A lot has been gained in the last 20 years in the area of materials used in the manufacture of speaker systems. From the use of gold/rhodium plated, oxygen free copper 5 way binding posts(for a better connection), higher quality (tin foil/teflon film, polypropylene, polystyrene) capacitors for improved signal transfer, stronger magnets( barium/strontium ferrite, neomidium) for higher flux density, stronger and lighter cone and dome materials(carbon fiber, titanium, diamond) for less flexure/distortion, faster response. Denser, stiffer cabinetry to reduce resonance/coloration. There are a vast array of modern speakers that can play at very high SPLs, and yet sound like real music, unlike the Junk But Loud of old. Yes- the professional speaker manufacturers built some systems for home use, but the quality of the drivers/x-overs in those systems never approached that of their sound reinforcement equipment. The horns that were designed for projecting sound far into an audience, when used in a home environment, could generate a headache faster than a jackhammer with their peaky responses, and metalic resonances. Much has been gained/learned with regard to horn systems as well, and the old can't even compare with current designs acoustically(Acapella/Avantgarde). Of course the way we test/design systems has changed drastically as well. The proof is always in the sound though, and naturally: There are those that can't hear the difference, and will claim there isn't any. |
Eldarford- How many current violin manufactures spend two to three years on one instrument, or use wood from the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum ~1645-1750), or perhaps Northern Croatia(another theory) that possess the density that give Stratavari's violins their tone? Of course no one really knows why they sound the way they do, and the secret died with him. I much prefer Harleys from 1936 thru 1965, but don't consider them better than what is built today. I like them for nostalgic reasons, and they are much easier to work on(unless you need parts). The new stuff is much more powerful, uses much less oil, is more durable(better alloys, etc), gets better mileage, I could go on. Do I want one: No! I used a Dahlquist DQ-LP1 active filter to bi-amp my system for over 25 years. No one had designed anything that was as transparent, and created less phase shift in all those years(lastly with a Placette Passive Linestage). That wasn't nostalgia, but simple fact. Now I'm using a TacT RCS 2.2X. Virtually as transparent as that last combo, but with the added benefit of it's time aligning my woofer/main interface and getting rid of the Sabine Reverb generated peaks in the room. I figured if The Absolute Sound gave it a Golden Ear Award: It probably sounded enough like live music to satisfy me. I haven't looked back. I'm still using the transmission line woofers that I built in 1980 to go with my Acoustat Model IIIs. I've updated my amps several times since then, but the Nestorovic woofers(polypropylene) haven't needed any updating except for the butyl surrounds(newer material) I treated them to. They were already fast and accurate enough to keep up with 'stats, they do a fine job now. Not nostalgia- they just sound like the real thing between 20 and 250hz. If I hadn't found newer systems that sound more like live music than the Model IIIs, I'd still have them too. As much as I've disliked horns in home systems for their lack of musicality/imaging/sound staging, if I could afford them- I'd love to own an Avantgarde system complete with Bass Horn. Newer, better materials/technology/design has brought a better illusion of live music in a real venue into a lot of homes. As someone on this thread stated: It's a matter of preference. I'd venture a guess that less than 10% of the people reading this listen to live music in a real venue once a week(at least). What is their reference, if not simply their preference/taste/opinion? Those that do listen to live music(whether acoustic or amplified): please check in, and note your preferences just for fun(new technology or over 20 years). I suppose this constitutes an honor system. |
Detlof- Was that the IONOFANE Plasma Tweeter? The technology on that piece goes back all the way to 1951!! Of course- improvements have been made since then. How I wish my present listening room could justify some large (new technology)stats like the Majestics. The longevity of the Quad units(and modding) in your systems speaks to your taste for reality in your listening, your update- to your striving for musical truth. KUDOS!! |
I absolutely agree with your comments concerning aircraft. I'm a skydiver, and the Cessna 182 is probably the most common/popular/money-making(read- "best") aircraft a drop-zone can own, but turbine aircraft get more divers to altitude faster. As far as the Honda: The value drops 20% the moment you leave the lot, and never stops. You have to practically destroy a Harley to lose money on it(I speak that from experience, having bought and sold many over the last 40 years). Again- The J3 is a classic, and you don't see many for under $30 grand now days. That's pretty good considering they sold for under a grand in 1938. How many speakers actually appreciate in value over the years(the true sign of a "classic" like the Stradivarius, or say a Mercedes 300SL)? If you saw an Infinity Reference Standard system for sale, would you pay $65,000(original cost) for it? It was acknowledged as the best of the best in it's day. It's still good, but can be out-performed for less money because of the advances in technology. Most of the EMITs and EMIMs would probably be shot by now anyway because the materials used in their manufacture fatigued easily. Try and find replacements to keep that system original. How much have you invested in (new technology)avionics for your J3, or are you still using the better instruments of the 30's and 40's? Did it come with the 40HP engine(if it was the earliest model)? Is it still in there, or have you updated? I'm using using newer, better caps and resistors in my power amps than they came with. BUT- I'm constantly searching for vacuum tubes from the 40's (TungSol 6SN7GT round plates/Sylvania 6SN7Ws) because they sound so very much better than anything manufactured today. You are absolutely correct- Everything has it's place. PS: If you're ever flying around Indy- You can throw me out of your Cub anytime!! |
Eldartford(et al): I'd love to own a plane like that(it would probably be flat-black too)! The open door is good. Then again: If being in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming. Get out of the vehicle sometime, and REALLY experience the element. That's my advice to the ones that are in love with their stuck-in-the-past sound systems: Get out of the house and listen to some of the real thing, especially something with a lot of vocals. Go home with the group's CD(hopefully well engineered) and see how your equipment's reproduction compares with the live experience. Of course: that's only IF you care. |
Detlof- Like I said: Owning those Quads speaks of your love for that reality. I've always liked the Quads for that reason, but- like so many other sweet electrostatics- they just can't get loud enough for certain music without arcing. The typical Brit has to live in a very cramped space and settles for lower volume levels than couldn't sate my thirst for reality. You'll notice most British speakers are on the small side, not too terribly efficient, or capable of high SPLs. Again- If I could only justify owning the Majestics........ |
Detlof- I've been bi-amping with planars for years(tubes/top and SS/bottom) with a pair of 10" drivers(Nestorovic's) in 8', tapered, damped transmission lines. They don't move enough air to fill a stadium, but have reproduced(with a healthy amount of realism/authority) the 16hz, 32ft stops of the Grand Ruffatti Organ on Crystal Clear's 'The Fox Touch'(Toccata and Fugue in D Minor)in my every listening room(thus far). When I built them, I did so to help my Acoustat Model III's(what I owned in 1980) keep from arcing, and to increase the dynamic range of the system. NO-I can't get the impact of a full philharmonic orchestra, BUT- The live club jazz, outdoor rock and music in church venues I've recorded are rendered quite well. Have you heard an album called 'Into the Labyrinth' by 'Dead Can Dance'? It was recorded in the Quivvy Church(Los Angeles). Wonderful ambiance, and guaranteed to give your entire sound system a healthy workout(huge drums/lots of percussion, and some very strange music). Vocals are to die for in that acoustic(some is a capella), and excellent engineering. |
Douglas- I agree with the greatest part of what you said. Everyone is born with certain innate talents and abilities. Many things are/can be learned, however, such as being able to listen to individual instruments or voices in an otherwise busy acoustic for instance. My hearing(and sense of smell) has saved my life more than once, because I learned to sense what did and didn't belong in the then present environment. That's how deer avoid getting killed too. They are very familiar with their surroundings. Deer that are around humans a lot, never learn to fear them(not good if you're a deer). If you listen to live music all the time, your recognition of it will adjust to whatever is going on with your hearing. If I were to stop listening to live performances, and lost some high freq. sensitivity: I would at that point have to boost the treble to get what my memory said was missing. If I stay current(and focused) in my listening: What I hear in the live venue is still what I am looking for from my system. I'm certain(though I have protected my hearing as a valuable asset over the years) that I have sustained some loss(still test very good), BUT- I've still no problem telling the silkiness of Zildgian cymbals as opposed to the brassiness of Sabians(for instance). The bands I run sound for keep calling me back, because they get compliments on their sound they don't get otherwise. As I said in an earlier post: It's a matter of what you love(That's what you will stay consistant with). I can't help the engineering or equipment used in the recordings I purchase. I do know that my system is accurate based on my reference materials, and if what's being played is lacking in some area: I know it's the software, and not my hardware. I fully agree with The Duke(and Mrtennis): If it sounds good (to you), it is good. I always say, "If one person likes it- It's art" (whether I think it stinks or not)! |
Mrtennis- If a person attends live performances on a regular basis, it's natural to become accustomed to certain things that ARE consistant. IE: the sound stage of live venues, the SPL of live music, impact of a kick-drum, how the size and timbre of a piano(or any instrument) are perceived, How the wood of a double bass(and rosin on the bow) can be felt, the breath over the reed of a sax, the "hole in the middle" of a concert orchestra, the human singing voice especially, breaths taken, and how one can actually hear the resonance of the chest cavity in person(I could go on). As I suggested: If one were to listen to a particular music group live, then take a recording(hopefully a well engineered one) of that group's music home to play on their system: they would have a better idea if the system was accurate. That wouldn't take much aural memory at all. And yet: It's not hard to retain the sound of "live" IF you know how to listen to/focus on individual sounds/instruments. All it takes is a DESIRE to train one's ears and brain to do so. But- most are satisfied with their preferences as their references, and that's fine too. I have the benefit of access to musicians, instruments, live music and original recordings all the time. It's cost me dearly over the years to try and re-create the gestalt of live music in my home, but my system is only the vehicle to deliver what I love, and not what I love. |
