My brother-in-law has a pair of DQ-10's and I always admired them throughout the years. He uses a Marantz 510 power amp (255 x2) with them that I traded to him in the early 80's. I was always amazed with the DQ-10 imaging. Maybe it was because the drivers are spaced out but I swore I heard insruments playing at different places in space. Well I just acquired a used pair a few weeks ago. They were kinda rough so I had to do some restoration. The woofer surrounds were replaced but then the woofers weren't reinstalled correctly - there were air leaks. I quickly fixed that by using some $1.29 weatherstripping foam bought at Home Depot. I had to remove tons of dust from the crossovers. One hardboard baffle (holding the tweeter) was cracked so I reglued it. I put some vinyl treatment on the mid bass driver butyl surround. I reoiled the side walnut panels and glued down some vinyl that had come up. They turned out pretty nice once finished.
Now the sound. I'm using a DH-500 and a Apt Holman Preamp with a midlevel Pioneer CD player. They sound great even after 20 years old! The bass if fine but I'm sure the sub would add a few Hz. The imaging is still great. They sound a little harsh when I crank up the sound level. I think they sound best at low to moderate levels. The only problem I have is that darn Piezo super tweeter. These are a little too bright for me. Heck you find these in all those cheep disco sound systems! That crossover is so complicated too - it makes you wonder if all these drivers are blending well at their crossover.

I paid about $300 for these speakers and don't think you would find a better value for the money!

best mids under 5000.00

bass is weak with low power.....get a strong amp!!!! you will need it!

well i have had mine many yrs!!!! they are classics!!!
i have just ordered boxes so i can ship to regnar/dahlquist

for a total overhaul........so excited too

having the woofers rebuilt....new polycaps.....bench tested...new fabric....new finish on rails....all 4 under a 1000.00 bucks!!!!

you cannot get a better speaker under 5000.00 that even compares......proper electronics!!!! and you r ready for a beautiful sounding system!!!!

they are good now wait till they are rebuilt !!!

Similar Products Used:

none

Musicality, large sound-field, dynamic range, just plain great to listen to music with.

Wives hate them because they are big and tend to dominate a room. They need loads of high current power. Modern econo-Dolby Digital "100 watt a side" receivers just cannot hack it.

DQ-10's have been on my wish list ever since they first came out and I read all those great reviews in Absolute Sound etc. I could not afford them back then and lacked the room for them anyway. Finally I decided it was time to risk the wrath of spouse (she wanted me to buy something small like a pair of Paradign Mini Monitors or NHT 1.5's) and found a very nice pair via the internet.

They arrived undamaged and quickly I set them up with the Sony Dolby Digital 100 watt a side receiver I use for home theater with Paradigm Atoms. The DQ-10's were lifeless and very unimpressive with that receiver that works so well with the Atoms. I had massive buyer's remorse. Then I decided to take my 70's vintage Scott 125 watt a side receiver out of storage and see if the reputation the DQ-10's have for being power hungry was warranted.

Boy, is it ever! The DQ-10's absolutely came alive with the Scott and became an utter joy to listen to. Even without a sub the bass is completely adequate for music with a decent amp. I am very pleased with these speakers now. (I understand that DQ-10's really mate well with an Ampzilla or Ampzilla Jr. Time to start checking eBay again?)

These are the smartest audio equipment buy I ever made. A screaming bargain at $300 to $600 for a clean pair...if you have the amp to power them.

Similar Products Used:

Nothing like them. I sold a pair of Magnepan SMGa's when I bought these and while those were great speakers, the DQ-10's are better.

Superb midrange (where most of the music is anyway), dynamics, cost on the used market.

Yep, every several years the woofer rings do rot, little bass below 45 cps, piezo tweeter is not very smooth.

I have owned my Dahlquist DQ-10s since 1976 and despite hearing many other speakers during that time, I have yet to hear any which cause me to feel that I should sell them and get something newer. The B&W Silver Signatures probably were the closest to eclipsing the DQs but after leaving the
show and returning home and putting on the same music I realized that: 1) The Dahlquist midrange was just as good, 2) The bass was about the same as well, 3) The piezo I could live with! My wife (unlike some others) embraces my hobby, and provides me with feedback whenever I buy new gear. She has consistently agreed with me (she goes to the shows as well) that we have yet to find any speakers which are in a position to usurp our Dahlquists. No, down low they are not perfect, but to embellish the bass I rely on a Velodyne 15" woofer...it blends beautifully! I also appreciate the dynamics the DQ-10s present, and to get even more of a good thing I have modified mine so that one pair sits upside down atop the bottom pair with midrange and tweeters near to each other (and mirror-imaged) and the woofers farthest apart. Have any others out there tried this old trick? You will be flabbergasted! I built custom stands to accomodate this arrangement and have not looked back even once. Employed this way, I have no difficulty at all recreating symphony hall levels, and I listen to many types of music. If you have two pairs...do yourself a favor and stack them! As to their frequently stated need for power...so what? I run mine with an Aragon 4004 Mk II (200watts/chan) and have no problems. I don't feel you can buy all types of gear and then complain that you can't power your speakers properly. That simply means you have to buy one more component. I can say that the one thing about the DQ-10 which is vexing is the piezo tweeter (which I believe crosses into the system around 12,000 cps?). It is not the last word in clarity but it's total contribution to the music is so small that I can forget about it. Let me be totally honest and admit that at my age (50) I do not hear the very highest frequencies as well as I once did...and anyone who says otherwise is, in my opinion, fooling themsleves! Years ago the most favored of the audiophile modifications was to trash the piezo in favor of Decca Ribbon Tweets, but I never did, it didn't bother me that much then and it does so even less now. Mr. Dahlquist created a watermark speaker which holds it's own quite well to this day. I rate it based upon the currently asked prices...typically $400-$500. No other speaker comes close to the DQ-10's performance at anywhere near their current market price. And since I have never heard of that Canadian company which may begin to make the DQ-10 in a new iteration, I would very much appreciate knowing how to get in touch with them! Thanks!

Similar Products Used:

Magnepans, Electro-Acoustic, B&W Silver Sig, NHT

Mid range is the best! Low end put other speakers to shame (they used a ADVENT woofer in them)

They tend to over power a room with there size. If you have a large home your in good!

I bought my pair of DQ 10s back in 1976! I powred them with a G.A.S. Son of Ampzilla and a DB pre-amp with a Luxman Tunner, we also had a Glass turntable called a Transscripts and a Tanberg cassette deck. I was in heaven with this set up, I lived with two friends and we enjoyed these speakers every moment we were able to listen to them. Later I got married and moved into a apartment, my wife said the speakers were taking over the apartment and I needed to replace them smaller speakers. I replaced them with B&W DM7s. I still miss the sound of my DQ 10s to this day. They were life like, when I closed my eyes I felt like I was in the room where the music was being played!

Similar Products Used:

B&W, Magnepans,

Midrange, Midrange, Midrange especially women's vocal and piano. It doesn't get more realistic unless its live.

Bass can be muddy if you underpower it. Bass is not too terribly deep.

These are STILL my only speakers. Refoamed the woofers in 1990. Bought the DQ-10's with stands (must have something to get them at ear level) in 1978, used, from the victim of a house burglary. I guess they were too much for the thieves to carry! They took everything else. Put the yellow mylar capacitors in shortly thereafter. Bought the DQ-1W (sub) and the DQ-MX1 (passive x-over) in 1979 used out of the newspaper. First used a Son of Ampzilla and then an Adcom 555 for the whole system with a GAS Theta(?) preamp. Very Nice, but a little shrill when pushed too hard. Switched to a Conrad Johnson PV-11 preamp in 1991. That did the trick; early CD's finally sounded listenable. Later in 1991 I put the Music Reference RM-9 into the system with a custom built passive x-over between the preamp and the RM-9 driving the DQ-10's above 60-80hz, and the now bridged Adcom 555 driving the solo DQ-1W. It no longer sounds shrill when I turn it up... The sound of this system still mesmerizes me with NO listening fatigue ever, no matter how long the listening session. The sound of this sytem has turned some formerly casual listener friends into serious enthusiasts. I have to say I'm closing in on 50 and my hearing is going down in one ear. Also a chance meeting with Larry Archibald(!) at a wine-tasting dinner in Taos, New Mexico last winter resulted in his strong recommendation that I listen to some other brands, based on my liking the DQ-10's, namely Aerial Acoustics and B&W. At the $5000 range, well maybe. The list price of 1975 DQ-10's would be 10 times that amount now. His argument that "70's technology wouldn't be acceptable in the car I drive, why is it OK in my speakers," did make sense. Maybe if the DQ-10's would just blow up... but then I could replace them for $500...

Similar Products Used:

None

Very Good Imaging, Dispersion, very good depth of instruments being reproduced, great highs & mids. accurate.

Need sufficent power, average bass characteristics, needs a sub-woofer - Try the new RG-1w by Regnar / Dahlquist

The DQ-10's are great speaker for anyone who is looking for musical detail. Piano, horns, snare drums sound true to life with little coloration. The depth, clarity, soundstage, and vocals sound very good. However, at times can sound a little distant. They are accurate to the point of where you can hear sheet music pages turning, talking, pops, abrupt editing, etc. in certain pieces of songs that I have played over the years. It is important that they are placed properly, have enough amplifier power & headroom, and used with good equipment. I highly recommend the cross-over upgrade kit (regnar / dahlquist) which changes the capacitors and have the woofers rebuilt by REGNAR / DAHLQUIST as well. Huge difference!!!

Similar Products Used:

Too many to list, B&W, Pro Ac, etc.

Imaging, mids, "there"ness

Low bass, super-highs, inefficiency, placement

Had my Dalqs for 4 years in the late 70's/early 80's, powered by a Bedini 100 w/ch Class-A amp. Greatest mids and imaging ever once I got 'em placed correctly (NOT a casual feat--took weeks). But they need a good-sized room with LOTS of space around & behind for the soundstage to develop, and they were current-devouring monsters.
Had my Definitive Audio Moment with the Dalqs: the opening of "Hey Jude" (LP) with Sir Pauly all by himself in a neutral space. Until the instruments came in, he was In The Room with me, sitting about 10 feet away, captured perfectly in a real space with dimension and size and weight. Never had that perfection again, even with a Theta processor, Cal Audio transport, and my trusty Thiels.
On the downside, of course, the Dalqs' lo bass is flabby and fat at best with NO extension below 40hz, and their supertweeter could do a dead-on imitation of a dentist's hi-speed drill with the wrong material (read: any and all CD's). With anything less than Pure Class A they were difficult to drive (a Himalayan impedance peak at the bass resonance) and to set up, being the size of movie screens as well as dipoles. A true audiophile speaker in all the best and worst ways. I think they single-handedly created the "add-on" audio business, for people who wanted Those Mids with decent bass and non-dental highs. Saw some mutations that were downright scary.
But me oh my That Voice: "Hey Jude, don't make it bad, take a sad song and make it better ...."

Similar Products Used:

Kef, Ohm, Thiel

tremendous bredth and depth, astounding vocal realism

stage height, weak bass in relation to rest of audio range

while the bass and height put many off of the DQ-10's, I found that a second pair, inverted and mounted with the right over the left [to line-up the driver positions] on a pair of rockwell steel [plasma-welded for strength] frames gave ASTOUNDING presence and reality to the DQ's.
I drove all four with a phase linear 400, and to relieve them of the stress of keeping up with the bass, supplemented them with a BIC Venturi 400 12" subwoofer and dedicated amp.
With the addition of a small amp and pair of OHM C-2's driven by the "ambience" output of a phase linear 2000 pre-amp, and an audio control c-101 EQ, they have produced the most astounding sound I have ever heard by any system under $20,000. Surpassing even the Martin-Logan monoliths, powered by high-end mac amps.
For example, Eric Clapton's "unplugged" raises every hair on your body and uncontrollibly brings you to tears during "tears in heaven".
Though I have less than $2,000. invested in this system, I turned down a trade for a 89 Harley Sof'tail motorcycle - because I didn't know if I could ever acquire the same components and reproduce the sound of this system. Design specs available upon request. Any offers to sell phase linear and DQ-10 gear will be seriously responded to.

Similar Products Used:

mag tympani 3-d; klipshorns; altec voice of theatre; boston acoustics 400's

Excellent midrange, over-all clarity.

Need a lot of power, difficult to get to woofer when it needs to have the surround replaced.

I'm not sure what I can add to the previous reviews of this classic loudspeaker. Everyone thay hears them is in awe of the sound, even the non-audiophiles. "They sound so clear" is the comment I often get.

I first heard the DQ-10 at a stereo show at a large hotel in North Hollywood back about 1979. In one of the small suites, a speaker company (I forget the name) was giving a demo of their speaker A-B'd against a pair of DQ-10's using a digital cassette recording. My brother and I walked out of the room and were convinced: The DQ-10's definately sounded better than the other speakers. I think perhaps their point was that their speakers sounded pretty good for the price. But the Dahlquist were expensive and out of the reach of my pocketbook. Then, in 1995, I was perusing a local stereo repair shop and noticed monolithic, yet beautiful outline of a set of used DQ-10's in the shop for sale. I took them home for $475 and unloaded my $1400 pair of Polk towers (that I had owned for 5 years and paid $630 for) for $750, quite a pleasant deal. I have since had the surrounds replaced.

Perhaps something of a technical nature I could add would be the crossover points of this 5-way marvel (mine were built around 1976).

WOOFER: 37 - 400 Hz
MID-WOOFER: 400 - 1000 Hz
MIDRANGE: 1000 - 6000 Hz
TWEETER: 6000 - 12,500 Hz
SUPER TWEETER: 12,500 - 27,000 Hz

The very high crossover point of the piezo horn is probably why people comment that it isn't a problem.

Right now I am driving the Dahlquists with a Luxman R-361 receiver, 100 watts per channel, but it has a dynamic rating of 350 per at 2-ohms, making it a bit beefier than most 100 per receivers.

I am now becoming more interested in getting the center channel and subwoofer that is designed to go with the Dahlquist from the company Regnar. I wish they would just get a better website with decent pictures and more info on the product.

Similar Products Used:

There is nothing similar, but I've owned Polk Audio, Infinity, Advent, and Bose.