Phusis,{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} Much of modern design is about making things smaller maybe with loudspeakers if ultimate performance is end goal we might have taken the small approach a bit to far.
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 |
@johnk What about non linear affects from compression in the throat of the horn? This usually results in high 2nd harmonic distortion. Since it is caused by air compression, my understanding is that it is an inherent design limitation of horn transducers. Here are some measurements of various high end horns. They ALL without exception suffer from high 2nd harmonic distortion. http://www.pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/14_Books_Tech_Papers/LeCleach_Jean-Michel/Horn_Shootout_ETF... I am surprised nobody is aware of this. It is not a secret. |
Shadorne nothings perfect all things have issues horns many benefits greatly off set the weakness. Pointing to a bit of 2nd order as a deal killer is also maybe not the best weakness that horns have to focus on. Also if you read till the end Jean lists that many of the horns are low distortion. He also was marketing product so had a bit of a bias towards his own work. Still Jean was one other the good guys in high eff design his horns are wonderful to use but I still prefer my older multicells. Also most all into horns know of JMLC http://horns-diy.pl/en/horns/jmlc/jmlc-400/ |
@johnk I agree that nothing is perfect but in the context of this thread - horns have long been surpassed by the modern era of conventional drivers (starting in the 70’s) which have performance up to -70dB of THD - a massive 30dB less distortion than horns. 30dB less distortion - now that is incredible progress! |
| Post removed |
@salectric No wish from me to rain on anyone’s parade. Horns can and do sound fantastic - it is all about the quality of drivers and the design - 2nd harmonic changes the timbre (more euphonic) but it is not bad sounding like odd harmonics. Magico’s most expensive design is a horn. It is just that this thread says claims "not much progress" since 1930’s. So I was just trying to show how there has been progress. |
A look at some of the recently posted ancient Lansing and Altec advertising literature on audioheritage tells a good story. The answer is of course yes, things have advanced, but the quantum leaps took place then. Today's biggest advantage is in affordability (despite the puny looking prices in the old catalogs, non-inflation adjusted). Since the 50s certainly, it's just been a matter of cost reduction, miniaturization and refinement. One of the clearest and best symphonic recordings I have (from an RCA cd) is Rubinstein recorded by RCA in 1956 and, of course, mastered and monitored using contemporary equipment. So at the top end at least, things have clearly been pretty darn good for a long time. And BTW horns are nonpariel when used properly, something challenging to do. |
So i just noticed this thread but wanted to mention listening to a friends Shindo Field Coil speakers some months back, the bigger model can't remember if that's Lafond or Lafite. They had just been shipped to him and one of them wasn't functioning properly, turned out to be an easily fixed loose connection, so we literally spent the evening listening to just one speaker. The system was all Shindo with a Luxman DAC. Far and away the closest sound I've heard to real musicians being in the room. Not just music but intent if that makes any sense. After a while we hooked back up his previous speakers, Devore Orangutans and they just sounded "broken" to me. And that's with just one channel versus two! Downsides the Shindo's are crushingly expensive and each box is the size of a large refrigerator. My friend ended up buying a house in the country to house the monsters. |
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. |
I never knew you invented OTL I assumed it was created in 1954 by Mr Cecil Hall for EV.Probably a topic for a different thread... the Hall amplifier was not made for EV- but EV did use the Circlotron circuit in their Wiggins amplifiers. There were several other OTL patents issued in the 1950s for various different topologies. My implementation used a Circlotron like the Hall amplifier, but the driver setup is different. With regards to the driver design: the materials used in my speakers simply were not available in the 1920s. I've heard the same setup using aluminum diaphragms instead of the beryllium with Kapton surround and the difference was pretty obvious. The aluminum had breakups which made it harsh. The first breakup on the Classic Audio diaphragm is at 35KHz so its a lot smoother- its the sort of thing you hear right away- and it can play a lot louder without becoming oppressive. That's a significant improvement in many audiophile's opinion, not just my own. But as I maintained earlier, the really big improvement is probably the introduction of the Theil/Small parameters, which allow you to design the cabinet and crossover properly for the various drivers without having to build it first. |
People like Ed Villchur and Gilbert Briggs knew as much about loudspeakers as anyone around today. Some of the stories about Briggs live v recording shows are still wonderful. One thing is indisputable, high quality sound has never been as affordable as now. Hi-Fi for the masses, if they want it. Those ba****ds responsible for the loudness wars have blighted a generation. Hopefully we are now in a new era where low bit MP3 is a thing of the past. |
After receiving a good num of modern state of the art transducers and horns I still stand by my statement that we have not made much progress in sound quality since the early spurt of development during the 1930s even the newest designs I have received have more in common with 1930s tech sure we have modern material tech but many of these modern materials are not better than the old just cheaper to use and do not hold up near as well. I just had a manufacturer send me a FC driver they just developed its near same as an old WE driver just computer optimized. In the 1930s the largest corporations on earth and some of the best minds designed loudspeakers this has not and will not happen again and it's why that tech has held up so well and is basically still in use today. |
Yes, unfortunately it looks as if major improvements are a thing of the past. Since the 1930s it’s difficult to think of major breakthroughs. Maybe only 2 - 1947 Tannoy Dual Concentric by Ronald Rackham 1954 Edgar Villchur invents the acoustic suspension loudspeaker [1957’s Peter Walker’s Quad Electrostatic is an alternative design but it’s difficult to ever see it attaining the popularity of the moving coil design]. The rest seems to be a case of endless experiment and refinement within certain budgets. Whichever way you look at it loudspeakers remain tremendously inefficient, wasting up to 99% of energy fed in through heat. Still the search for improvements goes on with different approaches proving that there is still no one set formula for designing a loudspeaker. In fact there’s no clear evidence that even the original cone material (paper) has ever truly been improved upon. Two recent approaches I am aware of include the Monopulse designs which are distinctly different with their obsessive devotion to timing to merit an audition. The other is the approach taken by the Ohm Walsh 2000s which are steadily generating a good word of mouth following. Both, with their alternate approaches may be significant incremental steps forward as opposed to mere refinement or just a reshuffling of sonic priorities. Whether either will ever demonstrate a clear superiority over existing designs remains yet to be seen. |
In fact there’s no clear evidence that even the original cone material (paper) has ever truly been improved upon. I believe, it is pretty demonstrable, that other materials other than paper, are: lower in resonance, lighter (improving transient response), stiffer (decreased flexing lowering distortion), better magnet materials and coil materials, better damped, and more. Yes, there are some great paper divers around (SB Acoustics Egyption papyrus mids, for example), but even these have a lot of technology beyond original paper cone materials. Two recent approaches I am aware of include the Monopulse designs which are distinctly different with their obsessive devotion to timing to merit an audition. Also, check into bending wave technology, as produced by Goebel speakers. They are pretty impressive, to say the least. |
@simonmoon Taken from their website - "Continuous Bandwidth The Göbel Carbon Excellence bending wave loudspeaker has a continuous bandwidth from 170 Hz to over 31.000 Hz with only one driver! Through this seamless coverage of the entire frequency range, all problems with phase and time are completely solved from the outset." Impressive specs to go with a no less impressive price tag. I think Zu have tried to do something similar but only the other way around with the tweeter lending only the smallest of hands. The day when a single driver can handle the entire frequency range from 20 Hz - 20 kHz (or even say 40Hz - 20Hz) will be a great one for audio playback. The next major step in loudspeaker design? |
Wow, that coax looks interesting. Now if they only made a coax with a 597 tweeter in the center. I have been sort of casually looking at an M10 and 597 combination. I also got word that someone I know is selling a pair of drivers that have never been installed that is essentially an M10 without the power supply. |
Paradigm’s ART Surround used on all their Woofers/Speakers made at their factory in Mississauga Canada: https://www.paradigm.com/en/technology-design/patented-active-ridge-technology-art-surround |
