Johnk, you have a wealth of knowledge and experience, but your last post just told EVERYONE else that they don't matter. That your opinion/Experience is the only one that is right or counts. 2nd time in this thread that you've done that... I understand that many post incorrect statements in their opinions, but I remember trying to learn all of this 35 years ago and the knowledge that you share can be immense. In the mean time, belittling others will only turn them away from you and soon everything you way will turn to just noise. Doesn't need to happen brother, we need you to share your wealth. Tim
Loudspeakers have we really made that much progress since the 1930s?
Since I have a slight grasp on the history or loudspeaker design. And what is possible with modern. I do wonder if we have really made that much progress. I have access to some of the most modern transducers and design equipment. I also have large collection of vintage. I tend to spend the most time listening to my 1930 Shearer horns. For they do most things a good bit better than even the most advanced loudspeakers available. And I am not the only one to think so I have had a good num of designers retailers etc give them a listen. Sure weak points of the past are audible. These designs were meant to cover frequency ranges at the time. So adding a tweeter moves them up to modern performance. To me the tweeter has shown the most advancement in transducers but not so much the rest. Sure things are smaller but they really do not sound close to the Shearer. http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/lmco/shearer.htm
283 responses Add your response
Hi Mike & Al, I'm thinking back to the late 70's & early 80's. We hand measured all our own drivers, we listened to each driver individually for beaming/dispersion characteristics, based upon the basics of each driver, we chose crossover slopes for the drivers character and to maximize phase and time alignment... Yes, even then at least at Marcof, we practiced time and phase alignment. We would then build the piece, listen extensively and make changes based upon our sessions. It was quite a process. Today, as long as the measurements are correct, I can run a program and know with a high degree of accuracy pretty dog on close what a speaker will sound like.... Its never far off like "wow, that fooled me".... Yes, after listening there is tweaking, but these days, it usually isn't much. The big deal is to understand what different slopes and combination of slopes sound like. Looking at Frequency and phase charts carefully and then proper choice of slopes and frequency of crossover, you can come fairly close maintaining decent phase slopes using odd order crossovers, its not always 6db per octave slopes required like so many believe that you must have. Ok, a bit off subject, but I wanted to add to the earlier comments. Tim |
Pick something to measure about a speaker and then do it.As I mentioned earlier in the thread I have no strong convictions either way about the subject that is primarily under discussion here. But as an electrical engineer I feel compelled to respond to this comment. It always surprises me how non-engineers often and perhaps usually seem to view the process of engineering as being based primarily on measurements. While I can’t address speaker design specifically (my background is in the design of electronic circuits), in general the process of designing and developing an engineered product involves A LOT more than measurements. First there is the design process, done on paper and/or with computer-based software tools. That is often the most major part of the entire effort. Then extensive ANALYSIS is performed, on paper and/or with computer-based software tools. Computer-based simulations may also be performed. That is followed by fabrication and test of a prototype. Testing of the prototype, in the case of an audio component, will include both measurements AND LISTENING. Inevitably changes will be made to the design during those phases of the project, followed by further measurements and listening, and often additional iterations of the design, analysis, and simulation phases of the project. In other words when it comes to development of an audio product, at least one that is properly done and is intended for audiophile (as opposed to mass market) applications, "voicing" is one of several integral and important parts of the overall engineering process. Not a deviation from the engineering process. Regards, -- Al |
OK. Thanks for your clarification of the point. What if you could have a dead neutral (not bright or strong, Merriam-Webster's definition) speaker with great equalization. Then add lots of power - modern technology, you see. Distortion from lots of assorted nasties engineered out - it's an ideal speaker, remember. What then? Is it possible? Are modern techniques ineffective at doing this. Pick something to measure about a speaker and then do it. MEASURE the response to the step function and improve it. The voicing is a deviation from this. Just think of it - the process of engineering! A violin is way different. |
The point was that technology, modern materials, etc., has not improved on something that is hundreds of years old. If you think that there is some simple "ideal" of a perfectly neutral speaker and that there is some technical means of measuring and approaching such ideal that takes out of the picture the maker making subjective decisions, then you have not been around people that actually make speakers. I am aware of the objective approaches, such as the work of Floyd Toole and the National Research Council of Canada. But, there are plenty of listeners who simply don't like the resulting sound (like me, for instance) and that is probably why there is such a broad array of choices that people make in buying speakers. Likewise, there is a broad array of different speakers being offered by designers because they happen to like different sounds and voice their designs accordingly. It is naïve to think that there is a one-size-fits-all measure of what is closest to the "ideal speaker" that has no voice of its own. Here is our challenge, at various price points of your choosing, tell us what comes closest to the no voice of its own. I will really go out on the ledge here, I bet there will be a whole lot of folks that will disagree with those choices. |
Mapman, There are a few areas where modest attempts to replicate older technology has failed to some degree. I am sure that if there were the will and sufficient interest, the "lost" know-how could be overcome, but, that has not actually happened. Several Japanese companies have tried to reproduce WE drivers over the years and have succeeded with some, but not all drivers. Line Magnetic does field-coil versions of WE drivers (even when the WE were not field coil), probably for the same reason that the Japanese reproduction companies have mainly done reproductions of the field coil drivers--the magnets cannot be easily copied. A friend spoke with one of the Japanese makers who acknowledged that they have tried to make certain drivers but could never get them to sound the same. Admittedly, these are small builders, but, if there is no interest shown by the big houses, that is what one has to work with. I think the best analogy for speaker design/build are musical instruments. A lot of the "sound" of loudspeakers is in the designers voicing, not only the technology employed. There has actually been quite a lot of attempts to make violins to sound like those made in Cremona 450 years ago, including instruments made with high tech polymers and carbon fiber impregnated material, metal, etc. While some of these actually sound pretty good, I don't think that too many listeners would say that they "blow away" an Amati or Stradivari instruments. The best newly built violins tend to be old-school instruments built in pretty much the same way as the 450 year old ones, with the maker voicing the instrument by ear, and not applying some high-tech approach. |
We could go into interesting discussion that would lead us too far away. I try not to think with dogmas, if that's what you mean. One day digital might sound better than analogue, but not yet. When demostrating reference level speakers or entire system, I would expect and demand reference level analogue source to begin with to be able to see what this system is capable of. You can add digital too later, for fun and comparison. And adding class A Gryphon amp would not be system integration or tuning in this case, at least in my opinion, but this point is debatable, I guess. |
That's probably the reason why he put class A Gryphon older reference amp in there - to make digital sound a little nicer. When he puts real analogue source and either full Chord or full Gryphon electronics chain, then I will listen to that system, opportunity permitting. Sorry, but I believe that's just dogma you're expressing, and nationality is hardly the issue here. The proof is in (the eating of) the pudding, right? And of course, opinion may simply be "at play" where absolutes are stated.. |
Classic Audio Loudspeaker with Field Coil drivers. Is something you may want to look into if you want Vintage looking speaker that has been improved on for decades. I know no one else who has been doing what John Wolff has with his company. I must Say all the comments about Horns being shouty and harsh is not true if you have listened to Classic Audio T1.5 speakers Field Coils. Make you think how bad horns were implemented in the early 1900s and up. People often disregard new horn speakers claiming ATM and Ribbon are better but after spending years with AMT and Ribbons and listening to modern day properly implemented horns I must say Horns to me are still something I find more satisfaction with. |
I own modern speakers and I have never heard any real vintage speakers. I’m very curious how they sound because I have a few 60’s vintage guitars, guitar amps and vintage microphones, which sound so much better than any of new ones for some reasons. For musical instruments and microphones, there is probably no improvement, only retrogression, even the technology should be much better today, and I’m always wondering why... |
Good points, Mike, modern speaker designs are way beyond what was tinkered with back in the 30s, 40s or 50s. And of course the speaker cabinet's material depends on the price point. Soundsreal seems to think that every speaker being made today is employing MDF, which could not be further from the truth. |
The physics has not changed. Speakers can now be optimized in ways that no one even dreamed about 70 years ago. Active designs have the ability to control variables way beyond what passive speakers and an amplifier (or two) can do. Amplifiers, active crossovers, the cabinet, and the drivers designed together solve a myriad of complicated interactions usually beyond our control. A speaker can now be designed with, say, a perfect step response as the goal, or to balance other parameters. I have been listening to a passive 70 year old compression design and an active speaker just recently developed and it is like night and day. No more than a blink is necessary to hear the difference. These active speakers will play a piano D1 at realistic level and timbre. Virtually no distortion. They will take your breath away. |
Inna, speakers can be improved a great deal; since I built my speakers, I have replaced the woofer, and midrange, but I got the biggest surprise when I upgraded the capacitors. Although I didn't change any values, (I'm not an engineer) I changed from electrolytic to all polypropylene. Although it was expensive, it was worth it, but it was cheap when you consider the price of new speakers. If your speakers have all poly caps, you could talk to Vifa, or "Parts Express" about the drivers. If Vifa has improved your particular driver, those speakers would sound even better. Since you like the speaker cabinets you already have, that would be a relatively inexpensive way to get new speakers. One caveat, make sure you have enough room for the change in capacitors. Good luck. |
I just happened to remember, when I built my custom speakers originally, 20 years ago, I used 6 inch Vifa for the midrange, which is a good speaker, and I was told not long ago that they had improved their 6 inch driver, so I replaced the old drivers for Vifa's new drivers, and there was a tremendous improvement across the board. Those who make their living selling drivers, have to keep improving. Enjoy the music. |
Tomcy6 Were did I say this-
no progress in speaker technology since the 30s and that we should all own 30s speakers.-I mention how little progress in loudspeaker design since the 30s and never once did I suggest to anyone that all people should own 1930s loudspeakers. I also never mentioned that the Shearers are the best loudspeakers in the world. I do wonder if your reading the thread and comprehending it since you jump to such wrong all encompassing personal conclusions. I really could care less what you or anyone else runs for a loudspeaker. I am just relating my hands on real world experiences not trying to sway people one way or another.. |
I just looked up the links that you provided, johnk. I have no problem at all with people listening to speakers from the 30s and saying that they prefer that sound above all other. I simply disagreed with what you appear to believe, that there has been little or no progress in speaker technology since the 30s and that we should all own 30s speakers. Sorry, but I still think you’re wrong. I think that speaker technology has improved significantly since the 30s and that everyone should listen to as many speakers as they can and buy the one that works best for them. That can be homemade speakers, speakers from the 30s, huge speakers, tiny monitors made in the 90s, the most recent Wilsons or Magnepans, Bose speakers, whatever one prefers. I don’t even have a problem with people listening to speakers they don’t really like but they have to own because they can’t afford what they really want or their significant other won’t let them bring what they really want into the house. So johnk, Enjoy your vintage speakers and believe in your heart that they are the best speakers in the world with my blessings. But if you try to tell me that they are the best speakers for me or that there has been no real advancement in speaker technology since the 30s, I will disagree. |
You can easily add a part or 2 and bring a 1930s loudspeaker system into modern times but you cant make a 1930s phone a smart phone can you? Never said we made no progress just very little. And if tomcy6 would look about google he would see complete loudspeakers available I know nothing I can post to change a close mind. So enjoy your opinion on what these things sound like I will enjoy the real things. I also will enjoy and advance the best of modern. Happy listening. |
No one has suggested that there has been no progress since 1930s. The BIG deal is that very good sound is now affordable and practical. The stuff from the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's that deliver good sound were meant for theaters and would not fit in any normal living room and was extremely expensive given wages at that time. Even theaters could not afford the Western Electric systems and most of these were leased. There is no doubt that, given advancements in technology and knowledge, it would be possible to make similar sounding gear that is better. There are companies that intend to do just that--make gear that sounds like old Western Electric, Lansing, Klanghorn, etc. gear--but actually improve on performance (e.g., ALE, Cogent, Goto). There are current manufacturers that attempt to make close replicas of such gear (e.g., Line Magnetic and G.I.P. Laboratories). Whether any such gear is actually "better" is purely a subjective judgment. In any case, the sound of these followers of old school sound is quite different from mainstream gear and it is pointless to argue which sound is "better." If you like that sound there really hasn't been that much progress, and it is largely an academic exercise arguing that advanced technology "could" make that kind of sound better because there are so few companies working in that area. Have all of those who have been arguing that modern gear MUST be superior actually heard a Shearer system or a system with a WE 15A horn or any of the other 1930's contenders? |
I have owned 28 different speakers in 55 years as an audiophile with most, if not all available drivers and tiny to very large boxes. I had concluded that one must expect that every speaker included compromises and that had two or three years before ones present speakers drove you crazy. Then at the RMAF I heard the Tidal Contriva SEs powered by a prototype tube Ypsilanti amp. I bought the speakers but not the amps, buying instead the BMC M2 amps and the DAC1 PRE. Not very long after I got the amps, I heard the BMC Arcadia speakers that had the most realistic base I had ever heard, thanks in part to the BMC M2 amps. I have no temptation to seek another set of speakers. I have enjoyed each new speaker that have given me improved realism and thrill of the music and performance. |
This whole thread has gotten out of hand to me... I can accept that something very old can still sound good, but to put the idea forward that things have not progressed since 1930 is crazy! You know, I can still talk on my cell phone, I guess phones aren't any better either.... Oh wait. My phone is a better music source than anything that existed in 1930.... Nice computer too, oh and I love the camera on my phone, I don't think they had electronic calculators like this in 1930, gps on my phone is cool, did they have that in 1930? .... yes, it is a fair analogy. Phones existed then, but the technology innovations have been huge, just like in Audio. |
OK johnk, You found a guy on ebay selling boxes without drivers, seller name: mymuseum, and a company that imports replica drivers (from China?) that are probably made with current materials and technology. No crossovers or other necessary electronics. That does not represent a speaker manufacturer, IMHO. Enjoy your Shearers! I and most other people will enjoy something more current, and no one’s choice is wrong. |
The Shearers have been set up with RCA FC from the 1930s RCA alnicos from the 1940s have also run Altecs EV in them. Run a few different multicells inc the 18 cell. Had TAD 4001 in Iwata mids on them for awhile. I have a large collection of horns loudspeakers about old, new, prototypes, designs for other manufacturers. I do have much experience mostly all hands on in my systems with the best of old and new. My point that I still think others miss is that by the 1930s most of the design of loudspeakers was sorted and today not as much innovation exists in loudspeaker design. And by chasing the small thus requiring high power we have lost something is what we lost more than what we gain in small size convenience? that is up to you to decide I already did. |
After owning many Altec a2 a4 a5 a7 as well as others and also having the ability to compare the Altec a4 to Shearer. A a4 is nearly the same loudspeaker design as a shearer accept for the massive W bin of Shearers. The 210 cabinet isn't a upgrade over a older W bin doesn't have the extension or the kick. It did allow for cheaper build lighter cabinets and higher crossover point so less powerful mag and smaller mid horn but a wee bit better extension in treble its a good example of bean counter design right down to the battleship grey WW2 surplus paint. As I collected altecs I notice the build quality decreasing towards the 1960s some cabinets the adhesive was placed about 2 inch from seam with less bracing used. Still a Altec a2 a4 a5 are wonderful loudspeakers with a few upgrades will compete with most of whats available today. |
I’d bet that you couldn’t find a single speaker manufacturer who would be interested in doing reproductions of speakers from the 30s. -http://www.toneimports.com/lmaudio/lmaudioHome.html http://stores.ebay.com/Angels-Western-Sound http://we16ahorn.blogspot.com/ |
According to the same website that speaks of the Shearer loudspeaker the Voice of the Theater was an improvement over the earlier design (http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/altec/vott.htm). The reasons why and what was done are outlined at that link. Johnk, do you feel this is not the case- do you feel that the Shearer was a better system? If so, why (do you think something was lost with the succeeding design)? |
Johnk, Are your 1930 Shearer horns all original parts and design? If so and still in good operating condition that would be something. If not, then what has been done to "restore" them? Also if restored how can you know what these sounded like originally and that that was equivalent to restored versions? Is it possible the speakers benefit from anything new or different not incorporated into their original design? Just wondering. Thanks. |
johnk, Why do you have trouble understanding that 30s speakers may perform as well or better than current speakers FOR YOU and your listening preferences, but others find that much progress has been made since then and prefer current speakers. I’d bet that you couldn’t find a single speaker manufacturer who would be interested in doing reproductions of speakers from the 30s. tomcy6 -- You start out with a fair statement of "to each his own," but in your second paragraph goes on trying to basically isolate johnk in his preference with a (presumptuous) appeal to the majority. Why don’t you have a read-up over at OMA’s blog-section with another voice to temper your claim: http://oswaldsmillaudio.com/blog/ I see this discussion playing out all the time. Someone insists that everyone should want what he likes or owns. It just doesn’t work that way. I don’t see johnk doing that at all, only that he poses a fair question I find of deep relevance. On the contrary I see you trying to impose on him what is the opinion of the masses followed by a diversion... If you want to discuss patents and when concepts were first published, you can probably find a better place to do it. ...in effect, trying to silence him. |
johnk, Why do you have trouble understanding that 30s speakers may perform as well or better than current speakers FOR YOU and your listening preferences, but others find that much progress has been made since then and prefer current speakers. I’d bet that you couldn’t find a single speaker manufacturer who would be interested in doing reproductions of speakers from the 30s. I see this discussion playing out all the time. Someone insists that everyone should want what he likes or owns. It just doesn't work that way. If you want to discuss patents and when concepts were first published, you can probably find a better place to do it. |
The question was have we made much progress since the 30s not whats best or what fits homes best or what costs least or what modern consumers enjoy today but have we made much progress since and I still feel we have not since this is what my experience shows. This is not my bias towards collecting or vintage I design modern have for many years before I got into vintage to learn about the past. Didn't get into vintage because I thought it would perform better I honestly thought it wouldn't but was proven wrong. If a 30s loudspeaker design with slight changes can compete with the best of modern I know of no other field were that maybe true. Thus why I posted. |
