Vintage vs. Modern

read this this morning, not sure i agree:


By John Atkinson • Posted: May 19, 2007
When audiophiles speak of the "Golden Age" of audio components, they almost always are talking about amplifiers and preamplifiers, not loudspeakers. While a very few speaker models have stood the test of time—among them the BBC LS3/5a, the Vandersteen 2, the original Quad electrostatic and the Quad ESL-63, some of the Magnepans, and the Klipschorn—
almost no one would disagree that, taken en masse, the speakers of today outperform not just those of the 1960s and 1970s but even those of the 1980s and 1990s.
The advent of low-cost, computerized test equipment, high-quality, inexpensive measuring microphones, and persuasive research into what measured parameters matter most to listeners who are listening for a neutral-sounding, uncolored loudspeaker , has led to an almost across-the-board improvement in speaker sound quality ....

Really ???? i have doubts. You???

Reference: ( http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/507psb/index.html )

OhioEric said:

read this this morning, not sure i agree:


By John Atkinson • Posted: May 19, 2007
When audiophiles speak of the "Golden Age" of audio components, they almost always are talking about amplifiers and preamplifiers, not loudspeakers. While a very few speaker models have stood the test of time—among them the BBC LS3/5a, the Vandersteen 2, the original Quad electrostatic and the Quad ESL-63, some of the Magnepans, and the Klipschorn—
almost no one would disagree that, taken en masse, the speakers of today outperform not just those of the 1960s and 1970s but even those of the 1980s and 1990s.
The advent of low-cost, computerized test equipment, high-quality, inexpensive measuring microphones, and persuasive research into what measured parameters matter most to listeners who are listening for a neutral-sounding, uncolored loudspeaker , has led to an almost across-the-board improvement in speaker sound quality ....

Really ???? i have doubts. You???

Reference: ( http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/507psb/index.html )

Click to expand...

No doubt.

However some people still prefer some old speakers. Not everyone is for
or seeking total neutrality.

OhioEric said:

read this this morning, not sure i agree:


By John Atkinson • Posted: May 19, 2007
When audiophiles speak of the "Golden Age" of audio components, they almost always are talking about amplifiers and preamplifiers, not loudspeakers. While a very few speaker models have stood the test of time—among them the BBC LS3/5a, the Vandersteen 2, the original Quad electrostatic and the Quad ESL-63, some of the Magnepans, and the Klipschorn—
almost no one would disagree that, taken en masse, the speakers of today outperform not just those of the 1960s and 1970s but even those of the 1980s and 1990s.
The advent of low-cost, computerized test equipment, high-quality, inexpensive measuring microphones, and persuasive research into what measured parameters matter most to listeners who are listening for a neutral-sounding, uncolored loudspeaker , has led to an almost across-the-board improvement in speaker sound quality ....

Really ???? i have doubts. You???

Reference: ( http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/507psb/index.html )

Click to expand...

Taken across the spectrum of loudspeaker manufacturers I would say I agree. Are there exceptions? Of course. But as a whole, it is a reasonable position to take.

Regards
Mister Pig

To me, it comes down to accuracy, which can be percieved as sterility, or vintage which can be characterized as coloration or character. My issue with modern accurate speakers is that there is a huge diminishing return on midrange vs high end, as they both can be pretty "accurate". I personally like the coloration, as it adds to the musicality. Isn't art and music about creative interpretation rather than the photocopy concept? To me, modern accurate speakers are the photocopy concept, no individuality or character.

I've no doubt technically it's true. The trouble today is the masses aren't interested in speakers with reasonable sized drivers that are both affordable and of good quality. Small, cheap and high WAF seem to be the design targets. Where are todays equivalent Large Advent or even Dynaco A25? There are also expensive powered near field "studio monitors" that seem popular, but the ones I've heard are near unlistenable ear bleeders.

I would agree that there have been advancements in design and materials that would lead to improved performance, across all price ranges. I still think the value lies in vintage gear or at least "used" gear, that has already taken its depreciation "markdown." For example, I got a fully restored (and upgraded) pair of Kef 107's for $1700. These speakers were $5-6k new, in 1986 (approximately $12,900 in today's dollars). No way in he!! could I afford to spend $12,900 on speakers! Even if you take into account the "older" technology used in the 107's, I still seriously doubt I could find better or equivalent new speakers for $1700...I know there are some good ones out there (Magnepan 1.7's for one), but I think the Kef's have them outclassed in many areas. So vintage (or at least used) is where the value is at, IMHO.

Mister Pig said:

Taken across the spectrum of loudspeaker manufacturers I would say I agree. Are there exceptions? Of course. But as a whole, it is a reasonable position to take.

Regards
Mister Pig

Click to expand...

+1

What I do love about vintage though is the ability to tinker and improve. Such as say making the crossover higher quality or replacing drivers with better ones (most notably the tweeter). And as Hawkeye83 said there is a lot of bang for your buck in vintage speakers - that is, if you can restore them.

Money aside though the modern speakers I have heard are head and shoulders above any vintage designs I've heard and owned, save for a few. It's like headphones - in that world most everyone agrees modern headphones are far better. Speakers are much the same.

Mister Pig said:

Taken across the spectrum of loudspeaker manufacturers I would say I agree. Are there exceptions? Of course. But as a whole, it is a reasonable position to take.

Regards
Mister Pig

Click to expand...

+2

Also agree with much of what Hawkeye83 posted..
I would agree that there have been advancements in design and materials that would lead to improved performance, across all price ranges. I still think the value lies in vintage gear or at least "used" gear, that has already taken its depreciation "markdown." For example, I got a fully restored (and upgraded) pair of Kef 107's for $1700. These speakers were $5-6k new, in 1986 (approximately $12,900 in today's dollars). No way in he!! could I afford to spend $12,900 on speakers! Even if you take into account the "older" technology used in the 107's, I still seriously doubt I could find better or equivalent new speakers for $1700...I know there are some good ones out there (Magnepan 1.7's for one), but I think the Kef's have them outclassed in many areas. So vintage (or at least used) is where the value is at, IMHO.

Although the OPers article doesn't reference return on investment.

Design matters and its the ease of computer aided design that is making better speakers available at lower prices.

Oh yeah there's an inconvenient truth. Lower prices? Pioneer BS22 with its buttery smooth sound. Micca MB42x with its surprising accuracy at $80. Paradigm Atom. Wharfedale 10.2. KEF LS50. These speakers are the vanguard of affordable audio for those who care.

And the reason why I have late 90s passive monitors on my desk and AR7s in the closet is simply detail and clarity. The difference is night and day. To me the classic east coast sounding speakers sounds like they have a few pillows over the grills. I want the clearest, most transparent sound out there and new speakers, even cheaper ones, are the sure ticket.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

OhioEric said:

almost no one would disagree that, taken en masse, the speakers of today outperform not just those of the 1960s and 1970s but even those of the 1980s and 1990s. )

Click to expand...

I'd agree only if we're comparing speakers of the same original sale price and/or quality level. That is, comparing (for example) top of the line vintage studio monitors with top of the line current studio monitors.

I think one cannot deny that in the last 30 years there have been advances in materials. Also computing power is bigger and cheaper than ever, which means more manufacturers can apply advanced measurement and design software as needed. Laser holography analysis, as well, allows manufacturers to understand better the modes that the cone experiment on playback. Of course, this was already available on the early 80s, but now it is affordable to smaller companies as well.

Moreover, amplifier watts' are now cheaper than 30 years ago, so this gives designers extra freedom; they are not totally forced to do a high-efficiency design. Or they are not forced to use a very simplified crossover for keeping power losses small.

And i think that, compared to 30 years ago, crossovers (passive ones) are now more taken into account as important to the sound and designed in a more sophisticated way. There are some legendary vintage speakers that have pretty mundane crossovers.

This also means that some vintage speakers can be brought to a higher standard in sound just by replacing the crossover with an improved version.

You know, days ago we had a "Vintage vs Modern" thread on the Turntable forum... the discussion got hot like an overbiased amp!!

Have to agree. I'm done with vintage speakers, other than a few pair I'm keeping, basically for nostalgia. The next pair I buy will be contemporary.

OhioEric said:

almost no one would disagree that, taken en masse, the speakers of today outperform not just those of the 1960s and 1970s but even those of the 1980s and 1990s.

Click to expand...

I'd say this is probably accurate. The key words being, "taken en masse".

For the most part, the Vintage speakers people use today are the ones that have stood the test of time. The ones that haven't, have long since found their way to the dumpster. That makes it easy to forget just how many trashy speakers were made in the 70's, 80's, and even the 90's.

Combine that with the fact that many of us probably wouldn't be running the gear we are running today, if it was all stuff we had to buy new and pay full retail price for. Comparing vintage gear against $$$ boutique gear doesn't make sense to me, even if some of that vintage gear was boutique gear itself back in it's day. Any time I've ever compared what I have against what i could get modern for comparable $, I've always felt like I came out ahead.

With todays improvement in the affordability of measuring equipment and software almost anyone can become a speaker designer. It has driven the DIY designers to unheard of levels of excellence. I for one am not surprised by the designs by Andrew Jones for Pioneer. With todays software it is very possible to take low cost drivers and get the maximum result that was unheard of in most vintage speakers.

Silverman said:

With todays improvement in the affordability of measuring equipment and software almost anyone can become a speaker designer. It has driven the DIY designers to unheard of levels of excellence. I for one am not surprised by the designs by Andrew Jones for Pioneer. With todays software it is very possible to take low cost drivers and get the maximum result that was unheard of in most vintage speakers.

Click to expand...

IMO, it's a bit harder than "anyone can", but still about 1000% easier than it was 30 or more years ago. Because of improved measurement capabilities, drivers are also generally better, but you still need to start with a decent one. No amount of crossover tweaking can turn a cheap peaky driver that breaks up early into a great performer. My experience is that you get what you pay for.

I agree with John Atkinson. I’ve been in this hobby since the early ‘70s and I’ve owned lots of speakers from the ‘60s and ‘70s that were highly regarded back then. Some of them, like my Infinity 1001 and Monitor Jr. were capable of producing high quality bass output that equals anything manufactured in recent years. I think that the area where the older speakers cannot compete is in the midrange and treble. Modern mids and tweeter are so far advanced in comparison to their older counterparts that it’s really no contest.

The biggest problem is the ignorance of 'modern listeners' who were brought up with CD's and iPuds. They are not experienced at listening to accurate sound systems, so their opinions are mostly useless. The average loudspeaker today is junk. a 40 year old Smaller Advent could sound better.

FONSguy said:

...The average loudspeaker today is junk. a 40 year old Smaller Advent could sound better.

Click to expand...

This is simply absurd.

As a previous owner of every Advent speaker, from the smaller models to all of the Large Advent, bullnose, bevel nose, and utiility, they are utterly ordinary compared to a decent contemporary speaker.

FONSguy said:

The biggest problem is the ignorance of 'modern listeners' who were brought up with CD's and iPuds. They are not experienced at listening to accurate sound systems, so their opinions are mostly useless. The average loudspeaker today is junk. a 40 year old Smaller Advent could sound better.

Click to expand...

kconnor said:

I agree with John Atkinson. I’ve been in this hobby since the early ‘70s and I’ve owned lots of speakers from the ‘60s and ‘70s that were highly regarded back then. Some of them, like my Infinity 1001 and Monitor Jr. were capable of producing high quality bass output that equals anything manufactured in recent years. I think that the area where the older speakers cannot compete is in the midrange and treble. Modern mids and tweeter are so far advanced in comparison to their older counterparts that it’s really no contest.

Click to expand...

+1!!!!
I am keeping my 1970`s Speakerlabs as the bass ( 12 ibch woofers) just can`t be matched IMHO.

Mister Pig said:

Taken across the spectrum of loudspeaker manufacturers I would say I agree. Are there exceptions? Of course. But as a whole, it is a reasonable position to take.

Regards
Mister Pig

Click to expand...

+3

And also agree, timing being good, buying earlier or "vintage" speakers net a better "value". But, paying $15-30k for a JBL Paragon knowing full well there are far superior speakers for 1/3 the price new, speaks more about the novelty, era, etc. than actual sonic value. Premium price for vintage (like JBL L100 or HPM100, etc) vs "street price" for modern will likely favor modern for sonic quality.

I will never understand the use of "accurate" to describe anything in audio. Unless one was actually present AT the recording session, you can NOT use the word accurate. It has a very specific and inflexible definition, and we know that sounds are anything but inflexible. A single instrument recorded with different mikes will produce different sonic recordings, none of which would be any less accurate than the others. Why, because none would be accurate to begin with. Realistic? Sure. Natural? Sure. Tight, Crisp, Realism, etc. Sure. One of the old standards was comparing the sounds of Rain and Clapping. This still holds true today. If Rain sounds like rain, that's realism. The same with clapping. But if you can't tell which is which, either the recording sucked, or the playback system sucks. And that's just one obvious example.

For the record I own old, vintage, new, etc. Each has it's place.