. When Arnie formed Genesis, you didn't see EMITs and EMIMs. You saw round planar tweeters and the Carver line source ribbon.


actually, those "round planar tweeters" were emit-R's, without infinity badging. arnie knew a good thing…



though not shy about self-aggrandizing, dr. marksy's skills are questionable. that said, i can't fault him for lack of effort. i know he is a "medical" doctor, but hope he's not practicing surgery. especially, after looking at the butchered foam caps on his "restored" walsh tweeters. (for comparison, the single walsh is one i did, and i'm partially blind).

"magic" can lay claim to have hacked up more high end vintage infinities than anyone else on the planet. personally, i can't really condone that dubious honor.






.
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqZ,!h!E9onJjYqiBPqCUr6KBQ~~60_57.jpg
    $(KGrHqZ,!h!E9onJjYqiBPqCUr6KBQ~~60_57.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 44
  • P5090002 copy.JPG
    P5090002 copy.JPG
    50.8 KB · Views: 44
Like I said before, I think part of the issue with people doing mods is in the workmanship.

I enjoy this forum, but I realize that if I ever decide to post an Infinity-mod project, I know to expect a fair amount of vitriol....even if it's a pair of speakers that I've rescued from the trash heap (none of my Infinity's are stock, and a couple have had big issues to overcome and may have ended up as firewood).

G~
 
I enjoy this forum, but I realize that if I ever decide to post an Infinity-mod project, I know to expect a fair amount of vitriol....even if it's a pair of speakers that I've rescued from the trash heap (none of my Infinity's are stock, and a couple have had big issues to overcome and may have ended up as firewood).

G~

Which would be pretty ridiculous under some circumstances. For instance, I have a pair of RS-IIbs that I got with all EMIMs missing and only a few of the EMITs working and no external crossover unit. Not counting replacing the crossover unit, it would take an investment of over a grand just to replace the missing drivers. And the replacement drivers would be old and used and not known for their ability to age gracefully. I would end up with a pair of speakers that I spent (considerably) more to restore than they're worth. Screw that. I did pick up some Monsoon drivers that I'm told could replace the EMIMs, but there's still the external crossover that's missing and the busy-as-hell networks likely need a recap. It's killing me, but I'm on the verge of parting them out and using the cabinets for a DIY project of some sort.

Now, taking a working set of hi-end Infinities, parting them out, then replacing the stock drivers with less expensive parts and marketing them as "upgraded" deserves much vitriol..IMO.
 
Last edited:
No, the QLS-1's aren't perfect, but they do a remarkable job of stepping up their game with every improvement in gear or acoustics you offer up for them.
As an owner of Altec 19, JBL L250, Magnepan MG-IIIa, Acoustat Spectra 22, and prior owner of a few other highly regarded designs I can say with absolute confidence that one has to have a pretty critical ear to find fault with the QLS-1's when their at or near the top of their game.

Interesting! How would you compare the JBL 250i to the QLS1? They are my current "dream" speakers now that I finally have a set of QLS1.
 
Interesting! How would you compare the JBL 250i to the QLS1? They are my current "dream" speakers now that I finally have a set of QLS1.

Not as impressed with the 250's as I thought I'd be, but I've not yet explored all the combinations of upstream electronics I can offer them. So far they do seem to respond favorably to power, just as most say. And they also seem to favor SS upstream rather than tubes. I prefer the way they sound with a SS Acurus pre over my TAD tube pre...and the TAD has pretty much been my go-to pre with everything that preceded the JBL's. I've fed them 60 wpc KT-88 tube power, 150 wpc from a Threshold S/300 and around 275 wpc from a Soundcraftsmen MA5002. I need a little more time to compare the Threshold and Soundcraftsmen, but the added power of the SC does give them a more physical sonic presentation of LF and mid range content. Once I feel like I'm getting all I can get from the 250's I'll likely conduct a shootout between the 19's, QLS-1's and 250's and start a thread discussing my observations.
 
Back to the degree of modification. I always find it interesting that many purists strongly advocate for updating things like capacitors in the crossover network, but often stop there. Well, when you do that the speakers aren't 100% original anymore, and we know that the sound does change. So it always makes me curious...just how much is okay to do on the speakers without losing the 'purist' goal?

Purists who get past some of the irrational and emotional aspects of modification "heresy" must realize that some crossover components can degrade and wander from spec with time. So it should be accepted that reworking some crossovers is necessary to keep speakers playing as originally intended. Some of the caps Infinity used in the early 80s and before are irreplaceable and must be substituted with equivalents that can also be better quality. There are also higher quality resistors and inductors made specifically for audiophile electronics that weren't available back then. I'm sure the list goes on.

There's a somewhat blurry line between what's acceptable for modifying and what's not, but rationale and good sense in a purist's perspective can usually dictate what's acceptable. Substituting drivers is usually not acceptable. Changing the finish on the cabinets is usually not acceptable. All you really need to do is ask yourself if the change is going to ruin the resale value on eBay or Audiogon, etc.

If a desirable set of classic Infinity became available and it was clear that the crossover was "upgraded" in necessity with better quality components that matched an original spec, I'd consider it a value-added modification if I was convinced it was trustworthy work.

Much of the internal wiring in Infinity speakers from the early 80s and before was lighter and the crossover components more generic (for lack of a better word) from an electrical standpoint instead of an audiophile standpoint. There was a point between the 1982 and 1984 models where the internal parts got better. A good example of that I discovered while researching the RS6 and the RS6b for a friend who acquired a set of RS6 last year, and including observations of Infinity crossovers made available on eBay from parted speakers over the years. That may have been due to a change in the industry and maybe a new availability of better quality parts for audiophile applications at the time. There are a good number of testimonies on AK from folks who replaced old crossover parts with newer higher quality equivalents and claimed noticeable improvements. I expect the improvements are real.
 
actually, those "round planar tweeters" were emit-R's, without infinity badging. arnie knew a good thing…

That's another issue Nudell era Infinity fans have to get past. We're huge fans of the traditional planar EMITs used through the 1980s. We must admit that the EMIT-R is what passed on to Genesis Technologies with Paul McGowan (PS Audio). Many of the Genesis Tech designs are much nicer and advanced over most Nudell era Infinity upscale designs, also reflecting much more extravagant prices and resale values. I've never heard an EMIT-R but I expect it's as good or better than the 1980s planar EMITs. They seem to be a lot more cheaply constructed, too. From what I've seen parted on eBay.

That said, with the years Arnie worked with Paul McGowan at Genesis Technologies and beside the fact that they designed and produced their own version of the IRS, Paul has a set of IRS V in his main listening room at PS Audio. I have to wonder why he would choose them over a similar speaker he produced with Arnie.
 
Add me to the Devil's advocate list and although I don't think Dr. Marks gives a crap what people say about him, I have dealt with him and while quirky and interesting, found him to be knowledgeable and helpful. Is he full of his own ideas? - Yes Do we have to listen to or act on them? - No. Does he care? - not likely.

As for his projects, I for one would like to 1) listen to his modded Betas (because we can always build grilles to cover the work and the sound is what matters most to me) and 2) I encourage him (and the folks who were the point of this thread) to keep experimenting because that is where other good ideas and ways to prolong the life of the brand this forum is all about, will come from. Face it, I don't expect my RSIIa's or Betas to work forever and hope that Michael or others have found new solutions by then.
 
Last edited:
I have not heard these, but the very BEST EVER speakers I have heard were the Wisdom Audio pro sound system set up in the clark county Library in 2001 or 2002 at CES and T.H.E. show.

Nothing I have ever heard has come as close as that system did to actually disappearing and producing a real live piano in the auditorium.

That's all I have to say on this subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom