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
128x128johnk
The epiphany for me, as regards "bandwidth" was hearing the original transcriptions of Benny Goodman's 1938 Concert at Carnegie Hall, in the process of being restored by an archivist. I listened to the flat transfer and to his cleaned up version of Sing, Sing, Sing. The bandwidth, running through a phone line to a cutter some blocks away from the Hall, was around 8Khz. The cleaned up version had dynamics and air on the drums, propulsive and alive sounding. It made me reconsider the value of digital for historic recordings- if done well, in addition to appreciating how much could be extracted from such an old recording. 
Last night, I heard Los Straightjackets do a cover of Sing, Sing, Sing at a small club nearby- in their inimitable surf-pysch rock style. That was great too. :)
jonk

Were you alive in the 30s, to hear all the "then new" speakers, that people listened to, in their homes in the 30s?
(johnk)
"Mapman whats missing- realistic sound quality, the ability to allow listener to feel the emotion of the music. The ability to easily hear the mix ie pick out the individual instruments and vocals along with the added studio work. Realistic image size and dynamic range.The at ease at any SPL the ability to sound wonderful out of sweet spot and through out home. Extreme lack of listening fatigue. A clear real sounding vocal ability the ability to do this all on massively low power. Extreme reliability and ease of service in field by owner. Today most all of this is missing and if present only a small part of it."

I also disagree. Vintage speakers of high efficiency really don't play bass right, they are less detailed and harsher due to breakups in the various drivers and they don't handle power well (are less reliable). So the statement above seems false on all counts.

I believe johnk (in the top paragraph) addresses what he feels is sonically missing with most of todays modern speakers (or the present state of reproduced sound in general), and whether his point of reference in stating this is vintage speakers or not is irrelevant; it's still what he finds is missing.

What does it even mean to "play bass right"?


There seems to me to be something fundamentally different in the way these [vintage] speakers play bass compared to modern speakers with their super dead cabinets and incredible fast, tight and really deep bass. While these speakers sound very impressive their bass just doesn’t flow within the performance like these older-design speakers. The bass on these newer speakers is definitely deeper, faster and has more slam, but they just don’t have the life in the bass that the more vintage designs do. All of the speakers above have incredible air and harmonics in the bass. You feel the bass. Yes, you feel the bass with the modern speaker as well, but differently. The bass from modern speakers with extremely dead cabinets has a very pistonic sound. To me, real music seldom sounds this way, occasionally rock music does, but it also often sounds purposefully distorted.

http://www.dagogo.com/beatnik-pet-peeve-3-way-modern-speakers-play-bass
To me, a lot of audiophile quality double bass is too closely miked- you hear things that even the player probably doesn’t hear. I think that is intended to create an immediacy, but real bass doesn’t sound like that in a club. Piano, to me, is also a tough instrument. Sometimes, very simple recordings are best- but many lack the weight and heft of a real piano in the lower registers and sound two dimensional; to compensate, sometimes the instrument is very closely miked in the same way I described the bass, above. When recorded with other instruments, it sounds out of proportion.
The more modern, big heavy weight bass sound is great for "thwack" but there’s also stuff going on above- the "air," the skin sound, the tonality of a drum beyond the explosive movement of air. I think it is hard to get it all. I’ve always suffered a bit of a trade-off b/c to me, it starts (and often ends) in the midrange-  bandwidth, imaging, soundstage, whatever audiophile attributes you ascribe to as important are pretty irrelevant if the thing sounds reproduced.
Atmasphere keeps stating debatable or simply wrong things in a categorical manner.
I think, what John is talking about is music lover's speakers versus hi-fi speakers. I am not familiar with high end vintage speakers, so won't comment, but there is something artificial in many modern speakers, they are sort of 'digital'.