2. speakers
  3. 125362-293

Loudspeakers have we really made that much progress since the 1930s?

Since I have a slight grasp on the history or loudspeaker design. And what is possible with modern. I do wonder if we have really made that much progress. I have access to some of the most modern transducers and design equipment. I also have  large collection of vintage.  I tend to spend the most time listening to my 1930 Shearer horns. For they do most things a good bit better than even the most advanced loudspeakers available. And I am not the only one to think so I have had a good num of designers retailers etc give them a listen. Sure weak points of the past are audible. These designs were meant to cover frequency ranges at the time. So adding a tweeter moves them up to modern performance. To me the tweeter has shown the most advancement in transducers but not so much the rest. Sure things are smaller but they really do not sound close to the Shearer.  http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/lmco/shearer.htm
128x128johnk
salectric
683 posts
 
Johnk is right---Experience does trump conjecture.  How can anyone argue otherwise?  The problem here is that so few audiophiles have actually heard the speakers he is referencing.  My experience is not as vast as Johnk or Larryi but I have enough exposure to quality vintage speakers to give Johnk the benefit of the doubt.  Did anyone here attend the 2011 or 2012 RMAF?  If so you had a chance to hear a matched pair of Western Electric 757 speakers in the Silbatone room.  Not exactly 1930s but these monitor speakers from the 1940s really opened my eyes to what vintage speakers can do.

inna
5,245 posts
 
Did they really sound better than most modern speakers or just had a different vintage sound?
timlub
1,649 posts
 

You are correct,  this shows a lot of experience in being rude.... That's the point... telling people that they don't count.... opinions without supporting experience is just noise.
Read through the post,  enough was said...

No one has said at all,  that there aren't very good systems from yesteryear, the entire argument that Johnk won't acknowledge is that there have been advancements and clear improvement. Everything that is any good was created in 1848. (Sarcasm) and only that vintage is better.  I pointed out a few inaccuracy's with some dates quoted. I agree that Big speakers that are well balanced is a great experience, the air moving, the big stage is a great experience.  I've never heard Shearer Horns,  John does have a ton of experience and I'm sure that they are great, I'd just like to see some others get credit where its due, but I have sat in from of many others. I recently did a fair amount of mods on old Altecs,  in the end, they were wonderful.  Without todays technology, they wouldn't have turned out like they did.  Ok,  there's my rant. 

phusis's avatar
phusis
350 posts
 
You are correct, this shows a lot of experience in being rude.... That’s the point... telling people that they don’t count.... opinions without supporting experience is just noise. Read through the post, enough was said...

I’d say the point is that experience is essential in discussing how technology affects the perceived sound, as it is also vital in helping to draw a distinction between technology, its specific use, and not least of course the actual sonic outcome. I gather few would really deny the advance in technology that has been made over the years, but from many of the posts here there seems to be a tendency to conclude rather blindly this advancement will necessarily equate into better sound without paying much attention to the design and implementation per se. Seeing how johnk points this out through his remarks doesn’t strike me as being rude, but simply that he understands the terms of what is discussed.
mapman's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
mapman
15,679 posts
 
Many advancements since then have been pointed out.   Whether one thinks those of significance or not is a matter of opinion.   But the advancements themselves are not.
More to discover