Modern speakers vs Vintage speakers

[MarcelNL]

I have the best help in the business and it already works great.....left with 4msek between FLH and subhorn below 65, so not really possible to detect by ear
but if we can get to 0msk........but I´m not willing to sacrifice tonality or "harmonics" and differentiation ....

for sure all those aspects are important, the big question is what is most important in any given setup.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

the proof is in the eating of the pudding..
we´ll never know if we don´t risk anything......
and the mountain safety rule applies...
no shame in turning back

 

[MarcelNL]

the proof is in the eating of the pudding..
we´ll never know if we don´t risk anything......
and the mountain safety rule applies...
no shame in turning back

O for sure, the experimenting is full of lessons learned IMO. I usually experiment my system to a point where no lid has screws anymore or where lids or permanent connections do not even exist....

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

are you attending ETF?

 

[MarcelNL]

are you attending ETF?

Not sure, I'd love to but there a few issues in the way

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

if you´re in NL it´s in Baarlo for third year in November before it moves to Germany

 

[MarcelNL]

if you´re in NL it´s in Baarlo for third year in November before it moves to Germany

see your PM, its a bit weird to explain here ;-)

 

[the sound of Tao]

Could be, yet I tend to think that NO filters and wide range high efficiency speakers work best for electronic music too.

I've listened to f.e. Trentemoller live a few times, and at home. What I think is good electronic music is layered like classical music. ELectronic music frequency boundaries do not necessarily extend those for classical, I even think that electronic music does not extend to the low end since many bands are used to the limits of current speaker designs. (peak low end energy usually sits arounnf 70-80Hz).

My Trionor design delivers electronic music with authority and unravels the layering, heck my current 'get by for the moment' 8" Philips wideband units from the fifities do great unraveling the layering and details and perform as if they are backed by some seriously larger woofers.

Filtering messes up phase coherence as speaker enclosures do, IMHO its less is more and all that. Phase coherence and time alignment are required to recreate things in osund that belong together, like overtones happen at certain wavelentghs above and below the ground tone ripping those loose from their source makes for a tough job putting them back in the place where they belong.
IMO it's a.o. that what makes modern speakers compare poorly with real music

I rather play reverse judo with the frequency response curves of speaker units, making use of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses rather than manhandling difficulties into a straight jacket using higher order filters, that sort of idea ;-)

Creating ONE decent filter combo of a high pass and a low pass filter for a filtered two way can be difficult enough, adding another filter increases the difficulty of maintaining phase coherence to x^2, a four way to x^3 etc.
Too many speakers use filters that have been calculated for flat freq response (which is something the human brain will compensate for rapidly), and likely most experimentation was done adding dB/Octave, hence complexity and less phase coherence..

I definitely get what you mean about the positive qualities of good high efficiency speakers (and SET) doing electronica especially in ways that involve presenting ambience, flow and instrumental layering… of the two OB horns that I have the one that has 2 x 15 inch woofers per side drives harder (at both rock and EDM) and is more satisfying in ways at electronica and especially EDM as well and still great at smaller scale jazz and chamber music. The other larger horn OB that has 4 x 15 inch woofers bass per side does all jazz and classical really well through to large orchestral where it is more convincing and nuanced but then it is not as convincing in spirit with EDM because the bass and mid bass presents with a fuller tonal balance but a bit more flow and a shade less attack. It’s like the 2 different OBs are on a fine tipping point in flow/attack characteristics in their character balance.

I could tilt the 4 x 15inch OB across into a more angular EDM type bass drive by adding in a pair of W frame OB woofer bass panels to the larger OB horn setup or even just biamping the bass in the main OB with a second LM SET amp (both of which I have) and then it would just shift to a more driven bass mid-bass characteristic presentation when I’m wanting to go to some EDM (and with also the mandatory pump up of the vol).

 

[the sound of Tao]

Yes those are modern drivers. Cessaros use TAD (not modern) + Supravox (modern).

Not sure what Tune audio Anima uses, but someone speculated it was a modernization of Fostex.

Think Tune Anima has a wood pulp banana fibre composite from Fostex that is supposed to emulate a paper driver but just with a shade more stiffness.

 

[mtemur]

Nice driver ,but its sounds too much like yamaha ns 1000 drivers not my cup of tea.is a personal opinion of mine, no need to generalize.
They were the first to use berylium fragile gem

I have seen deteriorated Yamaha NS-1000 drivers. They’re certainly not pure beryllium. They are plastic with beryllium plating. And sounds plastic. Big and much better Yamaha NS -2000 is not marginally different which I used for a while (below).

Yamaha’s beryllium has nothing to do with TAD 4003 or 4001 or modern counterparts .

 

[Robh3606]

With JBL if you mentioned their modern drivers, or GPA Altecs, or today's Tannoy, I would agree. But TAD 4003 is the old driver, not new version of today's driver. The JBL Leif uses is the 2220a.

Hello

Where exactly do you see the line?? For me a 2220A is vintage. It uses the original designed magnetic pot structure. When they had the cobalt shortage and switched to ferrite JBL came up with SFG pot structures that had markedly better distortion characteristics. To me everything after is Modern including SFG drivers.

With 4" compression drivers the change to the Coherent Wave Phase plug is the hinge. The first modern driver being the 2446. 2445 if you consider the change to Ferrite but same phase plug as the 2440/41.

Not getting into diaphragm material and surround termination differences or conversions to Neo.

Rob

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

most people haven´t heard 4003, let alone seen, but still have opinions
btw I have 2446 in 2380 horns as TV front......2226 below

 

[bonzo75]

Hello

Where exactly do you see the line?? For me a 2220A is vintage. It uses the original designed magnetic pot structure. When they had the cobalt shortage and switched to ferrite JBL came up with SFG pot structures that had markedly better distortion characteristics. To me everything after is Modern including SFG drivers.

With 4" compression drivers the change to the Coherent Wave Phase plug is the hinge. The first modern driver being the 2446. 2445 if you consider the change to Ferrite but same phase plug as the 2440/41.

Not getting into diaphragm material and surround termination differences or conversions to Neo.

Rob

i don’t see Alnico moving on to ferrite, or changing phase plugs as diaphragms of the same vintage driver as making it a modern driver.
difference between Wilson and Altec is modern Vs vintage rather than Alnico to ferrite as such. Again you are referring to any modification in old design, whether for the good or for the bad,

I don’t think one has to draw any line. When we use broad terms like vintage and modern, the breadth of the term will never hold if you get into specific examples. But the ethos and the school of thought and approach is what differentiates vintage Vs modern.

 

[Salectric]

I don’t think one has to draw any line. When we use broad terms like vintage and modern, the breadth of the term will never hold it you get into specific examples. But the ethos and the school of thought and approach is what differentiates vintage Vs modern.

I agree. Since I use woofers made in 1947 and a midrange horn made in the late 1940s, I could say that anything made after the Korean War is modern. But I won't.

 

[PeterA]

i don’t see Alnico moving on to ferrite, or changing phase plugs as diaphragms of the same vintage driver as making it a modern driver.
difference between Wilson and Altec is modern Vs vintage rather than Alnico to ferrite as such. Again you are referring to any modification in old design, whether for the good or for the bad,

I don’t think one has to draw any line. When we use broad terms like vintage and modern, the breadth of the term will never hold if you get into specific examples. But the ethos and the school of thought and approach is what differentiates vintage Vs modern.

My Vitavox CN-191 and former Magico Q3s represent completely different approaches. Not only do they sound quite different, the way they look, are designed and meant to be in a space with the listener, is very different. Then there is the whole matter of requiring completely different amplifiers.

perhaps this is an extreme example, but I can relate to what Kadar is saying.

 

[Robh3606]

i don’t see Alnico moving on to ferrite, or changing phase plugs as diaphragms of the same vintage driver as making it a modern driver.
difference between Wilson and Altec is modern Vs vintage rather than Alnico to ferrite as such. Again you are referring to any modification in old design, whether for the good or for the bad,

I don’t think one has to draw any line. When we use broad terms like vintage and modern, the breadth of the term will never hold if you get into specific examples. But the ethos and the school of thought and approach is what differentiates vintage Vs modern.

Ok I understand now.

The idea behind the thread is to discuss Modern vs Vintage. So if you are not going to draw a line how can you constructively discuss the topic at hand if everyone in the discussion has their own definition? Or a vague one with no clear boundries?

I see the same result just confusion. The original theater system designs were driven through modernization. Many introducing new materials and designs that never existed or where improved upon.

Those changes were/are the driving force that determine how well these older systems, drivers in particular, hold up against today's "modern" systems.

Speaker design has not been stagnant with many technical improvements just as the original systems were. To just ignore these changes doesn't make sense to me as many of the improvements were not possible say 30-40 years ago.

I don't see how you can have a conversation about Vintage vs Modern without including changes in materials, engineering as part of the conversation.

Just using brands as an example doesn't address the main differences between Vintage and Modern which are technology and design driven.

YMMV

Rob

 

[MarcelNL]

personally I don;t see a need to draw a line, there will be a grey area (quite large too) where 'vintage' evolved into 'modern'

Is a 100 year old speaker design made from newer materials modern? (let alone the question; is it better?)

Right now I'm listening to a PL519, which I probably would call a modern tube....yet I'm hearing the second grid being used as anode, effectively making it a mesh triode, now THAT is definitely vintage.
The amp is using massive chokes with a new core material, making it modern, but using only one input transformer and one tube to amplify makes it vintage?

 

[Robh3606]

personally I don;t see a need to draw a line, there will be a grey area (quite large too) where 'vintage' evolved into 'modern'

Is a 100 year old speaker design made from newer materials modern? (let alone the question; is it better?)

Really easy answer to me. Certainly is not vintage, it's not using the same materials or processes. It's a reproduction using modern manufacturing. If it is using different materials it's not even a clone. It's a new driver based on a vintage design.

Rob

 

[MarcelNL]

see, that is the grey area...certainly not vintage but certainly not modern as well?
IMHO it's not a new driver, but indeed a reproduction using modern materials, I wouldn't call that modern.

 

[PeterA]

I think we are well served to go back to the original post for the intent of the thread. This was about hearing two really different speaker types, one modern, the other vintage and then commenting on sound and involvement.