Jonathan Ribee
Unavailable at present
There is - I read - he worked as a consultant for Quad for a couple of years.
Who Can Speak From Experience On Vintage vs. Modern Equipment Sonic Quality?
- Thread starter naimnut
- Start date
I just picked up a pair of 1970's JBL L26. These where the smallest JBL you could buy at that time, "only" a 10" bass driver, besides most modern loudspeakers they look huge! Only one bass driver working for the moment, but there is plenty of JBL stuff floating around.
So, if you think that small speakers can't scale properly, there's one - nill already to the older ones. My RR3 sound hopelessly compressed compared with the JBL.
On the other hand, the huge undamped chipboard surfaces vibrates and colors in a way that nobody would accept today. 1 - 1.
It (just one working, as I allready written, one quickly adjusts to mono) do the PRaT stuff very well, particulary after stuffing a sock into the reflex port. Unlike Brittish speakers of that day, JBL's didn't have any baffle compensation network, so they sound more up front and modern.
Not conclusive, then.
JohanR
So, if you think that small speakers can't scale properly, there's one - nill already to the older ones. My RR3 sound hopelessly compressed compared with the JBL.
On the other hand, the huge undamped chipboard surfaces vibrates and colors in a way that nobody would accept today. 1 - 1.
It (just one working, as I allready written, one quickly adjusts to mono) do the PRaT stuff very well, particulary after stuffing a sock into the reflex port. Unlike Brittish speakers of that day, JBL's didn't have any baffle compensation network, so they sound more up front and modern.
Not conclusive, then.
JohanR
Jonboi
Because Music Matters
Gentlemen
A fascinating discussion to read through..
I'd very much concur that ones path or 'journey' in systems over a period of years involves changes not just in technology terms, but in taste and what one wants/expects/hopes for from a system, and that path can be circular.
Perhaps it is because having lived with a set for a number of years, we start to grow 'out' of it a little, and either look to address perceived 'faults' or areas of disatisfaction in the system, and wind up making some gains with change, but also losing in other areas, that we wind up making a number of changes to try and get what we first had, but with the glitches removed so to speak.
I think back to a system I had for the best part of near on twenty years - my remaining still Thorens TD 125 mk 11/SME 3009/2 improved arm/w Shure V15iii cartridge, an NZ made Rait amp (copy of a Radford) and some B&W DM2A's - the B&W's still doing sterling service in a friends home driven by an Pioneer A400 some 33 years later.
The combination of quality vinyl, an mosfet S/S amp, and 1/4 wave transmisson line speakers gave a rich, smooth, and beguiling sound quality that one 'basked' in for many years.
Eventually the need to move to, or rather 'add' CD, for classical repotoire, saw the arrival of my Naim kit; the Thorens I still have; the amp eventually gave problems and with no parts available for it, it had to go to amplifier heaven, a move I often regret making; thank goodness I never really 'fully' parted with the speakers - they're in the capable hands of a close personal friend, and I often get to hear them still.
Of course, I gained the famous Naim PRaT, which was very addictive to me at the time, and PRaT was something my kit of that period didn't really have; however I now find myself seeking to combine the speed of the Naim gear, with a much more natural and beguiling presentation that I had with my old system - hence my comment/agreement re ones path being circular as regards system changes. Indeed I feel I'm a good chunk of the way there with my digital Sony ES amp, and surprise, surprise, I hope to make a return before the end of the year to some B&W speakers from the 800 series to complete the set.
As far as how well 'old' kit compares with new; I well remember the A/B between my Rait and the then new 72/Hi-cap/180 - yes, the Naim was 'faster', punchier etc, and more detailed, but the Rait was smoother, warmer, richer, more 'charming' in it's sound presentation. Certainly I would've paid, or considered the difference worth perhaps a couple of thousand dollars, no more, however at that stage the Rait was worth nothing, (being unknown in this country, the designer had passed away, and original parts weren't available) and the Naim was the best part of A$10k - I had the $$ and liked what I heard, and so bought, but really, the differences were more 'difference' as against manifestly better in every single area.
In a sense the same thing applies with the speakers. Yes, the early B&W's don't have the speed of modern ones with the Bextrene cones, but they have a refinement and charm in the sound that will require large amounts of money in new speakers to come close to IME; especially in areas such as bass extension.
So all in all, I consider that there are advances in the audio world, but they tend to be relatively small and evolutionary, rather than the ground breaking advances that advertising, and some dealers hungry for an sale (understandably) would have us believe IMHO.
Best Regards
John..
A fascinating discussion to read through..
I'd very much concur that ones path or 'journey' in systems over a period of years involves changes not just in technology terms, but in taste and what one wants/expects/hopes for from a system, and that path can be circular.
Perhaps it is because having lived with a set for a number of years, we start to grow 'out' of it a little, and either look to address perceived 'faults' or areas of disatisfaction in the system, and wind up making some gains with change, but also losing in other areas, that we wind up making a number of changes to try and get what we first had, but with the glitches removed so to speak.
I think back to a system I had for the best part of near on twenty years - my remaining still Thorens TD 125 mk 11/SME 3009/2 improved arm/w Shure V15iii cartridge, an NZ made Rait amp (copy of a Radford) and some B&W DM2A's - the B&W's still doing sterling service in a friends home driven by an Pioneer A400 some 33 years later.
The combination of quality vinyl, an mosfet S/S amp, and 1/4 wave transmisson line speakers gave a rich, smooth, and beguiling sound quality that one 'basked' in for many years.
Eventually the need to move to, or rather 'add' CD, for classical repotoire, saw the arrival of my Naim kit; the Thorens I still have; the amp eventually gave problems and with no parts available for it, it had to go to amplifier heaven, a move I often regret making; thank goodness I never really 'fully' parted with the speakers - they're in the capable hands of a close personal friend, and I often get to hear them still.
Of course, I gained the famous Naim PRaT, which was very addictive to me at the time, and PRaT was something my kit of that period didn't really have; however I now find myself seeking to combine the speed of the Naim gear, with a much more natural and beguiling presentation that I had with my old system - hence my comment/agreement re ones path being circular as regards system changes. Indeed I feel I'm a good chunk of the way there with my digital Sony ES amp, and surprise, surprise, I hope to make a return before the end of the year to some B&W speakers from the 800 series to complete the set.
As far as how well 'old' kit compares with new; I well remember the A/B between my Rait and the then new 72/Hi-cap/180 - yes, the Naim was 'faster', punchier etc, and more detailed, but the Rait was smoother, warmer, richer, more 'charming' in it's sound presentation. Certainly I would've paid, or considered the difference worth perhaps a couple of thousand dollars, no more, however at that stage the Rait was worth nothing, (being unknown in this country, the designer had passed away, and original parts weren't available) and the Naim was the best part of A$10k - I had the $$ and liked what I heard, and so bought, but really, the differences were more 'difference' as against manifestly better in every single area.
In a sense the same thing applies with the speakers. Yes, the early B&W's don't have the speed of modern ones with the Bextrene cones, but they have a refinement and charm in the sound that will require large amounts of money in new speakers to come close to IME; especially in areas such as bass extension.
So all in all, I consider that there are advances in the audio world, but they tend to be relatively small and evolutionary, rather than the ground breaking advances that advertising, and some dealers hungry for an sale (understandably) would have us believe IMHO.
Best Regards
John..
murray johnson
pfm Member
The way I read it was that he thought it was rubbish to suggest that wide speakers are an aesthetic problem and was using the picture of a nice pair of Quads to illustrate that they could look attractive.
joel
Painter of Dragons, Maker of Mirrors
Ah. Good point.
Either way, what I wrote could be read as a criticism. It isn't.
Knowing what people like and dislike is usually quite illuminating and kind of helps to get a feel of where one's own tastes lie in relation to someone else's (acoustically or asthetically).
Either way, what I wrote could be read as a criticism. It isn't.
Knowing what people like and dislike is usually quite illuminating and kind of helps to get a feel of where one's own tastes lie in relation to someone else's (acoustically or asthetically).
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Joel,
I like the way wide baffles work so brilliantly. The point I was trying to make rather obliquely was that they do take up a large amount of visual real estate. In other words, they'd make your views of centre-stage rather loudspeaker dominated, hence a rubbish view.
James
I like the way wide baffles work so brilliantly. The point I was trying to make rather obliquely was that they do take up a large amount of visual real estate. In other words, they'd make your views of centre-stage rather loudspeaker dominated, hence a rubbish view.
James
joel
Painter of Dragons, Maker of Mirrors
I stand corrected Will give myself a slap on the wrist.
Merlin's JBLs and my Electro-Voices have relatively shallow cabinets, which means that although they are wide they can go further back. Mine give me more usuable space than I'd get with narrow/deep cabs.
Will give myself a slap on the wrist.Merlin's JBLs and my Electro-Voices have relatively shallow cabinets, which means that although they are wide they can go further back. Mine give me more usuable space than I'd get with narrow/deep cabs.
Jonathan Ribee
Unavailable at present
Since getting the Quads (those very Quads above) and tube set up I've found lots of people (not just hi-fi nuts) keep stopping around for a listen. I think to begin with its the reputation of the electrostatics - the second time when they bring a friend suggests there is something just very different and very right about what they do.
It is not the last word in hi-fi. But it is an interesting and mesmorising word. Crevice possibly. Or maybe cinematography.
It is not the last word in hi-fi. But it is an interesting and mesmorising word. Crevice possibly. Or maybe cinematography.