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
phusis's avatar
phusis
350 posts
 
Nationality is always an issue, listen to any Dane but don't ask them. Listen to Americans too.

Perhaps territoriality is a more fitting term..

Even if it is a dogma, it can still be a correct statement.

It can, yes, but do you consider that to be a benchmark?
inna
5,245 posts
 
We could go into interesting discussion that would lead us too far away. I try not to think with dogmas, if that's what you mean.
One day digital might sound better than analogue, but not yet. When demostrating reference level speakers or entire system, I would expect and demand reference level analogue source to begin with to be able to see what this system is capable of. You can add digital too later, for fun and comparison. And adding class A Gryphon amp would not be system integration or tuning in this case, at least in my opinion, but this point is debatable, I guess.
larryi
1,972 posts
 

Mapman,

There are a few areas where modest attempts to replicate older technology has failed to some degree.  I am sure that if there were the will and sufficient interest, the "lost" know-how could be overcome, but, that has not actually happened.  Several Japanese companies have tried to reproduce WE drivers over the years and have succeeded with some, but not all drivers.  Line Magnetic does field-coil versions of WE drivers (even when the WE were not field coil), probably for the same reason that the Japanese reproduction companies have mainly done reproductions of the field coil drivers--the magnets cannot be easily copied.  A friend spoke with one of the Japanese makers who acknowledged that they have tried to make certain drivers but could never get them to sound the same.  Admittedly, these are small builders, but, if there is no interest shown by the big houses, that is what one has to work with.

I think the best analogy for speaker design/build are musical instruments.  A lot of the "sound" of loudspeakers is in the designers voicing, not only the technology employed.  There has actually been quite a lot of attempts to make violins to sound like those made in Cremona 450 years ago, including instruments made with high tech polymers and carbon fiber impregnated material, metal, etc.  While some of these actually sound pretty good, I don't think that too many listeners would say that they "blow away" an Amati or Stradivari instruments.  The best newly built violins tend to be old-school instruments built in pretty much the same way as the 450 year old ones, with the maker voicing the instrument by ear, and not applying some high-tech approach.

mikewerner
93 posts
 
Wrong! Clearly you don't know anything about Violins and there is no comparison that makes any sense between an old Violin and an old speaker.  An ideal speaker should have no voice of its own. If it does, some things will sound better than they should and some things a lot worse.
larryi
1,972 posts
 

The point was that technology, modern materials, etc., has not improved on something that is hundreds of years old.  If you think that there is some simple "ideal" of a perfectly neutral speaker and that there is some technical means of measuring and approaching such ideal that takes out of the picture the maker making subjective decisions, then you have not been around people that actually make speakers.

I am aware of the objective approaches, such as the work of Floyd Toole and the National Research Council of Canada.  But, there are plenty of listeners who simply don't like the resulting sound (like me, for instance) and that is probably why there is such a broad array of choices that people make in buying speakers.  Likewise, there is a broad array of different speakers being offered by designers because they happen to like different sounds and voice their designs accordingly.  It is naïve to think that there is a one-size-fits-all measure of what is closest to the "ideal speaker" that has no voice of its own. 


Here is our challenge, at various price points of your choosing, tell us what comes closest to the no voice of its own.  I will really go out on the ledge here, I bet there will be a whole lot of folks that will disagree with those choices.

More to discover