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
larryi
4,047 posts
 

Johnk did not say that only his opinion/experience counts.  He simply said that experience trumps speculation.  Unless one has actually heard the type of systems he is talking about, it is mere speculation that modern designs are inherently superior.  I have heard these systems.  A number of people of people posting here apparently have heard these systems and have commented on some issues that they have with the sound of these vintage systems.  I agree with them that deep bass response is limited.  But, there are many aspects to the sound of these systems that I have never heard matched by modern designs--the sense of speed, the incredible dynamics and scale (the feeling that a lot of air is being moved to produce a BIG sound).  To me, these systems are particularly matchless when they are playing softly.  

I have heard a fair share of modern designs and I do like many of them.  None of these systems that I like share a particular technological approach so I would never insist that they have to be time/phase aligned (some are, like the full range electrostatics that I like) or that they must be active speakers.  I would not rule anything out based on technology employed, materials used in construction or measurements--I would insist on listening and deciding based on auditioning the speakers.  That is why I essentially agree with Johnk --experience (i.e., hearing the speakers) trumps all the conjecture about this or that technology. 

salectric
755 posts
 
Johnk is right---Experience does trump conjecture.  How can anyone argue otherwise?  The problem here is that so few audiophiles have actually heard the speakers he is referencing.  My experience is not as vast as Johnk or Larryi but I have enough exposure to quality vintage speakers to give Johnk the benefit of the doubt.  Did anyone here attend the 2011 or 2012 RMAF?  If so you had a chance to hear a matched pair of Western Electric 757 speakers in the Silbatone room.  Not exactly 1930s but these monitor speakers from the 1940s really opened my eyes to what vintage speakers can do.

inna
7,296 posts
 
Did they really sound better than most modern speakers or just had a different vintage sound?
timlub
2,040 posts
 

You are correct,  this shows a lot of experience in being rude.... That's the point... telling people that they don't count.... opinions without supporting experience is just noise.
Read through the post,  enough was said...

No one has said at all,  that there aren't very good systems from yesteryear, the entire argument that Johnk won't acknowledge is that there have been advancements and clear improvement. Everything that is any good was created in 1848. (Sarcasm) and only that vintage is better.  I pointed out a few inaccuracy's with some dates quoted. I agree that Big speakers that are well balanced is a great experience, the air moving, the big stage is a great experience.  I've never heard Shearer Horns,  John does have a ton of experience and I'm sure that they are great, I'd just like to see some others get credit where its due, but I have sat in from of many others. I recently did a fair amount of mods on old Altecs,  in the end, they were wonderful.  Without todays technology, they wouldn't have turned out like they did.  Ok,  there's my rant. 

phusis's avatar
phusis
1,217 posts
 
You are correct, this shows a lot of experience in being rude.... That’s the point... telling people that they don’t count.... opinions without supporting experience is just noise. Read through the post, enough was said...

I’d say the point is that experience is essential in discussing how technology affects the perceived sound, as it is also vital in helping to draw a distinction between technology, its specific use, and not least of course the actual sonic outcome. I gather few would really deny the advance in technology that has been made over the years, but from many of the posts here there seems to be a tendency to conclude rather blindly this advancement will necessarily equate into better sound without paying much attention to the design and implementation per se. Seeing how johnk points this out through his remarks doesn’t strike me as being rude, but simply that he understands the terms of what is discussed.
More to discover