@realworldaudio are you from yt channel "real world audio"
54 responses Add your response
How do you compare a panel speaker to a box speaker? They have different advantages and disadvantages. a stand mount vs a floorstander? Apples to oranges or rule out stand mounts? if you’re speaker shopping, a budget, stating your audio chain, and sonic preferences would be much more straightforward. |
There has been significant advancement in speaker technology. Loudspeaker designers such as Alon Wolf of Magico use complex computer analysis and design tools to create a speaker with lower distortion and a more cohesive sound. This is accomplished with high-tech manufacturing tools capable of very fine tolerances, creating extremely inert /vibration-free, dense cabinet structures and exotic materials for drivers. Not to say that carbon fiber, graphene, beryllium, and sealed enclosure vs ported is always better as that is not the case. I love JBLs, but 70’s and earlier models such as the 4350s, while sounding incredibly dynamic and loud, are significantly colored by the standards of current state of the art. The 4350 for example cannot be described as sounding balanced and ‘of a piece’ compared to some of the best modern speakers. They are also challenging to drive to sound their best. To these ears, JBL’s larger ‘paper’ bass drivers are still some of the best sounding bass drivers available. Compression drivers and horns done right will project a large, dense, dynamic sound. Many modern designs struggle with this and need high powered amplifiers to really come alive. |
Can't answer because "cheapest" is not defined, speakers choices are subjective and are of different designs (box, horn, panel, open baffle...) so would be comparing apples to oranges. Question seems pointless because it's always what your personal preferences are limited by budget aka it's whatever best speaker YOU like within YOUR budget. |
yes , of corse we built diffrent ear , age ,, just want you opinion about living before 1970 , whats going on whrn that tineframe and why the soeaker the more to day include yo opinion on most audiophile become less and less and shoul be good bevause trvhnology is up ,, just why and i still dont undrstand ,, thanks everyone for answer my question ,,, anysnyone can help me understand this me https://youtube.com/shorts/zRakw_KIfWI?feature=share thanks! |
just wondered if you try eickmeier speaker that imaging superb that said from him.. just wondered what helhomtz resonator that can made diy that affect room ? akg headphone drived by tube amply ? how many what? yes vintage speaker the more time the more degradation , but maybe we can get 80 percent of perfomance ? no?
|
I was unhealthy and sad because i sold my house lost my acoustic dedicated room... Now i am healthy with a new audio system and no need to a dedicated room , i worked 6 months on a headphone... Then i am back here and in a sonic heaven the best ever with no trouble and no need to tune a room... i give you my very best wishes thanks for your kindness...
|
The sad thing is the Tannoy were much too big for my desk .... I sold the Tannoy because i had decided to try headphones too.... After few years of desesperation with 9 pairs of headphone, even if each one of them were modified with success, not one competed to my satisfaction...Not one... 2 Planar, 5 dynamic or even my 2 Stax... Then i decided to go back with speakers, but owning no more my two pair of Tannoys, i sold them a good amount of money few years ago ... :) At this time i did know NOTHING about acoustic and small room acoustic...i bought for 50 bucks very good speakers( but not at all on the same quality level than Tannoy concentric dual gold for sure) Mission Cyrus 781 , the top of the line of Mission speakers... I was so annoyed by each one of my 9 headphones, and dissapointed by the Mission speakers at first , i decided to try room acoustic and begin to read... I read articles, study some books, and enter in two years almost non stop listening experiments each day ( i was retired) and acoustic experiments in my first dedicated audio room... I did not have much money though, then i experimented with what i had in my basement, homemade materials ONLY ... i devised two set of acoustic control : passive one, and active one, material passive treatment with a balanced ratio between reflections/absorption/diffusion and active mechanical control of the zone pressure distribution around speakers and listeniong position... I even used a foldable screen as a kind of "acoustic lens" behind my listening position... I even used mechanical crossfeed between speakers and some oriented crosstalk to improve my S.Q. by Helmholtz method ... All that was so successful, that the inferior Mission speakers in a room dedicated to them and around them surpassed for my ears the Tannoy experience in my past living room ... The Tannoy are superior design over the Mission, no doubt, but alas, i owned them as most people owned speakers without even knowing anything about acoustic then using them way under their true potential in a non-dedicated room ... No speakers beat the room where they work for the better or for the worst, it is acoustic science that decide...Not the price paid for the speakers or even their mere good design ... Then suddenly i was facing the obligation to sold my large house one year ago... I closed the audio room with despair i spend 2 years to fine tune with my ears, with 100 Helmholtz resonators mechanically adjustable homemade... i was sad to the brink of depression... i called my room grid of resonators : "a mechanical equalizer"... The soundfield was almost a surround field very enjoyable, even if my Mission were not able to go under 45/50 hertz and the tweeter was not the best there is... Anyway my 9 headphones were crap compared to my Mission speakers/room and even my Tannoy never reach their optimal anyway because they were used in a living room then they could never compete ... Then i was sad and even quit audiogon ( health reason too) ... Out of despair because of the lost, i begin to modify a last promising headphone : the AKG K340...It was my last hope to acoustic heaven... A miracle happened after 6 months of listening experiments and insatisfaction at first , a new dac, a new amplifier, new cables and 6 internal and external modifications to put them on their optimal level: they go where i never think possible, they beat my speakers/room in quality, because of their acoustic internal properties...i will not speak about it too much here, I described why in another thread... To answer your question, i am more happy that i ever was, because i now own the best audio system i listened to in my life, thanks to Dr. Gorike a physicist founder of AKG who make this hybrid headphone with an acoustic patent .... The 5 resonators inside the shell/cup play the same role inside the headphone shell creating a dual acoustic chamber that my grid of Helmholtz resonators distribution did in my speakers/room... This was the only headphone hybrid with 5 resonators helmholtz style on the market for the last 45 years ... This is why now i dont need speakers... No more room to tune , and tuning a room ask for 6 months of non stop listening save if you pay 100,000 to an acoustician to do it ...I am happy over anything possible and listen music more than ever, no more paying attention to sound acoustic... The soundfield is 3-D out of my head, recording dependant and i feel the bass organ with my body because of bone resonance as with a sub... The K340 is the best headphone of AKG and today for the used price an unrivalled marvel... But if you are a beginner and think to use them right out of the box as ordinary headphones, without optimization, forget them, they ask for a lot of work... AkG terminate them because they are too costly to make , and their complex design is too hard to figure out by the average passive consumers, and they are more difficult to drive than Hifiman He 6 because they are not only hungry they are picky... Thats my story... I dont need speakers now and i did not want to do another acoustic room because even if successful , it was very long and hard job... Most people put speakers in a living room and they think thats great... They are wrong but they dont know better... And no speakers company will dare to say the truth if they want to sell speakers to the average passive consumers ... ALL SPEAKERS NEED A DEDICATED ROOM UNDER ACOUSTIC CONTROL TO SOUND AS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO BE PERIOD ...
My best to you...
|
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. |
@realworldaudio wrote:
Very well put.
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.
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.
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.
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. |
@p05129 it seem only you said that today technology can beat speaker before 1970 |
I wouldn’t own any speaker that is over 10 years old. I had some of the top of the line speakers for their day (50 years ago and newer) and wouldn’t even think about owning any of them now. There have been many advancements in speakers in the last decade or so, and some of those are: Beryllium tweeters Diamond tweeters AMT midrange/tweeter enhancements (I did own some speakers in the 70’s and 80’s with the amt speaker and todays versions are better) time aligned speakers cabinet construction and materials even the newer concentric/coaxial speakers of today are much better than the older versions, if you like those kind of speakers crossover designs are much better today than the older designs, the parts themselves are better today
|
Before 1970? That would be 1969. The year of Woodstock (that I didn't visit until 2019). And, the Texas International Music Festival that I DID visit in 1969 (skinny dipping was highlight). I remember how important Linear Air Spring tweeters were in my life. As well as (classic) rock delivered via Assymetrical Charged Coupled Detector Tuner. And, the precision and tactile feel of the Sonic Holography Autocorrelation Preamplier. Everything else is a bit fuzzy. Vitntage speakers with disintegrated foam surrounds are a bit "compromised" in the low end. |
....the object that gets 'outdated' in whatever chain we weave...is Us. We age, our ears fade, our minds vague, perceptions harden, taste goes stale... 'Rage against the dying of the light', all that and miserably more....entropy is part of all equations, mortal and mechanical, psyche' and dielectric-ly... Speakers break-in...and begin the break-down...*git down...* 😏 Even the electronics age, and not just the technology aspect... Oh, 'shure... things ("NEW, and ) improve...duh" But....how much can one sharpen Occam's razor before the blade is gone? |
@realworldaudio and @mahgister well said and many dittos of agreement. When someone can throw a $2 x 2" speaker on a table and make it sound like some of the great old stuff, they will have something. For now, I will be happy with my big speaker cabinets and wonderful sound. |
I dont think that many modern speakers at relatively low cost under 20,000 dollars can beat my past Tannoy dual concentric gold rightfully installed in an acoustic room... But if someone want to pay, some contemporary sophisticated speakers will beat them easily but at a very very higher price...Technology progress for sure... The future of acoustic will be revolutionized too with A.I.
|
>but it is technology, isn’ it? like computer, right? no? > 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.) 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. 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. With the advancement in loudspeaker technology, the sound they make becomes more show-like, more stunning, but also more mechanical and much more artificial. 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.
|
I dont know for sure for speakers...( my Tannoy were more than good and i bought them 50 years ago) But my headphone from 40 years ago can beat most headphone of today.... :) If not on all acoustic factors at least on many... Old technology dont means outdated... The AKG K340 was terminated for many reasons, not because it was not a great flagship for AKG .... It is the best they ever designed... It was terminated because his too complex technology coupling tuned array of 5 resonators with two cells with a cross-over transformer , electroacoustic one and dynamical one at 4,000 hertz cross- over point was too costly to improve and too costly to design to made good profit out of it , and too complex for the average customer to figure out how to work right with it to reach his optimal S.Q. and too hard to drive with the beginning of headphone amplifier... A Russian headphone designer well known company even said to me that they tried for years with no succees to create a real hybrid as the K340... Too complex research and too costly to made.... The Dharma enigma is only a dynamic cell with the addition of an electrostatic cell which act as a super tweeter at 12,000 hertz only and without any tuned resonators inside the shell to tame the bass/mids as Helmholtz resonators did it in my room /speakers installation ... No comparison with the Dharma then ... In the K340 the electroacoustic cell work beginning at 4,000 hertz and do in a way half the job with the dynamic cell.... 4,000 hertz is where piano and voice presence are located...
Then i dont know for speakers, but vintage dont means outdated in headphone, not with my K340 at all... Out of the head 3-D volume immersiveness beating my speakers/dedicated room on many counts...Heaven exist for me ... But beware, i dont recommend the K340 to beginners because it takes me 6 months of listening experiments to optimize them...This is the reason why some very well known reviewers criticized them whitout thinking that their negative impressions reflected their ignorance...Some component ask much from us and ask to be understood before being used rightfully... One thing is sure all my other headphones are trash compared to them... Dr Gorike of AKG was a physicist, a genius in acoustic and i read his patent to understand his headphone... Then vintage dont means outdated... And perceived sound quality is perceived, not computed...
|
In my opinion, can't be done. Once you get into "hi-fi", too much comes down to taste. My speakers were built in 1958 and sound better than most of what I have ever heard, at least to me. Then you get into age of design verses manufacture date. I do like the sound of a Tannoy Westminster, but that is actually old tech. I was just at a store in California last week and listened to the Wilson top of the line, driven by the top of the line D'Agostino amps. Yep, everything was there and better just comes down to taste. It could definitely get louder than what I have. I walked away knowing that I like what I have better. They also had some Boenicke speakers that, for the money, were much more toe curling for me than the Wilson. From there you also have some unbelievable "other" items to beat if you are going after everything pre-1970. Take a tour of Oswalds Mill or listen to some ginourmous old Western Electrics. |
