Difference between today and yesterday.

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.

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 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.

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".

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".

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.

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.

This thread is a Mobius Strip; flips back around and goes nowhere.
Blessed Easter! :)

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.

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)!

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.

Was it Duke Ellington who said
"If it sounds good, it is good".

Some truth there.
.

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! ;)

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".

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.

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.

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!

quad 57s could be driven by a 35 watt maple tree el 34 amp, or vtl deluxe 120 in triode mode.

If you listen to companies like Wilson even last years model sounds like crap compared to the latest "upgrade"

Mrt, what can I say? That IS an exceptional vintage speaker! So, what are you feeding the Quads with?

I have been in the live music space for 30 years. I have worked with over 250 bands. I am constantly around old and new systems and actually like hearing music on old system configurations from time to time. I own seven systems myself, most low cost, and really appreciate a twenty year old system that includes a NAD 3020, Kef 104, and Garrard turntable. Yes, there are better speakers today, but I love listening to the music as I originally heard it in analogue. The speakers sound great--like a great wine--better with each passing year.

Hands down, the best speakers are pro gear by ATC. They are allowing these to be sold to end users for the first time this decade and they are in use at over 1,000 pro studios. A true "reference" product, one of the most overused and abused terms in audio. Most audiophile products claim this, yet never are used in professional playback environments. I would check them out--they play all genres better than any other speaker--but have a very limited distribution here due to their commercial rather than consumer roots. I also like the classic British sound of Spendor, Harbeth and Tannoy--very stunning midrange over most other speakers--easy on the ears and will add up to many wonderful listening sessions. Canada has the best performance to value--Paradigm and PSB are wonderful budget minded products.

There are really great "nearfield soundstage" products now around the digital music space, and I really like the iMod iPod from Red Wine ($250), the Pure Audio docking station by Logitec ($100), the Blue Sky EXO active monitoring system ($200 at Guitar Center and it blows away everything) and Audioengine speakers ($350). Many of the old systems can't handle the new compressed listening requirements of the MP3 format, and these products really shine around the new formats.

Pedrillo, Mathematically they may add up to the same pistonic area, but qualitatively they do not sound the same. Smaller woofers are subject to more of a "popping" sound as the excursion is more extreme when they attempt to move the air at lower frequencies. A larger driver has more surface area to do the same job and sounds more "at ease" doing it.

The best thing about your room is that it is not square, so you might be able to get away with a larger speaker in it.

Douglas_schroeder
Question?
Why aren't two smaller woofers similiar to one big one?
Aren't they moving the same amount of air, I know that the air moved doesn't come from one source but this is bass that doesn't exactly play as big a role as mids or trebles that distinguish placement.
Also can big driver speakers work in a smallish room?
Mine is 11' x 15' by 8'-6" height.
Thanks.

hi doug:

my vintage system would include stacked quad 57s. clearly a speaker preferred over any in production today. you could not come up with a stereo system i would prefer over the quads.

it's all about preference and not nostalgia.

Pedrillo, the principle holds true generally for any speaker manufacturer. Take B&W for instance. I reviewed the CM7, which is lovely sounding but definitely a small floor standing speaker. B&W's largest speakers are an entirely different game. The pricing of the larger speakers is the killer for most potential customers.

Vandersteens are pretty good at enlarging the listening space with decent sized drivers. I think this is one reason they are so popular, because they're not handing the owner dinky drivers.

I have not heard the Silverline Grandeur II's, and they have only twin 9.5" woofers, but they spec out interestingly. Montana and ATC both have some larger speakers. Tyler has a pro line with some big drivers. I haven't heard any in this group.

I have heard some of the larger Usher models which fit the template I have laid out fairly well. Similarly, the VonSchweikert mid-level models use a 7" mid which is engaging. But again, there is typically bass with twin 8" woofers. One really needs subs to go with them.

Different technology: Magnepan 1.6's and Eminent Technology LFT-8B are both very good for the money. Both can use subs, moreso the 1.6's.

The planar 4" mid on the Legacy Focus HD is tremendously satisfying.

Douglas schroeder,
Would like to hear what other speakers you recommend.
I remember learning this before that size matters(my girlfriend remin... never mind).
Also room must accomodate, no?

Not all loudspeaker manufacters offer just tragic cones and domes, slim WAF towers or chinless direct radiators some offer real loudspeaker systems with 12-31.5in woofers, powerful magnets, horn loaded drivers and large cabinets. The bass from most older designs sounds bloated to me. But I do feel we lost a bit of size to WAF and hi-profits. I see so many frustrated audiophiles but most will change all of the system and still keep the wee speakers and they wonder why they are left wanting more or better or any change at all.

To the casual observer there are not many differences in bicycles either. Both are technological devices, and bicycles still look rather the same (save recumbent types), still use gears, handle bars, etc. But they perform vastly differently.
I would assert that to the casual observer speakers have not changed much, but indeed they have, and they perform quite differently as well. Changes have occurred in cabinet materials and design (including isolation of individual drivers), driver materials, surround materials, magnet sizes and types, etc. - speaking only of dynamic speakers here.

Ngjockey, You are absolutely right that drivers have shrunk in size. This is one of the biggest tragedies of modern speakers. There is NO replacing cone surface area when it comes to performance. Make the magnet as big as you want; No way on earth these puny 6" drivers will ever compare to an authentic 12" driver when it comes to reproducing bass. There is a discernable difference in the quality of the low end between smaller woofers and the ease of a larger driver. The push to crowd the HT market with skinny speakers has wreaked havoc on hi-fi sound. Sadly, it seems most audiophiles do not even realize how bad the situation is. It's authentically hard to find a true full range speaker that's affordable.

Shrinkage of the midrange is another travesty. Again, there is a HUGE amount of difference in quality between a 3-4" mid and a 7" midrange. The larger driver sounds vastly different. Smaller midranges may be tonally correct, but I have heard many which simply cannot convey the correct spatial clues of the voice because they are physically too small. It's similar to the performance of a 4 cylinder car's engine versus the 6 cylinder. Both can do 65mph, but HOW they do it is vastly different.

So, yes, I can certainly see how someone who hears modern speakers which can only go to 40Hz and the performers sound like they're miniature would prefer the good old speakers. But when speakers today are made to be actually full range, with sizable drivers which can actually reproduce the full spectrum of frequencies - only then is one hearing what the best of modern speaker design can do. Add to it quality 7" or larger mids and you have some superb speakers.

And, yes, my Legacy Audio Focus HD's have these features. I did the review on them and happily purchased them because they have these qualities which are missing in so many speakers today.

It is absolutely apalling the number of dinky speakers on the market. To obtain anything approaching a full range experience one has to try matching subwoofers, which introduces problems to the sound. Audiophiles wonder why the high end is not catching on with younger people as much as they'd like. So, this younger person goes to a specialty audio shop and hears a speaker with 6" drivers three feet tall? Their CAR audio system sounds better than that! Give 'em monstrous speakers which are truly full range, speakers which will shock them with the scale and power of audiophile sound and maybe they'll be impressed enough to want it. But they can't afford the $10k+ that's charged for most of those speakers; not many people can.

So many audiophiles are convinced that they have the greatest sound with speaker systems that don't even cover the entire frequency. At least the older speakers with 12" or 15" drivers brought some bass. That's likely one reason that they are still enjoyed, because they actually were full range.

Once you hear what a serious floor standing full range speaker can do, one that can get down to 20Hz and below, and has truly full midrange, you realize how the other contemporary designs are "cut off at the knees".

I would dispute that there has been much technological advancement in speakers, and even amplification, in 30 years. Sure, some components like capacitors and diodes are much better but the basics haven't changed much. With the exception of the Manger driver, there is nothing really new. Stiffer cone materials from poly to graphite has been around for quite a while and basic circuit topologies haven't radically changed, only altered, not necessarily refined.

I had an amp with no global feedback in the early 80's. Granted, the average consumer gear was made for average consumers, which was still better sound quality than the MP3s of today. The "hi-end" is much more diverse now than it ever was but, likely, if it weren't for the Asian market, most of the specialty brands would have disappeared by now.

What has changed is the normal size and shape of speakers. Consumers wanted less obtrusive, narrower designs and/or exotic decor. The 12 and 15 inch drivers of the 70's were replaced with 8" drivers in the 80's and 6" would probably be the norm today. Acoustic suspension is, for the most part, a remnant of the past.

Comparing old to new, you would have to account for relative cost to income and inflation. What you could afford in your 20's as compared to what you can afford in your 40's is irrelevant. Scarily similar though.

Inflation 7%
Initial $1000
+10 years $2000
+20 years $4000
+25 years $5500

Inflation 10%
Initial $1000
+10 years $2400
+20 years $6100
+25 years $9900

It's been my experience that approximate sound quality has the higher inflation rate, maybe higher. This doesn't mean that I'm going to start buying old stuff. That's just silly.

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........

Mrtennis, Bold proposition my friend! :) It's obvious you're quite confident in the quality of your vintage system. What are the components in it? What cables?

Well Rodman, I did exactly as you suggest, I don't know how many times and any comparison done made me, often reluctantly, knowing of their drawbacks, go back to my good old Quads. This had nothing to do with nostalgia, rather with intimate acquaintance of live music and comparisons made not unlike those MrTennis talks about. Electronics and wires on the other hand are a different story. Here I have gone with the times and enjoyed the improvements, regarding reliability as well as the sound of more modern designs. However even here again, I hod to tube roll quite a bit with tubes from the 50 and the 60s to really get the best performance out of the gear.

gentlemen:

the proof of the pudding is what someone does with one's money. those of us who purchase "vintage" components do so with the awareness that there are other choices. chances are, those who prefer vintage gear have also heard modern gear and prefer the vintage gear because it sounds more like the real thing than current production components.

hi doug:

my preference is based upon hours and hours of listening at ces shows, stereophile shows, audio clubs, audio dealers and visits to friends' and acquaintance stereo systems.

if you are so convinced of the superiority of current production stereo systems, would you care to make a wager ?

you and i will select a stereo system. i will confine myself to components from the 70's and 80's , and you can assemble a stereo system of your choice.

place me in a room, blindfolded and i will listen to both stereo systems, according to some procedure.

i will indicate my preference, for either stereo system.
i will bet i prefer my stereo system at least 90 percent of the time.

what say you ?

There's a paradox going on here. Undoubtedly modern products offer a better performance/value ratio than what was available a generation ago and at the high end increased design and manufacturing knowledge coupled with better materials make it possible for real improvements to have taken place. Yet it's not all that clear that the best systems of 20 or 30 years ago are any less musically satisfying that the best systems of today. Modern systems may do more hi-fi tricks than older systems, but are they really more musically satisfying? It's not a case of nostalgia. There are valid reasons for people preferring vintage products to their modern equivalents. Ultimately, performance is not the end all and be all of what all people are looking for.

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.

There is some serious Nostalgitis happening here.

Mrtennis, you have already determined that your vintage rig would sound better than ANY current combination of gear,
"i have a favorite stereo system from the 70's that i would prefer over any stsereo system comprising current-production components."

Evidently, you don't even have to hear today's gear to know it's not as good as your old stuff! Your reference is fixed emotionally with 1970's gear. Severe case of Nostalgitis.

Rodman99999...Needle, ball, and airspeed, and the door open. What avionics?

Like I said most who say vintage is the best performing are guys who grewup with it;) Great to try to relive the past.But to ignor such major progress in transducers, cabinets ,crossovers, cables, design tools etc all are far more advanced than the 40s-70s. Sure some interesting and fun kit was produced then and its great you guys love it. But you do have to admite theres some truth to what Iam saying. You love it because you grew up using, reading or wanting it. Not because its the best performance availible. It just brings back pleasent memorys of your past and nothing wrong at all with that.But proclaiming vintage to be the best in performance just might lead others to try what you suggest. And if they didnt have the same past they just might hear it for what it is old stuff. Seems when we reach a certain age we tend to romaticise the past. Please excuse my spelling errors. And happy listening

Your ears have changed as much as the speaker has..?

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!!

Douglas_schroeder...Old volin vs new violin, Apple to apple. Old speaker to new speaker. Orange to orange. Sometimes all the technology is without benefit (except for marketing). I would take a KLH 9 electrostatic speaker over anything made today, probably including Quads.

By the way, I am a retired engineer and I love technology...my amps are digital. But I know its limitations.

Rodman99999...You enjoy your old Harley, although a new Honda is probably more practical as a means of travel. I am a pilot. I enjoy flying a Piper J3 Cub, although a new Cirus is more practical as a means of travel. Each has its place.

hi doug:

this hobby is based upon subjective perception and preference.

one judges the sound of a stereo system without regard to the application of technology.

thus, in a darkened room, one may prefer stereo system a to stereo system b, and, hypothetically, stereo system a could have its components produced iduring 1970 and stereo system b, could have its components manufacturered during 2008.

preference is unpredictable. thus there is no evidence to support your statement "i see very few places in life where technological advancement is not to be preferred", other than your own opinion, of which you are entitled.

i happen to prefer the sound of stereo systems whose components were available during the 70's and 80's.

of course, our basis for assessing "sound quality" may be diametrically opposed to each other.

i have a favorite stereo system from the 70's that i would prefer over any stsereo system comprising current-production components.

Eldartford, the error in your logic is that you compare a musical instrument to a technological product; apples and oranges. The only common denominator is music, but their purpose and operations are absolutely foreign to each other, so foreign that in the one case the item cannot play music aside from a system of contributing electronics.

You allude to the quality of the Strad - which is generally lauded for its craftsmanship/construction techniques. Whereas, development of technology is independent of that variable (there are good manufacturers and poor manufacturers). The violin is a technologically limited device, more a kin to a push reel mower. The components of today are an entirely different class, like the emergence of lawn tractors. The violin has seen virtually no radical departure in design, whereas components have undergone a sea change...

So, if someone makes a less impressive violin today their technique is not impressive. However, the move from push reel mowers to riding tractors is technologically driven (pardon pun). Maybe if someone had developed a better violin in the shape of a boomerang with the strings hung across the gap of the instrument that could be considered technological advancement. But let's not confuse the quality of violins years apart with the development of, say, tube amplification from the sixties to today's class D amps. In the one case, virtually nothing has changed, and in the other radical changes have occurred. etc.

Of course, one is entitled to their opinion of whether the changes are preferable. I see very few places in life where technological advancement is not to be preferred.

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!!

Douglas_schroeder...How so?

Well Rodman, I do and that is why I stuck with my Quad 57 and later the 63s for such a long time and when I was younger and wilder, to get a bit more SPL I stacked and even quadrupled the 63s and combined them with Maggie Bass panels. It was a weird setup but it worked quite nicely. I almost liked the a-Capella horn speakers, but I could not get the livelyless, the P.R A.T. I was used to, so I only took the plasma-tweeters and integrated them with the 63s, suddenly getting much more tranparency. I've now settled with the big Sound-Labs after a life time of Quads. I am happy, but I've decided to keep the plasma tweeters. so I've gone from conservative old to new, but it took me practically half a lifetime, not counting my being unfaithful to the stacked 57s.

Eldartford confuses technique with technological advancement.

One of the big differences between today and yesterday is that speakers of yesterday were designed around analog sound and equipment. Whereas today, they're designed around digital sound and equipment which is a more cold sterile sound. That is why it would be hard to compare, even given the newer technology.
Any of the old Bozak speakers have stood the test of time.
Rudy Bozak was way ahead of his time!