cheapest speaker made in the last 10 year that can beat any speaker made before 1970?

@bruce19 he  show up just only to answer my question ,, and i  am glad he did

@p05129  it seem only you said that today technology can beat speaker before 1970

And no!

@realworldaudio wrote:

> Yes, it’s technology, but the development with speakers is not comparable to development in computer tech. With loudspeakers, Western Electric has already achieved very high sound quality in the 1930s, and that heritage was continued by James B Lansing (Altec, JBL). Tannoy and Klipsch developed their similar technologies in parallel (and others as well), but not quite to WE/Altec level. (Just my oppinion - different tastes for sure for each creator, each suiting different rooms/ systems/preferences..) Since then the tech development was how to make it smaller and cheaper... and then how to make that even smaller and cheaper and also to come up with marketing slogans to "blind the peasants" to think that miniaturization did not compromise sound quality. (Laws of physics: you can’t make sound waves smaller, hence, making smaller speakers does compromise bass reproduction capability - there were gimmicks to get around that, but all have serious compromises in the dynamic shading, speed, coherence.)

Very well put.

Not saying that when it’s smaller and cheaper (aka more modern tech) is will necessarily always sound worse. In many cases we benefit from it, as there’s but very few homes that can house a full western Electric horn set (or even Voice of the Theatre speakers). Also, there’s very very few who can afford a full set of Western Electric speakers... a pair of Wilsons is poor man’s speakers in comparison.

These older designs are indeed excellent, but I’d wager they are so mainly due to their relatively uncompromising size factor and overall design execution - none of which can’t be attained today at much less than astronomical prices via other, more modern pro brands and newer designs. WE’s, RCA, Klangfilm, Vitavox and others often go for crazy high amounts of money, even ridiculous amounts, and eventually it gets a bit predictable, not to mention tiresome knowing the market mechanisms for these rarities. I know, vintage woofers with their low moving-mass, lower power handling and high impedance load offer something sonically special while being great fits for horn-loading, not least when paired - always passively - with (expensive) SET’s, but so does modern iterations of large horns/horn hybrids, in particular when driven actively with DSP crossovers and high power, high quality SS studio amps. This modern fare and implementation of big speakers may not sound the same as the monsters of yore, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Large size speakers and modern implementation can go hand in hand for excellent results, and at much lower prices.

And comparing the two - the most modern Wilsons, and the ancient WE (or even VOTT) - both sound quite astonishing, but in a different way. With Wilsons you have the impression that you are listening to the concert from the most expensive seat, and with the WE/VOTT you will have a transcendental sceance bringing back the singer from the grave to the world of the living. Really spooky. Nothing mechanical, just the bared human soul. The Wilson is the exact opposite - it’s all mechanical, all technological. You listen and you marvel at the speakers. With WE/VOTT, you experience the human artist. It’s like an extension to life itself, nothing reminds you of technology and artificiality.

That’s a great, and very fitting description between these two sonic "meals." Perhaps what I’m advocating above of the more modern approach is sonically a third route of sorts, but certainly with an inkling towards the "ancient WE" sound.

With the advancement in loudspeaker technology, the sound they make becomes more show-like, more stunning, but also more mechanical and much more artificial.

I’d say this is more a function of the overall design principle of low eff. direct radiating speakers, not least their smaller size, than tech advancement per se.

Cheaper and smaller, so it’s a win-win. But at the highest level, old tech still reigns supreme. We can make better old ones today with better parts quality (such as a crossover upgrade, better wires, improved cabinet material), so it’s not just take an 80 yr old speakers and it’s better... we need to be sensible about it.

It’s about size, design, and implementation. Any age specification, strictly speaking, would seem moot, if only to point at an era where these designs dominated.

Advances in the last 50 years in materials, cabinet design, drivers, crossovers, and enclosure and port modeling. Those are all incremental. The few pre-1970 designs that are still competitive are all high-end, high sensitivity horns, like JBL, Altec, and Klipsch, and even thos have had significant refinement over time.

The JBL 4367 is a vast improvement over the L-200/L-300 in bass, smoothness and extension. The remarkable dynamics and ability to fill large rooms still remain.