Todays Speakers vs Vintage Speakers

[62caddy]

It's all about the design. Judging LF performance by cone/cabinet size is pure folly.

I own a pair of each of the speakers below - (c 2010) Snell J7 with 5" woofer; (1980) Altec 14 with 12" woofer

As counter intuitive as it may seem, there is simply no comparison between the two in terms of LF response & definition.

 

[Bratwurst7s]

OK. I've read the entire thread (so far).

The one (imho) crucial factor that hasn't been addressed and is missing from this discussion is Quantity.

Quantity is the secret sauce. Quantity of sales is what allows a manufacturer to raise the quality of components/material in a product inside of a price point and still achieve a reasonable profit.

Until ca the mid to late '80s 2-channel stereo was still king. There just weren't all that many home entertainment options available to the average person/family until that point. There were a lot of 2-channel systems being sold, therefore a lot of speakers intended for 2-channel use being sold. Quantity sales allows for quantity material/component purchase which changes the economics to allow a higher quality at any price point.

In the mid '80s we started to see VCR's and stereo TV. That starts to dilute the amount of money available for the other components. Enter the first PC's and the first game consoles. People buy them, but one only has so much money to dedicate to home entertainment so there is less for other items. This is the start of a major change. Home entertainment horizons are expanding at the expense of pure 2-channel systems dedicated to music. Quantity of pure 2-channel music systems starts to drop.

With the '90s we have the real start of home theater. This is a major sea change for 2-channel audio and it's average quality. For a given price point if the number of major components goes up then the individual component quality must go down. Say you have $500 to spend. Say for the example that $500 buys you 50lbs in components. (probably not buts just say that) So a receiver/amp/etc with 5 speakers vs one with 2 speakers means that compromises must be made. Speaker size goes down, amp power and/or quality per channel goes down. It just can't work any other way. Physical reality is a hard wall.

Enter Ear-Pods, and all of that stuff. The total amount of people buying equipment since the '70s has gone up massively. What the average person is buying has also changed massively. The quantity of money dedicated to 2-channel audio in the traditional systems that most of us still use has shrunk so the available funds to purchase material for the average system means that the (adjusted for inflation) amount/quality of material available while still making a profit must shrink also. It just isn't going to work any other way.

There will always be some exceptional components, and people that can afford them. But the cost of those components will always be adjusted by the quantity of them that are sold. The rest of the stuff will live inside the quantity/quality price point that the masses can afford to buy and be of a lesser quality.

Cheers,
James

 

[canton]

So I should throw out my Bozak 4000's my Bozak Tempo's My KLH 17'a 20'a 6's Oh yes and my old model Klipshs there are a few more. Really no disrespect what should I recplace those speakers with. And those old tube amps so many that match up so well. I let me ears do the buying thru the years. Thanks for the tip on entry level new speakers give me the names and I will pull out my wallet. I am serious not being out of line.
Canton

 

[E-Stat]

I own a pair of each of the speakers below - (c 2010) Snell J7 with 5" woofer; (1980) Altec 14 with 12" woofer. As counter intuitive as it may seem, there is simply no comparison between the two in terms of LF response & definition.

Nor I suspect with efficiency either.

FWIW, according to this review, the J7s had a slightly larger woofer. Like my Polk LSiC's, however, the center does use a pair of fives with slightly more piston area.

 

[62caddy]

Nor I suspect with efficiency either.

FWIW, according to this review, the J7s had a slightly larger woofer. Like my Polk LSiC's, however, the center does use a pair of fives with slightly more piston area.

Good writeup. Yes 6.5" woofer my error. At any rate the main issue is the comparative bass performance between the two despite the much smaller size of the J7.

I almost laughed when I first saw the J7. When I heard them, it was difficult to believe the sound was coming from those two small speakers. A shame what happened to Snell.

 

[OnTheBlitz]

The problem is that the laws of physics haven't changed. You need a certain cabinet volume to get bass down to 30 Hz. Due to market demands, stores are simply not carrying larger speakers anymore. In Cleveland we have several high end dealers. We visited all of them and I saw no large speakers. The Revel F35 is -3dB at 50 Hz. My DCM TF-700's are -3dB at 30 Hz. I have no doubt that materials technologies have given us better cone materials, magnets, etc. but I don't have access to superior new speakers in Cleveland.

Unless you are Bob Carver and develop the Sunfure True Subwoofer Signature Truly amazing the clear, tight, bass down to 16Hz that I get....Having 2 in stereo mode is even better

 

[E-Stat]

A shame what happened to Snell.

Wasn't it caused by Peter's death?

 

[Whaddup]

I do not think it is quality or quantity. I think it is what was the main form of entertainment at the time a product was made. Up until the 80's imo that was music. From talking with people older than I, really nice hifi gears were in almost all homes. It also goes way back till the 1930's when just basic AM radio was the main form of entertainment so lots of time to perfect it and I think they kind of did with products like the Sony mdr-r10 and ss-gr1. Before the 1930's from what I have gather books and movies kind of ruled the day.

After the 80's imo. lots of other things became the main form of entertainment. Computer's and TV's mostly. There is zero and I mean zero comparing the TV and computer's I remember from 1990 and what is going on today. That is undeniable. Audio not so much. What I see allot of is new, usually piss poor takes, on old tech. shitilly passed off as new. I love asking "new audio tech" people to give me actual examples of what is new. The vast majority of time they can't or if they do I can usually find damn near the same tech. if not the exact same tech. from 30 years ago, sometimes 50 years ago.

I also think it does not hurt to have $$$ backing you up. The big Japan companies of yesteryear had almost limitless sum's of money and as far as I know spent the most. If they are still around anymore they are hollow shells of what they used to be with all of it being made in China or Malaysia and none of it ends up in Japan. I think that speaks volumes and I would greatly appreciate it if OP would check out vintage knob.org.

I do think there is some pieces of gear that sadly got passed over back then and do have some nice modern pieces coming out. Headphone's, headphone amps and eq's really could have something jaw dropping come out in the future. I hold very little hope for speakers.

 

[OnTheBlitz]

I've had many speakers over the years. Some better than others. My favorite were the custom built Dynaudio Consequence that I designed and built in 1987. The materials alone cost me $5K back in 1987. Took about 1 month to design and about 3 weeks to build. I had them tri-amplified. Currently I'm running the Polk LSIM 707's, bi-amped w/2x Sunfire True Subwoofer Signatures in stereo mode. Considering the fact that my current setup is about 10x less $$$, I'm pretty pleased. The Polks have a 1.5" thick baffle, 1" thick enclosure, massive internal bracing and weigh about 100lbs each. The finish is spectacular. However, there are very view speakers that achieve real world bass requirements when trying to reproduce Floyd or a pipe organ. Thus, the Sunfires.

 

[transmaster]

But sounds like a big wet fart. I had a pair of Polk SDA-2B's and yes the bass is impressive but also not realistic. Too tubby and bloated. Same with the 10B's.

Exactly, take away those low frequencies and that all disappears. In other words the speaker does what it’s driven elements do best. What it is telling me is temporarily move the Polk RTi-A3’s up front an see how that sounds with the subwoofer.

 

[Whaddup]

I've had many speakers over the years. Some better than others. My favorite were the custom built Dynaudio Consequence that I designed and built in 1987. The materials alone cost me $5K back in 1987. Took about 1 month to design and about 3 weeks to build. I had them tri-amplified. Currently I'm running the Polk LSIM 707's, bi-amped w/2x Sunfire True Subwoofer Signatures in stereo mode. Considering the fact that my current setup is about 10x less $$$, I'm pretty pleased. The Polks have a 1.5" thick baffle, 1" thick enclosure, massive internal bracing and weigh about 100lbs each. The finish is spectacular. However, there are very view speakers that achieve real world bass requirements when trying to reproduce Floyd or a pipe organ. Thus, the Sunfires.

Could have been the room, could have been the cables. That is 2 areas where I will admit an undeniable improvement like TV's and computers. My GIK bass traps and faux viablue speaker cables from Ram electronics did make a substantial difference, for not much coin, even brand new.

Polk and Klipsich make good stuff for the money. I can see why they have a following. But if you do not mind making a little effort I think it is pretty simple anymore to get a pair of NS-1000's from Hifido.jp for around $3k shipped that even Polk and Klipsich have a hard time keeping up with, even at twice the price.

 

[z-adamson]

No QUALITY is the big thing. if the bass sounds like a big wet fart, that is NOT quality and would rather not have it that low.

You also think two 8in drivers have more cone area than one 12in driver....

 

[OnTheBlitz]

Not just about cone area. Also about force, pressure and excursion.

 

[OnTheBlitz]

Could have been the room, could have been the cables. That is 2 areas where I will admit an undeniable improvement like TV's and computers. My GIK bass traps and faux viablue speaker cables from Ram electronics did make a substantial difference, for not much coin, even brand new.

Polk and Klipsich make good stuff for the money. I can see why they have a following. But if you do not mind making a little effort I think it is pretty simple anymore to get a pair of NS-1000's from Hifido.jp for around $3k shipped that even Polk and Klipsich have a hard time keeping up with, even at twice the price.

Always liked the top-end Yamaha NS speakers.

 

[transmaster]

You also think two 8in drivers have more cone area than one 12in driver....

The Monitor 10B has a pair of 6.5” midwoofers. The main reason for the paired drivers was to provide more back energy for the 10” passive driver. It is interesting to note the Monitor 7 which has a single 6.5” midwoofer and the same passive 10” radiator is considered a better speaker.

 

[pognoot]

Do modern TVs offer better picture quality vs TVs from the 60s,70s, and 80s? Do modern microwaves offer better performance than microwaves of the 60s, 70s, and 80s?
Cars? Home furnaces? Cars? Power tools? Everything made? This is your answer.

 

[Hawkeye83]

Do modern TVs offer better picture quality vs TVs from the 60s,70s, and 80s? Do modern microwaves offer better performance than microwaves of the 60s, 70s, and 80s?
Cars? Home furnaces? Cars? Power tools? Everything made? This is your answer.

Agreed. No doubt, performance of everything is better. The thing left to consider is price. How much would it cost to get a "full range" speaker like my KEF's - 20Hz - 20 kHz - brand new, today? My 107's were "top of the line" at the time they were made. What is the lowest-priced "top of the line" speaker, from ANY manufacturer these days? I bet it doesn't have the specs of my KEF's (20Hz - 20 kHZ), and I bet it costs many times more than my KEF's cost me (feel free to prove me wrong...if there is an example, I'd like to see it! Seriously!).

So while performance is better across the board with new products, when price is taken into consideration, vintage is still a good option for many. Or if not vintage, then "gently used"...just like buying a car...let the rich guy take the depreciation hit and get a new-ish set of $5k speakers for $2-3k.

 

[EngineerNate]

$100 says your KEFs aren't *flat* to 20hz, regardless of what the spec sheet says. I say that knowing how much effort it takes to get a dedicated sub to do that in your average listening space.

 

[62caddy]

Wasn't it caused by Peter's death?

Snell Acoustics closed 25 years after Peter Snell's death so probably not...

 

[Drugolf]

With some of the newer inexpensive offerings from ELAc and a few others, it is getting more and more difficult for me to suggest vintage to people that ask for a recommendation for a pair of speakers in the $250 range. You can get some vintage offerings at 250 that would be outstanding but you would have to be on an aggressive hunt and then be willing to put sweat equity into it. For most, that's too much to ask as they aren't looking to become another one of us, they simply really like music and the look/character of the older stuff. I think I will open a vintage gear shop!
My neighbor buddy appreciates music, plays a little guitar etc, but is just in that phase of life where he is busy with kids etc. He asked me to help him put together a nice stereo for his home office (he built an outbuilding) for a couple hundred bucks. I told him no problem. I had a pair of AR48b's that needed surrounds and otherwise were okay that I had got for free. Did the work and sold them to him for $80. Picked up a decent receiver somewhere and whala, he's got something that you couldn't get for near that price new.