SDA 2B Blade/Blade Question

Huh What?

I picked up a pair of SDA 2Bs today and the previous owner said he had switched back plates from a pin/blade to a blade/blade type. After searching some of the forum, most of the comments around this discuss that difference pertaining to when they were manufactured. Is there a downside to doing this, or something else I should check that should be done when making this change? I'm assuming no dreadnaught setup and common ground amps only with the blade/blade.

Previous owner also mentioned he did the RD0-198 tweeter upgrade and the appropriate capacitor update along with them. For now, I'll be powering these with an NAD T775 in 2-channel stereo mode.

F1nut

I think the person was full of it. There's no reason in the world to do that. You'll have to open them up to see exactly what you have.

Huh What?

Here's what the right channel looks like. I'm already a bit suspicious about the tweeters.

audioluvr

The tweeters appear to be RDO-198's but the crossovers don't look right.

F1nut

Huh What? wrote: »

Here's what the right channel looks like. I'm already a bit suspicious about the tweeters.

Ok, unfortunately some hack has been at your speakers. Let's start with the drivers. Whatever crap they put around the magnet and extending onto the basket isn't going to prevent a possible magnet shift because they didn't put anything around the top of the magnet. If you can't remove that crap at least put an adhesive around the top.

Whatever crap they used for the driver gaskets remove it and replace with speaker gasket material from Parts Express.

There's something going on with the blue and white SDA wire connections. They should be fully covered in that sealer material. However, the SDA socket body is an original as the rivets haven't been touched. Please post a pic with the blue and white wires disconnected and also a pic of the socket from the outside.

I've seen hand written labels on crossovers before, so that could be original. The white cap should read 5.8uF and was added in order to use the RD0198 tweeter. Verify it is a 5.8uF.

This is an original 2B pin/blade crossover.

F1nut

Did they tell you why they supposedly switched the pin/blade binding post plate for a blade/blade version?

Huh What?

I believe the reason was due to a damaged speaker connect post, but I could be wrong. The material around the basket appears to be something like plumbing dope and I think I can remove it. I have some gasket material left over from when I did the 2.3 TLs, so when I get some time to do that I'll post more pictures. I appreciate the feedback.

F1nut

Wow, that's a stupid reason. He could have simply replaced the damaged post. Even better he could have upgraded all of them.

F1nut

From the info so far it appears you do have pin/blade 2B's, so you can use the Dreadnought if you wanted. Consider upgrading the SDA connections to Neutrik SpeakOn regardless.

If you don't, be sure seal all the unsealed areas on the back of the current binding post plates.

Huh What?

Thanks F1nut. Hopefully I'll have a chance to dig into them this week.

Huh What?

It appears the left channel has been left mostly untouched. There is more plumbing putty around the plate for the speaker binding posts/IC connection. If anyone wants to see a specific part of these speakers pictured to assist me with getting them to a reasonably normal state, I'm happy to oblige.

pitdogg2

Well eventually you'll need to cover the binding posts and b/b sockets with hot melt glue if you plan on keeping them like that. The more air tight you can get the cabinet the better.

Huh What?

I reached back out to the seller and he said when he bought the speakers they had the blade/blade connections, but that he had to track down the IC cable. If I do anything it will be the Speakon upgrade I suppose. One thing at a time. Need to get them cleaned up, properly sealed, and test them out.

F1nut

The story keeps changing....lol

motorhead43026

Why the jumper from blade to the neg post. Wouldn’t that be only if a dreadnaught was being used?

F1nut

That connection is required in order to use an isolation transformer, so all the pin/blade models came that way. Whomever swapped the original P/B binding posts plates for the B/B took the white wire off the P/B and installed it on the B/B. Again, why they didn't change a single binding post instead of what they did boggles the mind at their stupidity.

gimpod

But wait there could be even more half-donkeyed butchery going here.!

Look at the binding post nuts no hot glue at all, it's been removed why to replace wires and/or posts.? Also look at the b/B I.C. connectors the white wires faston looks funky (glued/taped or poorly soldered).

Now for the crossover notice there's something missing for TL mod, The jumper between pads E & H (unless it was done on the back side) without connection that 5.8uf cap is not in the circuit making useless.

FWIW: If these were mine I'd go over them with a fine tooth comb.

xschop

Get a set of Gimpod boards already.

F1nut

xschop wrote: »

Get a set of Gimpod boards already.

That's right, get'em now 'cause once they are gone, they are gone for good.

Huh What?

I was able to get the "putty" off the drivers as well as make new gaskets for the drivers and radiators. I'll see if I can get more pics posted this weekend that better highlight the crossovers and binding posts.

As for Gimpod boards, I don't know if these particular speakers are worth going down the rabbit hole for. Don't get me wrong, I love the SDA sound and considered crossover upgrades for both my 2.3 TLs and 1.2 TLs before selling them. I'm using the 2Bs as a secondary system in the master bedroom and don't have a lot of money invested in that system. I'll wait for the forum's feedback when I get the new pictures posted and go from there.