My personal experience with the evolution of loudspeakers don’t extend for longer than back to the late 70’s, and though this mayn’t warrant calling these earlier encounters vintage speakers per se, there’s definitely been a tendency of speakers being progressively smaller (and then perhaps bigger again). As an example back in the late 80’s a pair of JBL 250Ti’s could be had for roughly $3,500 (following a decline in the exchange rate of the Dollar), and though you could arguably have a different, more "hifi-ish" sound for that amount of money (or even less), what you got was a big, versatile, high quality visceral sound, and two lovely pieces of furniture to boot. The JBL 250TI Jubilee’s could be had for about a $1,000 more a pair a little over a decade later, a fine value as well (as I see it).
I like seeing JBL go back to the use of compression drivers in tandem with bigger 15" bass/mid drives for the last decade or so with their "commercial" and monitor series (except of course the Everest’s/K2, which have been more or less less true to their heritage line), but the price for these, even where no real veneer was used, was/is steep, and a reflection of something other than inflation alone; the market sees a progressive use of smaller speakers that are refined into being quite expensive, and their bigger iterations are of course priced accordingly (i.e.: very expensive). Big, visceral sound is a quality in itself, I find, and a very important parameter in making you give-in to the music as something other than reproduced. It’s a shame then that where this is to be attained the price may be out of reach or requiring extra monetary priorities, if the desired size of the speakers is even to be had.
The main problem, to my ears, is the almost exclusive reliance on the direct radiating principle, as this generally shortchanges size (i.e.: radiation area) and not least sensitivity (the latter of which excludes the use of smaller-watts amps). I’ve no doubt that speaker technology has advanced significantly over the years, but its application into actual designs is hampered by before mentioned.
Perhaps an analogy to imagery is in place: seeing 2K or 4K films (or most any viable resolution, for that matter) on screens below 50-60" seems not to immerge you in the visuals as effectively as could. It is said that for the eyes and mind to properly exclude visual information not created by the screen itself, a particular minimum ratio of the distance to the screen in relation to its size is required (which generally equates to some +80-90" for home use). This way your eyes (and mind) can relax more effectively in the imagery, and hereby exclude the surrounding "noise" that is the environment of the room. Not only that; the effective resolution, certainly with 2K and not least 4K, cannot be taken advantage of unless the screen extends or certain size (again, in relation to the distance to the screen).
In a sense this extends to speakers as well: smaller speakers, highly refined and resolving, can’t seem to "unfold" the proper image in all its glory, but remains instead a minimized presentation of an event, and hereby too obviously reproduced. To me, one major parameter in sound reproduction is size, and I’d rather have that poorly resolved than a smaller ditto highly resolved. Combine the two, size and resolution, and we’re talking.
Added to that is the by-product of high sensitivity, which is not so much about max SPL per se (more like headroom), but the difficult-to-articulated sense of ease. It usually also incorporates the quality of low level resolution, which is an added (and very important) bonus to the ability to play insanely loud (not that that’s needed, but it’s an integral part of named "ease" and versatility).
Modern speakers are no doubt more refined, resolved, airy, and in a sense less colored, but it comes at the expense of a generally minimized presentation, and one that also plays too thinly or even malnourished (both of which could be called coloration as well, by virtue of absence). If the advance in technology were to be applicated with older designs of bigger size and higher sensitivity, I’d feel we could be talking about overall advancement. Thankfully there’s a wide range of speakers to choose among, and so the advancement may be had "locally."
|
Innovation in any field addresses the changing needs or wants of the times.
I like quality old stuff as much as the next guy but there are good reasons why things are the way they are. Lack of innovation is not one of them.
Any "good reasons" may not be at service in search of the very best in audio reproduction, but seems more a consequence of how to work around obstacles that are also associated with convenience, size constraints, consumption issues, design demands, etc; oftentimes status quo is the desired goal, if it even is. I’m not saying there isn’t innovation at play here (no pun intended), on the contrary, but to simply bow to this kind of innovation as "the good reason" is to potentially shortchange the goal into audio reproduction and its further developement, as I see it. I can’t speak for johnk, but perhaps part of what he finds "has been forgotten" may be addressed in Robert Harley’s review of Magico’s statement product, "Ultimate" (the only horn speakers in their product range): Clearly, loudspeakers are a major source of detail erasure. It’s easy to imagine how large and complex power amplifiers, which must convert a low-level incoming signal to huge voltage swings backed by hefty current delivery, scrub off a bit of the signal’s finest information. It’s even easier to imagine how the conversion of electron flow in the voice coil into magnetism, the conversion of that magnetism to the large motion of a relatively massive diaphragm, and the motion of the diaphragm itself cause the smallest and most fragile components of the signal to disappear or become attenuated, while the more robust signal components pass through relatively unscathed. But it is precisely these micro-aspects of the signal that contain that last bit of information we need to identify the sound as being live rather than a reproduction. A musical signal reproduced through a horn-loaded system undergoes an identical process, but on a much smaller scale. The compression drivers’ extremely powerful magnets require only a tiny fraction of the current of direct-radiating drivers to produce their miniscule diaphragm excursions. It seems intuitive that this roughly ten-fold reduction in electrical and dynamic forces allows the process to be performed with higher precision. http://www.magico.net/images/Reviews/Ultimate/MAGICO_Ultimate.pdfIt’s worth noting (through the remaining review) Mr. Harley’s impressions of the Ultimate system to "trespass" the line from reproduction into a live event. This may not be an exclusive claim, nor is named million dollar speaker system representative of all horn speakers, but you nonetheless feel his admiration of something that pushes the boundaries of audio reproduction. This mayn’t be innovation either, but it’s a refinement/evolvement of horn principles founded many years ago, and ones you would wish explored more widely as well as economically accessible (certainly compared to the Ultimate system). |
(johnk)
"Mapman whats missing- realistic sound quality, the ability to allow listener to feel the emotion of the music. The ability to easily hear the mix ie pick out the individual instruments and vocals along with the added studio work. Realistic image size and dynamic range.The at ease at any SPL the ability to sound wonderful out of sweet spot and through out home. Extreme lack of listening fatigue. A clear real sounding vocal ability the ability to do this all on massively low power. Extreme reliability and ease of service in field by owner. Today most all of this is missing and if present only a small part of it."
I also disagree. Vintage speakers of high efficiency really don't play bass right, they are less detailed and harsher due to breakups in the various drivers and they don't handle power well (are less reliable). So the statement above seems false on all counts.
I believe johnk (in the top paragraph) addresses what he feels is sonically missing with most of todays modern speakers (or the present state of reproduced sound in general), and whether his point of reference in stating this is vintage speakers or not is irrelevant; it's still what he finds is missing. What does it even mean to "play bass right"? There seems to me to be something fundamentally different in the way these [vintage] speakers play bass compared to modern speakers with their super dead cabinets and incredible fast, tight and really deep bass. While these speakers sound very impressive their bass just doesn’t flow within the performance like these older-design speakers. The bass on these newer speakers is definitely deeper, faster and has more slam, but they just don’t have the life in the bass that the more vintage designs do. All of the speakers above have incredible air and harmonics in the bass. You feel the bass. Yes, you feel the bass with the modern speaker as well, but differently. The bass from modern speakers with extremely dead cabinets has a very pistonic sound. To me, real music seldom sounds this way, occasionally rock music does, but it also often sounds purposefully distorted. http://www.dagogo.com/beatnik-pet-peeve-3-way-modern-speakers-play-bass |
I think Atmasphere has pretty much nailed it down and ended the discussion...NEXT!
missioncoonery -- Poster atmasphere didn’t entirely nail nor end anything (though I very much appreciate his contributions). Carry on elsewhere at your own pleasure. |
Technology has advanced to such an extent that the '30's can realistically be seen as the cave man days, in many respects. Certainly with computer testing and engineering, what can be purchased today for say a week's wages versus the 1930's would be worlds apart. The modern cabinet, drivers, and crossover all benefit greatly from new discoveries, techniques and a body of knowledge WRT making a good speaker that the 1930's can only dream of.
Technology is one thing, another is its application. The size of speakers (i.e.: radiation area) and their efficiency has gone from large and high to small and low, both of which I'd say are among rather fundamental factors in achieving a lifelike sound reproduction, and where advancement in technology can only bring you so far with smaller and less efficient speakers; there's no escaping fundamental physics. An analogy: think about the state of technology in the 60's in the beginning of the space age, and where it got the Saturn V rocket and its inhabitants: to the moon - a feat that hasn't been replicated since the last moon landing in '72. You'd imagine going to the moon in our present day with its highly advanced technology and crazy computer power would be a piece of cake, relatively speaking, and yet it hasn't happened. A priority, obviously, but some 45 years ago a select group of astronauts stood on the moon and looked at the Earth - having had only the computer power of a poor pocket calculator of todays build. This is not to say the space age in the wake of the Apollo missions has been in vain, but no (wo)man has since gone that far into space and walked on another celestial body. Making loudspeakers that effectively approaches a lifelike sonic imprinting "simply" requires the will, skill and materials to do so, with no excuse nor catering to size constraints or other marketing-laden interferences. They apparently got off to a good start over 80 years ago, and perhaps part of the recipe here was a predominant reliance on the ears coupled with a goal that involved a natural reference, rather than an industry-established, navel-gazing hi-fi agenda where branding and small size is all-important. |
tomcy6 -- I think that we could send people to the moon more safely and comfortably and be able to gather much more useful data now than we could in the 60s.
Whether we could is not the issue. The point is we still haven't, and that they got to the moon with the technology available at the time. They simply decided to do so. The Apollo missions were more about national pride and developing technology that would help us in the cold war.
That is irrelevant to the discussion with the specific example. My focus is the sense of awe the moon landings instilled, and the experience the astronauts must've had; the perspective (in more than one sense) it created. Preparing for the missions, going there, being on the moon - decidedly apolitical in nature, but wholly scientific. In the end the journey transcends it all (imagine yourself as the astronaut(/audiophile) in this process). Priorities have moved on and there’s not much reason to keep going back to the moon.
Certainly priorities, yes. I’m sure that speakers from the 30s have their appeal, as do Duesenbergs, but today’s speakers are the right solution for the vast majority of people.
I'd aim a little higher than that. |
Well, space travel is irrelevant, but since it was brought up… Perhaps you didn't notice me referring to it as an analogy.. |
tomcy6 -- Thanks for your reply. As 213runnin pointed out, we could go back to the moon today but we couldn’t do most of what’s being done today in the 60s. Go to Space.com or the Hubble Telescope website to see some awe inspiring pictures. People were excited about going to the moon because no one had ever done it before. I doubt it would cause much excitement today and would instead be considered a colossal waste of money, something else our government is much better at today. :)
Think of the audiophile as a space voyager. Would he or she be more excited about working on a space station circling the earth in close orbit for 90 days, or walking on the moon for a few hours? Walking on the moon has been done before, yes, but for the man or woman to actually walk on its powdery surface, to take in the vista of being outside in space (albeit in a spacesuit), looking at the earth hanging out there in the darkness as something that can supposedly be hidden behind the thumb of a stretched out arm (so it has been told), really walking on another celestial body - this is most definitely an Experience that is bound to change a person, or so I believe. With limited tech they took a giant leap (sorry for the pun), a pioneering spirit I’d like to see re-invigorated with todays technology. I don’t know what you mean by "I’d aim higher than that" but let me guess and rephrase my point.
Todays speakers create a greater sense of awe and are more practical and attractive to the vast majority of listeners than 30s speakers would be if they were widely available. People talking in movies inspired awe in people in the 20s, but it no longer does, even though the soundtracks of current movies are far more sophisticated.
There are a few systems around using 30s speakers that may sound very good and are the "best" sounding to the people that own them, but, given the choice, the vast majority of people would prefer a system using current technology. This is a matter of taste and anyone who prefers 30s speakers will get no argument from me on whether they are the "best" FOR THEM. I fully acknowledge that 30s speakers are the "best" to the people that love them and would not try to convince them that they could get better sound from modern speakers.
There’s a lot to comment on here. "Aiming a little higher" would, in effect, be questioning your claim that "the vast majority of people would prefer a system using current technology," insofar we’re talking typically newer designs. Most people haven’t even heard 30’s speakers (or their kind), so where’s the reference other than speculation? And let’s not get too fixated on whether speakers are from the 30’s or 60’s, or even build today based on older designs but refined with contemporary technology. The main point I feel is the type of speaker being addressed, and this involves primarily bigger size and higher efficiency (and, in effect, the use of horns). Practical issues at present often involves technology to work around size (and price) constrains, among other things, and this is rarely about achieving the best sound quality in absolute terms, but more how to minimize and work around the effects of a variety of practical limitations. I also fully acknowledge taste and whatever’s "best for me," just as well as many won’t be able to house a pair of very large speakers, but let’s not forget that "practical and attractive" is no measure into achieving the best in sound quality. However, I would put my money on the best current systems sounding better than the best 30s systems to, say, 90% of listeners. That’s a bold claim, and one difficult to test. I wouldn’t bet on it :) No doubt, there a great sounding current designs. A week ago I listened to a pair of Peak Consult Typhoeus Momentum at the factory in Denmark (retail price: over €100,000/pair) with Chord preamp and CD-player + Gryphon Antelion poweramp, and their sound boggled my mind. Absolutely amazing. And yet, a great sounding horn system can do something different; adding a sense of tactility, presence and even more ease that ultimately blurs the distinction between what’s reproduced and live to a fuller extent. But that’s just me. |
So much for using moon travel as an analogy :) Sorry if it caused a derailment of the thread.. Well, on sound quality, I guess we'll have to disagree and leave it at that. I intend to look for better sound in new products and I hope that someday you'll find a pair of antique theater speakers to enjoy.
Didn't mean for above reply of mine to stop the discussion. Hell, my own speakers are almost brand new (~half a year), with modern (i.e.: new) components all around, though based on a design that originates over 50 years ago; the 15" bass drivers are more or less replicas of the ones developed for the earlier Klipsch La Scala/Belle bass horns, meaning light and stiff paper cones with treated cloth surrounds, lightweight voice coils, and high compliance (Fs: 26Hz) - a type of unit rarely built today due to its limited use, the closest design-"siblings" perhaps being the GPA 515 units (replicas of Altec's 515) and the hellishly expensive Vitavox 151/152 drivers. The midrange compression driver is, apart from the neodymium magnet, almost a clone of RCA's MI-1428B field coil driver, which was built in the 30's - highly regarded units in use even today. So, while there are certainly vintage elements in my speakers, the componentry is all-new. Shearer horns would simply be too imposing in the room-space afforded in my case (and would totally block my 127" fixed projector screen ;)). The sad part, as I see it, is that we rarely see a fusing of modern day technology with old-school, physically larger and high efficiency designs. I understand the practical limitations that large-size speakers causes, but if there's really a tendency of people generally having bigger rooms at their disposal today, it seems a mere priority to allow for such speakers to take up more space and let them act as furniture. |
What a waist. Listening to a great pair of speakers with cd player instead of turntable or reel to reel deck. At the very least they could’ve done full Gryphon electronics, why Chord and Gryphon in one chain?
inna -- Waste is not a thought that occurred to me when I auditioned the setup. The Typhoeus Momentum really sang, you should’ve been there to hear for yourself - anything else is being presumptuous, wouldn’t you say? The way the setup delivered extreme sonic insight and at the same time imparted a sense of cohesiveness and natural warmth was very arresting. Voices, instruments (I don’t think I’ve ever heard a harp sound that lovely), spatiality, micro dynamics in particular - everything sounded chillingly "real," for lack of a better word, indeed very musical. Mr. Kristoffersen of Peak Consult has a full Reference line of Chord electronics - that is: CD-player, pre- and poweramp - he usually uses for demoing (also some Threshold gear), but the used Antelion poweramp (fully refurbished) he had just acquired, perhaps as part of a deal - can’t remember. Anyway, I’m sure Per found the inclusion of the Class-A Antelion in conjunction with the Chord components sonically interesting, as did I judging by the totality of the sound. Surely the right synergy effect or overall matching isn’t exclusive to using parts of the same brand? If I remember correctly Per also once had a full line of Gryphon electronics, hence his interest I gather in the Antelion. Regarding the source: well, I’d rather not go there. An analogue source of some kind in this caliber will sound great, I’m sure, but I find digital dittos to do that as well. |
johnk, Why do you have trouble understanding that 30s speakers may perform as well or better than current speakers FOR YOU and your listening preferences, but others find that much progress has been made since then and prefer current speakers. I’d bet that you couldn’t find a single speaker manufacturer who would be interested in doing reproductions of speakers from the 30s.
tomcy6 -- You start out with a fair statement of "to each his own," but in your second paragraph goes on trying to basically isolate johnk in his preference with a (presumptuous) appeal to the majority. Why don’t you have a read-up over at OMA’s blog-section with another voice to temper your claim: http://oswaldsmillaudio.com/blog/I see this discussion playing out all the time. Someone insists that everyone should want what he likes or owns. It just doesn’t work that way. I don’t see johnk doing that at all, only that he poses a fair question I find of deep relevance. On the contrary I see you trying to impose on him what is the opinion of the masses followed by a diversion... If you want to discuss patents and when concepts were first published, you can probably find a better place to do it.
...in effect, trying to silence him. |
That's probably the reason why he put class A Gryphon older reference amp in there - to make digital sound a little nicer. When he puts real analogue source and either full Chord or full Gryphon electronics chain, then I will listen to that system, opportunity permitting.
Until then - sorry, no interest from me. He should get serious, especialy considering what he charges for his speakers. No Danes will fool true American audiophiles. Sorry, but I believe that's just dogma you're expressing, and nationality is hardly the issue here. The proof is in (the eating of) the pudding, right? And of course, opinion may simply be "at play" where absolutes are stated.. |
Nationality is always an issue, listen to any Dane but don't ask them. Listen to Americans too.
Perhaps territoriality is a more fitting term.. Even if it is a dogma, it can still be a correct statement.
It can, yes, but do you consider that to be a benchmark? |
You are correct, this shows a lot of experience in being rude.... That’s the point... telling people that they don’t count.... opinions without supporting experience is just noise. Read through the post, enough was said... I’d say the point is that experience is essential in discussing how technology affects the perceived sound, as it is also vital in helping to draw a distinction between technology, its specific use, and not least of course the actual sonic outcome. I gather few would really deny the advance in technology that has been made over the years, but from many of the posts here there seems to be a tendency to conclude rather blindly this advancement will necessarily equate into better sound without paying much attention to the design and implementation per se. Seeing how johnk points this out through his remarks doesn’t strike me as being rude, but simply that he understands the terms of what is discussed. |
[...] I wish that there were more current makers that are interested in the old-school sound that I like, other than the few makers of ultra expensive and massive systems like those using ALE, Cogent and Goto drivers.
Exactly my thought as well; a more widespread merger between old school design/sound and new(er) technology, so to see these older designs (or what's inspired by them) brought back to life with componentry and construction bang up to date, newer developed horn geometries, etc. |
One reason for that sal is that Art doesn’t consider "vowel colorations" (as J. Gordon Holt coined them) particularly bothersome, or very high on his list of priorities in a loudspeaker. I couldn’t disagree more. The first good loudspeaker in that regard, it can be argued, was the Quad ESL, which ironically has not been surpassed! Midrange naturalness and coherency is indeed a prime trait of the Quads, but there's more to overall naturalness here I find than they can achieve. While in some areas they may be unsurpassed, in others they don't even begin to approach much older designs, and this is true not only with the Quads but indeed most of contemporary loudspeaker designs. However, liking both vintage horn-type speakers and the Quad ESL's doesn't seem out of the question in the view of Mr. Dudley (nor mine):
And let me not miss this opportunity to preach: The Altec Valencia and the Quad ESL are polar opposites. The former is all about touch and impact and drama and the ability to present sonic detail in a musically convincing manner. The latter is about timbre and transparency and spatial relationships and presenting musical detail in a sonically convincing manner. Neither is terribly good at what the other does well. Both are superb, both are listenable, both are fun. Both are valid: I have nothing but respect for the person who chooses either, because either speaker is a window that looks out on at least half of what's going on. And that's more than you can say of most loudspeakers. http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-125-page-2#pJ5tiOBSqOagiOgK.97I'd even preach a merger of sorts between the two is possible with currently built vintage-style all-hornspeakers using modern horn geometries, better cross-overs and cabinetry/materials (actually in the latest Stereophile Mr. Dudley hints at an upcoming review of a pair of speakers combining old and new). These may not yet approach the Quads on their core traits, but I'd wager the midrange from a great compression driver fitted to a well-built and -designed modern horn brings other vital qualities to the table like ease, presence and dynamic capabilities, while maintaining virtues that are not incompatible with stats and not least avoiding "vowel colorations." Prejudice still sticks to this old segment of speakers (and their contemporary siblings), or as Art goes about it his latest Stereophile article: The fact is, contemporary audio consumers are even worse than contemporary audio designers when it comes to letting go of the things they think they know, in an effort to know something new about music playback - something new that is, in fact, very old. Modern designers and modern consumers alike must learn to ignore what they already know in the hope of gaining new ground.
[...]
Some - but far from all - vintage loudspeakers also leave out entire swaths of notes and their overtones. Take, for example, another well-loved Altec drive-unit, the 755. Introduced in 1948 by Western Electric, the 6"-diamter 755 was designed primarily to amplify voices, and so ignores frequencies below 70Hz and above 13kHz. What the 755 does it does with virtually perfect ease and impact and coherence and clarity and touch and nuance and physical presence. But listeners who are spoiled by generations of more modern loudspeakers that play notes from 20Hz to 20 kHz - but with virtually none of the 755's ease, impact and coherence - are usually deaf to the older driver's magic, until such a time as they can jettison musty expectations in favor of fresh ones. New expectations and old products go together nicely.
|
Speaker evolution these last rather many decades roughly seems to have been more about refining a concept born by Edgar M. Villchur when he brought forth the AR-1's in the 50's. Few would or should really contest the perhaps most notable feature here being the catering to a domestic demand (rather than the search for and proclamation of a more real sound), or certainly seeing a product's more widespread use through the limitation of size (made possible with the advent of the more powerful transistor amps to counter another limitation: sensitivity). Within this concept I can see some progress through the years (followed not least by an uptick in price), but in the bigger scheme of things the older, much larger and much more sensitive (horn-)speakers, though limited in the frequency extremes, to my ears are still substantially in the lead (particularly combined with low-wattage, single-ended valve amps) when it comes to an effortless, dynamic and encompassing live/emotional imprinting. From this perspective it could be argued that over a longer timeline speaker evolution has really seen a decline, in some vital aspects at least, in not re-accepting the need for sheer size and high sensitivity of speakers. From my chair we'd need to re-visit these older horn designs more frequently, and build/design further on from them to truly make progress. |
