WOW. Found a pair of Mach Two's in the raftors of my garage, and I was dissapointed my dad didn't realize what he was destroying. They must have sat up there for five years, through winter and summer, freezing and such. Anyway, I barely pulled each one down after I removed both the subs, I almost fell off the ladder, but it was worth it. Anyway the 4" super dome tweeters were in good condition, but the mids and woofers both needed foam. A quick visit to ebay and a lot of painful hours waiting for shipping and glue to dry was all that took. These speakers are GREAT, over 20 years old and they sound better than anything ive ever used. Im driving them with a Marantz 2220B Stereophonic Reciever at a mere 20 WPC, and they are loud! Im yet to even use them near the maximum rating of 160 WPC, I just cant imagine it. Although the Mach One system has been proven to be better, these still kick serious butt. I am looking into finding a set of Mach Ones to pair up with these babies, it will be great. What a shame things like this arent made anymore!

MACH ONE 40-4024 vs 40-4029 FACT vs. OPINION...

I wanted to offer a different viewpoint on the two versions of the "Mach One" system. The Mach Two was a totally different system and isn't covered here. There are posts on the Internet implying that the first production version (cat. no. 40-4024) of the Mach One is vastly superior to second version (cat no.40-4029). I don't think that is true when you look at the FACTS. My position on this debate, after having owned both versions (and currently selling the second version on Ebay), is they are both great products with the second version offering some changes that most will see as improvements vs. "ruining" the product. I've been in the used audio business, audionet http://webpages.charter.net/audionet/ since 1995 and have restored several hundred speaker systems. This exposes me to all levels of quality and designs. Here are the arguments I've read for the earliest version and my counter:

1) The first Mach One used 10 screws on the tweeter/L-pad panel. This caused the plastic to crack. Look at almost every pair offered and you will see this. My first version had cracking at all TEN screws. The second version uses less screws and you won't find almost no cracking. 2) First version uses tiny recessed screw terminals you can barely get your wire around and hands on. Later version was updated to more modern, user friendly. spring terminals - an improvement on this class speaker 3) The first version does seem to have woofer foam that lasts longer (but I doubt forever), the later version will have to have had new foam installed for another 20+ years service. Will an early version last that much longer - I seriously doubt it! 4) The late version has vastly improved power handling by using ferrofluid in voice coil of the mid and tweeter drivers. This allows them to dissipate more heat from high power applications - a big improvement over the early version. The first version recommended no more than 100 RMS. The next version is rated 160 RMS. 5) Some say the late version uses a 4 ohm woofer. If so, (as I haven't verified this myself) this will allow the system to pull more watts from most decent amps. Advent used this design on the Smaller Advent vs the Large Advent. 6) I've read an opinion that the woofer voice coil and crossover design was not as good on the second version. I have not studied this closely so can't offer any facts. But until there is proof I don't buy that argument either. 7) The earliest version had a "Lifetime Warranty". Radio shack later changed this to a "Limited Warranty" on the 4024 system. This was a marketing change not due to a version change. The newer version wasn't even released when they changed the warranty. There are catalog scans on the Internet showind the 4024 version with "Limited Warranty". Many will lead you to believing the warranty was reduced on the 4029 version. NOT SO!

So don't go blindly believing what you read about the 4024 being "THE" system to have and the 4029 being crap. The facts just don't' show this. They early version was a great product and when you get the facts on small changes made to the 4029 version many would agree they are improvements, not Radio Shack ruining the speaker due to cost cutting. GET THE FACTS!

hi guy's my name is kelly,i'm new to posting reviews about the incrediable mach one speaker. the only thing that i can realy say is that every thing that i have heard other people say about them is true 100%. i would like to share some info for someone who might be interested i currently have a nice set of the origianal mach ones cat# 40-4024a that i am trying to get rid of only because i have to many of them.they are 100% fully functional,only flaw is that the boxes have some scratches and scraps normal when moving around,and also that the grills don't have the velcrow to make them stay on snugg so if any body would be interested in them please e-mail me at kaash3082@yahoo.com thanks

I got these mach ones from my father who gave me his whole system after downsizing and moving into town. He used the mach ones paired with the powerful Realistic STA-2000 reciever, a TR-802 8-track player, and a Sony CDP-CE275 CD changer. I got this set and I have enjoyed every minute of it. These mach ones are the 4024A's and they are the best. Purchased in 1977, my dad has kept up with these through four wives, and countless moves (I cant even keep up with a remote). I have enjoyed impressing my friends, and i play several instruments from guitar to the tuba and I have yet to find a speaker as affordable as these that can deliver the range of sounds. My entire system including the speakers weighs 200 lbs.

Pros
Powerful
strong bass
decent midrange

Cons
Size ( They nearly ripped the shelf they were on out of the wall when I was moving and had to store them in a shed.
Must be paired with a good reciever to be worth using
the fact that they are so underestimated

It's too bad that the oriiginal Mach One speakers ( Realistic ) 4024's got such a bad rap from audiophiles.The fact that Radio Shack also sold allot of entry level gear.or very economical mom and dad products was the reason they got labelled as selling crap....but these speakers were really quite something.Let's put together some of the facts.These speakers were put out in the mid 70's.They were designed to play rock which wasn't that detailed to begin with.They were designed to run half decent on the typical 40 to 70 watt intergrated amps and receivers of that day.They were loud,but really sounded pretty good.You always had plenty of bass and ear bleeding mid's and high's.In a rec.room or garage these bad boys ruled.They were bullet proof....no fried tweeters or midranges to worry about.They were handmade.They had real wood veneer that looked good.They weighed 65lbs a piece.In the USA you could pick up a pair on sale for $200.00...in Canada $359.00 to $429.00 would get you a set.Compare this to the Yamaha ns1000's at close to $1000.00,or any of the big brands of that time ( Koss,Sansui,Klipsch,Technics and the list goes on) and you'll realize just how good these speakers for the money really were.All the other brands had issues,fried tweeter problems,burnt woofers and so on.The Mach's could be abused and run for extended periods of time very loud and wouldn't skip a beat.Radio Shack actually had a lifetime warranty on burn out...Talk about value! I myself run a full range of Mirage speakers ( circa 1992 ) which cost big bucks....and yes they sound great...they should for $5000.00.I recently purchased a pair of the original Mach one's for $175.00 in real great shape.I'm putting together a 70's audio retro room ( nothing but 2 channel vinyl here ) just to bring back some of my late teens,early 20's memories and I think the Mach's well do just fine..So all you audiophiles that have stated that Mach one's don't sound good,or that their junk can't be listening to good old 70's rock....Show me a better value then or now....I know you won't because it doesn't exsist.

PS: Also.. all you people selling this speaker used, or talking about the surrounds on the woofer being rubber or foam let me clear the air.The original 4024 came with foam surrounds.It was a dense foam and closer to black in color.It was a good high quality foam that didn't rot very easy.The 4029's were offered in about the third year of production along with crappy clip terminals,less screws holding in the cross over control dial face plate,and yes a real lousy grey colored foam surround.The UV'S had a field day with this foam and most rotted out within 10 to 15 years....BUT THEY NEVER ...EVER...,USED THE TYPICAL RUBBER WERE ALL FAMILIAR WITH.

Thanks

The bass and the volume of these are just great when i want to shake the place..

I dont think there are any if thier used for what thier good at.

Theses are my second set of mach 1s and i am pretty impressed wth them.I just picke them up today and they are workig great and the foams are perfect as they aare the early version.I have listened to them and compared them with my mission 763s and my jbl 940s..I uuse a sony ta1150 as my preamp and a rotel 1412 as my amp and they really rock.

I have owned a pair of Liquid Cooled Mach's since new and they sound as good as the first gen. Mach One's. Great bass,tight and smooth, for their price range they sound as good as anything under $1000 a pair in today's market. To best sum them up in 2 words: AWESOME & INDESTRUCTIBLE!!! Buy a good pair of the second generation Mach One's and have the woofers refoamed with the rubber surrounds and ENJOY!!!

If you are a serious audiophile or a picky listener who expects perfection, these speakers are not for you. If you are not nitpicky, these are great speakers at low volumes and can tear the walls down at high levels.

I wish to clear up a few misconceptions about the second generation Liquid Cooled Mach One's. First of all,they were both made by Foster/ Fostex, a Japanese company that was known for studio quality speakers and gear. The only difference besides the ferrofluid cooled midrange and tweeter which improves damping factor and power handling is the foam surround on the woofers which is inferior. The woofers are 6 ohm and still have the 4 layer brass voice coils just like the first gen. speakers. If you refoam with the newer rubberized surrounds they will sound as good as the originals. I still own mine and will put them up against anything in their class and blow them away.

Customer Service

The rest of Radio Shack's audio equipment left a lot to be desired, but all of their speakers were very good.

Similar Products Used:

Have owned all kinds and models of vintage Realistic home and car speakers. All were good quality and none ever gave any trouble.

I have owned a pair of Liquid Cooled Mach's since new and they sound as good as the first gen. Mach One's. Great bass,tight and smooth, for their price range they sound as good as anything under $1000 a pair in today's market. To best sum them up in 2 words: AWESOME & INDESTRUCTIBLE!!! Buy a good pair of the second generation Mach One's and have the woofers refoamed with the rubber surrounds and ENJOY!!!

If you are a serious audiophile or a picky listener who expects perfection, these speakers are not for you. If you are not nitpicky, these are great speakers at low volumes and can tear the walls down at high levels.

I wish to clear up a few misconceptions about the second generation Liquid Cooled Mach One's. First of all,they were both made by Foster/ Fostex, a Japanese company that was known for studio quality speakers and gear. The only difference besides the ferrofluid cooled midrange and tweeter which improves damping factor and power handling is the foam surround on the woofers which is inferior. The woofers are 6 ohm and still have the 4 layer brass voice coils just like the first gen. speakers. If you refoam with the newer rubberized surrounds they will sound as good as the originals. I still own mine and will put them up against anything in their class and blow them away.

Customer Service

The rest of Radio Shack's audio equipment left a lot to be desired, but all of their speakers were very good.

Similar Products Used:

Have owned all kinds and models of vintage Realistic home and car speakers. All were good quality and none ever gave any trouble.

For the BABY MACH ONE, Realistic Optimus X-100.

First for Agricultural styling, sheer detail and sensitivity in the mid and treble, these speakers of the Bagpipe and accordion are great for Gulf Arab music, that features strings, pipes and accordions and tend to be played on expensive equipment of the horn hybrid and other formats. They produce deep bass with the likes of Puff Daddy's 'Tribute to the Notorious B.I.G.' ,theme tune to the film Titanic and Le Commandant De Bord "Josky-Kiambukuta's" version of Titanic. They produce a valve-like sound with the SU-Z2's VMOS devices - that is not MOSFET, but rather a transistor type common to all chip type outputs. It should be said the the SU-Z2 Mk2 is a greedy watts guzzler, giving about 40 watts per channel but using ten times that! This meant at one time better quality watts or so it was thought! The bass is not of the chest gripping kind you get with a Wharfedale XP2 and rebuilt Sansui A 60 DC Servo amp with variable loudness, but is totally satisfactory.

For the BABY MACH ONE, Realistic Optimus X-100

This a bedroom speaker in modern terms, best used as a bookshelf model, even though it's a floorstander in big tall rooms of old-fashioned type. It must have loudness as the Realistic receivers had a circuit that automatically added the right loudness enhancement.

After standing for some time, they may need to be run to get the capacitors inside working properly again, but no attempt to replace these should be tried. They are mounted on the mid treble pot board but it is brittle and the screws must be left alone.

Best used with Realistic receivers and equipment including Genexxa CD players!

The Realistic Mach One is as great an American product as the Mammoth Jackstock, and nearly as forgotten. This review is about the 'BABY MACH ONE' or X-100 and follows an interest in this earlier version with 12-inch woofer. Enough may have been said about its bigger stablemate.

The Mach One and X-100 were sold in Scotland and Canada as first class loudspeakers for the bagpipes and accordion, if not the 12 whatever Lute! It follows that these should be heard with Ali Bin Mohammed's 'Ta'm El Masa' and Rowaishid's 'Wein Rayeh' album, the beginning of the track Ahiback a bit like something from the film 'Braveheart'.

These loudspeakers are best used with Realistic receivers like the STA-2000 that have 15,000uF lone standing Elna cans, but a rebuilt Technics SU-Z2 MkII with its 'potted transformer' delivers excellent results as will anything designed to work with 12-inch woofers. The NEC A-820E Authentic Series for a rarer example.

Customer Service

Radioshack or Tandy were 'high pressure' salesmen but on balance they were the only 70s/80s store where you heard more than the salesman's voice, before flashing a wallet full of every plastic credit card available!

Similar Products Used:

For BABY MACH ONE - Realistic Optimus X-100

A rebuilt Sansui A60 DC Servo with variable loudness and Wharfedale Glendale XP2s will compete with a chest thumping bass, but without the X-100's light years more accurate mid and treble and sensitivity. The harman kardon A402 like the Sansui prefers to run at near full power on these less sensitive Glendale type loudspeakers. The Realistic STA-2290 like the Technics SU-Z2 doesn't sound very loud with 3-way Celestion 22 loudspeakers and these huge receivers are feeble around 9 o'clock with anything not from the Radioshack Fort Worth stable.

The Realistic packages are best compared with Bang & Olufsen, if buying either secondhand you must try to get the receivers or loudspeakers to work together as intended in any model year. Some later Realistic products are okay to use with earlier ones, the black plastic Realistic STA-12 will turn heads using the Realistic Mach Two - but plug in a black STA 2280 and you better have a chair handy!

Excellent durability and power handling. Will easily play at 100 watts for hours. Strong Bass response. Knobs on speakers can adjust Mids and tweeters. Walnut veneer cabinets. Impressive, clean look to them. Were an excellent value new and could be an excellent value used, as long as the woofer surrounds are in good shape. Even better, have been replaced by a competent person.

Bass is strong, but is a bit "fuzzy" and not what I'd call "tight". Mid-range is not as bright as more expensive high end speakers. Not ideal for jazz, classical or the like. May be a bit large for smaller livingrooms. Quite heavy (70+ lbs.)

Bought new in mid-80's, bought a second pair for $150 ea. (also new) in the late 80's because they were being discontinued. An excellent value for a good loud rock speaker. Ran at over 100 watts periodically for their entire lives, never had a driver blow. I've seen many have had problems with the surrounds rotting. Three of the four I have are still perfect. One has a small hole. The foam surrounds seem to be thicker and more durable than most of the "kabuki-style" speakers of the same era. Not audiophile quality sound, but matched with the right amp/receiver it can get close. I'm currently running it with a Sansui 9090 and Nakamichi CD player and they sound better than any combo I've had before. Bass is stil a little muddy and the mid-range could be a bit brighter. If you don't mind this, they'd be a great deal used for under a hundred bucks a pair.

Similar Products Used:

Kenwood KL-A900X (kabuki) Klipsch Heresy (as a reference) both roughly same era.