vintage vs. modern speakers

[OvenMaster]

That's a pretty bold statement. Considering there hasn't been a scientific improvement in any of those areas except cone materials. And that is debatable based on opinions of sound.

Crossover phasing used to be done by hand ... now they just use computers.

Old cabinet designs: particle board, hardwood
New cabinet designs: MDF, slate, plastics, CAD/CAM design

Old cones: paper
New cones: doped paper, carbon fiber, fiberglass reinforced paper, polyethylene

Old crossover designs: tables, trial and error
New crossover designs: computer precision

Old crossover components: electrolytic caps, carbon resistors, wirewound resistors
New crossover components: polypropylene, mylar caps; metal film resistors

Old tweeter design: paper cones
New tweeter design: plastic, silk, metal, ceramic, metal-vapor-deposit domes, EMIT, plasma, piezoelectric units

Old magnet composition: AlNiCo springs to mind
New magnet composition: rare-earth types such as neodymium.

But then I consider 80s-early 90s speakers Vintage. Maybe you just meant 60s - 70s speakers only. Which still leaves only materials once again as the only real improvement.

To me, any component -- not just speakers -- is "vintage" if it was made in 1980 or earlier. This means that yes, I was referring to 60s-70's speakers only. That also means that in the AudioKarma context, only two of my components -- amplifier and turntable -- qualify as being "vintage".

Tom

 

[Tom Brennan]

Improvements in speaker technology have made the cheap, small speakers much better.

However the first-rate speakers haven't gotten better since, oh, 1957 or so.

My opinion of course.

 

[mhardy6647]

However the first-rate speakers haven't gotten better since, oh, 1957 or so.

More like about 1945, Tom (if you ask me)!

 

[Billfort]

Old cabinet designs: particle board, hardwood
New cabinet designs: MDF, slate, plastics, CAD/CAM design

Old cones: paper
New cones: doped paper, carbon fiber, fiberglass reinforced paper, polyethylene

Old crossover designs: tables, trial and error
New crossover designs: computer precision

Old crossover components: electrolytic caps, carbon resistors, wirewound resistors
New crossover components: polypropylene, mylar caps; metal film resistors

Old tweeter design: paper cones
New tweeter design: plastic, silk, metal, ceramic, metal-vapor-deposit domes, EMIT, plasma, piezoelectric units

Old magnet composition: AlNiCo springs to mind
New magnet composition: rare-earth types such as neodymium.
Tom

Not many here are against the notion that 'vintage is everything' more than I am but I feel there are real gems in old audio and speakers is the one area where there is so much good from the past.

I've lived with a lot of 'new' speakers and spent many years listening to the latest and greatest technical marvels but at the end of the day, only 1 pair I can think of would displace my mid 70's Altecs.

And those Altecs? CAD designed Baltic birch (hardwood?) cabinets, paper cones, crossovers designed by formulas/trial & error (by ear?), paper-in-oil caps, wire wound resistors, old tweeter design (aluminum diaphragm compression driver technology from what, the 30's?) and of coarse - alnico magnets. Maybe I'm delusional but I invite anybody who thinks this is tired old crap that is easily bettered by 'new' to come on over for a listen.

That 1 pair of speakers that would displace the Altecs? Edgarhorns - made with all the same stuff I mentioned above.

 

[OvenMaster]

I never meant to say that old=bad and new=good for everything I know that's not the case.
Time for me to put a lid on personal opinions and stick to facts, I think, for a bit.

 

[5150]

Old cones: paper
New cones: doped paper, carbon fiber, fiberglass reinforced paper, polyethylene

Old crossover components: electrolytic caps, carbon resistors, wirewound resistors
New crossover components: polypropylene, mylar caps; metal film resistors

Old tweeter design: paper cones
New tweeter design: plastic, silk, metal, ceramic, metal-vapor-deposit domes, EMIT, plasma, piezoelectric units

I've often wondered if compromises are being made in the name of durability or economics? Are things like plastics being used in modern cones actually sonically better? Or is it an attempt to make a more durable product? Are metal film resistors actually better then wirewound? Or are they just cheaper to make?

 

[5150]

Furthermore is it a question of volumn?

Alot of what appeals to me about modern speakers is thier size. Tend to be narrower, though deaper, generally less volumn. Most of the Vintage speaker photos people are posting here are of the typical, wider then deep, 12" to 15" woofers, monsters that wouldn't fit in my space.

Bookshelf speakers are a big part of modern speaker sales, I don't recall ever seeing a truely vintage, bookshelf sized speaker that recieved any kind of praise.

I think I've made compromises of size vs quality. Don't get me wrong, I know I'd be happier with the sound of a larger floor standing speaker, modern or vintage, but I just don't have the space for them.

 

[GordonW]

The biggest improvements in speaker driver designs, come in two forms:

1) Improvements in motor linearity- ie, getting the magnetic field to be more "uniform" around the voice coil. This was started, basically, by JBL in the late '70s with the Symmetrical Field Geometry, and has progressed through shorting rings, carefully shaped (by finite element analysis) pole pieces and top plates, and even now, alternative voice coil designs (such as the JBL Differential Drive). Distortion levels that once NEVER got below 1% at anything near full power, can now be reduced, in the best cases, to levels similar to that of power amps (ie, less than .1% distortion).

2) Cone and surround shapes and materials. By being able to model cones more accurately (again, through FEA and such), we can determine the effects of different profiles when used with different materials. One material may work better with one profile, and another profile be better with a different material. Also, the geometry of surrounds (termination, shaping, etc) can GREATLY reduce the effects of the surround on response (surrounds generally create a small ripple in the response, in the midrange region).

Also, there a simply materials available now, in higher qualities, than were ever available before. Berylium is one example- it's starting to show up in more and more designs, due to improvements in alloying technology and manufacturing processes making it more cost effective. It's still relatively expensive, but progress keeps chipping away at the cost...

Another element that is improving speaker sound, is improved cabinet designs. Again, things like FEA and other analyzers, along with laser interferometry, are allowing accurate analysis of cabinet vibration behaviour. In addition, computer aided manufacturing is allowing more complex structures to be built, in the quest for more rigid, better behaved cabinets. One example is the bass section of the Vandersteen 5 speaker system... made in a "trans-lam" fashion, with VARIABLE inner dimension pieces. Completely "randomized" cabinet wall thickness and inner wall shapes, make it MUCH LESS prone to resonances. As a result, the Vandersteen 5 is WIDELY considered to have "the cleanest bass of all time"...

Also, the ability to create modular amplification (ie, good-quality plate amps and such) allows a level of "tunability" in loudspeaker systems. It's now possible to equip a cabinet with a power amp, complete with a parametric equalizer and sometimes, even semi-state-variable crossovers... which can go a GREAT WAY toward being able to "tune the speaker to the room" in the bottom. Makes all the difference, in whether a speaker behaves accurately, in a real space...

There are some very old ideas that are still really good (coax speakers are one clear example, IMHO), but the new ideas are really helping optimize these old concepts...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[dnewma04]

The comment about only materials changing couldn't be further from the truth. Since the speakers built in the 50-60s, there has been a great deal of advancement in loudspeaker technology and understanding. FEA alone has resulted in huge leaps in motor design.

I'll take computer designed crossover models over a crossover created by ear 100 times out of 100 without hesitation.

5150, in some cases, money is the primary driver, but you don't replace paper cones with carbon fiber because of cost. Most of the advancement in materials come at greater expense then the speakers used in 50s and 60s.

 

[Tom Brennan]

"As a result, the Vandersteen 5 is WIDELY considered to have "the cleanest bass of all time"..."


Well if many of us here put any credence in what's "widely considered" by conventional fou-fou audiophiles we wouldn't even be hanging out here.

The cleanest bass I ever heard was an old vertical vent 825 I had with an 803 woofer, the old one with the paper hinge. Not very deep but the finest reproduction of Duck Dunn's bass on "Shake a Tail Feather" I ever heard.

I really can't imagine any Vandersteen sounding as though a Dual Showman or Ampeg B-15 were in the room with me, no siree Bob.

Most of the audiophile speakers I hear are simple compression and distortion generators; computer designed crossovers and "improved" cone materials be damned.

Those newer JBL 15s with improved ferrite motors and forced cooling make fine bass (I owned several 2226s) , too bad the midrange is (IMO) inferior to that of a 50 year old Altec 515.

 

[Damage]

More along the lines of what I was looking for. Makes me glad to be here.

The biggest improvements in speaker driver designs, come in two fo....
...
...
There are some very old ideas that are still really good (coax speakers are one clear example, IMHO), but the new ideas are really helping optimize these old concepts...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[GordonW]

Try playing Poulenc's Organ Concerto in G Minor on that 803. Watch it fold up like tissue paper.

Then, watch the Vandersteen play it, like YOU ARE THERE in the cathedral.

I've actually HEARD 803s, 604s, 515s, 416s, 421s, JBL K145s, 150H-4s, 2220s, 2205s, D130s, 130a's, among others... in W-horns, back-horns, scoops, Karlson cabs, IB cabs, transmision lines, and such... have YOU heard a Vandersteen 5 in person? Or, a Martin-Logan Descent subwoofer?

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[bellavoce]

I for one am in no hurry to proclaim the "Ultimate Best" title to any system. It' just to much fun messing around with the stuff. And of course, sound and ones appreciation of it is completly subjective. I'm a west coast type i guess old school... Big JBL horns & boxes and mac/marrantz tube gear. It's just a sound i like. I would love to try some new hi-end moderne stuff but can't afford to...and i won't let go of my old stuff to find out. Maybe i'll get lucky and find a deal. Until then i'll try to keep my mind open and my ears too.
bellavoce

 

[Tom Brennan]

"Try playing Poulenc's Organ Concerto in G Minor on that 803. Watch it fold up like tissue paper.

Then, watch the Vandersteen play it, like YOU ARE THERE in the cathedral. "


I've been in the cathedral plenty of times but only for mass and my confirmation and such, not to hear Poulenc, whoever the Sam Hill that is. No doubt more people are interested in Duck Dunn than him. In any event that's true for me.


"have YOU heard a Vandersteen 5 in person? Or, a Martin-Logan Descent subwoofer? "

Never heard the Vandersteen, lost interest in his work when I realized years ago that his muddy speakers made AR-3s sound as clear as Quad 57s.

Now tell me, have you ever heard an Ampeg B-15 or a Dual Showman with a pair of D-140s? Acoustic 360? Those are my bass references. Any speaker that can't reproduce the sound of those is no good for me.

My opinion of course.

 

[dnewma04]

Tom,

Damage mentioned that not much has improved in speakers besides materials. That is not a factual statement and the reasons have been pointed out. Whether or not you like Altec 515s or some other driver better than a particular modern one doesn't disprove the points that modern highend drivers are better technoligically. Someone may prefer a Sony clock radio to a set of Dynaudios, but that doesn't mean they are better speakers.

Don't get me wrong here, I am a huge fan of vintage gear. The sound can be exceptionally pleasing, but technology has moved on pretty significantly.

As far as the Vandersteen's go, i have heard passing references of there sub being great, but to be honest, Gordon is the first I have heard reference it as the best bass ever. I don't have a lot of experience with many consumer subs, so perhaps its the best of it's ilk, but I would have a difficult time believing it would produce contra-bass-like bass. The best subs I have heard were DIY jobs, so it's hard to compare, but the 8 Lambda Acoustics TD15s used in dipole arrangement, the 2 Aura 1808s with 3 PRs (a la Deon Beardons the Beast), and the two Adire Tumults in big EBS cabinets were probably the best I have heard.

 

[WhiteSE]

You argue because you havent heard my latest pair of speakers:

Bow/ and or genuflect to grandness..!!

 

[dnewma04]

Eh...i've heard better.

 

[WhiteSE]

oh yeah?? show me a picture!!

 

[reggaenaut]

THis speaker business is so subjective that I have learnt over time not argue with audio enthusiasts about their speaker preference. I am invited to a home to listen to this holy grail, but the horns are driving me crazy.

 

[Damage]

Can I get those in piano black?