Modern tweeters are excellent but almost all share an Achilles heal - ferrofluid! The stuff dries up over several years or sooner if you drive the speakers hard. It is insidious in that the change often occurs slowly so you get used to the sound as it changes. With the loss of ferrofluid damping, tweeters designed to function best with ferrofluid will sound harsh and dull or honky.
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
Those old guys with their slide rules and a ton of common sense sure made amazing things back in the day. Could we today make 1/3 of the advances ,if it were not for the the birth of computers from guys with slide rules. I have a house full of imperfect vintage two channel speakers with big horns, cabinets and 15" drivers and many diy builds of equal quality. I would not trade them for any of the new stuff, not saying the new stuff is bad, I just don't hear what I want out of them. As far as distortion from the stages back in the day, I believe that has a lot to do with everybody on the stage trying to be heard at the same time with their amps. I have quite going to live concerts because the sound is so bad. http://postimg.org/gallery/zslbczg4/ |
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. Until then - sorry, no interest from me. He should get serious, especialy considering what he charges for his speakers. No Danes will fool true American audiophiles. |
What a waist. Listening to a great pair of speakers with cd player instead of turntable or reel to reel deck. At the very least they could’ve done full Gryphon electronics, why Chord and Gryphon in one chain? inna -- Waste is not a thought that occurred to me when I auditioned the setup. The Typhoeus Momentum really sang, you should’ve been there to hear for yourself - anything else is being presumptuous, wouldn’t you say? The way the setup delivered extreme sonic insight and at the same time imparted a sense of cohesiveness and natural warmth was very arresting. Voices, instruments (I don’t think I’ve ever heard a harp sound that lovely), spatiality, micro dynamics in particular - everything sounded chillingly "real," for lack of a better word, indeed very musical. Mr. Kristoffersen of Peak Consult has a full Reference line of Chord electronics - that is: CD-player, pre- and poweramp - he usually uses for demoing (also some Threshold gear), but the used Antelion poweramp (fully refurbished) he had just acquired, perhaps as part of a deal - can’t remember. Anyway, I’m sure Per found the inclusion of the Class-A Antelion in conjunction with the Chord components sonically interesting, as did I judging by the totality of the sound. Surely the right synergy effect or overall matching isn’t exclusive to using parts of the same brand? If I remember correctly Per also once had a full line of Gryphon electronics, hence his interest I gather in the Antelion. Regarding the source: well, I’d rather not go there. An analogue source of some kind in this caliber will sound great, I’m sure, but I find digital dittos to do that as well. |
Hello Salectric, here is the information you asked for regarding The very good Loudspeaker builder. http://crsacoustics.com/ |
So much for using moon travel as an analogy :) Sorry if it caused a derailment of the thread.. Well, on sound quality, I guess we'll have to disagree and leave it at that. I intend to look for better sound in new products and I hope that someday you'll find a pair of antique theater speakers to enjoy. Didn't mean for above reply of mine to stop the discussion. Hell, my own speakers are almost brand new (~half a year), with modern (i.e.: new) components all around, though based on a design that originates over 50 years ago; the 15" bass drivers are more or less replicas of the ones developed for the earlier Klipsch La Scala/Belle bass horns, meaning light and stiff paper cones with treated cloth surrounds, lightweight voice coils, and high compliance (Fs: 26Hz) - a type of unit rarely built today due to its limited use, the closest design-"siblings" perhaps being the GPA 515 units (replicas of Altec's 515) and the hellishly expensive Vitavox 151/152 drivers. The midrange compression driver is, apart from the neodymium magnet, almost a clone of RCA's MI-1428B field coil driver, which was built in the 30's - highly regarded units in use even today. So, while there are certainly vintage elements in my speakers, the componentry is all-new. Shearer horns would simply be too imposing in the room-space afforded in my case (and would totally block my 127" fixed projector screen ;)). The sad part, as I see it, is that we rarely see a fusing of modern day technology with old-school, physically larger and high efficiency designs. I understand the practical limitations that large-size speakers causes, but if there's really a tendency of people generally having bigger rooms at their disposal today, it seems a mere priority to allow for such speakers to take up more space and let them act as furniture. |
| Post removed |
tomcy6 -- Thanks for your reply. As 213runnin pointed out, we could go back to the moon today but we couldn’t do most of what’s being done today in the 60s. Go to Space.com or the Hubble Telescope website to see some awe inspiring pictures. People were excited about going to the moon because no one had ever done it before. I doubt it would cause much excitement today and would instead be considered a colossal waste of money, something else our government is much better at today. :) Think of the audiophile as a space voyager. Would he or she be more excited about working on a space station circling the earth in close orbit for 90 days, or walking on the moon for a few hours? Walking on the moon has been done before, yes, but for the man or woman to actually walk on its powdery surface, to take in the vista of being outside in space (albeit in a spacesuit), looking at the earth hanging out there in the darkness as something that can supposedly be hidden behind the thumb of a stretched out arm (so it has been told), really walking on another celestial body - this is most definitely an Experience that is bound to change a person, or so I believe. With limited tech they took a giant leap (sorry for the pun), a pioneering spirit I’d like to see re-invigorated with todays technology. I don’t know what you mean by "I’d aim higher than that" but let me guess and rephrase my point. There’s a lot to comment on here. "Aiming a little higher" would, in effect, be questioning your claim that "the vast majority of people would prefer a system using current technology," insofar we’re talking typically newer designs. Most people haven’t even heard 30’s speakers (or their kind), so where’s the reference other than speculation? And let’s not get too fixated on whether speakers are from the 30’s or 60’s, or even build today based on older designs but refined with contemporary technology. The main point I feel is the type of speaker being addressed, and this involves primarily bigger size and higher efficiency (and, in effect, the use of horns). Practical issues at present often involves technology to work around size (and price) constrains, among other things, and this is rarely about achieving the best sound quality in absolute terms, but more how to minimize and work around the effects of a variety of practical limitations. I also fully acknowledge taste and whatever’s "best for me," just as well as many won’t be able to house a pair of very large speakers, but let’s not forget that "practical and attractive" is no measure into achieving the best in sound quality. However, I would put my money on the best current systems sounding better than the best 30s systems to, say, 90% of listeners. That’s a bold claim, and one difficult to test. I wouldn’t bet on it :) No doubt, there a great sounding current designs. A week ago I listened to a pair of Peak Consult Typhoeus Momentum at the factory in Denmark (retail price: over €100,000/pair) with Chord preamp and CD-player + Gryphon Antelion poweramp, and their sound boggled my mind. Absolutely amazing. And yet, a great sounding horn system can do something different; adding a sense of tactility, presence and even more ease that ultimately blurs the distinction between what’s reproduced and live to a fuller extent. But that’s just me. |
As 213runnin pointed out, we could go back to the moon today but we couldn’t do most of what’s being done today in the 60s. Go to Space.com or the Hubble Telescope website to see some awe inspiring pictures. People were excited about going to the moon because no one had ever done it before. I doubt it would cause much excitement today and would instead be considered a colossal waste of money, something else our government is much better at today. :) I don’t know what you mean by "I’d aim higher than that" but let me guess and rephrase my point. Todays speakers create a greater sense of awe and are more practical and attractive to the vast majority of listeners than 30s speakers would be if they were widely available. People talking in movies inspired awe in people in the 20s, but it no longer does, even though the soundtracks of current movies are far more sophisticated. There are a few systems around using 30s speakers that may sound very good and are the "best" sounding to the people that own them, but, given the choice, the vast majority of people would prefer a system using current technology. This is a matter of taste and anyone who prefers 30s speakers will get no argument from me on whether they are the "best" FOR THEM. I fully acknowledge that 30s speakers are the "best" to the people that love them and would not try to convince them that they could get better sound from modern speakers. However, I would put my money on the best current systems sounding better than the best 30s systems to, say, 90% of listeners. |
Well, space travel is irrelevant, but since it was brought up… There's nothing on the moon worth going back for, but many probes out to Mars, etc., use technology that would have been impossible in the 60's. The data gathered from those probes and the Hubble telescope the 60's wouldn't even know what to do with. |
tomcy6 -- I think that we could send people to the moon more safely and comfortably and be able to gather much more useful data now than we could in the 60s. Whether we could is not the issue. The point is we still haven't, and that they got to the moon with the technology available at the time. They simply decided to do so. The Apollo missions were more about national pride and developing technology that would help us in the cold war. That is irrelevant to the discussion with the specific example. My focus is the sense of awe the moon landings instilled, and the experience the astronauts must've had; the perspective (in more than one sense) it created. Preparing for the missions, going there, being on the moon - decidedly apolitical in nature, but wholly scientific. In the end the journey transcends it all (imagine yourself as the astronaut(/audiophile) in this process). Priorities have moved on and there’s not much reason to keep going back to the moon. Certainly priorities, yes. I’m sure that speakers from the 30s have their appeal, as do Duesenbergs, but today’s speakers are the right solution for the vast majority of people. I'd aim a little higher than that. |
I think that we could send people to the moon more safely and comfortably and be able to gather much more useful data now than we could in the 60s. The Apollo missions were more about national pride and developing technology that would help us in the cold war. Priorities have moved on and there’s not much reason to keep going back to the moon. I’m sure that speakers from the 30s have their appeal, as do Duesenbergs, but today’s speakers are the right solution for the vast majority of people. |
Creating a quality speaker for home use is a problem that has been solved thousands of different ways by many over the years. Which solutions solves it best is more a matter of opinion than fact. There are many viable candidates for that using various technologies applied. So clearly there have been many innovations and different designs and approaches to the problem since the 1930s. There are more choices than ever not to mention continuous refinements to quality over the years. So other than there being more larger homes and rooms these days than in the 1930s, the problem has not gotten much harder to solve, in fact improvements in amplifier technology make some speaker design problems, like size and bulk, easier to solve. Needless to say it is possible to build a much higher output high quality speaker today than in 1930. But who needs that? Professional applications in large venues do but cost will likely be the barrier there, not the technology availble to build the best and highest output speaker possible. |
I noticed no one has mentioned the Heil Air Motion transformer; that came out in the 70's I believe, and there were some two way speakers that utilized it. Although I liked the highs that two way produced, the mid-range just wasn't mellow enough.@orpheus10, if you look back through this thread you will find I mentioned a tweeter made by High Emotion Audio. It has a lot in common with the Air Motion transformer. Its high efficiency and very fast, while also being very smooth and detailed. Essentially its a bent ribbon, pinched in the middle to give it a horn shape. It goes low enough (2KHz) that it can be used in a two-way system. |
This is for Salectric here is the excellent cabinet Akers address http://crsacoustics.com/ P s Chris sells the Drivers also research the Apple ply Baltic birch top stuff 3/4 thick. Good luck |
Technology has advanced to such an extent that the '30's can realistically be seen as the cave man days, in many respects. Certainly with computer testing and engineering, what can be purchased today for say a week's wages versus the 1930's would be worlds apart. The modern cabinet, drivers, and crossover all benefit greatly from new discoveries, techniques and a body of knowledge WRT making a good speaker that the 1930's can only dream of. Technology is one thing, another is its application. The size of speakers (i.e.: radiation area) and their efficiency has gone from large and high to small and low, both of which I'd say are among rather fundamental factors in achieving a lifelike sound reproduction, and where advancement in technology can only bring you so far with smaller and less efficient speakers; there's no escaping fundamental physics. An analogy: think about the state of technology in the 60's in the beginning of the space age, and where it got the Saturn V rocket and its inhabitants: to the moon - a feat that hasn't been replicated since the last moon landing in '72. You'd imagine going to the moon in our present day with its highly advanced technology and crazy computer power would be a piece of cake, relatively speaking, and yet it hasn't happened. A priority, obviously, but some 45 years ago a select group of astronauts stood on the moon and looked at the Earth - having had only the computer power of a poor pocket calculator of todays build. This is not to say the space age in the wake of the Apollo missions has been in vain, but no (wo)man has since gone that far into space and walked on another celestial body. Making loudspeakers that effectively approaches a lifelike sonic imprinting "simply" requires the will, skill and materials to do so, with no excuse nor catering to size constraints or other marketing-laden interferences. They apparently got off to a good start over 80 years ago, and perhaps part of the recipe here was a predominant reliance on the ears coupled with a goal that involved a natural reference, rather than an industry-established, navel-gazing hi-fi agenda where branding and small size is all-important. |
I noticed no one has mentioned the Heil Air Motion transformer; that came out in the 70's I believe, and there were some two way speakers that utilized it. Although I liked the highs that two way produced, the mid-range just wasn't mellow enough. I liked the highs so much that I designed 3 way speakers with that for the tweeter, 12 inch woofer, and 6 inch midrange. I engaged a crossover engineer to design the crossover (far too complicated for me), and that completed my speaker; it's completely neutral, and takes on the quality of whatever electronics are used; you can tell a change in interconnects immediately. Although I'm listening to them now, I would never do it again; I spent 20 years redoing the cabinets until I was satisfied, but that's the only way to get precisely what you want. I noticed a lot of speakers lately are using miniature Heil Tweeters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Motion_Transformer http://www.simplyspeakers.com/ess-replacement-tweeter-air-motion-transformer-amt-heil.html Enjoy the music. |
Taste comes into play here, certainly, as does vintage bias and the "they-don't-make-'em-like-they-used-to" bias, or the "China sucks" bias. Technology has advanced to such an extent that the '30's can realistically be seen as the cave man days, in many respects. Certainly with computer testing and engineering, what can be purchased today for say a week's wages versus the 1930's would be worlds apart. The modern cabinet, drivers, and crossover all benefit greatly from new discoveries, techniques and a body of knowledge WRT making a good speaker that the 1930's can only dream of. Now one may prefer a speaker from the 1930's era, but that doesn't really prove anything except that there is no accounting for taste. |
Johnk, I am so much in agreement with you on how good the old WE, Shearer, etc. systems (or modern systems built around old drivers/parts) can sound. Most listeners have not had the opportunity to hear such systems at all, much less at their best. Yes, the compact, art deco WE 753 is quite a nice system, but, it is quite expensive these days and it is hard to find all of the drivers in good working order (a friend just bought one which, unfortunately, had a bad 713 driver). I heard a fantastic open baffle system that utilized a cabinet that is a replica of the 753 but housed a Jensen M10 field coil driver plus a tweeter (probably a 302); this was a fantastic speaker (I am thinking about a similar speaker utilizing the Jensen M10 and a WE 597 tweeter or a Japanese 597 replica). I agree with your earlier comment about Tungar power supplies for field coils. I have heard both vintage Tungars and Tungars with hand-wound rebuilt transformers and I have heard them in comparison to some very nice modern solid state power supplies. I happen to like the Tungars more, a result I was not really expecting. The rebuilt Tungar I heard was dead quiet--no hum from the speaker or mechanical hum from the Tungar at all. These vintage systems are certainly not for everyone's taste, particularly if extremely loud and deep bass is a priority, but, from the upper bass on up, these speakers can be magical. |
Have run vintage systems with all matching gear that I tried to get as orignal as possible and I have used modern as well as combinations of both taking the best of both worlds. That being said a all orignal restored WE RCA Klangfilm etc 1930-40s system would shock most audiophiles and a few times at shows such systems get very high praise. Taking the best of both worlds to me is the best approach if ultimate sound quality is your goal and also if you find this style of system to be acceptable. Many do not we all have our personal tastes biases experiences and since costly one has to get hands on- they are mostly large and not veneered since meant for commercial use greatly limits appeal. But if wanting to try many newer theater pulls available many cheap that with a few mods do great service in a home. Some of the monitors RCA and WE made between 1930-40s are compact and would be fairly easy to get in most homes since cool artdeco style but those are costly and rare indeed. |
Great topic. I have been thinking about (and listening to) speakers recently. The diversity of opinions is colorful! My observations are: - Expectations play a large role in preferences. - There are more ways to get it wrong than right. (Same applies to brewing beer). If someone says they like something, listen. If someone says they don't, it doesn't mean much. - Compression sucks! - Garbage in, even more garbage out. (It's very unlikely a non-linearity or distortion will be canceled by another non-linearity or distortion.) - Technology marches forward (usually). - Marketing, marketing, marketing (see first point). |
I'd like to propose that speaker design over the years has advanced hand-in-hand with amplifier design. What would a set of Raidhos sound like, I wonder, hooked up to whatever amplifier was available in the 1930s? What would a 1930s speaker sound like hooked up to a Devialet class D amplifier? (I don't actually know the answer, just though it might be worth asking). |
| Post removed |
So..it appears that John is right, there is no innovation in a true meaning of it, just some improvements in certain areas, maybe.I used to run a Ford Bronco, because I could load my hang glider on it and get to the top of any mountain that had a road up it. It had no computers and was easy to service, being very simple. I replaced it with an Expedition, which has about the same cargo area. Despite having an automatic (the Bronco had a 5-speed overdrive transmission), the Expedition accelerates faster, due to having about twice the power, handles better, is very quiet inside, is also much more comfortable and despite the computer is a lot more reliable and just does not need the service all the time like the Bronco did. On top of all that, it gets about 3 mpg better mileage. That is a difference that was wrought in the space of about 25 years. The funny thing is, the basic designs of the two are really similar. This is true of speakers too. But if one ignores the effect that materials science has had on speakers one might likely throw out the baby with the bath. Kapton didn't exist 70 years ago. Neither did highly regulated power supplies. The impact of the Theile/Small parameters can't be ignored. If I were to point to one thing that has really affect high end audio in the last 30 years its how we manage vibration. Speaker cabinets are much more dead now; literally that's the big improvement in most turntables, and killing breakup in drivers is still a pretty big deal. I like the older designs but there's not a one of them that won't break up. Its up to the individual to ascertain how important these improvements are. For my own part, I appreciate the size and efficiency as well as the refinement offered by the new technology that simply isn't there in older designs. But I make my own recordings. I know what they sound like... |
I think microphones are the aspect of audio that has not progressed much and even if so most engineers are using vintage mics or newly built ones with using old topologies. I have a very novel concept for mics and tried to pitch it to someone once, but it would be expensive to develop since it uses no diaphragm |
Mercedes produced a vehicle in 1938 that produced 736 hp and ran speeds of 268 mph. That proves cars have not improved.. In 1964 the SR71 was produced, this plane set the absolute speed record on the planet in the mid 70's.... so, I guess planes have not improved. Did the SR71 have cloaking capabilities? Klingons? Hmmm These analogies are the same... great stuff was introduced a long time ago, but the improvements have been massive. Everything that we have had to be invented at some point... Show me anything like a Magico... Shoot, show me a Bose! Point is well made that there haven't been many New INVENTIONS, but the improvements have been astronomical! So, patent a Microwave that plays incredible music..... Never mind, that's just for fat guys. |
Agreed. Transducer design has not changed for decades. Mostly tweaks. Some older designs are extremely good even against the best available today. From my perspective, the biggest step change was when transistor based power amplifiers allowed greater flexibility in speaker transducer design and realistic LF bass frequencies. Greater power in power amplifiers has allowed wider directivity and less efficient transducers to be employed and active designs allow for better integration. So the 70's was when a step change occurred. Arena rock and the golden era of the recording studio helped drive the technology. |
As I opined here earlier, technology has advanced the performance of home audio gear greatly over the years. The Shearer system that the OP mentioned is not a home audio system but an enormous thing designed for theaters and movie houses; it is totally impractical for normal home use. The Western Electric systems of the day were essentially cost-is-no-object designs that were too expensive for even the theaters to own and were mostly leased out. They were built when labor was relatively cheap and so it was possible to build handmade items in somewhat smaller production runs. Home audio profited greatly from technological advances that allowed for much smaller speakers that could be manufactured on more capital-intensive production line basis. The sound of home audio was completely different from that of the large theater systems, and over time that sound evolved to where we are now--a different aesthetic from those old horn systems. I am certain modern designers could build systems that sound like those old school systems, and using modern materials and science, provide superior performance in the areas those old designs are lacking. For the most part, they don't because the mass market has no exposure to that sound and so there is not much demand. There are modern builders who cater to this niche market, but, they can only build on a small scale and cost, particularly labor, is extremely high so the stuff is EXPENSIVE (e.g., Goto). Atmasphere is, in my opinion, correct that these vintage systems cannot deliver the kind of deep bass that modern systems deliver. Even the massive Shearers and Western based systems do not have much in the way of punchy, deep bass. The light paper cones with low-compliance suspensions that don't allow the cones to move in and out very far are not capable in that respect. But, aside from that, they deliver a VERY special kind of sound. If that is your particular taste, there are not many modern alternatives (and certainly not many reasonably-priced one), so it is mostly an academic exercise saying that modern designs are, or are not, superior. The Classic Audio Reproductions field coil speakers certainly do deliver the incredible dynamics and clarity of the old school systems, and I will take Atmasphere's word that they deliver much lower distortion, but, I think they are voiced like modern systems and so they are not really "replacements" for such systems. |
Spot-on Inna and John..... I get to compare vintage to modern every day in both cars http://i.imgur.com/ASYO1cY.jpg and audio http://i.imgur.com/ddKNHVx.jpg Give me vintage....😎🎼 |
So..it appears that John is right, there is no innovation in a true meaning of it, just some improvements in certain areas, maybe. Speaking of cars, not from 30s. The original BMW M3, small and light, was a true driver's car. The same with Porsche. Now look at those modern computers on wheels that those cars have become. I don't need them. |
It might be useful to think about the evolution of the automobile as an analogy here. A car from the 1930s would be immediately recognizable to us, but over time cars have gotten lighter, smaller, safer, they handle better, are more reliable, routinely go faster, are more efficient, and the list goes on. These improvements (and yes, I think we can all agree that these are improvements) might also be said of speaker design. The industry has access to vastly improved measuring techniques, materials, and about a century of design experience to draw on. Fundamentally, the components of a car haven't changed much since the 1930s: an engine, transmission, suspension, steering mechanism, exhaust system, and a body to enclose it all. Same with speakers: a magnet, a basket, a vibrating membrane... What HAS evolved in a major way since the 1930s is music itself and therefore how we listen and what we listen to. Every day, we hear sounds my grandparents could never have imagined. Reproducing those sounds requires innovation not only in speaker design but also in amplification. I'm wondering if the invention of the transistor might not have been one of the driving forces behind speaker design and innovation over the last 50 years or so, and now that we're in the early(ish) days of the popularization of class D amplification, what changes might that precipitate, us having grown so used to today's hyper-resolving electronics? |
Speaking of old School and builds the Cabinet is at least 1/2 responsible for the Loudspeakers fidelity . I found a great cabinet builder in TN that uses what myself and many the finest Birch ply made in Apple ply they use only1/16 th thick laminate sheets up to 1 inch and the best plays are from cold climate Ruseia and east Poland the grain is tighter and more dense but $$ . I am using a never advertised but very Good Audio Nirvana 15 inch Alnico driver with Whizzer. In the 5.6 cubic ft driver a Bass reflex with 6 inch port where the 13 Cubic foot is their top. At least Audio Nirvana will provide you with cabinet building plans when you buy from them.i have owned a audio store for years in the UK and many others . I now have a SE pass labs F6 clone amp and Masterpiece 300b preamp Schiit Audio Gungnir Multibit and this system is truly engaging and puts realism in the room . what many people donot realize is that most recordings are lucky yo get under 40 HZ. My speakers will cleanly go to under a True 35 HZ not on paper like most speakers and for only one short burst tuneful articulste standup Double Bass or Tympany . For $3k delivered I wasted years avoiding single dtiver done right ,Driver,and proper built cabinet work in synergy . give it a shot and if you don't build ask Dave for a quality cabinet builder . the 5.6 CI cabinet was $1350'stained and sealed with magnetic grill s for $1500 plus shipping the 15 inch Alnico drivers $1100 a pr. Don't knock it unless you have heard them using the exact loudspeaker geometry for size driver and Driver that best suits your room . |
My tungars on my WE 13A dont hum again saying all tungars hum is simply not true. Also the classic audio reproduction is using 1930s tech its just using modern materials. A speaker like your CAR is a very good example of 1930s tech modernized. My point is that today we are basically building modernized versions of the pasts work. Your example of a BE dome doesnt negate the fact that its a dome FC compression driver and that is 1920s tech. Other comments about better materials or computer aided design forget that they are all still dynamic ribbon planar estat comp etc all early inventions that we use modern material science to supposedly improve. We dont have the innovation today and that is something I truly believe we dont take chances our design is limited by the power of computer software not the unlimited power of the human mind. Thus my statement was have-we-really-made-that-much-progress-since-the-1930s and I still think we have not. |
EVs, Klipsch, Altec and JBL all are not 1930s. The Altec A7 you use as a example of poor bass its again not a 1930s design but is a affordable down sized design so expecting that to have deep bass and to be a example of design faults from the 1930s is very off. And you say this- Most older speakers simply can’t reproduce it right- certainly nothing from the 30s can- again since you admit no experience with 1930s how can you say such a all encompassing thing. Your argument about old wiring well I see cloths back in and costly as all heck and noted more than a few modern builders that are using screw type connections and bakelite. And you mention a 98db loudspeaker that good to 20hz I would like to see that since Hoffmans iron law it would have to be giant. So thanks for replying etc but you haven't changed my mind.OK- so 50s tech is out- the gist I'm getting here is that for you the 1930s was the pinnacle of loudspeaker technology? Is that a fair statement? Could you point out the spot where I admit to no experience with 30's loudspeakers? I don't think that is correct. Like Al, I've done lots of restoration of older pre-war radios, some of which were rather sophisticated, in particular several large Zeniths (our Novacron amp takes its design aesthetic from a pre-war Zenith) and an Allwave Scott. I've also had exposure to older Western Electric- the large 'Ramhorn' system (there's a set here in the Twin Cities), and at the Munich show there has been for several years a Western Electric system running in a large room that featured 13A horns. I thought it was one of the better sounding rooms at the show- when it was working (one day when I auditioned it one channel was weak). But one thing that system simple could not do (despite the very large Altec subs) was play deep bass, although the Altec did sound quite nice. If you want to see the speakers that go to 20Hz, the speaker I have is a custom T-3 made by Classic Audio Loudspeakers. Normally they cut off at 22Hz but I had my cabinets made a bit larger so they would go to 20Hz. They are the size of a mid-sized refrigerator, about 5 1/2 feet high and employ a pair of 15" high-excursion woofers port-loaded. That speaker employs a field-coil powered midrange that uses a 3" beryllium diaphragm which in turn has a Kapton surround. This technology did not exist even 30 years ago let alone the 1930s (although field coils were the only game in town back then)! The Kapton surround keeps the diaphragm from cracking and failing and reduces artifacts brought on by low frequencies. The speaker uses a 6db slope crossed over at 500Hz so this is rather important! Because the diaphragm is lighter and has no breakups, it is smoother and more detailed than compression drivers that don't use the same technology, which is to say: all drivers made in the 1930s. Since the field coil has to be powered by a power supply, the power supply is thus part of the improvement: technology that simply didn't exist back in the 1930s. I know these days a lot of people go for Tungar rectifiers (which by all accounts seem to introduce hum). I have a box of them sitting in my office. The hum comes from the simple fact that the power supply can't be properly bypassed (without damaging the Tungar). This means that a certain amount of intermodulation with the hum frequency is impossible to avoid. That's a coloration. You might like it, but there is no way its more accurate! |
I have no strong convictions either way in this discussion. But regarding the comment about modern jet fighters being superior to military aircraft from the 1930s, and other comments citing the superiority of modern technology, while that is certainly true I can say unequivocally as an antique radio collector that with perhaps a few exceptions the best performing and best sounding AM radios ever made were produced during the 1930s. (FM broadcasting didn’t exist at that time). Why would that be? Because in those days the centerpiece of home entertainment was AM radio, so there was incentive for manufacturers to implement that capability to high standards. And by far the best sounding AM and shortwave radio I have ever heard, modern or vintage, is the 1936 McMurdo Silver Masterpiece V that is in my collection. Although "radio" is arguably a misnomer, as it is perhaps best considered to be a precursor of modern hifi systems. Its 18 inch speaker, btw, while labelled as a McMurdo Silver, I’m pretty certain was OEM’d by Jensen, and is very similar to the Jensen field coil drivers Larryi referred to in an earlier post. Finally, I’ll mention that during the 1990s I owned two different pairs of very large 1960s Tannoy speakers, which incorporated 15 inch Tannoy "Red" dual concentric drivers that I believe would sell for something like $7K/pair today, or more. While I found their sonics to be somewhat disappointing, my impression was that the main reason for that was the design of the cabinets, and perhaps also the condition of the crossover components, not the drivers themselves. Just my $0.02. Regards, -- Al |