Snell A III's were, and in my opinion, still are wonderful speakers.
What vintage speaker might you use today
Like to find out what "vintage speakers" members would/might use in their current audio set-up
Do you think what made them special was the synergy between them and the amp used, or just the fact they were well designed and performed way above their price tag.??
Do you think what made them special was the synergy between them and the amp used, or just the fact they were well designed and performed way above their price tag.??
144 responses Add your response
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. |
Thanks Larryi - very much appreciate your comments! Larryi -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.That's my direction. Fwiw - I still just can't believe the SPL's - room filling music I am getting out of just the 4 output tubes on the small RM10 and the Quad 57 without sub. Just looking to fill in the bottom. I have considered a few subs. The Vandersteen 2wq was one I looked at. But I discovered that the signal needs to go through the Vandersteen crossover first. After the effort it took me to get to where I am with the RM10 / 57's; I am not prepared to let the Vandersteen crossover become the Alpha over the RM10. The Rhymik subs look interesting that Audiogoneer Bdp24 put me on. Then there is also JL audio and Rel. My understanding from another thread here is that REL went to China for manufacturing, and a new company MJ Acoustics is now their former staff in England. The bigger constraint for me right now is our Canadian dollar against the US dollar. With the latest increase of interest rates in the US yesterday, they are now forecasting the Canadian dollar will fall to .70 cents in 2016. :^( Buying anything from the US - 30 cents on the dollar, shipping, customs, 13% Canadian tax - ouch. Two things about that room pic I uploaded - I kind of feel compelled to mention. That house support pole. I wish there was a way to move it about 3 feet to the left. But once the music starts, it disappears anyway like magic. The beige love couch on the left. I call it the break up couch. My wife can't stand it. We moved into a place together after about 1 year of dating. We actually broke up for two weeks 6 months after this. She left and took the living room couches. I bought that loveseat and matching couch. When she moved back I refused to sell them. Its something like 30 years old. |
cto517, no, I'm not interested in spending more time on discussion of my older systems. I wish you well with your attempt to find a suitable sub. If you will allow a few comments in that regard from someone once called a "vintage hater," (LOL; at least I haven't been called that yet, directly!) you are correct about the Vandersteen sub. Avoid it. I had a pair of them and was overall unimpressed, and as you suspect the crossover is a problem. They integrate best with Vandersteen speakers, of course, but I found them unappealing. I didn't own them long because the bass was not terrific. (Now, I supposed I've offended all the Vandersteen lovers even though I owned them. Can't win, can I?) You should consider JL Audio as well. I own two Legacy Audio XTREME HD subs, and I wrote them up for Dagogo.com, if that will be of assistance to you. I strongly recommend a pair of subs ultimately, as it is a superior experience (considering spacial constraints) to a single sub. Salectric, if I recall correctly, the pair of Western Electric 757 speakers, which I also heard at RMAF 2011 in the Silbatone room, was obscenely priced. They lacked the terrific cleanness of more modern designs, and the cabinet influence was not good. I had a negative impression of them, and thought to myself that they were one of the most overpriced to performance speaker systems at the show, in my mind proof that nostalgia sells. They used analogue tape to get them to perform well enough, and yet I still found them to be irritating. It has always stood in my mind as one of the prime examples of why I do not pursue vintage gear. An example of a speakers I would own rather than the vintage 757 are the Volti Vittora or Alura, gorgeous speakers in every respect, and if I'm not mistaken much less costly than the vintage Western Electric shown at RMAF 2011. If my analysis is considered to be arrogant, it is not my intent. If anyone wishes to see some of the systems I was most impressed by at RMAF 2011 they can find them on my show report at Dagogo.com. It's obvious that what I consider to be superb sound will not mesh with what everyone else considers superb. Again, if I have come off as being snobbish, my apologies. I will not keep raining on everyone's pool party. Blessings to all. |
| Post removed |
okeeteekid63 posts12-17-2015 3:25pmYou've certainly made a smart choice stepping up to the later IRS Epsilons. Despite being a bit bass shy, they are very well balanced & were the most refined classic Infinity speaker. Personally I don't have the room for those speakers, but it would have been fun to own a pair of IRS-Sigma's. As you know, I previously owned a pair or R90's, but sold them and upgraded to Marten Coltrane Alto's, then later bought a pair of Magico S5's. However nothing stands still in high end, so I recently sold my S5's & have a pair of the new S5 Mk2's on the way! Anyway, I haven't been keeping up with discussions over at Audiokarma. What amps are you driving the Epsilons with now? Drop me a pm if you get a minute. |
Douglas_Schroeder, "Trelja, considering Quads, you couldn't get me to own a Quad. They� WERE
a good speaker - that was LONG ago. The older models have severely
compromised performance in terms of bass extension and power handling.
And it sounds like it's coming from an orchestra pit, the speaker is so
lowered. We're supposed to accept that in 2015? I will not. I don't give
a speaker a pass simply because it has lovely mids. Nostalgia has
carried them way too far. I have heard the older quads both he 57's and
63's and I wouldn't dream of owning them, not for great listening. The
Kingsound King III tramples them. It has "all of that" in regards to the
superb midrange, and much more, that is, an actual lower bass response,
as well as a sound field that is above knee level. As far as new Quads,
I wouldn't touch one." While not a spendthrift, I recognize we generally need to spend more to get more. Without merit or reason, over the past several years, I've been blessed to the point of gaining the ability to buy pretty much any high-end audio product I would want, loudspeaker or otherwise. I can assure everyone neither economic constraints nor nostalgia drove me to the Quad ESL57. I own, have owned, and have listened to a great many highly regarded loudspeakers, but use the Quads because they're simply the best sounding loudspeakers I have encountered. Do I presume that my tastes will translate to another person or everyone else? Of course not. Do the Quads have limits and weaknesses? Absolutely. Doesn't every loudspeaker / high-end audio component? As everyone has always known, the bottom octave lies beyond their capability, as do blow you back low frequencies. The Quads are also limited in the absolute sense of how loud they can play, though the walk in the park effortlessness 95 dB at my listening chair should suffice for many. My priorities lie in the sonic realm, everything else takes a back seat to that. Whether they came out of 2015 or 1915 matters to me not. Nothing puts me closer to what feels like reality, as no other loudspeaker I have listened to approaches their truth of tone and overall rightness. I won't say that I will never purchase another pair of loudspeakers, but the Quad ESL57 have more or less ended my desire for anything else. |
Trelja, good response! It sounds like you found your sweet spot for enjoyment. That's what it's all about. I'm a variety person; there's no one speaker technology which completely satisfies me, regardless of it being reportedly SOTA. Not picking an argument with you, but a response to your statement, "My priorities lie in the sonic realm." Allow me to regale you with a story of subwoofers. Very fine adjustments of the Legacy Audio XTREME HD subs (as do all subs) influence the sonics of vocals, even female vocals, chamber music, you name it. I was dialing in the Vapor Audio Joule White 3 speakers today and tweaking the subs using female vocals and the music of Musica Nuda. Very light adjustments on the subs refines the timbre and spatial aspects of the voice and upright bass. If you have the means and space, I encourage you to consider adding sub(s) because it will elevate the experience with the Quads. If you select them well and carefully dial them in it will not harm the sense of speed and openness, but it will make them sound like they are innately more capable speakers. I will never forget the day many years ago when I visited a high end shop, I think it was Music for Pleasure in St. Louis. They demonstrated the benefits of a huge REL sub with a pair of capable floor standers using female vocals. Sub out - sub in - sub out... and my Immediate conversion to the principle that subs make a world of difference in the soundstage and timbre of vocals, or any other music. It almost seems magical, the power of a sub at discrete level to enrich music across the spectrum and elevate the performance of an already favored speaker. I invariably use them with the Kingsound King III ESL, even though it reaches 28Hz. The addition of the subs makes them far better sounding holistically and improves their spatial characteristics. I always review speakers independently of my subs, but almost invariably when the "testing" is over, the subs go in again and the experience is elevated. All this is all independent of listening level. I also do not typically listen beyond 95-97dB. :) |
Well said trelja! You (and I, and ct0517) are not alone in finding enduring merit in the original Quad when used within its limitations. Yes, those limitations are severe, making it unsuitable for many applications and listeners, Douglas Schroeder apparently included. But for "small" music (Baroque, Chamber, Vocal, acoustic Jazz Trios/Quartets/Quintets, etc., Bluegrass, Folk, etc.) at modest (though sufficient) volume, the Quad is still not just unbeaten, but, say some, unequalled! A fair number of loudspeaker designers keep a pair of quads around with which to help voice their own designs, and recording engineers still use them to check the naturalness of their work, vocals in particular (ask John Atkinson). |
One sonic aspect as heard via some of the vintage speaker designs, their reproduction of bass compared to modern designs, gets an interesting comment in below quote. [...] all this talk about bass started me thinking about some of the speakers I have reviewed and listened to at audio shows in the last couple of years. A few came to mind: the Burwell & Sons Homage speakers, the big JBL Everest, the incredible sounding RCA LC-1A LS-11 and those wonderful sounding Tannoy Golds mounted in a Jensen Imperial Cabinets turned upside down so that the empty horn part of the cabinet acted as a stand to raise the Tannoy Gold drivers to the right height. Those were in the Pass Labs room at the 2014 California Audio Show. http://www.dagogo.com/beatnik-pet-peeve-3-way-modern-speakers-play-bass I can attest to the merits of vintage designs incorporating large bass units and their supposed "musical" imprinting. My recently acquired all-horn loaded speakers use 15" bass drivers in folded horns, and are a pretty radical departure from my previous bass reflex-loaded speakers in providing what can actually be described as timbre and tunefulness in the bass with a seamless blend to the mid horn above them. They are specified to reach 56Hz only, a likely reason why many an interested audiophile would probably discount them prior to any audition, but the physicality, effortless power, speed and gently pressurized "wavefront" here presented is so tunefully imbedded in the remaining frequency spectrum above that it makes any preoccupation with bass extension per se seem utterly misplaced. I didn't know that prior to listening to them and how much the quality (and type) of bass could truly matter, so much indeed as to come to eschew most of what I've heard of the typical bass in modern designs with smaller (usually reflex loaded) drivers. I can still enjoy such more modern bass designs for what they are, but it's with the proviso that I probably wouldn't want to own them. |
As I was composing my post directly above, Doug posted his. Also well reasoned, I second his recommendation to augment the Quad with a pair of subs. But not just any sub---the GR Research/Rythmik OB/Dipole Sub. It is in some ways similar to the one Gradient designed and offered for the Quad ESL63 in the 80's and 90's, but quite a bit better. It is particularly well suited for dipole loudspeakers, sounding very different from a "normal" sub, no matter the quality. You can read all about it on the GR Research website and in their Audiocircle Forum. Very special! |
Ok, this is fun. I don’t even love some of these, but have good memories. Does that make sense? Klipsch corner horns. These were the first high end speakers I ever heard. It was in 69 at HiFi Stereo House in my home town of Newington, CT. They were run with phase linear and crown gear if I recall correctly. I would love to tinker with the crossovers using new components and internal cabling. I’d also play with the veneer as I work with wood and would have a ton of fun finishing these honking horns (I typically don’t even like horns, lol). Proac Response 2’s. These were a great speaker in the day. They could be a bit hot on top, but man did they disappear and they did midrange correctly. Very listenable and easy to drive with top tube gear. Quad..... ET’s. JSE infinite slopes. I think it was the 5’s that were the large ones. 5 drivers if I recall. Those really sounded great with modded B&K gear from a store in Bristol CT who specialized in modding the B&K line. Many nights with wine and music in the store, lol. Of course the last ones would be the Vandersteen 2's with NAD separates from 89. All being fed from a Sota vacuum TT with a nice Van Den Hul cartridge. We finally had real cable in 89 too ;).... |
My systems are a cross section of my audio history as I find myself unable to part with many favourites. I've owned and valued Spica Angelus, and still own and use Vandersteen 4A (newer models are simpler with on board amps, albeit more costly), and my second system uses Martin Logan CLS, my 3rd, Energy Reference Connoisseurs. Any will at least hold their own with current models. |
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. |
I have been a fan of the AR line. I have had a pair of AR 3a's, and have rebuilt a pair of AR 11's recently as well as using a pair of AR 9's for my surround sound front speakers. As an aside, I recently purchased a pair of ADS 910's that are rated highly by many folks I have spoken to. I can let you know what I find out about them. I am looking for a set of the original stands that were available for them, anyone have a lead? Thanks Dan |
I decided yesterday to purchase Altec A5 or A7 Voice of the theatre (VOTT), have them modded such as Jeff Day, see his blog, about his acquiring Maestro Stowkowski's Altec A5. I'm pumped by the potential of these speakers with my low-watt amps (Coincident), in my new 18x24 listening room library/home office. Best, Rob |
Interesting thread. I'm in the ADS camp, still running my original L710's in the sunroom area. Also have a pair of L520's (used $100 for the pair) upstairs providing sound to my TV set-up. I was surprised how good they were for dialogue. Also just set up my son in law with a pair of L620's bought used for $60 for the pair. He has a vinyl set up and is ecstatic with the sound. None are extremely detailed, but all have that balanced forward sound - very nostalgic in this day of soundstage/detail/imaging. |
Although I may get flamed here, I've been very happy with Lowther for the last 15 years. Was running Ohm speakers & epos speakers in the 80's & 90's and also liked them. The Lowthers are fitted in fidelio cabinets & powered with an SE 6550 amp. I just upgraded to the DX3 model (from the PM2C) about a week ago. The mid-range and 3D imaging/sound-stage are absolutely beautiful. These speakers come to life with vinyl. With good recordings the realism is spooky good. True magic. |
I'm too lazy to read this entire thread, but has anybody mentioned Bozak? Late 60's "people with actual money" had these things here and there and my hippy brain seemed to like them. A note about Altec A7s…there was something "woody" about these things that was, to me anyway, very appealing. We replaced the Altec 15s with JBL bass guitar speakers (as opposed to JBL PA speakers) that could handle kick drum miking with aplomb. |
I bought AR9s & Quad ESL63s new in the eighties, and KEF R107/2s a decade later. All three are still competitive with all but the finest (read most expensive) speakers I've heard to date, and I'm still using all three. Interestingly enough, the Quads are the only ones that haven't required ANY service in all these years! I don't think there are too many new speakers that really improve on the very best of what was available going back 40yrs or more. Sure, they may be bested in one area, or another - heck that was true even when they were new, but even today, it's hard to do much better over all. The biggest change in speakers in the last several decades has been in the lower price range. There are certainly far more good to very good speakers now than there used to be. It used to be a pleasant surprise when you could find a good speaker, now I think it's pretty hard to find a bad one. |
Thank you for your response. I somewhat agree with your last paragraph because like yourself have heard a number of very good bookshelf and monitor speakers on today's market that are under $400. A few members who responded to this thread have indicated they have Dynaco A-25's and still claim they sound good. They probably bought them in the early 90's when you could still find a relatively clean pair for under $150 or less. Check out e-bay today and you will find at least six A-25's supposedly in mint condition in the range from $299.00; $399.00 and one at $449.00. The issue is:... have they been gutted and newer drivers replaced the originals .Because I am in my late 60's, my gem speakers of audio's golden years are Rectilinear, KLH, AR, ( never a big fan even then) Dynaco, Infinity and a few others. Interestingly., I have updated my nostalgic search which is mainly fascination not a hobby, for some of JBL's early 1980's and 1990's classic speakers: Century L-100; the Jubal L-65, the Studio 4311; and I think L-930, (unsure of the number) a killer large box speaker, not a floorstander. My only objections to the above models, they all had calibrated woofer and tweeter control, often on the front baffle. I was too much of a purist then, and even now to accept any shaping of the original signal. Fortunately, we don't see many brands today with tone controls. Vandersteen does and to my great surprise, these control do make a difference in the sound. BTW, the vintage JBL's I listed are not cheap, even those with scratched cabs, and one or two replacement drivers. |
[...] http://oswaldsmillaudio.com/blog/too-true-to-be-good/ |
[url=http://www.hartleyloudspeakers.com/new_page_8.htm]hartley luth[/url] what happened to mark up tags? Wow, this website is super irritating to use!!!!!!!!! |
| Post removed |
CDC, markup tags are no longer needed. Note the quote and link buttons above the box in which responses are composed. Just highlight the text you’ve composed in the text box to which you want one of those functions to apply, and click the appropriate button. In the case of the link button, you’ll then enter the url in the link box which will appear. Regards, -- Al |
It's an interesting thread to say the least. The more I listen to newer speakers, I don't think that many if any of the older ones hold a candle to them. The newer ones just use better materials etc... that the older ones can't match. Even the smaller stand mounts aren't in the same ballpark. I've owned plenty of the older gear and they just aren't even close to what you can get today. There are many speakers that I never would have purchased, that today can't be beat. Some of that is learning even more about listening. Vandersteen is one of those companies. I originally wanted a pair of 2's, but when I went to buy them, the dealer turned me onto Proac's. I purchased the Proacs (much more expensive) and keep them along with other Proac's for many years. When I went to the Proac dealer a few years ago and he made me listen again to Vandersteen's...I had been listening for a year as I wanted an upgraded set up. I ended up getting the Treo's and am in love with each of his speakers. he just gets it. Some folks like other speakers that are 'hotter' in the high end plus we all have different things we listen for. In the end, there are fun speakers from years past and as time passes our former speakers sound better ;)..... |
"Did I miss anyone mentioning a Vandy? Their model 2Ce is a keeper " Yeah - my main system speakers have been Vandersteen 4As for many years. He only built a couple of hundred of them whenever he could spare the time from production of the more popular and less expensive models, so there aren't many out there. I saw a pair on Ebay awhile ago for $1,000 which is a screaming bargain in terms of how much speaker you get. The downside is that they are meant to be biamped and triwired and you need a separate crossover (or to roll off the bass using the same high quality caps they use for the 2W subs) nd a way of adjusting bass volume. But it is worth it. They were his best until he started in on the more modern high end stuff with the 5s. |
Yes the Vandy 2's are the most purchased high end speaker ever right? If not, they are close to it. I remember when my old dealer got that 4 in. We burned it in and set it up, but I don't feel my former dealer knew how to set up the Steen's. I didn't love them at first. Many years later I heard them in a great system and was floored. They weren't the same speakers my buddy sold back in the day. I now own the Treo's and can't wait to get the Quatro's. Just LOVE what he's doing with Vandersteen speakers. Glad he's stopped working on the 9's in order to focus on other and better products that we will also love. |
About 3 years ago I was happily enjoying my Large walnut Advents in my main family room system when I happened upon a pristine pair of NHT 2.5's in a beautiful mahogany finish. When I showed my wife a photo of them she loved the narrow profile and more modern look of these well received towers and since she's never been a fan of the looks of the NLA's I decided grab them. I hooked them up to my 125 watt Onix integrated amp and...Ugh, where'd the music go? While they sounded fairly clean and polite I couldn't get over how detached the bass was from the rest of the music. It was rubbery, detached and frankly just artificial sounding. Now I tried every position and adjustment imaginable with these cuz I REALLY wanted to like them but I could not get them to sound coherent no matter what I tried. I decided one evening to reinsert the Advents just to see if it was in my head and bang! There it was, music, with a top to bottom coherence that just sounded more RIGHT to me. I was really disappointed as the NHT's were just beautiful but I gotta go with what I hear so back in go the Advents and I sold the NHT's off the following week. I understand the NHT's are not currently a modern speaker but their design is mimicked by a lot of current speaker manufacturers using a narrow baffle and side firing woofers. I've also heard from several satisfied owners of the 2.5's so this isn't meant to be critical of what was considered a very fine and well received speaker line. I guess it just means what's good for one may not work for another and that's O.K., I'll never try to convince someone that what they like or prefer is wrong, frankly it's insulting and unnecessary. |
What Onix do you use? I have two of their original integrated amps that sound incredible still today. Going to sell them as I can't use them anymore, but I didn't realize they made such a powerful amp. Mine output 50 watts I think. Huge toroidal transformers in those small boxes, that's for sure. Sorry guys, didn't mean to get off track, but it caught my eye. |
I remember back in '78 or '79 while away at college in Florida, I wandered into a stereo store and was blown away by a pair of KEF 105's. They were absolutely amazing. Being a poor college student I ended up with a pair of Pioneer HPM-40's, which I still have today, but I must say, although they probably gave me the most musical enjoyment I remember, they are no where new as good as speakers today. Last year I bought a pair of Quad 57 to see what I was missing but I haven't had the chance to set them up yet, still looking for the right amplification. |
