2. speakers
  3. 125362-293

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
inna
7,296 posts
 
About quality of anything beginning with themselves.
phusis's avatar
phusis
1,217 posts
 
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.
213runnin
914 posts
 
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.


phusis's avatar
phusis
1,217 posts
 
Well, space travel is irrelevant, but since it was brought up…


Perhaps you didn't notice me referring to it as an analogy..

tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,597 posts
 

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.

More to discover