One of the areas where speakers have not, for the most part, improved, according to HP, is the midbass. The other area is the upper midrange. In MY experience, and I have reviewed for several publications, including Ultra Audio, many speakers STILL cannot get the upper midrange AND lower treble correct ALONG WITH the midbass. It seems that either one or the other area fails.
Using that logic, it's great that newer speakers are "clearer," lower in distortion. But if a speaker cannot get the dynamics right in these two regions, along with the upper bass and lower midrange, in my humble opinion, they are hardly superior, given the improvements in other components, such as amps, digital and cartridges.
Therefore, it is less the perspective of older being better/worse rather than newer speakers having solved the frequency/dynamic domain sufficiently.
Also, are we using live music as the comparison or other speakers? I would NEVER use another speaker as the basis for comparison in an experiment, I would only use live music, and in that experiment, that would depend on how familiar the listener is with it (live music in different venues). From what I read, quite a few reviewers only refer to other equipment when they compare. Using an imperfect, man-made item, and comparing it to another imperfect man-made item is foolish. Hence the absolute sound as a basis. If we don't know what it sounds like, how can we make a comparison to anything???
So, in summary, of COURSE some older speakers will best some current designs, if the designers are unfamiliar with live music. Good luck with that! |
in order to compare live music with a recording, it is necessary to compare the recording with the source. this means one must have access to a live performance in one's listening room. orchestral music is out of the question.
it may be feasible to record a single instrument and compare the recording to the live performance, if a musician will copperate. still, the project has other difficulties.
aural memory is unreliable. trying to compare one's memory of the sound of a piano. eg.g, to a recording of a piano is probably an invalid procedure.
thus, it reverts to preference and opinion regarding the issue of current production vs vintage components. subjectivity and opinion are the main elements of our listening experiences. |
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. |
MrTennis-We did exactly what you propose many years ago: We recorded a flautist, a lute player a soprano and even a string quartet in one of our friends music room, recorded it on tape with a big professional Revox in stereo of course and then played it back through various rigs. I don't recall all the speakers, preamps and amps we compared the music with. It is too long ago. I remember Lowthers, the famous small BBC-Monitor, forgot what it was called and several others. There was GAS gear, Soundcraftsmen, original US Marantz, ML the man and a lot of European stuff. I only remember the gear, that came out in top to all our ears, because it was my rig:
Beveridge preamp, 2 Audio Research D-79s and stacked Quads, which I exchanged much later for quadrupled 63s, Sequerra ribbon speakers and Maggi bass panels.
Rodmann, I wholeheartedly agree with you. You can train your ears to become intimately familiar with the sound of live music - and singers voices for that matter. The capacity of our aural memory is stunning, were it not so, you would not be able to identify familiar voices over the telephone within a split second....and that is only the beginning. If you are sort of steeped in live music of what ever kind, you will within the space of listening to the first bar of a piece know at once if a system sounds right or not and after a few seconds be able to pinpoint quite accurately what is wrong. There are quite a number of afficionados amongst us, who taking live music as a reference, will be able to judge the sound of a system or of a single component under their scrutiny with a fairly high grade of objectivity. ( Not objectivity in the sense the natural sciences demand from us of course, but which the old Gestaltpsychology would probably be fairly happy with.)
Quite apart from that, I don't know if I'm right, but I have the faint suspicion that with the ongoing decline of sales of recorded classical music and the painfully slow progress of the digital medium both in soft- as well as hardware to render a truly satisfying experience of a big classical symphony, modern speakers are built to best render that kind of music, where digital excels in and likewise most CDs are sold or rather songs of that genre are downloaded. That would explain, why so many lovers of classical music seem to stick to analog and in the search of a "perfect" speaker often go back to the "old", hardly out of nostalgia, as has been proposed, but rather, simply put, because to many concert goers of classical music most modern non planar speakers, even those with the big names, simply don't sound "right". |
There are some other variables which make things even more difficult to isolate in terms of deeming certain speakers more "accurate" or true to life, such as:
Hearing loss due to age or exposure to too many dB's
Engineering of the disc/album
Equipment used in Engineering
Synergy (or lack of it) between components
I have not seen it discussed much, but I would assert that certain people innately (not learned, not through experience) are able to identify natural/true to life sound more accurately than others. In the same way that some can run faster, think more lucidly, etc. so also I would suggest that some have the ability to hear and identify with uncanny accuracy that which sounds most gratifying and natural to most people.
I, of course, am one of them! ;) |
Was it Duke Ellington who said
"If it sounds good, it is good".
Some truth there.
. |
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)! |
I do want to remember that the original post was: are speakers from yesteryear as good as today. And my response was: yes, from certain perspectives. Again, the midbass is wrong in very many speakers, yet it is rarely noted in reviews. My opera singer friend can tell --quite easily -- which speaker has a good midbass. He does not have to "compare" speakers: he's a musician. He listened to (good) recordings and was able, on the basis of his own personal experience with piano, flute and a few other instruments, to determine which speaker most accurately sounded "right" in that area. Memory, per se, is not a requirement here if one is a musician.
I think we got a little off track on fthe subject of the (original) post. It is not about personal preferences: it was a simple question of whether older speakers could compete with current speakers. In some cases, as I pointed out, they are equal to current equipment. In some cases, probably not. |
This thread is a Mobius Strip; flips back around and goes nowhere.
Blessed Easter! :) |
is it possible that musicians might disagree ?
if so, the answer to thread is: it is a matter of opinion and preference ?
if you can't compare the recording with the sound of the instrument recorded, you don't have a scientifc assessment of the accuracy/inaccuracy of timbre of a stereo system. you have an anecdotal account, based upon memory. even if you are a musician, your recollection is not perfect.
there is no reference, other than memory to compare to the sound of a stereo system, unless the musician is playing in the room and a recording is made of the performance.
if memory is the basis of judgment the result is conjectural, not factual. |
MrT, forgive me, but we know that and you've repeatedly told the same thing ad ( my personal ) nauseam. The natural sciences, contrary to what many people think, do not reign supreme in all fields of human experience. Empiricism can be a valid source of knowledge, if you approach it carefully, especially in the Humanities. |
There have been many demonstrations of speaker fidelity put on by speaker manufacturers. One of the first which I recall was done by AR back in its glory days.
A string quartet was seated on stage, along with some speakers. I think there was a translucent scrim curtain in front of the musicians and speakers. The musicians played, and the musicians simulated playing, and listeners could not distinguish what was going on at any particular time.
The chice of a string quartet was smart. If it had been an organ or a full orchestra the results would not have been so good.
Which harkens back to my posting of 3/15..."It depends on the music". |
lets look at the main trend in audio reproduction:
increasing levels of detail and focus.
it would seem that if you select a component, say a cone speaker and compare it to a typical cone speaker in the 60s or 70s, there would be a difference in resolution.
is more resolution necessarily better ?
i would rather turn the clock back to 1970, given the commercially available components of that period.
while one may use the terms subtractive and veiled to describe the performance of many a stereo system of that time, at least they did no harm.
unfortunately many of today's speakers, amps, preamps and cd players do harm, while providing "greater information". |
I believe musicians might disagree on an orchestral recording, but a direct recording of a flute at a microphone is going to have all its components intact, barring a bad recording. Also, a "good" recording of the human voice is also going to have all its components intact.
And, assuming that someone knows what they sound like when recorded, it is unlikely -- although we must allow for hearing differences -- that someone will not be able to discern which speaker sounds more "true to life."
The nice thing about clasical (and opera) musicians (some) is that they are not distracted by the razzle-dazzle of many audiophiles, plus they have one very important benefit: they hear music LIVE constantly. They need not be concerned about "more bass" or "better soundstage" or other things that audiophiles (myself included) place so much emphasis on, while ignoring that a voice unquestionably moves towards you through space. I have never heard a voice that does not project in music, since projection is de riguer in opera, all the while maintaining the line and the volume.
It's unlikely that a classical singer/musician would not recognize the musical capabilities of one speaker as superior to another, although things like tone and timbre can be a matter of personal taste in reproduced music. |
Gbmcleod,
I agree with what you said and would like to add something.
My all time favorite listening experience was with the mbl's. Before I get darts thrown at me let me just say that whatever was playing I got into it. I found myself enjoying rap and hip hop, music that I never liked, but the mbl's presented it in such a way that made me enjoy it. That was the case for all the music played. So when Gbmcleod mentioned musicians don't look for "more bass or better soundstage", neither did I when listening to the mbl's, probably because my ears didn't have to fill in the voids or missing nuances or details whatever cues we hear when listening to the real thing. Therefore that is the holy grail for me, thankfully I have it now so I don't need the mbl's , but I do need a larger room, life isn't perfect. |
I think speakers that are older were built better.Case in point,my old Polk Audio SDA1 monitors are built better than any new Polks.(wood finish instead of simulated wood plastic wrap crap,metal backing plates for SL1000 tweeters instead of the cheap plastic mounting plates of the newer models)Just try to pick one up and you will also see what I mean,these speakers weigh close to 90lbs. apiece.I doubt to many polk speakers today weigh that much.I guess I am saying is they do not build them like they used to. |
