Old speakers with high quality AVR
- Thread starter John Carr
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Shouldn't be much difference. I'm fairly certain that there isn't a monumental difference between the frequency response of a 1980s amp and a 2020 amp (although they make take different routes to get there). Speakers are the most likely parts of a system to influence the perceived sound (they are actually the device that converts electrical into audio energy) and should sound very much the same driven by any amp with similar outputs.
Newer speakers may or may not sound better to you -- science has been marching on for those 50 years, and different materials will make different speakers. Better is a question of preference, though, as it always is in audio. You may like newer speakers better, you may not. I've not heard anything yet that beats my 40 year old HPM-900s, but that's my personal preference, you might really dislike them!
Newer speakers may or may not sound better to you -- science has been marching on for those 50 years, and different materials will make different speakers. Better is a question of preference, though, as it always is in audio. You may like newer speakers better, you may not. I've not heard anything yet that beats my 40 year old HPM-900s, but that's my personal preference, you might really dislike them!
John Carr
Active Member
That is a really good explanation. Thanks!
swechsler
Frog Whisperer
That doesn't sound like the sort of advice we give here. Which thread was this?
John Carr
Active Member
I dont remember which thread it was. It might have been a different website.
I am not a subscriber of the "newer is better" theory at all. When it comes to amps, I generally believe older is better. When it comes to tuners, I'm certain older is better 
.
Speakers are the one area where newer "should" be better, just because of the technology advances in materials available (like carbon fiber, for example), but I'm not certain it is the case. I'd love to see more tests between vintage speakers and new. I can't remember seeing any actually. My feeling is that today, all speaker designs are done with a computer, and the new designs are based on lookup tables, that's why 99% of speaker designs look the same.
I think that back in the day, there was a lot more "art" to speaker design -- building prototypes and listening to those designs, measuring them, and varying the designs "on the fly" in a variety of different rooms. There was a ton of real-world interaction in the design, and that's why there was a much wider array of speaker designs back in the day (e.g. Dahlquist, Allison, etc). I think the older designers had a LOT more expertise, training, and experience in areas like acoustics and electrical engineering -- today anybody with a computer and REW can source components and be a speaker designer. I feel like the "old school" design methodology is much, much better, but materials (like carbon fiber) can be better on new speakers.
I wish there were more tests between vintage and modern speakers. My own very informal tests found vintage speakers to compare very favorably to new speakers.
.Speakers are the one area where newer "should" be better, just because of the technology advances in materials available (like carbon fiber, for example), but I'm not certain it is the case. I'd love to see more tests between vintage speakers and new. I can't remember seeing any actually. My feeling is that today, all speaker designs are done with a computer, and the new designs are based on lookup tables, that's why 99% of speaker designs look the same.
I think that back in the day, there was a lot more "art" to speaker design -- building prototypes and listening to those designs, measuring them, and varying the designs "on the fly" in a variety of different rooms. There was a ton of real-world interaction in the design, and that's why there was a much wider array of speaker designs back in the day (e.g. Dahlquist, Allison, etc). I think the older designers had a LOT more expertise, training, and experience in areas like acoustics and electrical engineering -- today anybody with a computer and REW can source components and be a speaker designer. I feel like the "old school" design methodology is much, much better, but materials (like carbon fiber) can be better on new speakers.
I wish there were more tests between vintage and modern speakers. My own very informal tests found vintage speakers to compare very favorably to new speakers.
Last edited:
Dswankey
Lunatic Member
He's only created 2 and I don't see where anyone said that.
https://www.audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/hardly-any-bass-on-vintage-speakers.952775/
https://www.audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/sansui-amplifier-for-sansui-speakers.954478/
twiiii
Lunatic Member
Its not just about frequency response any more. great speakers today have less than 1% distortion where speakers from 50 years a go were struggling to reach below 10 % distortion. Dispersion is better controlled, today crossvers are much more sophisticated today to add more clarity. Some speakers played louder back then with less power, but with more anomalies than better speakers made today. Cone materials are superior today resulting in better transient response and peak capabilities. Adhesives are better today meaning the speakers are less apt to fall apart at higher power levels with the woofer excursions becoming much larger. Enclosures are being improved to reduce drastic reflections compromising the direct sound of the individual drivers. Enclosures are stiffer and lest likely to resonate thus removing smearing. It just goes on and on. The only problem is cost. A speaker of today that would have sold for the same price of your Sansui, can cost 10 to 20 times as much today. Say you paid $400.00 for your speakers in 55. Same speakers to day with improvements could easily cost $4000. today. I paid $2000, for speakers in 69. I added a pair of speakers to complete my stereo system that were built 10 years ago. Why My original speakers are now apart of a HT system. The speakers I just bought pre-owned originally cost $20,000 a pair. There is not a big difference. Yes the bass goes an octave lower to 16 HZ. The distortion is more than 10 times less, Because they are full line arrays the clarity is better than a big horn loaded systems present or past. The distortion above 100 HZ is below 1/2%. The improvments just go on and on . Buy waiting I saved a lot of money buying them pre-owned. Of course I had to buy new amps also, but I still came out way ahead. Current models that replace the ones I bought that went out of production 10 years ago are now $65000 a pair. From $2000, to 65000 is way to extreme for me. But $20,000 speakers for $6000 wasn't such a hard decision.
Last edited:
I'm guessing Vandersteen.
CJ Payne
Well-Known Member
The subject of cost of replacement is where we all head with these “old vs new” arguments.
There have been advances in design technology, but it’s built on the shoulders of the designers of yesteryear. And the mechanics of vibrating air molecules doesn’t really change. Electronics are better but that mostly means built smaller and more reliable.
In my system the 1967 turntable is the NEWEST component, and the system sounds wonderful.
it should also be mentioned that from the first phonograph up through the beginning of the 80’s fidelity was a thing of importance. Having a great sounding stereo was cool! Not just speaker and amp builders, but recording and mastering studios and musicians were trying to achieve the best sound possible.
but then appeared the 80’s Walkman and tiny efficient headphones that wouldn’t drain your 8 AA batteries quite so fast, and since that time especially we’ve seen a consumer demand to sacrifice quality for convenience. Down to compressing the digital format down to MP3’s so you can have thousands of songs on your phone and little earbuds. Just try listening to most modern pop or rock on a good vintage system and you can’t help but hear how compressed it is compared to classic recordings from the height of Hi-Fi popularity.
Are there amazing new speakers, definitely! But they’ll cost you a ton of money because the consumer demand just isn’t what it was in 1980. So for great speakers your bang for the buck AND variety of choices is far better in the vintage gear.
If they sound great to you, that’s all that matters. If they look good and match your decor, even better! (Oh yeah, vintage speakers were made to look good too…maybe not in the 80’s)
There have been advances in design technology, but it’s built on the shoulders of the designers of yesteryear. And the mechanics of vibrating air molecules doesn’t really change. Electronics are better but that mostly means built smaller and more reliable.
In my system the 1967 turntable is the NEWEST component, and the system sounds wonderful.
it should also be mentioned that from the first phonograph up through the beginning of the 80’s fidelity was a thing of importance. Having a great sounding stereo was cool! Not just speaker and amp builders, but recording and mastering studios and musicians were trying to achieve the best sound possible.
but then appeared the 80’s Walkman and tiny efficient headphones that wouldn’t drain your 8 AA batteries quite so fast, and since that time especially we’ve seen a consumer demand to sacrifice quality for convenience. Down to compressing the digital format down to MP3’s so you can have thousands of songs on your phone and little earbuds. Just try listening to most modern pop or rock on a good vintage system and you can’t help but hear how compressed it is compared to classic recordings from the height of Hi-Fi popularity.
Are there amazing new speakers, definitely! But they’ll cost you a ton of money because the consumer demand just isn’t what it was in 1980. So for great speakers your bang for the buck AND variety of choices is far better in the vintage gear.
If they sound great to you, that’s all that matters. If they look good and match your decor, even better! (Oh yeah, vintage speakers were made to look good too…maybe not in the 80’s)
whoaru99
Epic Member
I wonder how many people just proclaim old stuff is better without having ever tried new affordable stuff
I am sure that number is pretty high on here.
I see a fair number of comparisons where the basis is $ spent. No doubt used gear is typically a better value but a $ for $ comparison used vs new has never been a good way. Comparing in adjusted dollars is better, but I'm not convinced for electronics that works straight up out of the money factor calculators either.
I think “can be a better value” is a better way of saying it now that old crap prices are crazy. Most my stuff is old but I have new inexpensive stuff that there is no way you could come near it’s SQ for the money when I started becoming a buyer 40yrs ago.
CJ Payne
Well-Known Member
Yes it is indeed difficult to compare dollars to dollars, that's why I didn't really get too into that subject. I think it's a fairly moot discussion anyway to say "Newer is better". Better is not a mathematical expression. There's good and not good. There certainly is a threshold when crossed most people will say "Those speakers sound terrible" or "Now those speakers actually do sound better". In fact those Sansui SP1500's were the speaker that my wife said, "Ok, you're right, I can hear the difference. They actually do sound better" and we've had speakers since then that are considered "better" than those and I can attest they sound better to me.
But a blanket statement like "Newer is better" is silly. You can sit in front of a new pair of high end speakers and say WOW, they sound amazing! And you can sit in front of a very old pair of high end speakers and say WOW, they sound amazing! A new Dennon amp, an old Fisher...a new Ortofon cartridge, an old Shure V15 iii...
I pretty much stand by the statement that technology hasn't made anything "sound better" par set, but has mostly made it smaller and more reliable. Subwoofer/Satalite systems taking over for big box speakers is a good example. It probably has lowered the consumer price too, with CNC routers and more durable drivers, manufacturing etc; but I've heard the surround sound crap Klipsch and Polk are still peddling at Best Buy and they are not high end! Modern cheap is still cheap. And like I said, having a big amazing sound system just isn't as cool on the mass consumer level as it was. Convenience requires small packages, and small packages just can't move air the way an Altec 19 can.
In fact sacrificing sound quality for convenience goes all the way back to switching from 78 rpm to 45 and 33 1/3 in the 50's. Or the invention of the phonograph because it's smaller and cheaper than hiring a band to come play in your living room!
But a blanket statement like "Newer is better" is silly. You can sit in front of a new pair of high end speakers and say WOW, they sound amazing! And you can sit in front of a very old pair of high end speakers and say WOW, they sound amazing! A new Dennon amp, an old Fisher...a new Ortofon cartridge, an old Shure V15 iii...
I pretty much stand by the statement that technology hasn't made anything "sound better" par set, but has mostly made it smaller and more reliable. Subwoofer/Satalite systems taking over for big box speakers is a good example. It probably has lowered the consumer price too, with CNC routers and more durable drivers, manufacturing etc; but I've heard the surround sound crap Klipsch and Polk are still peddling at Best Buy and they are not high end! Modern cheap is still cheap. And like I said, having a big amazing sound system just isn't as cool on the mass consumer level as it was. Convenience requires small packages, and small packages just can't move air the way an Altec 19 can.
In fact sacrificing sound quality for convenience goes all the way back to switching from 78 rpm to 45 and 33 1/3 in the 50's. Or the invention of the phonograph because it's smaller and cheaper than hiring a band to come play in your living room!