HPM-60's compaired to HPM-100's

[Kegger]

Yah I know there's been a ton of talk on the 100's and some on the 60's.

But I'd like to hear from those who have critically listened to both sets.

Deductive reasoning tells me that since the only real difference you see is
that the cabinet is a little smaller and woofer is 10" instead of 12" that you
get a very simular sound with maybe a little less bass.

But I wonder if that possably the 10" driver is a little more efficient then the
12" you get a little faster and tighter bass from the 60 and maybe even more
midbass to where the knock that some I've seen have on the 100 is that the
mids and highs can be overpowering at times that maybe the 60 blends better.
And then you can filll out the bottem end with a nice sub when using the 60.

Also does anyone know the efficiency of both sets?

One of my reasons for asking this compairison is that I've recently gotten a set
of 60's from Andyman to check out and first impressions tell me these are not
overpowering in any frequency range but rather fairly even with a little loss in
deep bass but they fill out nicely with my sub and powered very easily with my
rebuilt and modded st-70 at about 37wpc with barely even turning up the volume.

They take much less power to drive them then a set of ADS L880's or a few other
speakers around here and I'll have to try them on a 300B 8wpc amp to see how
they work out on that unit. Listening to some James Taylor on this setup and
his voice is just as good on this setup as some of the better combos I've tried.

 

[Charivari]

Well, while you're waiting for firsthand information, I can (thanks to Kencat) provide the tech specs of both. Hopefully, you can use this info to better critically interpret the comments you should be soon receiving on the sound.

- JP

 

[Charivari]

Well, that picture (taken from the HPM-60/100 service manual) isn't as clear as it could be, so here's a better pic of the HPM-60 graphs in question from the HPM-40/60 sm.

- JP

 

[Kegger]

Hey thanks for those, very cool! I was out and have to go out again but I'll look
at those more closely in a few!

 

[wualta]

Wow-- on paper, at least, the 60 looks better. Crossover points look much better-chosen on the 60, distortion looks lower, off-axis uniformity looks better... Hmmm..

 

[kfa888]

Wow-- on paper, at least, the 60 looks better. Crossover points look much better-chosen on the 60, distortion looks lower, off-axis uniformity looks better... Hmmm..

I think there are a few on this board that perfer the 60 over the 100

 

[yamahammer]

i can truly say that my 100 sounds a little better than both of my hpm 60 versions as i am blessed to own all three. At different times i have powered them with bridged 620 nakamichi power ,250 wpc m-80 yamaha power, 200wpc? m-45 120 wpc, marantz 30 wpc, and a poor lonely Sonic Impact amp just out of curiousity they have taken them all in stride with a few consequnces they just keep up with every thing you throw at them

 

[Charivari]

Here's a bigger shot of the HPM-100 graphs so you can better see the details.

The HPM-100 woofer behaves remarkably well over the fairly large range it has to reproduce music, it's just when the midrange and tweeters kick in that the response goes to pot. Seeing that the HPM-60 using the same drivers is better behaved in the top end without such large peaks (that as the graph of the 60 shows cannot be tamed with the level controls despite the popular belief), I can't help but wonder if the 100 could've been better implemented. Say, better match the efficiency of the mid/tweeters to the woofer, go to a sealed design to cure the slight bass hump, demand less of a freq reach of the woofer and allow a lower Fs, and remove most of the overlap with the upper end drivers. :scratch2:

I've not heard the HPM-60 and so have only managed to compare my HPM-100s to a pair of HPM-40 Series II, but the top heaviness does appear to be a defining characteristic of the series.

- JP

 

[Kegger]

Not that graphs tell the whole story nor are they allways accurate but going by this
the 60 is a little flatter through the critical hearing area in the high midband.
"the room it's in will affect this though and could drasticaly alter that"

But as wualta mentions the xover points look better on the 60 also and more suited
to what you'd expect with a 4-way system. I suspect with the 100 that the first of
the xover points "woofer to mid" is chosen higher for more power handling.

Those impeadence curves are very respectable and somewhat tube friendly, I see
both pairs of speakers are extremly simlular in the efficiency so the same amount
of power driving them should make the same amount of output but the 100 may go
a little lower then the 60 which could still be fine for a small tube amp and sub on
the 60, or the 100 for that matter.

More experimenting to come!

 

[wualta]

One thing we can predict with reasonable certainty from the graphs alone is that the 100, with its 12" woofer being stretched waaaaay out to 3KHz, will have the characteristic "room boom" and beaming and breakup that any 12" woofer would produce if treated that way. It's a sound very familiar to us oldsters-- typical '70s "hi-fi".

 

[cmonty]

I have 700's (I assume they are similar to 60's) and 100's. At low to moderate volume the 700's are more pleasing to my ear and do indeed seem to have faster and tighter bass. It is when the volume turns up that the 100's show their stuff, though I do suspect tired crossovers in mine.

Like you Kegger, I was going to add a sub to the 700's, but the 100's became available sooner. Now you have me wondering about it again.

 

[Kegger]

(wualta)
Actually the 100's woofer xover point is 3K and the 60's is 1.9k, the nearly 2K that
you see is the 60 degree off axis reading on the frequecny response chart. (first pic)

So yah even worse then you had thought and like I say probably done that way for some
more power handling by letting the big 12" do more work at the expense of sound quality.

 

[Kegger]

Cmonty I would be interested in your findings if you do add a sub!

 

[wank]

So what's wrong with the idea of modding the XO to give the 100 a lower woofer crossover point?
Would the efficiency of the mid/tweet still be problematic?

 

[wualta]

(wualta) Actually the 100's woofer xover point is 3K and the 60's is 1.9k...

Thanks for catching that! I corrected my earlier post, and I should've added underlining and italics and bold and a whole buncha exclamation points. That's just plain bad design. Having said that, I rush to say that the proof's in the pudding and beauty's in the ear of the beholder and all that. If you like it, you like it, dammit, and that's the end of the conversation.

However.. if you could see the torturous flapping and rippling that cone was doing as it tried to reproduce a 2.9KHz tone... you'd run the other way and call the ASPCW.

Equal rights for woogers!

 

[fropiler]

I was always amazed at how well my 60's could handle power, but at low to moderate listening levels, I find them to be very similar to the 100's. I prefer the appearance of the 100's because the finish is veneer, not vinyl.

 

[PioneerHPMLuver]

I have had both sets of speakers since I bought them new in 1978 or 79....I worked in a retail store with a sound room where I auditioned them for months before actually purchasing them. The 100's came first then the 60's a few months later. I always thought the 60's were brighter with a tighter bass, and the 100's were also bright and dug deeper. I never really understood the graphics, and I appreciate the education I have received here. Personally I believe overall the 100's are better. But I stack them and have always thought that all four speakers played together weather staked or in the corners sounded the best. The SX-980 I purchased at the same time has been cranked as loud as it will go and both pairs have taken all it could give.

 

[Charivari]

Wualta, I never thought I'd defend the HPM-100s here, seeing how I rather dislike the sound, but that woofer may not be so bad in its reach as you state, at least with regards to cone breakup. It's not a traditional paper cone and instead is a rather inflexible carbon fibre pulp that according to the brochures and my ears holds up to a higher frequency than one would expect. Of course, the beaming issue is still very much a problem as the graphs show it kicking in above 1 kHz.

I do believe that it would be an interesting experiment to take a pair of beat HPM-100s and put them through a redesign. Say, drop the woofer crossover point down to 1 kHz with a steeper slope and align the drivers on the baffle to improve imaging over this "stick a driver wherever there's room" arrangement on the stock HPM-100s. I say 1 kHz on the woofer as I've discovered with my Tannoys that a large cone crossed over in that range does wonders to reproduce the body of an instrument (~300 Hz range) that small drivers just cannot do, which may explain some of the popularity of this speaker aside from its pest control highs. Of course, I'd pad down the midrange a bit and also toss the cone tweeter and the gimmicky super tweeter. Then put in something better sensitivity and tone matched to the woofer and mid with a flatter, extended response and without the beaming issues. The cabinet in this idea of mine would definitely not be ported to avoid the boomy, shallow bass that bothers me with these. A good subwoofer would still be required thanks to the relatively high Fs of the woofer.

What do you think? Would it be workable?

- JP

 

[Kegger]

All good ideas Charivari as that would be something simular I would do if I redesigned
a set of 100's myself. Definatly lower that xover point and get the ouput of the mids
and tweeters more even throughout the range from say 50hz to 16k. And use a sub.

I also would build a new cabinet and make them mirror image with a smaller baffle on
top where the mids and tweets would go, heck a smaller baffle up top may knock the
output of the mids and tweets down enough to get them close to the woofer output!

 

[fropiler]

For someone who clearly doesn't like HPM's

Wualta, I never thought I'd defend the HPM-100s here, seeing how I rather dislike the sound, but that woofer may not be so bad in its reach as you state, at least with regards to cone breakup. It's not a traditional paper cone and instead is a rather inflexible carbon fibre pulp that according to the brochures and my ears holds up to a higher frequency than one would expect. Of course, the beaming issue is still very much a problem as the graphs show it kicking in above 1 kHz.

I do believe that it would be an interesting experiment to take a pair of beat HPM-100s and put them through a redesign. Say, drop the woofer crossover point down to 1 kHz with a steeper slope and align the drivers on the baffle to improve imaging over this "stick a driver wherever there's room" arrangement on the stock HPM-100s. I say 1 kHz on the woofer as I've discovered with my Tannoys that a large cone crossed over in that range does wonders to reproduce the body of an instrument (~300 Hz range) that small drivers just cannot do, which may explain some of the popularity of this speaker aside from its pest control highs. Of course, I'd pad down the midrange a bit and also toss the cone tweeter and the gimmicky super tweeter. Then put in something better sensitivity and tone matched to the woofer and mid with a flatter, extended response and without the beaming issues. The cabinet in this idea of mine would definitely not be ported to avoid the boomy, shallow bass that bothers me with these. A good subwoofer would still be required thanks to the relatively high Fs of the woofer.

What do you think? Would it be workable?

- JP

Why would you bother?