Todays Speakers vs Vintage Speakers

Retrovert I am sure you know surrounds also absorb cone resonances.

When it comes to the sound of a driver the voice coil former shouldn't impart any coloration.
IMHO kapton formers give a plastic like sound at high spl.
speaker.htm

Over the years the former Speaker Builder publication, Audio Express and Voice Coil have published great articles on this subject.
A-Look-at-Voice-Coil-Collars

The whole point of my first post on this thread is for one not to disregard a certain speaker or driver just because it doesn't have a cast frame.

A few years back RayW. stated his opinion on the cast versus stamped frame issue.

According to Ken Kantor Nomex is rarely used now except when extremely high power applications require it.
 
Here are a list of just a few "new" speakers that ashew from stamped baskets;
https://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/elac2019s-adante-loudspeaker-series
https://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/goldenear-triton-reference
https://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/svs-prime-tower-and-center-loudspeaker-review these can be add for $500.

These are but a few.There are not many objective reviews that goes into the detail whether or not spekaer baskets have been cast or stamped. Again a geeralized assertion of moderne speakers using only stamped baskets is incorrect.
Nowhere in the OP's first post was there any mention of speaker basket material. That's not what the thread is about. Stay on subject......lol
 
I think it's been pointed out multiple times by the people that design truly high end speakers and those that tests them, that in an anechoic chamber many speakers sound nearly identical. It's the room interaction that dictates the final sound. Modern speakers by far, either take the room out of the equation or enhance the room acoustics better than most vintage speakers could ever dream about doing.
 
(snorts)

Maybe I'll start believing the whole process isn't utterly delusional, not to mention incredibly corrupt and nothing better than paid shilling when, at a minimum:
(a) those reviewers stop being permitted to either keep all the gear they review or purchase it at a steep, steep discount
(b) start doing double-blind tests against existing equipment for comparisons
(c) take a first-semester course in physics or acoustics to get the basic engineering correct
(d) the publication starts printing negative reviews of advertiser products​

The pro community and sound engineers have been mocking audiophile reviewers for decades, and for excellent reason.

Let me tell you, John Frum, the writing of cargo-cult audiophile reviewers is only useful in the smallest room in the house, and I prefer to purchase softer paper products for that purpose.

Watch Arny Krueger (famous audio objectivist) utterly shred John Atkinson (famous audio subjectivist) here:
Home Entertainment 2005's opening-day event, "The Great Debate: Subjectivism on Trial." It continued: "But whenever it started, the Great Debate between 'subjectivists,' who hear differences among audio components, and 'objectivists,' who tend to ascribe such differences to the listeners' overheated imaginations, rages just as strongly in the 21st century as it did in the 20th." On April 29 at the Manhattan Hilton, Stereophile editor John Atkinson and one of the Internet's most vocal audio skeptics, Arnold B. Krueger, debated mano a mano where the line should be drawn between honest reporting and audio delusion.

Ethan Winer has been dismantling Atkinson's arguments for years, and you can find his debunking in Stereophile's letters and comments. Winer's AES talks and other videos are not only brilliant and informative, but entertaining. You'll never look at audio reviews quite the same.

I'll stand by the above as my position on the subject.

As I will stand by mine. I do have an advantage, though. I know my opinions are as subjective as yours.
 
I think it's been pointed out multiple times by the people that design truly high end speakers and those that tests them, that in an anechoic chamber many speakers sound nearly identical. It's the room interaction that dictates the final sound. Modern speakers by far, either take the room out of the equation or enhance the room acoustics better than most vintage speakers could ever dream about doing.

Few will deny that top of the line modern day speakers can yield better results than classic vintage speakers.

It comes down to this.....how far will $750 get you with new speakers? How far will $750 get you with vintage?
 
IMG_20180529_164359459.jpg
Few will deny that top of the line modern day speakers can yield better results than classic vintage speakers.

It comes down to this.....how far will $750 get you with new speakers? How far will $750 get you with vintage?
Find a pair of OHM model I or H...
Like mine...
Pictured here..
The model C2 are the inside and can be found for $350 to 450
 
Few will deny that top of the line modern day speakers can yield better results than classic vintage speakers.

It comes down to this.....how far will $750 get you with new speakers? How far will $750 get you with vintage?

Well, I'd buy a pair of L112s or NS-1000ms long before I'd buy $750 of anything new. Oh wait... I did. But that's just me.
 
Few will deny that top of the line modern day speakers can yield better results than classic vintage speakers.

It comes down to this.....how far will $750 get you with new speakers? How far will $750 get you with vintage?
There's Nothing $750 can buy today that is new that can compete or compares to my vintage Ohm Acoustics speakers....
 
Last edited:
Retrovert I am sure you know surrounds also absorb cone resonances.

I sure do. I addressed that when I wrote, "The thickness of the surround is tailored to damp ringing." People say resonance, but the actual issue is annular ringing caused by energy being absorbed and released and then propagating back and forth across the cone. Resonance doesn't do that, per se, and the surround doesn't change the resonant point.

The whole point of my first post on this thread is for one not to disregard a certain speaker or driver just because it doesn't have a cast frame.

Ok. To clarify. Thin stamped frames are not the equal of heavy cast baskets or heavy stamped steel baskets.

I have a number of drivers with very heavy steel frames. I was referring to the lightweight stamped frames which have resonance issues.

According to Ken Kantor Nomex is rarely used now except when extremely high power applications require it.

I believe that is because of the hygroscopic issue, not patent royalties. That was my point. That anyone can make or use the material, but that better materials now exist.
 
There's Nothing $750 can buy today that is new that can compete or compares to my vintage Ohm Acoustics speakers....
Subjectively I'd disagree, maybe even with myself. I can name several pairs of powered monitors, Adam Audio, Yamaha, JBL speakers I'd rather have than Ohm Acoustics. Maybe even over my own choices depending on the use and room.

Also, the KEF Q series of speakers are just one line I can think of that are a remarkable value and probably outperform many vintage speakers we all know and love in many different situations.
 
The basket of a good steel speaker is stamped strait. Then it's subject to bending by baffle screw hole burrs, bad used gaskets, over torqued screws, prying from the baffle, baffle swelling from moisture and other things. The cast basket is much more tolerant of these events.
Once the steel basket is bent bad enough the voice coil will rub. That's worse than that is if it is only bent enough to cause surround bind which limits cone travel resulting in undetected poor speaker performance. The cone won't have free movement if the surround is not in perfect plain. The surround can only roll, not expand and contract in two directions that a bent basket demands.
Steel adds a whole new dimension to speaker life span, restoration and maintenance.
Cast is expensive and good, stamped is cheap and bad, thick or thin.
 
Most Amazon reviewers? Maybe.

You guys need to read reviews from better reviewers, who are enthusiasts like us, and who have access to the same info as us (usually a lot more), more exposure to what's out there, and thus quite often more experience. Your disdain for what you characterize as subjective reviewers baffles me. If all a reviewer did were publish measured test results without comment of SQ, few of us would find that helpful. Most reputable reviewers, or reviewer teams, report both their test results and their impressions of SQ.

I read reviews only from those that supply measurements and test results that backup what they say. Any review done without the included tests and measurements is just fluff and IHO is meaningless.
 
(snorts)

Maybe I'll start believing the whole process isn't utterly delusional, not to mention incredibly corrupt and nothing better than paid shilling when, at a minimum:
(a) those reviewers stop being permitted to either keep all the gear they review or purchase it at a steep, steep discount
(b) start doing double-blind tests against existing equipment for comparisons
(c) take a first-semester course in physics or acoustics to get the basic engineering correct
(d) the publication starts printing negative reviews of advertiser products​

The pro community and sound engineers have been mocking audiophile reviewers for decades, and for excellent reason.

Let me tell you, John Frum, the writing of cargo-cult audiophile reviewers is only useful in the smallest room in the house, and I prefer to purchase softer paper products for that purpose.

Watch Arny Krueger (famous audio objectivist) utterly shred John Atkinson (famous audio subjectivist) here:
Home Entertainment 2005's opening-day event, "The Great Debate: Subjectivism on Trial." It continued: "But whenever it started, the Great Debate between 'subjectivists,' who hear differences among audio components, and 'objectivists,' who tend to ascribe such differences to the listeners' overheated imaginations, rages just as strongly in the 21st century as it did in the 20th." On April 29 at the Manhattan Hilton, Stereophile editor John Atkinson and one of the Internet's most vocal audio skeptics, Arnold B. Krueger, debated mano a mano where the line should be drawn between honest reporting and audio delusion.

Ethan Winer has been dismantling Atkinson's arguments for years, and you can find his debunking in Stereophile's letters and comments. Winer's AES talks and other videos are not only brilliant and informative, but entertaining. You'll never look at audio reviews quite the same.

I'll stand by the above as my position on the subject.


You're not advocating speaker production without listening to it are you ???
Whose EARs are listening ...
Fried had a really good EAR ..
So did John Atkinson incidentally. It may be subjective, but Atkinson provides a starting point for those of us who believe our ears.
Unlike the Society of AES Engineers who forever tried to convince me that every amp with .05% distortion sounded the same ..
 
Last edited:
I read reviews only from those that supply measurements and test results that backup what they say. Any review done without the included tests and measurements is just fluff and IHO is meaningless.

Let's see the measurements for your L110 and Energy 22 review.

You did say the Energy 22 win in every category.

If you can't provide the measurements and test results then you are fluff and meaningless IN YOUR OWN OPINION....your words not mine.
 
You're not advocating speaker production without listening to it are you ???
Whose EARs are listening ...
Fried had a really good EAR ..
So did John Atkinson incidentally. It may be subjective, but Atkinson provides a starting point for those of us who believe our ears.
Unlike the Society of AES Engineers who forever tried to convince me that every amp with .05% distortion sounded the same ..

John Atkinson? For reals?

John Atkinson claims to be able to hear demagnetized vinyl record albums using an $1,800 "demagnetizer", improvement to CDs with magic marker ink on the outside edge, and a host of other nonsense.

He doesn't believe in double-blind testing,and he exemplifies why audiophiles are a source of derision and ridicule.
 
According to the Stereophile test, the Concert Grand circa 1965 used 5.25" midranges.

Yeah, well, the B-209 midrange, at least the aluminum cone version which certainly was in use by '65, is 6.5 inches across and 3.5 inches deep, but it depends upon how you measure, whether this includes the cone or the whole baffle. It is generally referred to as a 6 inch driver. I do not own any of the B-209A aluminum cone units (first model made) so I can't tell you from hands-on experience, but I own very other version. (The A version requires a damping ring and is useless without it, so I never bought any.)
 
Sean Olive, who certainly would know, has extensively discussed the problems of sighted, i.e. non-blind, testing. Here's one of his comments.

And, to forestall the inevitable "who the hell is Sean Olive and why should I care what he thinks":
Sean Olive is Acoustic Research Fellow for Harman International, a major manufacturer of audio products for consumer, professional and automotive spaces. He directs the Corporate R&D group, and oversees the subjective evaluation of new audio products including Harman's OEM automotive audio systems. Prior to 1993, he was a research scientist at the National Research Council of Canada where his research focused on the perception and measurement of loudspeakers, listening rooms, and microphones. Sean received a Bachelors degree in Music from the University of Toronto, and his Masters and Ph.D. degrees in Sound Recording from McGill University in Montreal. His Ph.D. research was on room acoustic adaptation and the acoustical interaction between loudspeakers and rooms. Dr. Olive has written over 30 research papers on the perception and measurement of audio for which he was awarded the Audio Engineering Society (AES) Fellowship Award in 1996, and two Publication Awards (1990 and 1995). Sean is the current President of the Audio Engineering Society. For more info see www.linkedin.com/in/seanolive

One of his many writings on the subject:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests
by Sean Olive
Thursday, April 9, 2009

An ongoing controversy within the high-end audio community is the efficacy of blind versus sighted audio product listening tests. In a blind listening test, the listener has no specific knowledge of what products are being tested, thereby removing the psychological influence that the product’s brand, design, price and reputation have on the listeners’ impression of its sound quality. While double-blind protocols are standard practice in all fields of science - including consumer testing of food and wine - the audio industry remains stuck in the dark ages in this regard. The vast majority of audio equipment manufacturers and reviewers continue to rely on sighted listening to make important decisions about the products’ sound quality.

An important question is whether sighted audio product evaluations produce honest and reliable judgments of how the product truly sounds.

...

In summary, the sighted and blind loudspeaker listening tests in this study produced significantly different sound quality ratings. The psychological biases in the sighted tests were sufficiently strong that listeners were largely unresponsive to real changes in sound quality caused by acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker, its position in the room, and the program material. In other words, if you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind. It’s time the audio industry grow up and acknowledge this fact, if it wants to retain the trust and respect of consumers. It may already be too late according to Stereophile magazine founder, Gordon Holt, who lamented in a recent interview:
“Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3db
There's Nothing $750 can buy today that is new that can compete or compares to my vintage Ohm Acoustics speakers....

I purchased a store demo pair of Ohm H's way back in the late 1970s. Owned them for close to 35 years. About 2 years ago I purchased a pair of Focal Aria 906 for $850 used. List of $1500, still in production, has been available new for as low as $999. So I consider these to be today's speakers and available for $850.

My Ohms could definitely go deeper and play louder. In every other way, I consider the Focals to be better. Better on vocals, more clarity through the midrange, definitely superior on highs and transparency, better imaging. The Ohms can produce a big, full room-filling sound and are fun on rock & roll, but when listening to high quality recordings from the like of Norah Jones, Diana Krall, Yo-Yo Ma, etc., the Focals are much better IMO.
 
Last edited:
Let's see the measurements for your L110 and Energy 22 review.

You did say the Energy 22 win in every category.

If you can't provide the measurements and test results then you are fluff and meaningless IN YOUR OWN OPINION....your words not mine.
But unlike you, that seems to decree that vinatge is always better, I said that to me the Energy's sound better. I did not make a categorical decree unlike you. See ya later fluffy!! :rockon:
 
Back
Top Bottom