What vintage speaker might you use today

Salectric,

I agree with you about extreme vintage systems.  I heard a monster set up in a huge dedicated room that sounded magnificent.  It was based around a Western Electric 555 midrange driver and a 15A horn and twin 18" woofers (looked tiny in this system).  Nothing cheap here, the system was originally triamped using three pairs of Audio Note Gaku-On amps ($250,000 per pair list price), but, when it turned out that the tweeter sounded as good with a "cheap" Kageki, one of the pairs of Gaku-On was relegated to the role of back up amp.  This type of large horn system is pretty unmatchable for the ability to deliver proper scale, sense of ease and natural flow and excellent dynamics at low volume level.

My much more modest horn-based system is no slouch either, provided I don't play it super loud (I never do that anyway).  It is built around the Western Electric 713b compression driver, twin 12" woofers in an Onken bass reflex cabinet and a not that great Fostex bullet tweeter.  Not "extreme" by some standards, but not bad either.  

There are a few vintage speaker components that I would take over anything made these days, except, perhaps, for some really good Japanese replicas of the same drivers.  I heard a fantastic, and reasonably compact, system built around the Jensen M-10 field-coil driver; I haven't heard too many systems sound better.  It is unfortunate that some of these drivers, in good shape, go for around $20,000 per driver (and you may need to buy several to come up with a matched pair).

On the not-too-crazy front, a 302 b compression driver, some RCA compression drivers, BTH compression drivers can be used to make systems that, for some people's taste, will sound better than almost any conventional system out there.  Vintage can be both "extreme" in terms of performance, and budget-friendly.

Salectric,

I am sure that your 753-type system sounds terrific.  I really like the drivers you are using.  I recently heard a system that is still in the tuning stage of build that utilizes the 32A horn and a 302 compression driver, a 15" field-coil woofer and some kind of EV horn tweeter on top.  I was wondering if you have ever thought that a tweeter might be useful way out on top (I know the 302 can go quite high on its own).  I spoke with a Western Electric expert who told me that the 753 used the 713A or 713C driver, which is more extended on top than the 713B, but is not as smooth sounding, an issue which is somewhat ameliorated by the attenuation of highs from the 90 degree bend in the horn.  

Almarg, Trelja, ct0517,

I totally agree that the Quad 57 remains a top competitor, provided that attaining extremely high volume and deep bass is not a major priority.  That speaker really delivers something magical that is hard to explain.  It is too bad someone does not try to make either a replica or a modernized version (one that does not have a tendency to arc).  I recently heard, at the Capital Audiofest, a reconditioned 57 that had been put into a new frame and actively biamped (electronic crossover, two built-in EL34 amps per channel).  Most of the demonstrations of that speaker were designed to show that it could play deep bass and at high volume.  I could not really say if it still had that incredible midrange magic of the original, but, it certainly was very promising (this is a commercially-available speaker, not a one-of thing).  Another room had a 57 with a super-tweeter on top.  That system, too, sounded quite good, although the large conference room it was being shown in did not help for bass response.

In some respects, it seems that, for my taste, a lot of speaker designers, and buyers, have pursued a certain kind of sound that tends toward a lean, harmonically thin and "bloodless" sound.  There are still makers who deliver an old school sound, but, they are in the minority (e.g., Audio Note, JM Reynaud, G.I.P. Laboratory, ESP).  There are some extremely high end modern builders that deliver old school sound using modern updates of old drivers (Goto, Cogent). Also, while I prefer the old sound, that does not mean I don't appreciate what some very modern and completely different sounding speakers can deliver (e.g., MBL, Raidho, and YG, Soundlab). 

Hi ct0517,

It appears that your Quad 57 setup is extremely well thought out and executed.  While the 57 is a speaker that is fairly "easy" to set up and will deliver good sound under most conditions, I am sure that going the extra mile as you have will make them extraordinary.  I place a very high priority on speakers sounding harmonically saturated and complete, and lively, when played at low volume levels.  The 57s and many horn-based systems are very good in that respect.  I don't care much that the 57s, or my horn system, do not work as well at the extremely high volume levels that others think is important.  

I also agree with you that the bass tonality and speed of the 57 is extremely good and I see you have addressed the extremely low bass and "impact" issue with a subwoofer.  Done correctly, subwoofers will add those elements of performance without detracting from performance.  The best implementation of subwoofers I have heard involved using them at very low levels, setting the crossover point quite low, and using multiple subwoofers (easier to get smoother and uniform bass coverage).  I think you are going in the right direction.  

I totally agree with you that the 63 does not have the same magic as the 57, it sounds analytical and "cold" by comparison.  As for stacked quads, I have heard both simple double 57 and the Levinson setup with the supertweeter between the top and bottom panels.  I like the stacked 57s for the added sense of scale, but, I have not heard them enough to know what that setup might give up (every difference involves compromises).

I particularly like the approach you have taken to getting the sound you desire.  You started with something that delivers the essential "magic" (whatever that is to you, I am sure it differs for each listener) and then found ways to improve and refine the sound.  That makes more sense to me than jumping around and constantly replacing one speaker with another totally different speaker and expecting the latest "technological breakthrough" to deliver the magic.

A lot of interesting comments, above, that illustrate how much a particular preference is a matter of taste more so than of particular technology and vintage of the gear.  I found it interesting that Doug Schroeder much preferred the Volti Vittora over the 757s among speakers based on horn-compression drivers.  I like the tonality of the Volti speaker, but, in the three instances that I heard the speakers, they sounded very polite and dynamically dead compared to the compression driver speakers that I personally prefer.  I did not hear the 757s he heard at RMAF, and most of the 757s I've heard were restored/modified, so I don't know if it sounded anything like the 757s that I favor over the Volti.  

I tend to agree with the comments above about the tunefulness of some vintage woofer/enclosures.  Yes, they do not go very deep and deliver the same kind of punch, and I will agree that punch is a plus with some music, but, I will take the trade-off to have the tuneful and "less mechanical" sound of old school bass.

As for the sub-woofer for a Quad, a friend of mine likes the Gradient dipole sub-woofer he uses with a Quad 63.  I haven't heard his setup with the Gradient (he changes out various speakers that as often as most people change underwear and I missed that setup), but I have heard them elsewhere, and they do sound quite natural.  It may be the case that dipole bass would be a better match with dipole speakers like the Quads.  I heard, at a show, BG Radia dipole speakers with the Sound Insight SI 300 sub-woofers, and the combination sounded pretty good.