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
People like Ed Villchur and Gilbert Briggs knew as much about loudspeakers as anyone around today.
Some of the stories about Briggs live v recording shows are still wonderful.
One thing is indisputable, high quality sound has never been as affordable as now. Hi-Fi for the masses, if they want it. Those ba****ds responsible for the loudness wars have blighted a generation.
Hopefully we are now in a new era where low bit MP3 is a thing of the past.
I never knew you invented OTL I assumed it was created in 1954 by Mr Cecil Hall for EV.
Probably a topic for a different thread... the Hall amplifier was not made for EV- but EV did use the Circlotron circuit in their Wiggins amplifiers. There were several other OTL patents issued in the 1950s for various different topologies. My implementation used a Circlotron like the Hall amplifier, but the driver setup is different.
With regards to the driver design: the materials used in my speakers simply were not available in the 1920s. I've heard the same setup using aluminum diaphragms instead of the beryllium with Kapton surround and the difference was pretty obvious. The aluminum had breakups which made it harsh. The first breakup on the Classic Audio diaphragm is at 35KHz so its a lot smoother- its the sort of thing you hear right away- and it can play a lot louder without becoming oppressive. That's a significant improvement in many audiophile's opinion, not just my own.
But as I maintained earlier, the really big improvement is probably the introduction of the Theil/Small parameters, which allow you to design the cabinet and crossover properly for the various drivers without having to build it first.
Yes, speaker technology has made great strides in practicality, affordability. Sound quality too, is vastly improved within the constraints of reasonable accommodation of practical considerations. But, if you can live with the equivalent of two automobiles in your listening room, the old theater systems become sonic contenders if you value a sense of scale, extraordinary dynamics at reasonable listening levels and seemingly contradictory qualities of sounding relaxed while still sounding vivid.
I particularly like some of the modern implementation of older drivers and horns in more practical packaging, like the system Salectric has on his page (I heard that system when it was being built and tuned at Deja Vu Audio). That system is not overly huge in size and sounds extremely good in even mid-sized rooms. I have a similar type of system built around modern, but old-school woofers (paper cone, pleated paper surround, alnico magnets), 1939 Western Electric 713b compression driver and a cast metal multicellular horn, and modern bullet tweeter.
I also have heard, and liked, modern gear built on old school designs. The Shindo systems are an example, as are Edgarhorns and Goto.
I also enjoy the completely different sound of many modern designs. If these other kinds of sound are more to one's liking, then of course, modern design is vastly improved.
Multiple driver designs are actually old school designs that have been tried and were not successful. Even Macintosh built a speaker just like Eric's. Bose tried this too.
So i just noticed this thread but wanted to mention listening to a friends Shindo Field Coil speakers some months back, the bigger model can't remember if that's Lafond or Lafite. They had just been shipped to him and one of them wasn't functioning properly, turned out to be an easily fixed loose connection, so we literally spent the evening listening to just one speaker. The system was all Shindo with a Luxman DAC. Far and away the closest sound I've heard to real musicians being in the room. Not just music but intent if that makes any sense. After a while we hooked back up his previous speakers, Devore Orangutans and they just sounded "broken" to me. And that's with just one channel versus two! Downsides the Shindo's are crushingly expensive and each box is the size of a large refrigerator. My friend ended up buying a house in the country to house the monsters.
Wouldn't Eric Alexander's patented speaker array on the Double Impact qualify as an advancement in speaker design? It hasn't been done that way previously, it is revolutionary, it works extremely well, and those particular speakers are seamless top to bottom.
I prefer listening to my vintage Altec Bolero, Segovia, Santana 1 and Stonehenge 1 speakers! Lively, dynamic sound even when used with low power tube or as amps! Sadly this company is gone - now just a marketing name for cheap Ch****e junk!
A look at some of the recently posted ancient Lansing and Altec advertising literature on audioheritage tells a good story. The answer is of course yes, things have advanced, but the quantum leaps took place then. Today's biggest advantage is in affordability (despite the puny looking prices in the old catalogs, non-inflation adjusted). Since the 50s certainly, it's just been a matter of cost reduction, miniaturization and refinement. One of the clearest and best symphonic recordings I have (from an RCA cd) is Rubinstein recorded by RCA in 1956 and, of course, mastered and monitored using contemporary equipment. So at the top end at least, things have clearly been pretty darn good for a long time.
And BTW horns are nonpariel when used properly, something challenging to do.
No wish from me to rain on anyone’s parade. Horns can and do sound fantastic - it is all about the quality of drivers and the design - 2nd harmonic changes the timbre (more euphonic) but it is not bad sounding like odd harmonics. Magico’s most expensive design is a horn. It is just that this thread says claims "not much progress" since 1930’s. So I was just trying to show how there has been progress.
I am glad you enjoy your modern speakers with 30 do less distortion. The last thing we need is anyone else driving up the cost of "inferior" vintage gear.
I agree that nothing is perfect but in the context of this thread - horns have long been surpassed by the modern era of conventional drivers (starting in the 70’s) which have performance up to -70dB of THD - a massive 30dB less distortion than horns.
30dB less distortion - now that is incredible progress!
Shadorne nothings perfect all things have issues horns many benefits greatly off set the weakness. Pointing to a bit of 2nd order as a deal killer is also maybe not the best weakness that horns have to focus on. Also if you read till the end Jean lists that many of the horns are low distortion. He also was marketing product so had a bit of a bias towards his own work. Still Jean was one other the good guys in high eff design his horns are wonderful to use but I still prefer my older multicells. Also most all into horns know of JMLC http://horns-diy.pl/en/horns/jmlc/jmlc-400/
What about non linear affects from compression in the throat of the horn? This usually results in high 2nd harmonic distortion. Since it is caused by air compression, my understanding is that it is an inherent design limitation of horn transducers.
Here are some measurements of various high end horns. They ALL without exception suffer from high 2nd harmonic distortion.
Horns are nothing more than acoustic impedance converting transformers, and just like electrical transformers, their performance is effected by frequency, design, and materials. I'm generally not a fan of horns mainly because the ones I've heard have been challenging to endure.
Phusis,{From my chair we'd need to re-visit these older horn designs more frequently, and build/design further on from them to truly make progress} Much of modern design is about making things smaller maybe with loudspeakers if ultimate performance is end goal we might have taken the small approach a bit to far.
Atmasphere -Look at 1920s WE 555- 1930s 596A compression driver your saying TADs design isn't based on these early compression drivers? Whats so different besides materials used? I never knew you invented OTL I assumed it was created in 1954 by Mr Cecil Hall for EV.
Speaker evolution these last rather many decades roughly seems to have been more about refining a concept born by Edgar M. Villchur when he brought forth the AR-1's in the 50's. Few would or should really contest the perhaps most notable feature here being the catering to a domestic demand (rather than the search for and proclamation of a more real sound), or certainly seeing a product's more widespread use through the limitation of size (made possible with the advent of the more powerful transistor amps to counter another limitation: sensitivity). Within this concept I can see some progress through the years (followed not least by an uptick in price), but in the bigger scheme of things the older, much larger and much more sensitive (horn-)speakers, though limited in the frequency extremes, to my ears are still substantially in the lead (particularly combined with low-wattage, single-ended valve amps) when it comes to an effortless, dynamic and encompassing live/emotional imprinting. From this perspective it could be argued that over a longer timeline speaker evolution has really seen a decline, in some vital aspects at least, in not re-accepting the need for sheer size and high sensitivity of speakers. From my chair we'd need to re-visit these older horn designs more frequently, and build/design further on from them to truly make progress.
Your TAD drivers all based on early 1920s designs,the horn of the CAR is
just a evolution of a 1940s design. OTL amplifier is from the 1950s
sure you improved but you didn't create invent.
OTLs: yes I invented my circuit myself. I didn't know about other OTLs at the time. I got two patents- more than anyone else in the field. More on the way.
While the drivers might be loosely based on the prior art, the fact is nothing like them existed or could have existed as early as the dates above. The simple fact is that computer technology has made speakers better- including horn designs.
Horns are simply not the best in terms of accuracy but they do deliver
exceptional SPL for little power - great for live music sound
reinforcement.
Actually a good horn can be quite accurate- if you think about it, the driver does not have to have a lot of excursion to do its job. If its properly designed, it can be lower distortion as a result. Since the electronics don't have to work as hard to drive the speaker, its also possible for them to be lower distortion too.
shadorne Horns have lower distortion than conventional drivers faster transient response than conventional drivers,are easier for amplifiers to drive can produce higher SPL than conventional drivers also exhibit greater dynamic range. and radiation pattern control. Consider much of the music that audiophiles collect was mastered on Altec, TAD, RCA and other horn systems. And many modern studios are still using horn monitors.
kosst agree that we may just be copying much of what came before with slight improvements and innovations with time and agree this could go as far back as fires discovery or farther. The reason that I point to the 1930s is that most of what we use today in loudspeakers was created in a early spurt of innovation driven by early theater and telephone technology.. Might be the telephones popularity and theaters going from silent to talkies that stimulated so much innovation but also at the time the largest corporations in the world put massive resources into creating it. This new technology also attracted some of the great minds at the time. Today audio technology design is of extremely low priority and is mostly done digitally. And is no longer attracting the best and brightest. I understand that being engaged by music is a fading activity and I really shouldn't be surprised by the lack of innovation and small time nature of companies that market such. We are a niche.
I thought we got past the limitations of horns about 35 years ago - once transistor amplifiers became of good quality and allowed more power to be widely available.
Horns are simply not the best in terms of accuracy but they do deliver exceptional SPL for little power - great for live music sound reinforcement.
@johnk You have and extremely weird idea of innovation. Practically nothing that exists today is the result of a genuinely new idea. If you really want to take the concept of technological evolution to it's extreme, it's completely accurate to say all you're hearing is mankind's mastery of fire. There's nothing all that new about the internal combustion engine. We just figured out how to put fire in a can. There's practically no genuinely new ideas that gave rise to the speaker. The only real innovation was a means of more accurately controlling the input of energy into a system. Pretty much the rest is minor adaptations from technologies hundreds of years old. So I guess I'm failing to see why you point to the 1930's as some paradigm of innovation.
larryi, Glad CAR exists and its a great option but there product in no way obsoletes vintage and I find it a bit funny that CAR was used as a example of advanced modern design since much of what they offer is cool modernized vintage design. And that would support my orignal assumption of how little progress has been made since the 1930s.
koksst_amojan I cant answer a non sequitur. Threads about progress in loudspeaker design since the 1930s and maybe a lack of innovation or similarity of design in such things.
I like the sound of Classic Audio speakers. They do represent a successful utilization of old school technology (field coil magnets) and modern materials and technology. But, whether they are superior to old systems or modern systems using old drivers, that, is purely a subjective call. I personally do not think they sound better than a well done implementation of old drivers. It is probably a matter of voicing; I find them to be a bit too lean and bright and brittle sounding as compared to some of the systems using old drivers that I really like. Still, the Classic Audio systems are great sounding and do outperform vintage systems in terms of bass impact and depth and ability to play loudly. I happen to prize very highly other qualities that some vintage drivers deliver--ability to sound very dynamic and lively at low volume, delivery of a really relaxed, smooth sound while remaining dynamic and clear sounding.
It is also a BIG deal to me that vintage drivers are VERY efficient. My favored amps happen to be quite low in power output.
@johnk Yeah, I guess, and since the concept is pretty much the same, the experience should be the exact same as well. Guess the military was kinda stupid for going with jet fighters when biplanes effectively mastered flight.
inna we do rely much on computers for design might be why so much made today seems to not be-able to give soul or life to music and that we keep mining the past a time when humans designed for ideas horn speakers, tubes, LPs, tape all still being made why if modern tech is so advanced? are we looking for something that is not available otherwise? If I sim loudspeaker designs I can hear how wrong some of the sims can be in reality. I trust what I am hearing thus make empirical changes to design to get what I want out of it not what works well within the confines of a limited software program. Might be others put more trust into the computer end and less on the human and with art like music that might be a issue. After all you are trying to trick human senses into hearing actual music,sound-stage and feeling any emotions the music generates.
kosst_amojan -Zonda is a evolution of whats considered the 1st sports car 1914 Vauxhall. Zonda did not create the idea of a sporting car it evolved its design based on the many many sports cars before it. What are Zondas original advancements to automobile tech? Its just near the pinnacle of a very advanced vintage technology.
John, I think you stress the emotional component, which in my mind is also the most important. I heard a few fine instruments that didn't give that no matter who played them, and I heard other instruments that sounded a lot like the vintage design speakers you are talking about. And I heard two that got everything right. Custom acoustic guitars. I can't really play a guitar but I can strike a few accords. Wow, that was quite a sound. The other even much better guitar was played by Paco de Lucia - custom Conde Hermanos. Something is being lost in modern sound reproduction, I think, and it cannot be compensated by anything.
Well, all these questions go far beyond audio. Perhaps, nothing is ever new under the sun. I view speakers making as a fine art, unlike everything else in a chain, that is just art.
I can't believe this is a serious post. I suppose you could say a Pagani Zonda is just an evolution of the Model T. I guess one could say an Intel i7 is just an evolution of the Altair too. Sound has come a long way in the last 30, much less 90 years.
One does have to take a financial risk when working with or bringing out new innovations could be a bit of corporate repression of design in favor of safe bets thus more profit? Could be that reproduction of sound for human use can only be effectively generated by a limited num of combinations thus replication? Maybe humanity copies and improves more than invents and innovates? Maybe my perceived biases do not allow me to see or hear all the massive innovations in audio reproduction?
Perhaps there cannot be any more breakthroughs for a very long time, who knows? When all you really want to do is sell sell sell, you will create nothing except more ways to sell.
Atmasphere Capacitors have existed in some form since the 1740s silver and gold are not advancements just evolution of early design. Your TAD drivers all based on early 1920s designs,the horn of the CAR is just a evolution of a 1940s design. OTL amplifier is from the 1950s sure you improved but you didn't create invent. Thus my point about real progress progress in orignal design and thoughts. This to me seems missing today.
My speakers at home are made by Classic Audio Loudspeakers. I may have mentioned this on this thread a long time ago.
They differ from vintage stuff in several ways. First, the midrange driver, which employs a 3" compression driver coupled to a machined maple horn. is different in that the diaphragm is built of beryllium, but using a Kapton surround rather than a metal surround. This extends the bandwidth of the driver and prevents breakups- the first being at 35KHz. It is also field-coil powered. The horn is a new design and does not have the typical peak at the bottom end of the pass band which is caused by an error in design- common in a lot of vintage midrange horns.
So as a result is it faster, smoother and more detailed than vintage midrange horns. People often comment that is sounds like an ESL, but of course its a lot easier to drive and has greater dynamic range.
The woofers are a pair of 15" TAD drivers with Alnico magnets. One of the woofers has a free air resonance at 22Hz. Both drivers can handle 150 watts no worries. They are in series so the speaker can handle 300 watts. I don't think any of the vintage stuff can do that. In addition, the Theil/Small parameters were not understood until the mid 1960s or so- so port openings were a bit of a guess in the vintage stuff. These days computer modeling has the ports spot-on.
The crossovers are 6db with Mundorf silver and gold foil caps. Those parts didn't exist in the vintage days.
The result is overall the speaker is faster, more transparent and has more deep bass than vintage designs (with a sacrifice of some efficiency since the speaker is bass reflex rather than horn loaded).
I like the vintage stuff and if priced right can be nice to play with. But they don't hold up to the new stuff.
LarryI, thanks for the nice comments. The last time I was at the DejaVu store, I heard a really nice sounding setup that used the YL 5500 in a big horn with a 200 Hz crossover and 15" Goodmans woofers in open baffle. It had a Jensen RP-302 crossing in at 10K. Voices were very realistic over these speakers.
Rice and Kellogg, Harry Olson,John Hilliard, John Blackburn much of whats available today they invented in the 1920s-30s thus why I started the thread how much progress has really been made when the best of today is lucky to be as good as the best at that time and is most likely a evolution of these 1930s designers work.
inna house sized no shed sized yes if you want sub bass. Still if you look at how modern loudspeakers generate bass a large horn hitting 45hz without roll off at incredibly low distortion levels pretty much trumps the high excursion, massive power, low bass by resonance approach and its high distortion levels, limited dynamic range and associated fatigue factors. The horns weakness maybe in coloration but at the listening levels homes use these massive designs are just coasting along.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
