vintage versus modern speakers

i have question for all of you >> cheapest speaker made in last 10 year that can beat any vintage speaker made before 1970??????

With $1,500.00 to spend the best you can do IMHO is Magnepan.

My A/D/S L1530 speakers were amazing, and would still be great speakers today. Very good audio gear tends to be just that-very good. "Technology" may have advanced, but probably a lot more than actual improvement in sound quality over the best "vintage" gear.With good capacitors and drivers a speaker should be as good as it was at break in. My $.02

Bigkidz, very interesting post. I think any music lover
would be happy with any Meadowlark I ever heard.
IMO the old-time 60's , 70's speaker that would be most competitive today is the little KLH 17.

I have a friend who specializes in vintage speakers. He repairs/rebuilds them and sells the ones he does not want to keep. Most of the older speakers 70s & 80s lets say, have a very musical sound. Some really have an excellent mid-range. That may be to the box sound as I call it. Depending on the design, some are more open and some have better bass. It also depends on what you match them up with. The newer (maybe not the current models) designed speakers like Alon, Meadowlark, Vandersteen (used in your price range) are more open and balanced top to bottom versus the much older box speakers. Each speaker has strengths and weaknesses and match up with different components differently. When I hear the oldies at my friends house, the mid-range sucks you into the music at first but then you realize that you are missing so much more. BUT I could like with that if I only listened so much and vocal music, etc.

Happy Listening.

Aren't you the person who was bringing all that insight about Chevy Vegas?

I've heard of some apples to oranges comparison before, but that takes the cake,

You can buy very good speakers today for very little money. Especially in the lower and mid price ranges. I still have my seventies Infinity Reference Standard 2.5s. They were very good speakers and I used them for over 20 years. They are in my 5th system now because although they are still good, a 600 dollar pair of MMGs does most things better than the old Infinites. Time has marched on.

Technology has definitely advanced, but it doesn't mean that the end product is truly better or more effective. The B-52 Stratofortress has been in military service for 60 years and the Air Force has plans to extend its use to 2040. It's been extensively reworked since its introduction, but apparently it still works well enough to get the job done. The B-52's cost $70 million per plane while its "replacement", the B-2, costs $900 million. If the latest high tech loudspeakers are the equivalent of the B-2, then what vintage loudspeaker is a stand-in for the B-52?

I am the proud owner of Apogee caliper signature bought in 1990 and to get the same musical level today would cost me a little fortune.

There's no reason older speakers can't evolve and be updated with new technologies to make them even better. I'll put my 80's Infinity speakers with new diaphragms from Apogee and a new crossover (from me) up against any of the new speakers you care to throw at them. Anyone from the NJ area who is curious can drop me a PM and stop by for a listen to see for themselves.

The $20,000 number might have come from me as I don't see it in the OP posts at all. As for foam surrounds, Paradigm still used them in their Performance line well into the 90's. I'm not sure when Boston Acoustics moved away from them, but their whole A series used them.

Yea, I believe that by the 90’s the foam surrounds were abandoned for better materiel, at least in most speakers.

It doesn't matter to me at all. The OP stated that buying 20,000 speakers from the 70's should be a good value. The problem is that there were none.

Replacing foam and caps are difficult....if that is what needs to be done after a while. Speakers from the 90's should be fine.

Not sure why it matters to you, but by the end of the 80's I remember seeing some at over $50,000. Grabbing 20 year old speakers from the 90's might be fine for a while, but will they soon develop foam rot? When will the caps in the crossover start to go? I'd suggest something a decade newer, after computer design became more common.

btw...there weren't any speakers in the 70's that cost $20,000. If I remember correctly I think 4,000 to 5,000 was about the highest price on a very few speakers. The uber high end didn't happen until much latter. That's not to say that there weren't some great sounding speakers.

If I were you I would grab a pair from the 90's. Maggie 3.3, BW 801 or Ariel 10T's and be done with it.

If you prefer sweet sounds to highly detailed I think my vintage tannoy hpds are hard to beat. For detail and resolution newer designs are the way to go imo. I don't think it's correct to dismiss all vintage designs or build quality - many were excellent and some remain great as they age.

in hindsight the amps most people were using in the 70s with whatever speakers they had were probably the weaker link. I'd guesstimate most speakers I heard back then on your typical Japanese or similar receiver or integrated amp would sound at least twice as good with even decent quality modern amplification.

Acoustic suspension designs back then were probably the best technical match for many of teh 40 watt or less SS amps/receivers of the day. The designs that extended the low end response like those with ports or passives requierd more power usually and the same amp would be at a disadvantage trying to drive those to their max which in general would be a notch above int erms of being able to deliver more extended bass with teh right amplification.

I always loved the sound of rock on acoustic suspension speakers such as AR or KLH, and missed it when everything seemed to go to ported or passive radiators.

I have Dynaudio COntour 1.3 mkII monitors. These are overachieving little guys that hit way above their size and cost and deliver many delights, but they are not nearly as coherent sounding top to bottom as my newer OHM Walshes. My older "vintage" Walshes from 1983 were similar in that regard.

My triangles are somewhere inbetween in terms of being coherent. Evey speaker old and new has its relative strengths and weaknesses. No two are the same regardless of age.

Larryi,

Yes, I own two pair of recent OHM Walsh. You will see them in my system pics. Not most recent X000 but the generation prior from just a couple years back.

YEs, I would agree they do sound terrific, especially when matched to an amp capable of letting them do all they can, which typically means decent power and current delivery.

THe current models are much improved from teh original OHM walsh line from the early 80s though those were no slouches either. The sound is more modern and in line with teh better modern competition in terms of detail and clarity. I've owned various OHMs among others since 1978. My big OHM F5s are my go to speakers currently for uncompromised sound in a larger room.

Fs and As were a much different design, though the newer OHMs leverage the Walsh driver design principle from those.

Each has some unique advantages and disadvantages. Check the forums here and you will find a lot of good discussion.

I live in the DC/Baltimore metro area if you are ever in teh area and want to stop by for a listen.

Hi Mapman,

It has been a while since I heard Ohm/Walsh drivers, but, I would bet that they still sound terrific. Have you had the chance to hear Ohm's latest iteration of the Walsh driver? Of course they claim that their current speakers are vastly superior to their older F series, but I do wonder if this is really the case (current speakers are, after inflation is factored in, much cheaper).

While we still haven't found the measurements that will define which loudspeakers we might find ultimately satisfying, we still need them to produce anything resembling accurate transducers. And to put a bit of this comparison of old vs. new speakers in context, especially in regard to technological advancements and/or bias of familiarity some objective measurements might be enlightening.
I would offer that such objective measurements of speakers from the late '80s - '00s from Dunlavy and Thiel for example would compare rather well on a current $ for $ comparison with the latest new offerings.

IF one thinks a particular speaker from teh 70's is the best for them then that is what they should buy.

I still have my OHM Ls from 1978. I had to refurb them with some new parts but they can be had newly refurbed from the maker still for about $500 (they cost $400 back then)and would float the boat of many a buyer these days still.

The thing that many box speakers from back then did not do as well as today is soundstage and imaging. If you don't care about that too much, put some old speakers on a good modern amp and most people will be good to go.

While I had to put my Dyanoudio Contour S1.4's in storage for a bit because my son is crawling, I swapped in some old KLH Model 6's. While they don't sound as extended and detailed as the Dynaudio's, the McCormack 225 (upgraded)/RLD (also Platinum upgraded) amp makes them sound pretty good. I do like the more coherent sound of the KLH's... sounds a little more integrated in some respects than the Dyaudios which seem to lose a little of that in their focus on detail. That said I did have the caps replaced on the KLH's. I will eventually get the Dyanudio's back, though may move further up the Dyanudio line. I do like the Dyanudio sound better than the KLH... the KLH has a nice midrange but no real extension in the upper frequencies. I have a sub (REL Stadium III) so some of the flabbiness of the bass of the KLH is a little less pronounced, but its still there.

Well it really boils down to each individuals idea of what "better" means. Audiophiles are obviously not on the same page. What is better to one person is not better to another person. Also, many folks confuse "different" for "better".

Overall, I think more modern gear, speakers included, tend to be more articulate and revealing. Some find this to be better, some do not find this to be better. I know folks who are using tube amps from the 50's and say they are more musical than anything out there today. Are they wrong because they enjoy vintage gear? Absolutely not.
Hence, there is no general consensus as to what is "better". Different is different, that's all.
Enjoy whatever it is that brings you closer to the music.

If someone likes a particular sound, someone likes a particular sound. What is the "objective' criteria for superior or inferior? I don't see the point in claiming that someone else's taste is wrong or that mass delusion has gripped those nostalic for old gear/sound.

I have owned a pretty wide range of types of speakers--dynamic, planar magnetic, electrostatic and have heard most of the others out there (plasma tweeter, bending wave). I have not heard any one particular type or brand that was clearly superior to all comers in all respects. I have found that ANY choice is a matter of compromise. For me, the field of choice of modern speakers is narrowed significantly by efficiency/impedance curve considerations because I MUCH prefer low-powered amps. That still does leave a number of modern alternatives. Earlier this year, I did audition and consider one such alternative made by Surreal Sound (unique bass driver configuration, active crossover, high-powered Class D bass amp, modern fieldcoil midrange/tweeter, solid state power supply for the fieldcoil drivers), but, I think, on balance, my current speakers are a keeper. I know what sound I am personally looking for and I don't care whether it is old school, or some new school, and I certainly would not fault anyone for having different taste/priorities.

As to the original poster's question, I think that there are quite a number of decent modestly priced modern alternatives on the market. Buying new is the easiest and safest alternative. Unfortunately, the ravages of inflation and the increasing value of the dollar does constrain the choice of new speakers. In the $1500 range, I would be looking at something used, not necessarily vintage, and I would certainly enlist the help of someone experienced to avoid getting a dud. I don't know about specific pricing, but, I know I could find decent sound from used speakers made by the likes of Magnepan, Vandersteen, Spendor, Totem, Harbeth, Audionote and ProAc. It may be a bit more tricky to assess the condition of some of the more exotic models, but, I bet there are some nice sounding Martin Logans, Infiniti and Apogees out there for reasonable amounts of money.

The OP asked a generalized question. I will repeat here question here...

are great vintage speakers (Infiniti, JBL,Sansui, Sony, etc..) from the seventies better sounding than what is available now?

I am in the camp that says no. As a whole, modern speakers using technology derived from over the decades are much better today than what was generally available then. There are specific model exceptions, then and now, but OP asked a general question.

No different than asking if Vintage Audio sounds better than Modern Audio.

I think we sometimes let nostalgia get in the way. We can blame American Pickers for that.

I know. Myself I prefer the lovely Chevy Vega over these silly modern technology autos. I've tried simply HUNDREDS of cars, and absolutely nothing can compare with my amazingly sounding Vega. It's got the bucket seats, and AM radio and white wall tires and a 4 speed manual transmission.

People can get used to and prefer anything. And no one is saying that all new speakers are great, folks. But amazing engineers dedicating their lives to what they love, with the amassed knowledge from the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, and the power of the computer for theorizing, testing, measuring, etc, all add up to the potential to build an amazing speaker. Today's $3000 speaker can sound excellent. $5000? $10,000? $20,000 speakers? I know I haven't tried them all. Are those of you knocking all modern speakers telling me you've tried them all? Because I'll call you a liar.

Now new good quality speakers are going to sound different than your speakers from the 60s or 80s. No doubt. And this is where the knee jerk reaction happens. It's different therefore it's worse. You don't remember your fave music sounding like that, so how dare they build a speaker that messes with your religious experience?

What you may be used to is simply inferior sound. You're stuck there and happy. You couldn't imagine that your speakers and or ancient gear(not even in spec anymore) is coloring the sound. Stay there if you want, knock yourself out. But don't expect everyone to not get a puzzled look in their eye when you start talking about your amazing Vega again.

Larryi makes some valid points....
I continue to hear modern speakers which leave me befuddled....yet clearly remember the original Martin Logan CLS electrostatic speakers from the '80s.....a sound (admittedly on smaller scaled music) which I have not heard reproduced by any other speaker...modern or otherwise...

As Larryi and Almarg have touched upon the subjective impressions of some older loudspeakers compared to some newer ones, I would like to add that some older loudspeakers compare rather favorably objectively to some of the newer offerings too.
When one considers the marketplace bathtub effect of the value of some older loudspeakers, it seems as though some of these older loudspeakers offer quite a bit of intrinsic value.

...unless you happen across a steal somehow but most often you usually get what you pay for on the used market.

They made good stuff and bad stuff then . They make even better stuff and bad stuff now. Except now the good stuff from then is old now and if still sounds good has probably benefited from being refurbished or rebuilt using modern technology.

Anything can sound good anytime as long as it is in good working order, old or new.

The key is to do your homework. If you do it no telling where you will land. But it probably should not be some untouched speaker that was a gem 40 years ago.

Seconding Larry's characteristically excellent post, there are reasons that Western Electric speaker drivers from the 1930's command astonishing prices these days. And it's not just rarity, although that is certainly a factor. Or that Tannoy speaker drivers from the 1940's, 50's, and 60's can go for the better part of $10K. Or that many present day audiophiles build their systems around the 1950's Quad electrostatic.

It's possible to get both great sound and poor sound with both recent speakers and vintage speakers. My suggestion to the OP, as stated on 2-8-15, was that in his price range the price vs. performance sweet spot, also factoring in condition-related risk, is likely to fall in between.

Regards,
-- Al

It is interesting how technological advances can be more readily applied in certain areas, but, not in others. We now have, and employ, the latest tools to analyze such instruments as the violin and yet, many of the best instruments remain those made from the late 1600's to the early 1700's. There are instruments made of fancy metal alloys and carbon fiber composites, and yet, no one has been able to make consistently superior instruments using modern technology. Why? For one thing, we don't completely understand what makes for good sound reproduction and how to measure those qualities and how to then embody those qualities in the instrument. A lot of that is the "art" of making a good violin or a good speaker.

There are a lot of speaker designers who employ very high tech approaches to reducing cabinet resonance, controlling breakup modes in speaker diaphragms, reducing driver mass, etc., and yet, notwithstanding the same technological goals, the sound of their products is radically different. Clearly, there are things at play that have not been analyzed, measured and accounted for that ultimately matter.

From a perspective of my personal taste, a lot of the high tech speakers are a disappointment. I suspect that, in the pursuit of improving on certain measurable aspects of "performance" something else suffered.

So let's see. New cars are better than the 30 yr old technology auto. Computers are much better, televisions, washing machines, power tools, battery technology, tennis rackets, jets, and on and on the list goes.

But speakers, they haven't bested those heady days in the 70's/80's/pick your decade. Excuse me for smiling up my sleeve.

If you like the sound of a particular speaker with a particular amp then buy it. Doesn't matter when it was made if in good condition. It doesn't matter how good or not all the rest are.

I'm not sure that modern drivers with their hyped exotic materials are all that much better than the old plain paper, etc. drivers that preceded them, especially when one considers their performance to cost ratios.
IMHO, many of the used late 80's through early 00's speakers from manufactures such as Dunlavy, Magnaplanar, Thiel, Vandersteen, etc., can more than hold their own against comparably priced new options.

Rockanroller, here is my feeble minded attempt to explain voltage paradigm for those that share my huge intellect.
A Voltage paradigm amplifier is one that is capable of maintaining its voltage output at any given impedance, say from 2 to 16 ohms.... If you give an 8 ohm load a consistent voltage, the amplifier will give you its capable power output, If the Voltage is maintained for 4 ohms, the power output will double, if Voltage is still maintained at 2 ohms, power will double again.
In a power Paradigm amplifier, the amplifier is designed to give you a constant power at any given impedance, typically 4 to 16 ohms.
I'm sure someone out there can straighten out any imperfections in that explanation, but it will put you in the league of a correct answer.

VOLTAGE PARADIGM ? can anyone explain in everyday terms?

Rocknnroller, here is a white paper written on Voltage/Power paradigm by Ralph of Atma-sphere:
http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.php

02-10-15: Schubert
Bombbaywalla, I agree with much/most of what you say.
To my ears though one guy who does get things right with off the wall design is Anthony Gallo.
Any thoughts on him?

thanks, Schubert.

I'm afraid not - I don't think i've heard any of his speakers. Sorry!

You must like Triangles Larryi, I love their pleated 5" drivers .

Bombbaywalla, I agree with much/most of what you say.
To my ears though one guy who does get things right with off the wall design is Anthony Gallo.
Any thoughts on him?

To me, it is not only the speaker itself that matters, but also the amplifiers that will work well with the particular speaker. I personally don't like the sound of most high powered amps, both tube and solid state, and so both efficiency and how easy a load the speaker presents to the amp matters a lot. Most modern speakers, even those that are quite efficient (e.g., Wilsons), are not at all compatible with the amps that I like. Is it the sound of the Magico speaker that I don't like; is it the sound of the amp being used to driver the Magico that I don't like; does it matter which is the root cause?

While it is a good thing that advances in materials and design keep coming along (this affords designers a much wider range of options), it is not always the case that the latest design/material is the best option for a particular implementation. As a very rough generalization, I still prefer the sound of woofers with paper cones and pleated paper surrounds that have VERY short excursion capability. Yes, this does limit acoustic output at the very lowest frequencies, and it does require use of very large cabinets, but, I like the variety of tone and texture to the bass and lower midrange that is afforded by such drivers. There are current manufacturers that make cost is no object speakers that could be made with any kind of driver available that utilize such "old" technology (an absurdly expensive example is the Living Voice flagship).

Wow! Wow! Wow!
Thank you for the info all of you gentlemen and Ladies!
I still think that 80-90 speakers are better than modern! Example: Paul Klipsch=23 patents in the field! Any modern cad software computer "GURU" engineer that can say the same? Bob Carver? The whole dedicate team at Yamaha/Sony/JBL/Klipsch/ not bothered by any ancillaries expenses to take into account, but with the sole mission of developing and building the absolute best speaker possible, from a SONIC point of view, because they had unlimited budgets? Yes , I admit, the design is boring, unlike some atrocities that I have seen today! The point is that those companies, such as Sony, Klipsch, Carver, etc.. during the late 70 through early 2000 were driven by sound, not by esthetics, design, marketing and the such.
Just my two cents. Remember, I am just the cook!
The last question is :
VOLTAGE PARADIGM ? can anyone explain in everyday terms?
And by the way, I have changed and refoamed some speakers.
Looking right now at Infinity and Klipsch Vintage speakers.
Thank you.

02-09-15: Runnin
Bomb, at the end of the day, your following comment says all one needs to know about your bias.

I've owned a few modern day speakers & if I find one today that sounds like real music, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it….

Runnin, I'm afraid I don't understand how this shows a bias??? Please explain to me & all of us. Thanks.

Bomb, at the end of the day, your following comment says all one needs to know about your bias.

I've owned a few modern day speakers & if I find one today that sounds like real music, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it….

02-09-15: Runnin
I'll guess we'll have to disagree then.

yes, I think this would be the best. :-)

The modern woofer/driver has long throw movement that wasn't possible in the 70's.

ok, so? many vintage speakers never lacked a great bass foundation. And, who says that speakers of the '70s are the only speakers that qualify as "vintage"? what about speakers from the '80s & '90s? I would consider them as vintage as well.

The cone materials today can be stiffer, lighter, and therefore faster.

correct. How many speaker designers know how to maximize this in their designs such that their end product sounds like music & not hi-end sound?? Very few - less than a handful. So, merely having the best materials does not mean a superlative speaker.

Cabinets can be engineered by computer with programming that's done faster and better than any old school methods

correct again - CAD makes cabinet design more convenient; not necessarily easier. Still how many modern speaker designers get their cabinets done correctly so that the box does not resonant, the baffle is strong enough, doesnt splatter the hi freq, reduces the comb filtering, etc, etc so that their end product sounds like music & not hi-end sound?? Again, less than a handful.

How long are the caps in a 30 yr old speaker going to last?

agreed, they have a finite life. So, if you read my orig post, I did clearly mention that new x-over components is very likely needed. Yeah, not everyone is a speaker tech but a lot of people on this forum are savvy DIYers. IMO, if the speaker is worth the music is reproduces then having work done on the x-over is worth it.

In the 30 years, how often has it been abused?

Yup, this is definitely an important question. It's no different than buying a modern day speaker. Yeah, abusing the speaker many times (vintage) vs. fewer times (modern) can (will?) reduce the longevity of the drivers. But who's to say that a fewer times abused modern day speaker's driver will last any longer?? Like Metman wrote - "...and due diligence goes a long way so choose wisely...".

Look, Runnin, in my original post I did not write that the OP has to buy vintage speakers; I wrote that he should not dismiss vintage speakers. You can read my original post again - this is clearly written. And, I still maintain that a half-baked modern day speaker design is not much better off than a vintage speaker. Half-baked is half-baked not withstanding the newer materials, manuf tech, CAD, etc, etc. None of these newer designs assure the user of a better product.

I think some are simply used, familiar and accustomed to the sound characteristics of their old school speakers. Anything new will of course be different, and immediately viewed as inferior.

Are you referring to yourself here?? I feel the comment certainly does not apply to me - I've owned a few modern day speakers & if I find one today that sounds like real music, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it....

I think I would be more willing to take a chance on vingage amplification(particularly receivers) than vinatage speakers, of course there are exceptions and due diligence goes a long way so choose wisely and most important try to have some fun

I'll guess we'll have to disagree then. The modern woofer/driver has long throw movement that wasn't possible in the 70's. Expensive designs have become cheap to manufacture, and improvements have trickled down to budget lines. The cone materials today can be stiffer, lighter, and therefore faster. Cabinets can be engineered by computer with programming that's done faster and better than any old school methods.

How long are the caps in a 30 yr old speaker going to last? Is it still even running within spec? In the 30 years, how often has it been abused? I've refoamed several speakers and it's not the easiest to do. Like I said, most people are not speaker technicians.

I think some are simply used, familiar and accustomed to the sound characteristics of their old school speakers. Anything new will of course be different, and immediately viewed as inferior.