isobariks..

Posted by: ken c on 01 February 2002

to isobarik afficionados out there: passive (dms) - serial nos 2737/38. are these too old to even consider given all the subsquent changes?

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 01 February 2002 by J.N.

Step right up!

Posted on: 01 February 2002 by ejl

I've got SN# 1008/9. I've replaced the tweeters but nothing else. I love them and prefer them to most other things I've heard in recent years (exception: the new top of the line Revels -- I don't remember the name -- are better than Briks at making a Brik-like sound).

Expect a subdued mid-range.

Supposedly it helps to replace the crossover in older models. I believe this but haven't done it for the reason that doing so is a considerable headache. The crossover can only be reached in earlier 'Briks by taking out the bass drivers. But even with the old crossovers they are can sound very good.

Replacements for the mids and tweeters can still be found, but they are not quite identical to the originals. The KEF B139 bass driver is, AFAIK, out of production; so make sure these are in good shape. That said, the polypropylene and rubber surrounds on Brik drivers are very durable.

Depending on price, older Briks can be a great buy

Posted on: 01 February 2002 by Don Atkinson

ken,

I still have a pair of old Briks circa 1980 with serial numbers 10 515/6. Mick parry bought a pair circa 1986 recently, I don't know the serial numbers. Both are Teak finished.

We compared them in his system and his were significantly better than mine. Deeper, more focused bass, clearer, sweeter treble, more dynamics...

Other have said that post 1990 (or therabouts) the Briks didn't sound as good as pre 1990. (nostalgia?)

My feeling is that 1986-1989 is the vintage to go for!

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 01 February 2002 by ken c

I still have a pair of old Briks circa 1980 with serial numbers 10 515/6.

hmmm.. i bought briks in 1984 and the serial numbers were 4033/4 which is kind of inconsitent with yours vintage 1980? perhaps there is a digit missing somewhere? i sold my briks in 1990 - silly boy!! i still have my Kan 1's though -- good boy!!

My feeling is that 1986-1989 is the vintage to go for!

sounds sensible to me. many thanks.

any other thoughts?

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 01 February 2002 by Paul Ranson

Tony's pages here indicate that 2737/38 should be just before October 1981 and pre-date some significant looking modifications. 10515 is probably during 1979.

I've always wanted a pair. I have some Kans and some Saras, it'd by fun to have the set. I'm not sure what I'd do with Isobariks though, the Kans don't threaten my mid-1990 Kabers in any way, they're a nostalgia thing which I intend to use in my office. 1980's Isobariks would be like Kans with bass but not really fit in physically. And I couldn't get them in and out of the loft by myself....

Paul

Posted on: 01 February 2002 by ken c

Tony's pages here indicate that 2737/38 should be just before October 1981 and pre-date some significant looking modifications. 10515 is probably during 1979.

thanks ... last time i looked, didnt do so properly. now i understand. as you say pretty significant (and important sounding) modifications happened after 2737/8, so may be i'll give these a miss.

isobariks in the loft? forget it, try your garage, if you have room. in any case, the idea is to play them isnt it?

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 01 February 2002 by Martin Payne

To J.N.

Russell's Briks are in the low 2,800's, which would date them about four months older than these.

Of course, they sound fantastic. Downside - they sounded pretty grotty when one mid & one tweeter weren't working! Also, bizarrely, they have MDF cabinets when the revision history plainly says they should be chipboard.

MDF are much better, apparently.

Julian F's speakers are probably a closer match for those being considered. They sound excellent considering they're running off a lowly CD3 (& 72/hi/250), but could really do with new tweeters. Physically, though, most people wouldn't give them house room, which probably explains why he paid £100 for them.

Really, with speakers of this age they could range from appalling sound and grotty boxes to excellent.

Are you sure that what you're considering are a good pair? Have you heard and seen them?

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 02 February 2002 by Don Atkinson

I still have a pair of old Briks circa 1980 with serial numbers 10 515/6.
hmmm.. i bought briks in 1984 and the serial numbers were 4033/4 which is kind of inconsitent with yours vintage 1980? perhaps there is a digit missing somewhere?

I think Linn changed the numbering system sometime after mine were made. Mine are probably set number 515/6 with the '10' indicating Briks as opposed to Saras.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 02 February 2002 by ken c

don, many thanks. thats what was confusing me -- till i looked more carefully at tony's page on isobariks.

manyy thanks and

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 02 February 2002 by ken c

do linn still service isobariks? (new tweeters, etc)

disappears off left stage....

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 02 February 2002 by Martin Payne

quote:
Originally posted by ken c:
do linn still service isobariks? (new tweeters, etc)

Ken,

don't, on any account, go there!

I sent mine back because the bass sounded wrong & the mid was nasty. No fault found. Urgh. Must be me?

A couple of months later my dealer was modifying them for bi-amping and called me up. "Did you know one of your bass drivers isn't working, which is screwing up the crossover & making the midrange sound nasty?"

You're probably safe, though, because I believe Linn refuse to have anything more to do with them?

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 02 February 2002 by ken c

thanks martin, who is your dealer who still services isobariks? creative?

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 02 February 2002 by Martin Payne

quote:
Originally posted by ken c:
thanks martin, who is your dealer who still services isobariks? creative?

Sorry, Ken, that was many years ago...

cheers, Martin