I see a lot of companies reveling in the fact that they have really advanced drivers yet they all use mdf cabinets. No cabinet advancement whatsoever.
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
Tomcy6 Were did I say this-
no progress in speaker technology since the 30s and that we should all own 30s speakers.-I mention how little progress in loudspeaker design since the 30s and never once did I suggest to anyone that all people should own 1930s loudspeakers. I also never mentioned that the Shearers are the best loudspeakers in the world. I do wonder if your reading the thread and comprehending it since you jump to such wrong all encompassing personal conclusions. I really could care less what you or anyone else runs for a loudspeaker. I am just relating my hands on real world experiences not trying to sway people one way or another.. |
I just happened to remember, when I built my custom speakers originally, 20 years ago, I used 6 inch Vifa for the midrange, which is a good speaker, and I was told not long ago that they had improved their 6 inch driver, so I replaced the old drivers for Vifa's new drivers, and there was a tremendous improvement across the board. Those who make their living selling drivers, have to keep improving. Enjoy the music. |
Inna, speakers can be improved a great deal; since I built my speakers, I have replaced the woofer, and midrange, but I got the biggest surprise when I upgraded the capacitors. Although I didn't change any values, (I'm not an engineer) I changed from electrolytic to all polypropylene. Although it was expensive, it was worth it, but it was cheap when you consider the price of new speakers. If your speakers have all poly caps, you could talk to Vifa, or "Parts Express" about the drivers. If Vifa has improved your particular driver, those speakers would sound even better. Since you like the speaker cabinets you already have, that would be a relatively inexpensive way to get new speakers. One caveat, make sure you have enough room for the change in capacitors. Good luck. |
The physics has not changed. Speakers can now be optimized in ways that no one even dreamed about 70 years ago. Active designs have the ability to control variables way beyond what passive speakers and an amplifier (or two) can do. Amplifiers, active crossovers, the cabinet, and the drivers designed together solve a myriad of complicated interactions usually beyond our control. A speaker can now be designed with, say, a perfect step response as the goal, or to balance other parameters. I have been listening to a passive 70 year old compression design and an active speaker just recently developed and it is like night and day. No more than a blink is necessary to hear the difference. These active speakers will play a piano D1 at realistic level and timbre. Virtually no distortion. They will take your breath away. |
Good points, Mike, modern speaker designs are way beyond what was tinkered with back in the 30s, 40s or 50s. And of course the speaker cabinet's material depends on the price point. Soundsreal seems to think that every speaker being made today is employing MDF, which could not be further from the truth. |
I own modern speakers and I have never heard any real vintage speakers. I’m very curious how they sound because I have a few 60’s vintage guitars, guitar amps and vintage microphones, which sound so much better than any of new ones for some reasons. For musical instruments and microphones, there is probably no improvement, only retrogression, even the technology should be much better today, and I’m always wondering why... |
Classic Audio Loudspeaker with Field Coil drivers. Is something you may want to look into if you want Vintage looking speaker that has been improved on for decades. I know no one else who has been doing what John Wolff has with his company. I must Say all the comments about Horns being shouty and harsh is not true if you have listened to Classic Audio T1.5 speakers Field Coils. Make you think how bad horns were implemented in the early 1900s and up. People often disregard new horn speakers claiming ATM and Ribbon are better but after spending years with AMT and Ribbons and listening to modern day properly implemented horns I must say Horns to me are still something I find more satisfaction with. |
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. 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.. |
We could go into interesting discussion that would lead us too far away. I try not to think with dogmas, if that's what you mean. One day digital might sound better than analogue, but not yet. When demostrating reference level speakers or entire system, I would expect and demand reference level analogue source to begin with to be able to see what this system is capable of. You can add digital too later, for fun and comparison. And adding class A Gryphon amp would not be system integration or tuning in this case, at least in my opinion, but this point is debatable, I guess. |
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. |
OK. Thanks for your clarification of the point. What if you could have a dead neutral (not bright or strong, Merriam-Webster's definition) speaker with great equalization. Then add lots of power - modern technology, you see. Distortion from lots of assorted nasties engineered out - it's an ideal speaker, remember. What then? Is it possible? Are modern techniques ineffective at doing this. Pick something to measure about a speaker and then do it. MEASURE the response to the step function and improve it. The voicing is a deviation from this. Just think of it - the process of engineering! A violin is way different. |
Pick something to measure about a speaker and then do it.As I mentioned earlier in the thread I have no strong convictions either way about the subject that is primarily under discussion here. But as an electrical engineer I feel compelled to respond to this comment. It always surprises me how non-engineers often and perhaps usually seem to view the process of engineering as being based primarily on measurements. While I can’t address speaker design specifically (my background is in the design of electronic circuits), in general the process of designing and developing an engineered product involves A LOT more than measurements. First there is the design process, done on paper and/or with computer-based software tools. That is often the most major part of the entire effort. Then extensive ANALYSIS is performed, on paper and/or with computer-based software tools. Computer-based simulations may also be performed. That is followed by fabrication and test of a prototype. Testing of the prototype, in the case of an audio component, will include both measurements AND LISTENING. Inevitably changes will be made to the design during those phases of the project, followed by further measurements and listening, and often additional iterations of the design, analysis, and simulation phases of the project. In other words when it comes to development of an audio product, at least one that is properly done and is intended for audiophile (as opposed to mass market) applications, "voicing" is one of several integral and important parts of the overall engineering process. Not a deviation from the engineering process. Regards, -- Al |
Hi Mike & Al, I'm thinking back to the late 70's & early 80's. We hand measured all our own drivers, we listened to each driver individually for beaming/dispersion characteristics, based upon the basics of each driver, we chose crossover slopes for the drivers character and to maximize phase and time alignment... Yes, even then at least at Marcof, we practiced time and phase alignment. We would then build the piece, listen extensively and make changes based upon our sessions. It was quite a process. Today, as long as the measurements are correct, I can run a program and know with a high degree of accuracy pretty dog on close what a speaker will sound like.... Its never far off like "wow, that fooled me".... Yes, after listening there is tweaking, but these days, it usually isn't much. The big deal is to understand what different slopes and combination of slopes sound like. Looking at Frequency and phase charts carefully and then proper choice of slopes and frequency of crossover, you can come fairly close maintaining decent phase slopes using odd order crossovers, its not always 6db per octave slopes required like so many believe that you must have. Ok, a bit off subject, but I wanted to add to the earlier comments. Tim |
Johnk, you have a wealth of knowledge and experience, but your last post just told EVERYONE else that they don't matter. That your opinion/Experience is the only one that is right or counts. 2nd time in this thread that you've done that... I understand that many post incorrect statements in their opinions, but I remember trying to learn all of this 35 years ago and the knowledge that you share can be immense. In the mean time, belittling others will only turn them away from you and soon everything you way will turn to just noise. Doesn't need to happen brother, we need you to share your wealth. Tim |
Thank you Tim. At least someone gets the point. Speaker design has come a long way and active speaker design is pushing the envelope considerably. I don't keep repeating "optimize the step response" for no reason (another way of saying get the phase and time alignment correct). Physics dictates this. Improved resolution and timbre result. It's not subtle. Generalities are not very helpful. Mike |
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. |
Johnk is right---Experience does trump conjecture. How can anyone argue otherwise? The problem here is that so few audiophiles have actually heard the speakers he is referencing. My experience is not as vast as Johnk or Larryi but I have enough exposure to quality vintage speakers to give Johnk the benefit of the doubt. Did anyone here attend the 2011 or 2012 RMAF? If so you had a chance to hear a matched pair of Western Electric 757 speakers in the Silbatone room. Not exactly 1930s but these monitor speakers from the 1940s really opened my eyes to what vintage speakers can do. |
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. No one has said at all, that there aren't very good systems from yesteryear, the entire argument that Johnk won't acknowledge is that there have been advancements and clear improvement. Everything that is any good was created in 1848. (Sarcasm) and only that vintage is better. I pointed out a few inaccuracy's with some dates quoted. I agree that Big speakers that are well balanced is a great experience, the air moving, the big stage is a great experience. I've never heard Shearer Horns, John does have a ton of experience and I'm sure that they are great, I'd just like to see some others get credit where its due, but I have sat in from of many others. I recently did a fair amount of mods on old Altecs, in the end, they were wonderful. Without todays technology, they wouldn't have turned out like they did. Ok, there's my rant. |
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. |
With regards to the Shearer, while solving a lot of problems of the prior art in its day, it also had problems of its own. Many of these were addressed in the Altec VOTT designs. And they were pretty well universally acknowledged as improvements. I ran VOTTs for a number of years. Then a friend lent me a set of FMI 80s. We set them up in the same place as occupied by the VOTTs and the improvement in imaging, nuance and bass impact was immediately apparent. Mind you, the FMI80 was a simple 2-way bookshelf speaker with an 8" woofer. The one thing that they could not do better was high volume, which one would expect. These days the speakers I play have far more resolution than those FMI80s, far more bandwidth too, yet the efficiency is up at 98 db, allowing for that sense of power and air that you only get when the amp does not have to work for a living. So I see that as a huge improvement over the VOTTs, which were allegedly (as seen on the JBL/Altec site linked in the opening post) better than the Shearers. Now, if logic is still something you can use, that must mean that my speakers sound better in nearly every way than the Shearers. My speakers BTW are the Classic Audio Loudspeaker project T-3.2, equipped with the field coil midrange drivers. They are not the best that Classic makes, but they do fit in my room which is a plus (the T-1s do not). I get the romantic experience that is part of the vintage scene. That romance is not just in audio; I love to ride a vintage motorbike or bicycle as well. Such things often have a certain charm. But that charm is only available through experience, regardless of the measurements. |
I tend to agree with those who are saying that things, overall, have tended to improve with time, better highs, better lows, for sure. But even so, I gotta say that the humble, successfully-well-thought-out, untreated-paper cone midrange is still...pretty damn stout, actually. A righteous thing still IMHO, even today...cliche, maybe, but true! |
Wrong! Clearly you don’t know anything about Violins and there is no comparison that makes any sense between an old Violin and an old speaker. An ideal speaker should have no voice of its own.The problem of this statement is comparing real speakers VS ideal speakers. Ideal speakers is better, no question, but as far as I understand, the ideal speaker nor violin never existed, and it will not. |
I started thinking that the ideal electronic to acoustic conversion (vice-versa) is not determined by measurable specification. If so, measurement microphone is the only microphone needed in the professional recording process, but I have never heard someone records the musical instrument with a measurement microphone. |
So, what characteristics does an ideal speaker have? Who is going to discuss this? Generalities don't help. I think this is where the comparison with violins falls apart. In theory there is no ideal violin - they are all different, but in theory there is an ideal speaker. My contention is that with modern methods we can get closer to that ideal. Your point about the measurement microphone is interesting. I'll think some more on that one. Comments from someone with experience with measurement microphones or designing speakers would be helpful. |
Here's a subtle innovation not discussed yet: http://ohmspeakers.com/news/nasa-technology-comes-to-speakers-ferrofluid/ Also of relevance: http://ohmspeakers.com/news/ten/ John Strohbeen's posting on his companies website is one of the best places to go to learn a lot of practical things about good sound IMHO. He does a good job of talking about things that matter in a reasonably unbiased manner. |
