Upgrade or just lateral move?

[corbin]

I'm satisfied with the combination in my signature, but like any good audiophile, the lingering feeling that I should upgrade has slowly been getting stronger. Probably not going to upgrade immediately but I'm wondering - what is the step up from here like? What sonic qualities am I missing out on? Because from where I'm sitting it sounds pretty good.

It seems unlikely that some budget speakers from the 70s would be the last word in fidelity, so tell me, especially those who have moved from vintage to modern - what am I missing?

 

[vinyldavid]

From what I can tell, the EPI stuff was well engineered, but it's definitely old.

I've moved from vintage to modern, near the top end of the scale. I owned (and still own) Bozak Concert Grands, and was very pleased with them, after a bit of DSP work and supertweeters.

Then, I went to work for the best recording engineer in town, and got to hear Genelec, Dynaudio, Tannoy, ATC, and other modern studio monitors, and.....the Bozaks didn't sound so good anymore.

I bought some smaller Dynaudios, but wasn't satisfied because they didn't give me that HUGE speaker sound I was so used to with the Concert Grands and other large box devices. I ended up blowing $6000 (every penny I had) on used Dynaudio Confidence C4's (which were $19,000 new in 2009), and while they're not an absolutely perfect speaker, they're at the proper level of "good enough" for me, and I couldn't do better without spending a LOT more money.

The newer speakers get the detail right. The phase coherency and low distortion that many mid level modern speakers get completely right is something that every vintage speaker I've ever heard misses (with rare exceptions). What modern speakers don't always get is the music. Some of those colorations helps less than perfect recordings sound more palleteable, and even enjoyable. Do those classic Blue Note records sound good? That's a sign that you've got serious issues. If all you listen to is vintage jazz, then more power to ya.

I can't go back to listening to most vintage speakers and amplification now. Too much gets in the way of accurate reproduction. And, sadly, accuracy costs money in the electronic world.

That's my take. YMMV.

 

[spark1]

Different speakers will make the most significant change in the sound of your system. However, preferences vary widely...just because you upgrade to better speakers doesn't necessarily mean you will like them better.

Also, as you move up in speaker quality, you may find that you need more/better amplification and better sources for them to sound their best.

And of course, even the best speakers can't fix poorly engineered recordings!

 

[musichal]

I have both vintage and modern speakers now and like both pair a great deal, but the new more. However, I think it comes down to cases - the specific speakers under consideration. And to listeners - different preferences. Rooms have an effect, too.

If forced to choose between the Monitor Audio and Klipsch, there's no doubt the MAs would stay. They have better quality drivers, are more accurate and just plain sound better. The alloy used to make the cones, AFAIK, didn't even exist when the Fortes were built - or if it did, it was for jet engines, not found in speakers. This gives them a lighter, more rigid cone - a big advantage.

Right now is the golden age of speakers, get yourself some. That's my opinion, and likely a minority one here.

 

[corbin]

Dang it. I was hoping you guys would tell me there's not much difference. My EPIs are upgraded with a Dayton polypropylene cap and tweeter control l-pad. And they're pretty small so not as much box resonance as most vintage speakers, though I'm sure nowhere close to contemporary monitors, which are dead as concrete.

There are truly an overwhelming number of speakers available if one broadens their search past the 1970s. I tend to do a ton of research before purchasing anything, especially audio gear, and was just getting a handle on all the different brands, designs, etc. of vintage speakers from all the different countries. Then the 90s brought all the boutique companies which may only put out a small line of speakers and have since gone out of business, making it very difficult to understand what's available on the used market. Finding a good used monitor from 1990-2012, say, is almost like picking at random. What this also means is there are probably very high end speakers from just a decade or two ago that now sell for peanuts. The question then is whether a pair that retailed for $4500 in 2002, but now sells for a lot less, is better than a current day $1500 speaker. Some people will say no, it isn't, but I have my doubts.

 

[corbin]

I used to think that warmth and fatigue-free listening came at the expense of treble detail, and that modern speakers with their broad frequency response and super-detailed tweeters would be ultimately fatiguing. That may still be true, I don't have the experience to know, but the EPIs which have a brighter top end than most vintage speakers have made me think otherwise, since despite the increased high frequency info, the sound is still supremely smooth and non-fatiguing due to the linearity of the tweeter and design. Now I tend to lean toward the school of thought that listening fatigue is caused by distortions of some type, not just detail in general, with the important caveat that modern speakers may have trouble with bad recordings.

I'm not this audiophile who listens to only well-recorded music, in fact a lot of my music discovery is through Youtube streaming which is a pitiful 192kbps.

 

[spark1]

It is not just modern speakers that have "trouble" with bad recordings. And, there are many, many examples of speakers, both older and newer, that are not so sensitive to poor recordings...unfortunately, this is often due to their lack of detail and accuracy as compared to "better" speakers.

In my book, listening fatigue is most often a function of overly bright speakers (too much output in the upper midrange and/or higher frequencies). On the other hand, I find that speakers characterized as "warm" often suffer from a lack of detail and/or roll-off in the upper frequencies. As in most things, balance is critical.

You seem quite happy with your current set-up. Keep it until you hear something that sounds better to your ears. Perhaps there is an AK group that gets together in your area, which might give you an opportunity to hear different speakers/systems if you don't have access to a brick and mortar audio retailer. Alternatively, keep your eyes peeled for good used speakers at a good price (CL, Facebook marketplace, etc). If you don't like them, just resell them and move on.

EDIT: Only you can answer the question you posed about speakers that retailed for $4500 sixteen years ago are better than speaker currently retailing for $1500. While great speakers are never cheap, there does not seem to be a linear correlation between prices and sound quality. I've heard plenty of speakers that I did not like nearly as much as other speakers costing less. I've also heard plenty of lower priced speakers that did not sound as good as those costing more.

 

[sqlsavior]

A well-executed 6.5" two-way can be surprisingly capable, as you are aware from experience. With the respected EPI tweeter and a refreshed crossover, I can understand why you appreciate the sound you already have. So, definitely hang on to yours until after your search is over.

To strain a metaphor, instead of looking for better apples, it may be more fruitful (pun intended!) to try an orange. You can audition a similarly respected planar loudspeaker, the Magnepan MMGi, at home for 60 days, for $650, satisfaction guaranteed. http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMGi - no affiliation. They will need to be at least three feet out from the wall behind them, however, as they are dipoles - the sound comes out the back as well as the front.

As for better apples, Harbeth comes first to mind. They are more expensive, but would almost certainly satisfy your criteria.

No speaker on earth can make overly compressed CDs sound good to my ears, at least not without removing a lot of information, which kind of defeats the whole purpose. And electronics can vary a lot more than is commonly supposed - I have no idea what your Sony would sound like to me. Don't change more than one component at a time if you can help it, and get good and used to its new sound before making another change.

Is there a reason that you don't mention your sources?

 

[corbin]

Not really any reason other than I figure no one will read the signature anyway. Source is Topping D30 from laptop, or Playstation 1 (SCPH-1001) CD player (the vinylyzer).

I also have BA A150s, which have better separation, bass, and imaging than the EPIs, as expected for a 3-way with a 10" woofer. However their timbre is not as realistic and they aren't as "musical" (meaningless descriptor but you get the idea).

 

[sqlsavior]

I value separation and imaging quite a bit, because it lets me follow individual singers and instruments easier. It seems that you are a "timbre first!" listener. It is possible to get both at once, and that may be what you are missing out on and should aim for with an upgrade.

And more bass, of course!

 

[Silentnet]

Electrostats.

That's your next step. (And end game.)

I've had very good dynamics. To be fair, not "modern high end dynamics" level, but quite good.

My father's Cizek Model 1s, Boston Acoustics A400s, Acoustic Research AR-3As. Having heard all those, my first experience with electrostats was night and day. That was 20 or so years ago.

Finally bought my own MLs 6 months ago.

I'd leave my girlfriend for these speakers.

Yes, they're hard to drive. Welcome to the world of 1 ohm capacative loads. You'll spend as much, if not more, on amps to drive the speakers than said speakers.

And when you get it right...

There are others here who have taken it much farther than I.

 

[Bodyblue]

I'm satisfied with the combination in my signature, but like any good audiophile, the lingering feeling that I should upgrade has slowly been getting stronger. Probably not going to upgrade immediately but I'm wondering - what is the step up from here like? What sonic qualities am I missing out on? Because from where I'm sitting it sounds pretty good.

It seems unlikely that some budget speakers from the 70s would be the last word in fidelity, so tell me, especially those who have moved from vintage to modern - what am I missing?

Your EPIs are a nice sounding speaker but there are quite a few vintage speakers that have better performance. I found your EPI models to be fairly light on bass. Many vintage units sound dull because they need to be re capped. It really depends on how much you want to spend. I found a beautiful pair of Pioneer CS 88s that I had re capped for a total investment of less than $175. They can be overly bright but are easily tamed with the controls in back.......and the bass is absolutely crushing.

You have a nice system but there are lots of choices in vintage that move you up. Just how far depends on what you want to spend.

 

[RTally]

I'm satisfied with the combination in my signature, but like any good audiophile, the lingering feeling that I should upgrade has slowly been getting stronger. Probably not going to upgrade immediately but I'm wondering - what is the step up from here like? What sonic qualities am I missing out on? Because from where I'm sitting it sounds pretty good.

It seems unlikely that some budget speakers from the 70s would be the last word in fidelity, so tell me, especially those who have moved from vintage to modern - what am I missing?

What are you missing? Bass. The EPI 70s are rated down to 60 Hz. Either pair them with a subwoofer (less than optimum IMHO) or get a speaker that reaches lower, like the EPI 100 since you like the EPI sound. I like the EPI sound, too.

I have a pair of EPI 70 speakers. I love them for their midrange to treble. But they are sorely lacking in bass. I also have a pair of EPI 20+ that have larger and double the number of woofers. They go much lower and sound so much better than the 70s. (I paid the same amount for both speakers, but I had to refoam the 20+.) I will pick up a pair of EPI 100s in two weeks, so I will be able to give a better comparison between the two, but I expect the EPI 100 to walk all over the 70s. Or maybe I will run both, stacked.

 

[Bodyblue]

I have come to really like two way speakers with 8 or 10 in woofers. My Marantz Imperial 6s are incredible along with the Imperial 5s I just found. Another surprise are my Sansui SP 75s. I also just picked up a set Rectilinear Mini 3s that have incredible bass for the size. I also loved my Small Advents.....best bass for the size.

 

[Bodyblue]

What are your size limitations ?

 

[corbin]

That's the thing, the hifi system stays in my computer room/office, so I'm limited to relatively small bookshelf-size speakers. I do have an active subwoofer (Velodyne VRP-1000) to assist with bass but honestly I don't miss running without it. Most of my listening is late night, low volume so I'm not trying to shake the house down.

Can anyone comment on the question I posed about whether $4500 MSRP circa 2002 era speakers would be better than, say a $1500 pair of present-day speakers? Not sure if the technology has advanced enough in those years where the considerably cheaper speaker would sound better than the more expensive but older version. Speaker quality will not increase indefinitely into the future - one day it will reach it's peak and go no further, reaching the limit of what is physically possible with dynamic speakers, cone materials, etc. Each passing decade we are getting closer and closer to this ideal, so I question how much difference there really is between a speaker from today vs 15 years ago, even though the industry - which is motivated to turnover new inventory as quickly as possible - will tell you of all the new advances.

I'm intrigued by British speakers as their reputation for smooth but detailed sound seems to fit my listening preferences - brands such as Celestion, KEF, Harbeth, Spendor, Tannoy, etc. 90s monitors such as the Celestion SL600 series retailed for $5000+ in their day, were highly regarded by all the audiophile reviewers, and now sell for a fraction of their original MSRP. In my mind it's speakers like these that modern speakers like KEF LS50s must compete with to be considered.

 

[sqlsavior]

Can anyone comment on the question I posed about whether $4500 MSRP circa 2002 era speakers would be better than, say a $1500 pair of present-day speakers?

I hope that I am not being offensively blunt in saying that generalizations so broad are mostly worthless. When you offer specifics such as in your last paragraph then I get your drift more easily. I still think that it would boil down to personal preference, in this case, whether you completely love the sound of LS50s, or not. I would think your 15-20 y.o. BBC/British quest may do you better, with some patience (especially if you lived in the UK!).