Todays Speakers vs Vintage Speakers
- Thread starter Mark Davis
- Start date
musichal
poet emeritus
I intend to do a head-to-head comparison.in the coming months. I've been listening to the Silver 6, bought new, for several months now on my main rig. Klipsch Fortes in the bedroom. When someone with the muscle and the inclination to help a few minutes is available to swap them, I will listen to the Forte for awhile. Then I'll post my impressions in a new thread.
My Forte 1 oiled walnut pair still have the original drivers, but they have been recapped (with Dayton), completely resealed and have a brace added. The brace makes a difference, but they are very close to the SQ of the original when they were new, I'm pretty darn sure. Maybe better, due to the brace, which Klipsch should have done. (They also are in very, very good cosmetic condition.)
Of course, they are dissimilar designs, but I like both.
Fortes sold for $1100/pair, and I heard them quite a lot when new because I was selling Klipsch at the time. The pair I bought a few years ago were about $450 worth of used Adcom gear I traded for them.
I paid $1100/pair for the Silver 6, their going rate, so based on price, the Klipsch have a huge advantage from a value standpoint. I spent about $70 recapping, and for the supplies to reseal, etc. Call it $500 for the Forte, which ignores my time (and especially dcmfan's time, who helped) - we don't tend to count our time, obviously, but the opportunity cost is inherent nonetheless. We simply think of it as sweat equity. Multiply the time spent working on used equipment by your average hourly income to get an idea of your opportunity cost. Just my time alone would easily bring them up to the same price as the Silver 6, but we won't include it, though it's true.
In adjusted-for-inflation price the Klipsch were much more expensive than the Silver 6.
How will the less expensive, newer speaker compare to the Forte? We'll see.
Those who may cry foul because they hate Klipsch and would choose something else can do their own similar comparisons. Right now, I have no preconceived opinion of the result. Which speaker will remain on the main system? IDK now, but do admit a slight bias for the new pair. They each have their own sets of strengths and weaknesses, and we all have our own sets of preferences, biases, etc, so my results will only be valid for me, but others may find it interesting, anyway.
My Forte 1 oiled walnut pair still have the original drivers, but they have been recapped (with Dayton), completely resealed and have a brace added. The brace makes a difference, but they are very close to the SQ of the original when they were new, I'm pretty darn sure. Maybe better, due to the brace, which Klipsch should have done. (They also are in very, very good cosmetic condition.)
Of course, they are dissimilar designs, but I like both.
Fortes sold for $1100/pair, and I heard them quite a lot when new because I was selling Klipsch at the time. The pair I bought a few years ago were about $450 worth of used Adcom gear I traded for them.
I paid $1100/pair for the Silver 6, their going rate, so based on price, the Klipsch have a huge advantage from a value standpoint. I spent about $70 recapping, and for the supplies to reseal, etc. Call it $500 for the Forte, which ignores my time (and especially dcmfan's time, who helped) - we don't tend to count our time, obviously, but the opportunity cost is inherent nonetheless. We simply think of it as sweat equity. Multiply the time spent working on used equipment by your average hourly income to get an idea of your opportunity cost. Just my time alone would easily bring them up to the same price as the Silver 6, but we won't include it, though it's true.
In adjusted-for-inflation price the Klipsch were much more expensive than the Silver 6.
How will the less expensive, newer speaker compare to the Forte? We'll see.
Those who may cry foul because they hate Klipsch and would choose something else can do their own similar comparisons. Right now, I have no preconceived opinion of the result. Which speaker will remain on the main system? IDK now, but do admit a slight bias for the new pair. They each have their own sets of strengths and weaknesses, and we all have our own sets of preferences, biases, etc, so my results will only be valid for me, but others may find it interesting, anyway.
Interesting question .. Is new better than old ??
Only if it sounds more like music to your ear. . (always did like that "Is it Live or is it Memorex" ad )
And the discussion about new technology begs the question IMHO .. what technology ?? There are only so many ways to move air in a room.
If there is a new reproducer, that is more accurate than a cone or a ribbon I haven't heard it yet ..
Basically there are so many errors and rotten recording mixes in the music reproduction chain, that I'm happy whenever a truly clear, and decent recording lands in the CD player and reminds me how musical the system that I have can be ..
Only if it sounds more like music to your ear. . (always did like that "Is it Live or is it Memorex" ad )
And the discussion about new technology begs the question IMHO .. what technology ?? There are only so many ways to move air in a room.
If there is a new reproducer, that is more accurate than a cone or a ribbon I haven't heard it yet ..
Basically there are so many errors and rotten recording mixes in the music reproduction chain, that I'm happy whenever a truly clear, and decent recording lands in the CD player and reminds me how musical the system that I have can be ..
z-adamson
Addicted Member
You sure are dead serious about this....
Plenty of others did talk about buying vintage speakers with todays dollars...from page ONE and beyond. Even if the OP didn't say the words, that how it sounded (to many) and thats the direction the thread went (for many).
Conversations evolve. Take it as that.
That assumes, at least with JBLs, that you define "vintage" as the 4311/L100-style control monitors which were actually tuned to mimic an older Altec studio monitor. Most of us who praise and/or prefer the sound of vintage JBLs compared to modern speakers are using actual vintage studio monitors, or at least the JBL series from the '80s and on, not the L100-vintage sound which started the whole stupid "east-coast-west-coast" nonsense. JBLs older than the L100 don't exhibit a "west-coast" sound and neither do the JBLs made after the L100. Such comments are generally from audiophiles who have a very limited experience with JBL monitors. No one will ever accuse my 4345s of having a "west-coast" sound, nor will that term ever be used to describe the L112s which have been in my home for over 35-years. The JBL "house sound" we know and love is stunning bass response produced effortlessly at both loud and soft levels with balanced-to-flat response over the full audio spectrum. The entire "house-sound, coastal bias" nonsense is just that, and not germane to this discussion and should be considered a red-herring.
Last edited:
3db
Addicted Member
I was referring back to the OP post that he was looking atvthis from a SQ only and not factoring money into it all . Furthermore, if you look at my previous posts in the thread, you can definitely see me in favour for new speakers. If you're gonna quote someone, get the whole quote and not a phrase or one sentence. You definitely took me out of context.
3db
Addicted Member
Its not red herring even though you disagree. It was industry prevalent back in the days because there was lack of tools to properly model measure, and test the products.That assumes, at least with JBLs, that you define "vintage" as the 4311/L100-style control monitors which were actually tuned to mimic an older Altec studio monitor. Most of us who praise and/or prefer the sound of vintage JBLs compared to modern speakers are using actual vintage studio monitors, or at least the JBL series from the '80s and on, not the L100-vintage sound which started the whole stupid "east-coast-west-coast" nonsense. JBLs older than the L100 don't exhibit a "west-coast" sound and neither do the JBLs made after the L100. Such comments are generally from audiophiles who have a very limited experience with JBL monitors. No one will ever accuse my 4345s of having a "west-coast" sound, nor will that term ever be used to describe the L112s which have been in my home for over 35-years. The JBL "house sound" we know and love is stunning bass response produced effortlessly at both loud and soft levels with balanced-to-flat response over the full audio spectrum. The entire "house-sound, coastal bias" nonsense is, just that, and not germane to this discussion and should be considered a red-herring.
3db
Addicted Member
It matters and your interpretation to what was originally posted is in error and I'm not the only one in this thread that has pointed out the error.
musichal
poet emeritus
I agree with much of this, except the what technology question.
Cones are not all created equally. I'm sure all will agree. They weren't back then; they aren't now.
Technology has advanced with resulting improvements in materials (stiffer, lighter alloys, smaller magnets), and in manufacturing (eg, gold deposition processes, highly consistent thicknesses, and forming complex structures/shapes for rigidity). Compliance has improved. Someone more knowledgeable than I could cite more factors. Cones have improved. Design has improved. Whether these result in better sound depends on the particular models compared, and the ear, preferences and biases of the listener, among other factors - the usual suspects, like ancillary gear and room.
Cars have benefited from evolving tech, as has medicine and just about every human endeavor. Not surprising that audio has also. That doesn't at all mean that every new speaker sounds better than every vintage, obviously, nor vice versa. You get what you pay for (hopefully; research choices), but it was no more true this year than yesteryear.
z-adamson
Addicted Member
It matters not. You get way more bang for your buck buying vintage rather than new at today's going rate and I am not at all the only one in this thread to point that out. Many have pointed that out wether those words found their way into the first post or not due to its relevance to the subject at hand.
BrianKBaur
New Member
I can’t afford anywhere near the speakers I want if I buy them new. Thanks to soundbars, I can buy all the classic NHT speakers people are practically giving away
z-adamson
Addicted Member
I am sure there are many variables, but comparing overall weight can't reveal much considering one is alnico and the other neo.
Agreed, weight has nothing to do with it other than how surprisingly light they were when I pulled them out of the box.. I'm so used to JBL "tank parts" and this thing was just so opposite.
pete_mac
Super Member
I'm betting the new one. JBL aren't hacks when it comes to design, and the weight difference can be accounted for via the cast alloy frame and lightweight (yet supremely strong) neodymium magnet.
Edit: too slow on the 'post' button!
Wise man as always.. incremental steps toward a goal of fidelity. And there are at least a thousand variables in every system.
The closer it gets to LIVE the better I like it .. however it's achieved. Newer ain't necessarily better just different.
(And yes they evolve .. imaging and time alignment come to mind ) ..
Last edited:
One of the reasons I prefer vintage speakers is that I love the thrill of the chase......the fun of discovering cool and rare units is very addicting. I don't have to find them for nothing at a thrift store to get the thrill, a fair price off of CL is just as fun. Right now I am listening to The Doobie Brothers "Southbound" through a Sony STR 5800 on Spotify. The speakers are Rectilinear Mini llls that I totally love. I stumbled across them on Facebook for $60. What would $60 in a brand new speaker buy me? Not a lot. It really is not about the money, although that makes it more fun, because I have the money to buy most anything I want (within reason). I don't have to pinch pennies but I was raised to be frugal, so doing it the way I do it is really fun for me. I will readily admit new speakers, for their size, probably for the most part sound better. But those small speakers require a sub to sound as good as the older and bigger models. So, like everything else in this hobby, it is all subjective.
