2. speakers
  3. 135318-20428

Your Side by Side Experience With Best Vintage vs Newer Expensive Hi Tech Speakers

Has anyone here ever done a side by side comparison between Tannoy Autograph, Bozak Concert Hall Grand, EV Patrician, Jensen Imperial Triaxial, Goodmans, Stentorian, Western Electric, Altec A4, Jbl Everest/Hartsfield/Summit/Paragon/4435, Tannoy Westminsters, Klipschorns vs the Hundreds of Thousand even Million Dollar speakers of today like Totems, Sonus Farber, BW, Cabasse, Wilsons, Dmt, Infinity, Polk ...etc
vinny55
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio
1,019 posts
 

Ok Kosst, lets look at this through your glasses then.

"Flexibility? Most speakers these days are intended and quite content to not be driven by electronics with tone controls."

Really? Name one.

"Does anybody even build speakers with tone controls built into them?"

www.michaelgreenaudio.net It’s called a Tuning Bar.

"Flat response is a fairly narrowly defined idea these days."

Correct, because it is an inaccurate assumption. Speakers can not be made to be flat in playback without equalization. This has always been the case old or new.

"Having built an amp with only a DMM for test equipment, I’ve had no option but to listen very carefully and learn what distortion and it’s phase sounded like."

With all due respect, that was with one specific set of conditions. But it’s cool that you built an amp. I think building amps teaches us a lot about the amp/speaker/room interactions. However where exactly does the rose color glasses come into play here, if you don’t mind me asking?

What specific drivers and or speakers do you consider the most up to date? I have several of them sitting right here in my possession, maybe we can talk more specifically.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

phusis's avatar
phusis
1,250 posts
 
The problem with the argument of the advance of technology and how it has been to the sonic betterment of modern speakers largely roots in how it relates to different speaker principles when comparing different eras here. Vintage speakers, certainly over 50-60 years ago, had a closer tie to the necessity of plain old physics in being much larger, and usually horn-driven. The frequency extremes weren’t the highest priority as opposed to what was in between, but while their size and principle came as a natural necessity out of the lack of amp power at the time, size and the adherence to physics is also indispensable in emulating acoustic live sound characteristics - there’s no way around it. Moreover, at the time a sound reproduction system wasn’t something one could easily tuck away, but neither did the mentality call for it nor did physical stature allow it. There was a certain pride in the big pieces of furniture as natural centerpieces almost in the homes they were found, whereas now and for the latest decades interior design dictates for such systems to be a secondary consideration and being in line with the existing decoration; movies are eager to display a B&O console and speakers as that which is found in wealthier homes, but you rarely if ever see a dedicated and space consuming stereo take up the picture. Even when audiophiles may resort to dedicated listening rooms the bi-products of transistor amps in some incarnation are still in full manifestation with overall smaller, direct radiating speakers.

It seems that neither era will come to a fuller fruition, and hence an overall advance to truly speak of, unless the hallmarks of each are combined - that is, for physics to be accommodated while technology joins along. Those that blindly states modern speakers qua being modern are automatically more transparent and uninhibited in their presentation compared to vintage speakers (or their modern iterations) are simply oblivious to the lack the of context and a fuller picture. I’d claim that audio in some, and more fundamental respects have been in a decline that took its full measure decades ago, and the advance in technology can’t alleviate this within the existing paradigm.
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio
1,019 posts
 

Hi phusis

"It seems that neither era will come to a fuller fruition, and hence an overall advance to truly speak of, unless the hallmarks of each are combined - that is, for physics to be accommodated while technology joins along."

BINGO!

This is why I am excited. It's also why I'm back promoting more again. The latest paradigm is here and has been here for some time. It's just that HEA is having a hard time turning the corner. Technology makes things simpler not more complicated. What we are seeing right now in real time is exactly what you described. There are a few learning curves to get through because HEA didn't know or didn't care to know, but that's all over. Every day now there are folks moving toward a simpler superior performance. But, it's so simple many are having a hard time making the jump, it's more of a drag them to the water.

Here's the good news though. There's no turning back. Folks can kick and scream all they want but the rate of people converting is picking up speed. I have people emailing me every day about converting their systems over. It's why I'm here speaking on this forum. 10 years ago HEA audiophiles were not ready to concede that the over built components and speakers failed to deliver the basic fundamentals of playback. Many, I'm sure, hate the idea that I'm even here. And that would all be the end of it, if not for the fact that hobbyist are turning away from the HEA paradigm in groves.

I'll say it again for folks to read "all recordings have a different recorded code and that requires a variable playback system to play all those codes". There is absolutely no way around this. We can buy as many systems as we want and play the Plug & Play game all we want, but in order to playback recordings in that fashion it would require hundreds of systems per listener. Some how this "one sound" system approach got into the main HEA brain, but this concept doesn't work. It's an never ending chase, and not one soul on this planet has ever achieved a one sound system that plays all recordings. I don't care who you are or how much money thrown or how much someone lies, recordings are codes, and they are all different codes. Not so much good and bad, but different. The component chase will never work, and has never worked. All these listeners are doing is listening to the same recordings with different outcomes. And no matter how many outcomes there are, it's still at best only going to serve a few recordings with any kind of accuracy.

There's a whole other chapter to this hobby and HEA is having a very tough time getting their heads around it.

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

tomic601's avatar
tomic601
13,164 posts
 
maybe it exists but a seperate thread to discuss tuning might be in order...
j_stereo
130 posts
 
Since this is all opinion anyway, I have not done direct comparison of the particular speakers and manufacturers you listed. I enjoy listening to the vintage speakers and I still have old Klipsch, JBL, etc. I also enjoy listening to more modern speakers, so I also have B&W, Magnepan, etc. It seems to me that the vintage speakers, when designed, may have focused on different attributes than the modern speakers.  Back in the day, the major concerns seemed to be reducing distortion, creating large amounts of bass, and clear high frequencies, etc. Today it seems to have shifted to transparency, imaging, etc. This may just be my perception, but this is what it looks like when comparing old vs. new product literature, and that's what it sounds like also. The old speakers I have sound good to me, but they may not have the transparency or resolution of the modern speakers.
More to discover