Loudspeakers have we really made that much progress since the 1930s?

Sal,

Your experience is very much like mine.  I did not like the sound of Klipshorns and most of the Altec systems I heard.  I got interested in horns after hearing a pretty decent sounding Edgarhorn system.  I am now a fan, and owner of a system that mixes modern (but old school) drivers with Western Electric compression midrange and horn. 

There are many other examples of vintage horn and non-horn gear that are also VERY good, such as Jensen fieldcoil direct radiators, IPC compression drivers, RCA compression drivers, Japanese Western Electric replica drivers, and a lot of other similar gear, that would surely surprise a lot of people if only they had a chance to hear the stuff.

I sort of agree with you on the Classic Audio fieldcoil speakers.  I think they are interesting, but, they are not quite my taste.  The Avant Garde systems I heard were also nice, but, not quite what I wanted either.  I heard a nice Goto system, but it cost more than a nice house.

As I opined here earlier, technology has advanced the performance of home audio gear greatly over the years.  The Shearer system that the OP mentioned is not a home audio system but an enormous thing designed for theaters and movie houses; it is totally impractical for normal home use.  The Western Electric systems of the day were essentially cost-is-no-object designs that were too expensive for even the theaters to own and were mostly leased out.  They were built when labor was relatively cheap and so it was possible to build handmade items in somewhat smaller production runs.  Home audio profited greatly from technological advances that allowed for much smaller speakers that could be manufactured on more capital-intensive production line basis.  The sound of home audio was completely different from that of the large theater systems, and over time that sound evolved to where we are now--a different aesthetic from those old horn systems.

I am certain modern designers could build systems that sound like those old school systems, and using modern materials and science, provide superior performance in the areas those old designs are lacking.  For the most part, they don't because the mass market has no exposure to that sound and so there is not much demand.  There are modern builders who cater to this niche market, but, they can only build on a small scale and cost, particularly labor, is extremely high so the stuff is EXPENSIVE (e.g., Goto).

Atmasphere is, in my opinion, correct that these vintage systems cannot deliver the kind of deep bass that modern systems deliver.  Even the massive Shearers and Western based systems do not have much in the way of punchy, deep bass.  The light paper cones with low-compliance suspensions that don't allow the cones to move in and out very far are not capable in that respect.  But, aside from that, they deliver a VERY special kind of sound.  If that is your particular taste, there are not many modern alternatives (and certainly not many reasonably-priced one), so it is mostly an academic exercise saying that modern designs are, or are not, superior.  The Classic Audio Reproductions field coil speakers certainly do deliver the incredible dynamics and clarity of the old school systems, and I will take Atmasphere's word that they deliver much lower distortion, but, I think they are voiced like modern systems and so they are not really "replacements" for such systems.

Johnk,

I am so much in agreement with you on how good the old WE, Shearer, etc. systems (or modern systems built around old drivers/parts) can sound.  Most listeners have not had the opportunity to hear such systems at all, much less at their best.  Yes, the compact, art deco WE 753 is quite a nice system, but, it is quite expensive these days and it is hard to find all of the drivers in good working order (a friend just bought one which, unfortunately, had a bad 713 driver).  I heard a fantastic open baffle system that utilized a cabinet that is a replica of the 753 but housed a Jensen M10 field coil driver plus a tweeter (probably a 302); this was a fantastic speaker (I am thinking about a similar speaker utilizing the Jensen M10 and a WE 597 tweeter or a Japanese 597 replica).   

I agree with your earlier comment about Tungar power supplies for field coils.  I have heard both vintage Tungars and Tungars with hand-wound rebuilt transformers and I have heard them in comparison to some very nice modern solid state power supplies.  I happen to like the Tungars more, a result I was not really expecting.  The rebuilt Tungar I heard was dead quiet--no hum from the speaker or mechanical hum from the Tungar at all.

These vintage systems are certainly not for everyone's taste, particularly if extremely loud and deep bass is a priority, but, from the upper bass on up, these speakers can be magical.

No one has suggested that there has been no progress since 1930s.  The BIG deal is that very good sound is now affordable and practical.  The stuff from the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's that deliver good sound were meant for theaters and would not fit in any normal living room and was extremely expensive given wages at that time.  Even theaters could not afford the Western Electric systems and most of these were leased.

There is no doubt that, given advancements in technology and knowledge, it would be possible to make similar sounding gear that is better.  There are companies that intend to do just that--make gear that sounds like old Western Electric, Lansing, Klanghorn, etc. gear--but actually improve on performance (e.g., ALE, Cogent, Goto).  There are current manufacturers that attempt to make close replicas of such gear (e.g., Line Magnetic and G.I.P. Laboratories).  Whether any such gear is actually "better" is purely a subjective judgment.  In any case, the sound of these followers of old school sound is quite different from mainstream gear and it is pointless to argue which sound is "better."  If you like that sound there really hasn't been that much progress, and it is largely an academic exercise arguing that advanced technology "could" make that kind of sound better because there are so few companies working in that area. 

Have all of those who have been arguing that modern gear MUST be superior actually heard a Shearer system or a system with a WE 15A horn or any of the other 1930's contenders? 

Mapman,

There are a few areas where modest attempts to replicate older technology has failed to some degree.  I am sure that if there were the will and sufficient interest, the "lost" know-how could be overcome, but, that has not actually happened.  Several Japanese companies have tried to reproduce WE drivers over the years and have succeeded with some, but not all drivers.  Line Magnetic does field-coil versions of WE drivers (even when the WE were not field coil), probably for the same reason that the Japanese reproduction companies have mainly done reproductions of the field coil drivers--the magnets cannot be easily copied.  A friend spoke with one of the Japanese makers who acknowledged that they have tried to make certain drivers but could never get them to sound the same.  Admittedly, these are small builders, but, if there is no interest shown by the big houses, that is what one has to work with.

I think the best analogy for speaker design/build are musical instruments.  A lot of the "sound" of loudspeakers is in the designers voicing, not only the technology employed.  There has actually been quite a lot of attempts to make violins to sound like those made in Cremona 450 years ago, including instruments made with high tech polymers and carbon fiber impregnated material, metal, etc.  While some of these actually sound pretty good, I don't think that too many listeners would say that they "blow away" an Amati or Stradivari instruments.  The best newly built violins tend to be old-school instruments built in pretty much the same way as the 450 year old ones, with the maker voicing the instrument by ear, and not applying some high-tech approach.

The point was that technology, modern materials, etc., has not improved on something that is hundreds of years old.  If you think that there is some simple "ideal" of a perfectly neutral speaker and that there is some technical means of measuring and approaching such ideal that takes out of the picture the maker making subjective decisions, then you have not been around people that actually make speakers.

I am aware of the objective approaches, such as the work of Floyd Toole and the National Research Council of Canada.  But, there are plenty of listeners who simply don't like the resulting sound (like me, for instance) and that is probably why there is such a broad array of choices that people make in buying speakers.  Likewise, there is a broad array of different speakers being offered by designers because they happen to like different sounds and voice their designs accordingly.  It is naïve to think that there is a one-size-fits-all measure of what is closest to the "ideal speaker" that has no voice of its own. 

Here is our challenge, at various price points of your choosing, tell us what comes closest to the no voice of its own.  I will really go out on the ledge here, I bet there will be a whole lot of folks that will disagree with those choices.

Johnk did not say that only his opinion/experience counts.  He simply said that experience trumps speculation.  Unless one has actually heard the type of systems he is talking about, it is mere speculation that modern designs are inherently superior.  I have heard these systems.  A number of people of people posting here apparently have heard these systems and have commented on some issues that they have with the sound of these vintage systems.  I agree with them that deep bass response is limited.  But, there are many aspects to the sound of these systems that I have never heard matched by modern designs--the sense of speed, the incredible dynamics and scale (the feeling that a lot of air is being moved to produce a BIG sound).  To me, these systems are particularly matchless when they are playing softly.  

I have heard a fair share of modern designs and I do like many of them.  None of these systems that I like share a particular technological approach so I would never insist that they have to be time/phase aligned (some are, like the full range electrostatics that I like) or that they must be active speakers.  I would not rule anything out based on technology employed, materials used in construction or measurements--I would insist on listening and deciding based on auditioning the speakers.  That is why I essentially agree with Johnk --experience (i.e., hearing the speakers) trumps all the conjecture about this or that technology. 

I am in agreement with most of what Art Dudley says about vintage 1930-60's gear, generally speaking, but, the specific examples he mentioned in the excerpts quoted above, are not what I would be setting out as examples.  The Quad? Yes, a terrific sounding speaker if one can accept its volume limitations, requirement to be seated in a very narrow listening window, low image height, etc.  But the Altec Valencia?  If one is limited in experiencing horns to just such speakers, it is easy to see why someone would say that they hate horn colorations.  As for the 755, that is certainly and "interesting" speaker--very clear, dynamic and exciting, but, it is extremely colored and quite limited to the kind of music that sounds good through it (pop vocals, jazz).  If one insists on a single driver vintage system, the 756 is far better sounding to me, although even rarer and more expensive. 

Given the thread of Art Dudley's articles over the years, I do wonder if he has had that much exposure to some of the real gems of the past, such as the 555 field-coil compression driver on a 15A horn, or Jensen M-10 or M-18 field-coil cone drivers, or Western Electric 713a,b,c or IPC compression drivers, or Yoshimura Labs compression drivers.  There is also the monster Shearer system that the original poster mentioned that is certainly a contender for best of vintage gear.

I read somewhere that Art Dudley is planning to review the Auditorium 23 system, which is a modern system that utilizes Line Magnetic knock-offs of the Western Electric 555 compression driver, 22A horn and 597 tweeter.  That should be quite interesting.  I have not heard this system myself; it looks terrific in pictures.  My only issue is that those I have talked to that have heard the Line Magnetic replicas of the Western Electric field coils say that they sound decent, but, nowhere close to what the real drivers can do.  It would be interesting to see if Art Dudley has, as a personal reference, experience with the real deal, without which, it would be hard to frame his comments in any kind of meaningful context--where does the system stand compared to the original masters?  That is the burning question.

Sal,

Those are really nice photos of your amazing system.  I find YL drivers and horns to be fantastic sounding--very dynamic, yet totally relaxed and natural sounding.  The drivers with the diaphragms that are duplicates of the WE 555 can, with the right horn, go incredibly low. 

Deja Vu is getting in some G.I.P. drivers that might be interesting.  I am particularly interested in the field coil woofers that are replicas of Jensen/ERPI/WE woofers.  I think they might work well in an open baffle system, although I don't have room for the giant systems I've seen utilizing such drivers in an open baffle.  Perhaps, a G.I.P. 15" field coil woofer with a G.I.P. replica 597 field coil tweeter for a killer 2-way system?

I like the sound of Classic Audio speakers.  They do represent a successful utilization of old school technology (field coil magnets) and modern materials and technology.  But, whether they are superior to old systems or modern systems using old drivers, that, is purely a subjective call.  I personally do not think they sound better than a well done implementation of old drivers.  It is probably a matter of voicing; I find them to be a bit too lean and bright and brittle sounding as compared to some of the systems using old drivers that I really like.  Still, the Classic Audio systems are great sounding and  do outperform vintage systems in terms of bass impact and depth and ability to play loudly.  I happen to prize very highly other qualities that some vintage drivers deliver--ability to sound very dynamic and lively at low volume, delivery of a really relaxed, smooth sound while remaining dynamic and clear sounding. 

It is also a BIG deal to me that vintage drivers are VERY efficient.  My favored amps happen to be quite low in power output.

Yes, speaker technology has made great strides in practicality, affordability.  Sound quality too, is vastly improved within the constraints of reasonable accommodation of practical considerations.  But, if you can live with the equivalent of two automobiles in your listening room, the old theater systems become sonic contenders if you value a sense of scale, extraordinary dynamics at reasonable listening levels and seemingly contradictory qualities of sounding relaxed while still sounding vivid. 

I particularly like some of the modern implementation of older drivers and horns in more practical packaging, like the system Salectric has on his page (I heard that system when it was being built and tuned at Deja Vu Audio).  That system is not overly huge in size and sounds extremely good in even mid-sized rooms.  I have a similar type of system built around modern, but old-school woofers (paper cone, pleated paper surround, alnico magnets), 1939 Western Electric 713b compression driver and a cast metal multicellular horn, and modern bullet tweeter. 

I also have heard, and liked, modern gear built on old school designs.  The Shindo systems are an example, as are Edgarhorns and Goto.

I also enjoy the completely different sound of many modern designs.  If these other kinds of sound are more to one's liking, then of course, modern design is vastly improved.