ffs

[MVV]

In the scheme of things it was not a bad idea for a thread but I couldn't bring myself to contribute because in the end people with similar views tend to come together so all it did was illustrate what anyone who read the board knew already- they rate Quads and Kans, ES 14s and others because that is what most of them have heard and can afford. Including me. Judging by the responses my guess is at least 85% of the membership are middle aged English blokes who started this hobby in the 80s. That would be an interesting poll as long as you don't need to take the bins out or anything.

 

[Tony L]

Speaker threads are always worthwhile IMO. The loudspeaker is unquestionably the most compromised part of the audio chain and therefore the one with the most character on display / the one where selection is most driven by personal taste. I'll never really understand why everyone gets so agitated about DACs etc, but speakers? Yes, I'm interested!

PS I started in audio in the late 70s, though I seem to have gravitated to speakers from far before my own era. I don't think I'd ever even heard a horn speaker until about a decade ago!

 

[Robert]

Speaker threads are always worthwhile IMO. The loudspeaker is unquestionably the most compromised part of the audio chain and therefore the one with the most character on display / the one where selection is most driven by personal taste. I'll never really understand why everyone gets so agitated about DACs etc, but speakers? Yes, I'm interested!

PS I started in audio in the late 70s, though I seem to have gravitated to speakers from far before my own era. I don't think I'd ever even heard a horn speaker until about a decade ago!

There's a whole new world just there for the taking, by simply working your way back in time

With audio the developments and achievements of the past are clearly more fascinating and illuminating to explore than those of the present.
Nowhere is this more obvious than to pick up a copy of a 60s or 70s edition of HFN or HFS. The content will educate and enlighten. Now go look at a current copy of say Choice......meh, boring.

 

[merlin]

I would have to say that developments of the recent past have been remarkable and IMHO, modern loudspeakers are capable of SO much more than those of yore.

The only problem is that to get something that builds on the strengths of vintage JBL, Tannoy, Vitavox and others costs an absolute fortune in today's money.

Speakers like the Meyer Sound X10, the Westlake HR-1, the JBL6600 or TAD Reference are utterly spellbinding, combining the best of the old world with the advances of the new. But they cost the same as a luxury car so are not on many's radar. Vintage behemoths offer a compromise for many that is more acceptable than modern ones (where the compromise is seemingly more towards domesticity).

If I had the money however, I would be investing in a huge modern horn loaded monitor, not something from the middle of the last century.

 

[Robert]

I wouldn't disagree where very expensive, very large loudspeaker systems are concerned, though you need to accept the type of soundscape developed by such things as 'right'. I don't necessarily, at least not in a domestic setting.

When you pull back to things of more modest dimensions, which doesn't by itself confer inferiority IME, the quality lines between new and old become more blurred. For example many will rate certain aspects of the Spendor BC1 or ESL57 as unrivalled today, and I'd argue that the soundscape presented is more appropriate for a domestic listening room than you get from a monster horn system.

One of the best systems I heard used a pair of floor to ceiling (we're talking hall, not living room!) Mcintosh line arrays. Stunning on large orchestral and live recorded rock concerts. Absolutely destroyed small scale jazz and solo stuff because while it could scale up, it couldn't scale down. Very large loudspeaker systems which aren't point source can never scale down as the music demands. They can do so dynamically, but not spatially since the radiation pattern precludes it.

 

[Tony L]

The only problem is that to get something that builds on the strengths of vintage JBL, Tannoy, Vitavox and others costs an absolute fortune in today's money.

Speakers like the Meyer Sound X10, the Westlake HR-1, the JBL6600 or TAD Reference are utterly spellbinding, combining the best of the old world with the advances of the new. But they cost the same as a luxury car so are not on many's radar. Vintage behemoths offer a compromise for many that is more acceptable than modern ones (where the compromise is seemingly more towards domesticity).

If I had the money however, I would be investing in a huge modern horn loaded monitor, not something from the middle of the last century.

I agree, and were cost no object those are the type of speakers I'd be looking at for sure. I'd argue that the big vintage stuff (Tannoy, Klipsch, Altec, JBL etc) gets one a hell of a lot closer to that kind of speaker than anything else that can be had for anything like the same money. A lot have remarkable upgrade potential too, e.g. I'd describe the Klipsch La Scala's currently sitting in my back room as more a ticket to the 'big horn speaker club' than an actual speaker in their own right, i.e. one can gently chip away at their rather obvious flaws with 3rd party crossovers, wood tractrix horns, new compression drivers etc etc over time to one's heart's content. I'll never be able to afford a pair of big JBL Everest, TADs or whatever, but I suspect my La Scalas might be pretty interesting in a decade or so, plus I'm sure I'll know a lot more about loudspeakers at the end of it too.

Very large loudspeaker systems which aren't point source can never scale down as the music demands. They can do so dynamically, but not spatially since the radiation pattern precludes it.

I'll be interested to see what you make of the La Scalas as they just don't do that to my ears. I think it's because they run the mid horn over such a huge range (arguably far more than is ideal!). In many ways one could view them as a full-range driver topped and tailed at 6Khz and 400Hz, certainly one's attention sits very much in that area and they do a very nice sax, piano, acoustic guitar etc.

 

[merlin]

Very large loudspeaker systems which aren't point source can never scale down as the music demands. They can do so dynamically, but not spatially since the radiation pattern precludes it.

One day I hope you get to hear The Miles Davis Quintet on a JBL Paragon of similar vintage.

Indeed the smaller loudspeakers you refer to (with the exception of the Quads) have a far wider dispersion pattern than a JBL or Westlake and cast a far more expansive image as a result. I kind of know what you mean but it's more miniturisation to fit the listening room and to remain comfortable, than scaling to remain accurate IMO.

They also fail to reproduce realistic levels, or dynamics. Most moving-coil drivers impart relatively high levels of distortion, and this has come to be accepted as the norm. It is not uncommon for the bass driver of a full-range loudspeaker like the Spendor to produce over 20 percent harmonic distortion at high sound-pressure levels.

The problem is that the distortion artefacts manifest themselves as unwanted energy, mainly in the mid-range.That means reduced overall clarity, resolution and detail, and often leads to the impression of a rising frequency response through the mid-range.

So you end up turning them down. One of my former clients sells Meyer Sound and I've been lucky enough to have heard the X10. Anyone who tells you you cannot reproduce a live drum kit is mistaken

 

[S-Man]

The X10s look very interesting, particularly the PSAC:
http://www.meyersound.com/sites/default/files/x-10_ds.pdf

This is a very interesting comment:
"Also, because the
X-800's dual 18-inch drivers are
not tightly controlled by PSAC, they
retain the subtle timbral cues of
traditional subwoofers–a subjective
characteristic that many listeners
find familiar and pleasing."

Looks like the pros like a bit of bloom.

 

[Robert]

I'll be interested to see what you make of the La Scalas as they just don't do that to my ears. I think it's because they run the mid horn over such a huge range (arguably far more than is ideal!). In many ways one could view them as a full-range driver topped and tailed at 6Khz and 400Hz, certainly one's attention sits very much in that area and they do a very nice sax, piano, acoustic guitar etc.

Yes I'll be interested to hear them. TBH I was thinking HUGE - like those things Speedy Steve uses which present you with a wall of drivers
I'm thinking more along the lines of the huge multi horn systems which split the signal more than 4 ways. The drivers have to occupy a different point in space and there is some inevitable smear on the image and an artificial enlarging of perspective as a result. Of course that's true for any multi driver system but on smaller systems you can better approach the point source ideal.
I'm also thinking of large ribbons and planar line designs which I don't think scale down well at all.

I kind of know what you mean but it's more miniturisation to fit the listening room and to remain comfortable, than scaling to remain accurate IMO.

They also fail to reproduce realistic levels, or dynamics. Most moving-coil drivers impart relatively high levels of distortion, and this has come to be accepted as the norm.

Yes I do think it important to scale to the room, and for the sound to be comfortable.
But then I don't think that porting the sound of the live event, scale and all unless this is already compressed, sounds like accurate preproduction when played in a normal sized listening room.
I think that in many situations some constriction of scale is required, just as I also argue that some dynamic compression is also desirable.

I agree re distortion in MC drivers, which is why I rarely use them
Once you get used to <0.02% THD and IMD from your loudspeakers, it doesn't half make you critical of other designs!

 

[Harry1212]

Chaps,

Epos 14's.

I have been using mine with a naim250 since Feb 1992.

They are keepers

Cheers, H.

 

[merlin]

Yes I'll be interested to hear them. TBH I was thinking HUGE - like those things Speedy Steve uses which present you with a wall of drivers
I'm thinking more along the lines of the huge multi horn systems which split the signal more than 4 ways. The drivers have to occupy a different point in space and there is some inevitable smear on the image and an artificial enlarging of perspective as a result. Of course that's true for any multi driver system but on smaller systems you can better approach the point source

You should have a listen to Pete's setup. It doesn't have a problem scaling and with drive units time aligned at the listening postion with DSP works well. It's also capable of playing at realistic levels with low levels of distortion.

Yes I do think it important to scale to the room, and for the sound to be comfortable.
But then I don't think that porting the sound of the live event, scale and all unless this is already compressed, sounds like accurate reproduction when played in a normal sized listening room.
I think that in many situations some constriction of scale is required, just as I also argue that some dynamic compression is also desirable.

I wouldn't say it's accurate at all, it's just something we have grown used to over years of listening at home so sounds "familiar". I use standmounts and listen at low levels but that's because I don't like loud music anymore. I wouldn't pretend it was accurate - it's just that I'm getting old and want my music to relax rather than impress most of the time.

I agree re distortion in MC drivers, which is why I rarely use them
Once you get used to <0.02% THD and IMD from your loudspeakers, it doesn't half make you critical of other designs!

Let's be clear, the compromise with Quads is level. Even at circa 85db at the listening position (2-3m), they are generating more like 3% (mostly nasty third harmonic) distortion throughout the bass region which is really not that exceptional in modern terms. Some will find the limitation on dynamics and level to be unacceptable.