^^ you are better at this than I. That is what I was trying to say for all that text.
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
283 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
I'd like to propose that speaker design over the years has advanced hand-in-hand with amplifier design. What would a set of Raidhos sound like, I wonder, hooked up to whatever amplifier was available in the 1930s? What would a 1930s speaker sound like hooked up to a Devialet class D amplifier? (I don't actually know the answer, just though it might be worth asking). |
Great topic. I have been thinking about (and listening to) speakers recently. The diversity of opinions is colorful! My observations are: - Expectations play a large role in preferences. - There are more ways to get it wrong than right. (Same applies to brewing beer). If someone says they like something, listen. If someone says they don't, it doesn't mean much. - Compression sucks! - Garbage in, even more garbage out. (It's very unlikely a non-linearity or distortion will be canceled by another non-linearity or distortion.) - Technology marches forward (usually). - Marketing, marketing, marketing (see first point). |
Have run vintage systems with all matching gear that I tried to get as orignal as possible and I have used modern as well as combinations of both taking the best of both worlds. That being said a all orignal restored WE RCA Klangfilm etc 1930-40s system would shock most audiophiles and a few times at shows such systems get very high praise. Taking the best of both worlds to me is the best approach if ultimate sound quality is your goal and also if you find this style of system to be acceptable. Many do not we all have our personal tastes biases experiences and since costly one has to get hands on- they are mostly large and not veneered since meant for commercial use greatly limits appeal. But if wanting to try many newer theater pulls available many cheap that with a few mods do great service in a home. Some of the monitors RCA and WE made between 1930-40s are compact and would be fairly easy to get in most homes since cool artdeco style but those are costly and rare indeed. |
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. |
Taste comes into play here, certainly, as does vintage bias and the "they-don't-make-'em-like-they-used-to" bias, or the "China sucks" bias. 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. Now one may prefer a speaker from the 1930's era, but that doesn't really prove anything except that there is no accounting for taste. |
I noticed no one has mentioned the Heil Air Motion transformer; that came out in the 70's I believe, and there were some two way speakers that utilized it. Although I liked the highs that two way produced, the mid-range just wasn't mellow enough. I liked the highs so much that I designed 3 way speakers with that for the tweeter, 12 inch woofer, and 6 inch midrange. I engaged a crossover engineer to design the crossover (far too complicated for me), and that completed my speaker; it's completely neutral, and takes on the quality of whatever electronics are used; you can tell a change in interconnects immediately. Although I'm listening to them now, I would never do it again; I spent 20 years redoing the cabinets until I was satisfied, but that's the only way to get precisely what you want. I noticed a lot of speakers lately are using miniature Heil Tweeters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Motion_Transformer http://www.simplyspeakers.com/ess-replacement-tweeter-air-motion-transformer-amt-heil.html Enjoy the music. |
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. |
This is for Salectric here is the excellent cabinet Akers address http://crsacoustics.com/ P s Chris sells the Drivers also research the Apple ply Baltic birch top stuff 3/4 thick. Good luck |
I noticed no one has mentioned the Heil Air Motion transformer; that came out in the 70's I believe, and there were some two way speakers that utilized it. Although I liked the highs that two way produced, the mid-range just wasn't mellow enough.@orpheus10, if you look back through this thread you will find I mentioned a tweeter made by High Emotion Audio. It has a lot in common with the Air Motion transformer. Its high efficiency and very fast, while also being very smooth and detailed. Essentially its a bent ribbon, pinched in the middle to give it a horn shape. It goes low enough (2KHz) that it can be used in a two-way system. |
Creating a quality speaker for home use is a problem that has been solved thousands of different ways by many over the years. Which solutions solves it best is more a matter of opinion than fact. There are many viable candidates for that using various technologies applied. So clearly there have been many innovations and different designs and approaches to the problem since the 1930s. There are more choices than ever not to mention continuous refinements to quality over the years. So other than there being more larger homes and rooms these days than in the 1930s, the problem has not gotten much harder to solve, in fact improvements in amplifier technology make some speaker design problems, like size and bulk, easier to solve. Needless to say it is possible to build a much higher output high quality speaker today than in 1930. But who needs that? Professional applications in large venues do but cost will likely be the barrier there, not the technology availble to build the best and highest output speaker possible. |
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. The Apollo missions were more about national pride and developing technology that would help us in the cold war. Priorities have moved on and there’s not much reason to keep going back to the moon. 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. |
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… There's nothing on the moon worth going back for, but many probes out to Mars, etc., use technology that would have been impossible in the 60's. The data gathered from those probes and the Hubble telescope the 60's wouldn't even know what to do with. |
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. :) 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. However, I would put my money on the best current systems sounding better than the best 30s systems to, say, 90% of listeners. |
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. 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. |
| Post removed |
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. |
Hello Salectric, here is the information you asked for regarding The very good Loudspeaker builder. http://crsacoustics.com/ |
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. |
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. |
Those old guys with their slide rules and a ton of common sense sure made amazing things back in the day. Could we today make 1/3 of the advances ,if it were not for the the birth of computers from guys with slide rules. I have a house full of imperfect vintage two channel speakers with big horns, cabinets and 15" drivers and many diy builds of equal quality. I would not trade them for any of the new stuff, not saying the new stuff is bad, I just don't hear what I want out of them. As far as distortion from the stages back in the day, I believe that has a lot to do with everybody on the stage trying to be heard at the same time with their amps. I have quite going to live concerts because the sound is so bad. http://postimg.org/gallery/zslbczg4/ |
Modern tweeters are excellent but almost all share an Achilles heal - ferrofluid! The stuff dries up over several years or sooner if you drive the speakers hard. It is insidious in that the change often occurs slowly so you get used to the sound as it changes. With the loss of ferrofluid damping, tweeters designed to function best with ferrofluid will sound harsh and dull or honky. |
The question was have we made much progress since the 30s not whats best or what fits homes best or what costs least or what modern consumers enjoy today but have we made much progress since and I still feel we have not since this is what my experience shows. This is not my bias towards collecting or vintage I design modern have for many years before I got into vintage to learn about the past. Didn't get into vintage because I thought it would perform better I honestly thought it wouldn't but was proven wrong. If a 30s loudspeaker design with slight changes can compete with the best of modern I know of no other field were that maybe true. Thus why I posted. |
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. 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. If you want to discuss patents and when concepts were first published, you can probably find a better place to do it. |
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. |
Johnk, Are your 1930 Shearer horns all original parts and design? If so and still in good operating condition that would be something. If not, then what has been done to "restore" them? Also if restored how can you know what these sounded like originally and that that was equivalent to restored versions? Is it possible the speakers benefit from anything new or different not incorporated into their original design? Just wondering. Thanks. |
According to the same website that speaks of the Shearer loudspeaker the Voice of the Theater was an improvement over the earlier design (http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/altec/vott.htm). The reasons why and what was done are outlined at that link. Johnk, do you feel this is not the case- do you feel that the Shearer was a better system? If so, why (do you think something was lost with the succeeding design)? |
I’d bet that you couldn’t find a single speaker manufacturer who would be interested in doing reproductions of speakers from the 30s. -http://www.toneimports.com/lmaudio/lmaudioHome.html http://stores.ebay.com/Angels-Western-Sound http://we16ahorn.blogspot.com/ |
After owning many Altec a2 a4 a5 a7 as well as others and also having the ability to compare the Altec a4 to Shearer. A a4 is nearly the same loudspeaker design as a shearer accept for the massive W bin of Shearers. The 210 cabinet isn't a upgrade over a older W bin doesn't have the extension or the kick. It did allow for cheaper build lighter cabinets and higher crossover point so less powerful mag and smaller mid horn but a wee bit better extension in treble its a good example of bean counter design right down to the battleship grey WW2 surplus paint. As I collected altecs I notice the build quality decreasing towards the 1960s some cabinets the adhesive was placed about 2 inch from seam with less bracing used. Still a Altec a2 a4 a5 are wonderful loudspeakers with a few upgrades will compete with most of whats available today. |
The Shearers have been set up with RCA FC from the 1930s RCA alnicos from the 1940s have also run Altecs EV in them. Run a few different multicells inc the 18 cell. Had TAD 4001 in Iwata mids on them for awhile. I have a large collection of horns loudspeakers about old, new, prototypes, designs for other manufacturers. I do have much experience mostly all hands on in my systems with the best of old and new. My point that I still think others miss is that by the 1930s most of the design of loudspeakers was sorted and today not as much innovation exists in loudspeaker design. And by chasing the small thus requiring high power we have lost something is what we lost more than what we gain in small size convenience? that is up to you to decide I already did. |
OK johnk, You found a guy on ebay selling boxes without drivers, seller name: mymuseum, and a company that imports replica drivers (from China?) that are probably made with current materials and technology. No crossovers or other necessary electronics. That does not represent a speaker manufacturer, IMHO. Enjoy your Shearers! I and most other people will enjoy something more current, and no one’s choice is wrong. |
This whole thread has gotten out of hand to me... I can accept that something very old can still sound good, but to put the idea forward that things have not progressed since 1930 is crazy! You know, I can still talk on my cell phone, I guess phones aren't any better either.... Oh wait. My phone is a better music source than anything that existed in 1930.... Nice computer too, oh and I love the camera on my phone, I don't think they had electronic calculators like this in 1930, gps on my phone is cool, did they have that in 1930? .... yes, it is a fair analogy. Phones existed then, but the technology innovations have been huge, just like in Audio. |
I have owned 28 different speakers in 55 years as an audiophile with most, if not all available drivers and tiny to very large boxes. I had concluded that one must expect that every speaker included compromises and that had two or three years before ones present speakers drove you crazy. Then at the RMAF I heard the Tidal Contriva SEs powered by a prototype tube Ypsilanti amp. I bought the speakers but not the amps, buying instead the BMC M2 amps and the DAC1 PRE. Not very long after I got the amps, I heard the BMC Arcadia speakers that had the most realistic base I had ever heard, thanks in part to the BMC M2 amps. I have no temptation to seek another set of speakers. I have enjoyed each new speaker that have given me improved realism and thrill of the music and performance. |
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? |
You can easily add a part or 2 and bring a 1930s loudspeaker system into modern times but you cant make a 1930s phone a smart phone can you? Never said we made no progress just very little. And if tomcy6 would look about google he would see complete loudspeakers available I know nothing I can post to change a close mind. So enjoy your opinion on what these things sound like I will enjoy the real things. I also will enjoy and advance the best of modern. Happy listening. |
I just looked up the links that you provided, johnk. I have no problem at all with people listening to speakers from the 30s and saying that they prefer that sound above all other. I simply disagreed with what you appear to believe, that there has been little or no progress in speaker technology since the 30s and that we should all own 30s speakers. Sorry, but I still think you’re wrong. I think that speaker technology has improved significantly since the 30s and that everyone should listen to as many speakers as they can and buy the one that works best for them. That can be homemade speakers, speakers from the 30s, huge speakers, tiny monitors made in the 90s, the most recent Wilsons or Magnepans, Bose speakers, whatever one prefers. I don’t even have a problem with people listening to speakers they don’t really like but they have to own because they can’t afford what they really want or their significant other won’t let them bring what they really want into the house. So johnk, Enjoy your vintage speakers and believe in your heart that they are the best speakers in the world with my blessings. But if you try to tell me that they are the best speakers for me or that there has been no real advancement in speaker technology since the 30s, I will disagree. |
