2. speakers
  3. 125362-293

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

Since I have a slight grasp on the history or loudspeaker design. And what is possible with modern. I do wonder if we have really made that much progress. I have access to some of the most modern transducers and design equipment. I also have  large collection of vintage.  I tend to spend the most time listening to my 1930 Shearer horns. For they do most things a good bit better than even the most advanced loudspeakers available. And I am not the only one to think so I have had a good num of designers retailers etc give them a listen. Sure weak points of the past are audible. These designs were meant to cover frequency ranges at the time. So adding a tweeter moves them up to modern performance. To me the tweeter has shown the most advancement in transducers but not so much the rest. Sure things are smaller but they really do not sound close to the Shearer.  http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/lmco/shearer.htm
johnk

Showing 5 responses by terry9

terry9
2,354 posts
 
ESL's. Walker's originals were very musical, but today's ESL's are cleaner, more dynamic, with an extra octave top and bottom. Magnepans are another innovation. Especially with cost-no-object aftermarket parts.

What about MBL?

terry9
2,354 posts
 
Another new thing - laser trimmed resistors. Can be made accurate to a few ppm. The new (dare I say it?) Vishay VAR series is in a sonic class by itself.
terry9
2,354 posts
 
Whart, you raise interesting points. As for the Quads, I have the new ones, highly modified.

Your experience mirrors mine in that the Quad 57’s sounded very good. What prevents the successors from sounding as musical is, in no particular order:
- step up transformers
- overpower protection circuits
- high dielectric constant ceramic caps in the delay line

But they have wonderful bones - the basics are there!!!

So, what I did was:
- change step ups to a Vanderveen toroidal design
- built power amps which had V+ / V- rails which could not drive the new step up transformers into the protection range, and so could safely by-pass the protection circuits
- daisy-chained aftermarket styrene caps to replace some ceramic caps, and built teflon caps to replace the others
- bought multiple pairs of speakers.

The result is that each speaker:
- has clean electronics
- is minimally driven
- and sounds glorious, from ppp to FFF.

I have played the system loud enough for the hearing challenged, on a few occasions. Volume is not realistically limited above 40Hz. So, for all practical purposes, volume is not an issue. Multiple speakers solves that.

Getting back to the OP:

Note that teflon caps were not available in 1930. The compound was not discovered until 1938. Applications took longer.

Transistors (hence low voltage circuits) were not available until the 50’s, and no-one knew how to use full complementary push-pull until at least a generation later. Not that many appear to know today, for that matter.
terry9
2,354 posts
 
I should have made clear that I agree about the "digital" aspect of many modern speakers.

I do not agree about Atmasphere, who I regard as highly expert.

terry9
2,354 posts
 
I agree, Inna. I solve that by replacing the nickel and dime components in the crossovers. A single electrolytic cap in the signal path creates an unpleasant haze of high frequency distortion, which one identifies with digital. Red Book CD digital absolutely requires a 22 KHz brick wall filter, because otherwise truly horrific distortions arise (i.e. aliasing). Who among the digitizers would bother with $50 capacitors? Hence distortion for the multitudes.

I can make Magnepans or Quads absolutely sing, simply by replacing or bypassing distortion-producing cheap components. With an analogue source, of course.
More to discover