I always liked the 11 very much, and thought that it corrected many of the inherent "ills" of the 3a (deficient HF response, intrusive cabinet molding, etc.), while retaining its strengths (solid deep bass, widely-dispersed, smooth M-HF).
In what way does your revoiced 11 differ from the original 11? I'd love to hear it. I live in the Boston area, and have family in CT, where I grew up. Maybe on a trip down to visit, I might stop by......I'll bring the cold ones.
You're welcome to stop by sometime, I'll need a lot of notice, LOL since
I lost interest in the 11s. I am planning to rebuild another pair for a friend
within the next 4 months so that would provide a reference pair - unless you
already have a pair.
I did not keep the modded 11s together but I have my notes to reconstruct them.
One reason why I delayed this was that I didn't have another pair to compare
against. I will soon.
I listened to them with the level switches up as several here suggested and they
were far too forward and bright. I then looked for the best balance as compared
to my reference and that was with the mid all the way down, and the tweeter
mid-way. -3 on the mid was too low, and 0 dB on the mid was too high. But
even with the best balance there was a problem in the midrange, a lack of focus,
a nasality. It was just not convincing. I only made minimal measurements and
the changes were mainly in the mid to tweeter crossover.
I'll PM you to let you know how we might go about doing this.
Something interesting that I find is that when a speaker lacks the realism that I
mentioned as far as when a speaker disappears it seems that many listeners go
to a more is better perspective. They turn the controls all the way up. But when
you get it right and they hear it, they say, DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING and they are