Who Can Speak From Experience About Comparing Vintage Gear to Modern Equipment?

[markus]

It is well known that certain pieces of vintage equipment fetch very high prices in certain parts of the world. A recent thread on the popularity and currently very high prices commanded on LS 3/5a speakers, over on the Pink Fish Media forum offers a case in point.

The purpose of this thread is to request the comments of those who have experience with some of the so-sought-after vintage pieces. How do these pieces compare to current equipment or equipment of, say, middle vintage? Is the hype valid? Or simply the result of mass/shared beliefs?

Part of the reason I ask is that, near where I live, a JBL Paragon speaker system recently went up for auction, fetching over $9,000. Comparable pieces can be seen on Audiogon for 15k. On the Klipsch Forum a post said that some of these old pieces were sonically inferior to less expensive, newer pieces. It is understandable that old driver surrounds may have stiffened, or be damaged, but a further point is whether the fundamental design may have intrinsic limitations which would render the sound "dated" by comparison to new designs and technology.

From personal experience I can speak to the idea that some pieces of new equipment seem to be a breakthrough. I remember spending a day with a high quality passive preamp - it made the Naim 72/hicap I was comparing it to sound like a muffled, soggy muddle by comparison (note that I own and use a 72/hicap). But perhaps the sonic compromises with the 72/'cap were due to impedance mismatches between the preamp, interconnects and the vtl 225 tube amplifiers we were listening through? I don't know...

Sometimes equipment must be carefully matched to demonstrate its full potential and those who denigrate it have heard it incorrectly set up. Information about optimized setups would also be very interesting.

So, for those of you who have experience and can share them, having heard properly set up vintage gear, I'd very much appreciate reading your comments here. Of particular interest are the old JBL's, Altec 17s, 19s and other horn-based systems, tannoys, Klipschs, tubes, quads, electrostatics, etc.

I hope others will be as interested in this topic as I am. Thanks, in advance, to those who can share their experience.

Markus

[SUPERBEE]

I have posted this story here before...

Sometime ago I decided I should look around at modern gear and make sure I wasnt "Missing out" on anything so I went to several local high end shops. After seeing tons of speakers that were so ugly I wouldnt even have them in my home much less enjoy listening to them I found a set of somethings for about $4,500. They sounded GREAT in the store and looked like normal speakers on nice stands.I plunk down the card whilst explaining that I might return them Monday if I dont like them. Get them home and hook them up directly in front of my Olympus speakers. I invite a few friends over and we demo LPs and CDs for several hours going back and forth moving the Somethings out of the way and re-hooking up the JBL's up over and over again. Well EVERYONE, myself included agreed that the JBL Olympus sounded way better. We all seemed to use the same terms like "Fuller body" and "Richer tones" along with "More presence in the vocals and guitar work" Bla Bla Bla...... I packaged the somethings back up and returned them on Saturday instead.

I am done buying new gear for now. If I ever hear something that sounds better than what I have, I will buy it.

[johnaec]

I think one reason vintage equipment brings such high prices is that "they don't build 'em like that anymore." Think vintage cars, with big chrome bumpers, etc. A far less expensive newer car will usually be better in all features - reliability, comfort, driveability, etc., but some people just have to have that which they either desired earlier in life or as a pristine example of "the way it was...".

Of course, with proper setup, a lot of older gear can sound quite nice, but I hazard to say, for the $9K - $15K to purchase a Paragon, a little research and listening would find current speakers that are capable of sounding far better...

'Just my opinion. :)

John

[Ian Mackenzie]

John,

Good question and its a case by case thing and you need to talk about specifics.

ie Some sort after designs are timeless in that the design and materials have not altered for decades but may no longer be available hence the high prices on collector auctions.

However, if you are comparing old hi end with mid new or new new hi end, as a rule the mid new or current models of hi end will always be better, particularly from the same manufacturer. The build quality of the premium brands as a rule does not change unless there has been a change in ownership.

[Zilch]

It's not about the actual quality of the sound, rather the perceived "quality" of it, i.e., it's "character" and coloration.

The technology has moved well ahead in 40 years, and doesn't sound the same anymore.

No amount of expenditure on restoration, tweaking, or voodoo is going to bring "Vintage" up to today's standards.

Primarily, it's about money, status, nostalgia....

Some of it has esthetic value transcending the sound.

Did I mention "Money?" :p

Much of the rest is hype to inflate the price, is all....

[SUPERBEE]

I used to live next door to a retired audio engineer in the early 90s and he helped me with my early JBL and MAC stuff. He told me then that

"today your new stereo amp could get up and make you coffe in the morning and your new speakers could drive your car to work for you but as far as sounding better.........No......Audo gear really it its stride and had its best inovations thru the late 50s to the early 70s"

He was a weird old guy, Right but weird.

[ralphs99]

As Homer Simpson once said:

"Everyone knows that music attained perfection in 1974!"

Cheers,
Ralph

[ralphs99]

But seriously,

I think the best of today easily beats the best of yesterday.

Cheers,
Ralph

[SUPERBEE]

Mcintosh MC-75+Mcintosh MX-110+JBL Olympus

Mcintosh 5100+ AR 4X (For a sweet sounding and looking bedroom set)

Mcintosh MC-30s+Mcintosh MX-110+JBL Sovereigns

Mcintosh 1700+JBL Dorians (A JBL MiniGon was added to this rig but later sold as it never sounded very good)

Mcintosh MC 2105+Mcintosh C-26+JBL L-200s

Fisher 500-C+JBL Paragon

Fisher X-101-C+JBL 2060 (The JBLs are not much to look at but the whole system sounds pretty darn good)



Things I will NOT reccomend.....


Klipsch speakers
Cerwin Vega speakers
Sansui gear
Any speaker that looks like a prop from the ALIEN movie franchise
Drinking beer before vodka
driving ANY Ford product

[Mr. Widget]

Anyone telling you that a vintage LS3/5A is better than a new one is fooling themselves. As for Paragons and certain other models they are collected for a variety of reasons. I would guess that some are cherished for their unique sound, but many are collected for their historical significance, their wow factor, and their relative rarity.

As for the older JBLs like the L300 and the Altec Model 19 and the like, I think some people like them because of the nostalgia, others because they haven't heard the many, many, many, newer better speakers, others because these used speakers are actually quite inexpensive... when you take inflation into account any of these speakers from the mid '70s would need to be worth over 4 times what they cost new to be the same price in today's dollars. Most of them are only worth about what they cost new and many are worth less than that on today's used market, and finally some people simply like the funky sound these vintage speakers make. I know there are times when I do.

As for quality of construction of the drivers there are plenty of new examples that are every bit as well built as the best of yesterday, but in an attempt to keep prices ridiculously low many systems are engineered to perform exceptionally well using less expensive techniques and materials. I think in general the quality of the cabinet construction has actually improved across the board.

You mentioned electrostats... many do not age well. There was an article in Stereophile a month or so back where a vintage Quad was rebuilt... I suppose as long as you rebuild them they are as good as ever. I am not sure if there is support available for every brand though. I was into electrostats for a time... I am back into horns now though... who knows, maybe back to ribbons next???


Widget

[scott fitlin]

Some of yesterdays premium gear, especially speakers, had a warm sound to them. Although this warmth and full bodied tone is actually coloration, it sounded pleasing to the ear. Most of todays premium gear is far more accurate and coloration free, however, this doesnt always make for the most pleasing listening expereince. Ceratin colorations and exaggerations can make pre recorded music sound more realistic, and fun to listen to. And sometimes, with gear thats really accurate, people domt always love it, because what you put in is exactly what you get out. This means that if your recordings arent stellar, you hear them for what they really are.

Many things from the past are prized for their sound. The fact that some of this vintage gear has a sound, instead of being neutral, or as neutral as possible tells the story that there is in fact coloration present. But, many folks like the tone of some gear that is inherently inaccurate. I know, I am one of them. I happen to be addicted to Altec 421-8LF 15in woofers in horn cabinets. They have cone breakup, resonance, and a midbass accentuation that makes them a bit boomy, and a wicked transient response, and this is exactly what I love about them, but, accurate they aint! But they are fun to hear.

Conversely, todays premium gear has far lower distortion, greater power handling, and accuracy that yesterdays gear just didnt have due to the limitations of the technology available at the time.

And yet, companies like JBL and Altec achieved remarkable results for the time these products were made.

Its kind of similar to the -Digital -vs- Analog debate-! Digital recordings and digital processing are measurably cleaner, and have higher dynamic range capability, and yet, many still prefer the sound of analog, despite analogs warts! I know I do.

Vintage audio can be a real PITA though. If you blow a speaker, and its a speaker that parts havent been available for many years, many times it never sounds the same with the parts you can get today. Same for electronics!

[boputnam]

I have posted this story here before...... Bla Bla Bla...... I packaged the somethings back up and returned them Me too, and me too...

In the most memorable, I took my measurement gear overseas for just this purpose. I had heard the system before, and didn't care for it - a host of reasons, but I wanted to measure the response.

The measurements revealed why:
- there was a steep roll-off on the LF
- there was a deep and wide notch at the crossover point (~400Hz if I remember correctly. I emailed tech support with my curves asking "why and WTF?". They never replied but soon released a new improved line...)
- the response was far from even

Acoustically:
- there was no bottom end
- the mid-range was blaring
- the highs were metallic

They guy had all the elephantine cables you could dream of, and a monster class A amp weighting 300 lbs, and bass traps (because someone told him he needed them), but the sound was not good. There was great attention to the signal path but none to room acoustics (bass traps were the last thing he needed). I slipped in an EQ and filtered for the response of the room - it was a marked improvement, but was that system worth the cost? Not to me.

These newer highly efficient and incredibly costly systems are too often just un-boxed, connected with railroad rails, and cherished. I can't justify their cost, but know the worry of applying the "cursed EQ" has compromised much of these systems' potential.

Having said THAT, one cannot merely unbox the vintage JBL line of Studio Monitors, either. Their enjoyment benefits greatly from paying due attention to the acoustic response of the room.

[Hoerninger]

:spchless:

[norealtalent]

Originally Posted by norealtalent
Ignorance is bliss!!!


I knew there was a perfectly logical explanation why I'm so happy!!! :p

[Steve Schell]

My experiences in recent years have mostly involved experimenting with mountains of used industrial sound equipment, horns, compression drivers and tube amps, pressing it into service for home use because its capabilites for natural sound reproduction run circles around much of today's "high end" (hind end?) gear. It strikes me as a crazy situation, and quite unfortunate, but that is how I see it.

An essay by Robert Fulton on the history of audio was reprinted in Sound Practices magazine a few years ago. His basic take was that audio has been in a downward spiral almost from the beginning, most design "advances" being made for non-sonic reasons like greater efficiency or lower manufacturing cost. I do know that my explorations have whisked me right back to the 1920s and 1930s, to directly heated triode circuits, field coil drivers, large horns and the like. Sure, a lot of modern stuff like SACDs and phono playback equipment is great, but audio certainly has a few kinks in that straight line of progress.

Superbee hit on one important aspect. As late as the 1960s, better home hi fi gear presented the richness and body of musical instruments in a pretty faithful way, even if the extreme high frequencies were lacking. Over the past few decades the quest has been for imaging and detail, and a rather thin, tilted up tonal balance has been all the rage. These days warmth is described in audio mag reviews as though it's a problem. First transistors took over, then digital swept in. James Boyk of Performance Recordings used to sell a T shirt with a cartoon of a very mangled musical note and the motto "Digital finishes what the transistor began." Between the colder balance and the emotional distancing of modern technologies, I don't think it is coincidental that far fewer folks sit down and really listen to music as a pastime the way they used to.

Despite the advances in some areas, I think I would have found more to like at a hi fi show in 1956 than in 2006. Also plenty of great stuff in the movie theatres in 1936!

[alskinner]

I also find in my experience that a lot of todays equipment lacks the naturalness of recorded instruments, not that there hasn't been some great advances in equipment like active crossovers and equalizers. What I do find lacking in many modern speaker systems is the natural sounding attack and decay of instrument notes and timbre. On the other hand as soon as the 1500AL and 435be become more available I will experiment further.

AL

[Ian Mackenzie]

Interesting discussion and great post Steve.

If we look back at early speakers most were large and hi sensitivity types for use with low power tube amps of the day.

The cones were large and mostly rigid light weight paper construction with usual only one crossover point.

Today we have a a lot of small dynamic drivers using a variety of cone materials designed to absorb large amounts of power in relatively small boxes.

Is it an wonder given the laws of physics they fail to live of to hyped expectations.

[scott fitlin]

What I do find lacking in many modern speaker systems is the natural sounding attack and decay of instrument notes and timbre.

ALThis is what I was talking about as Wicked transient response, the old Altecs and JBL,s had snap, man they had that percussive response that really sounded the way an instruments attack sounded.

I kind of feel that exactly what ALL the speaker makers today do to enable their drivers to handle ridiculous amounts of power is also what robs them of their ability to playback music in a believable fashion, JBL INCLUDED!

Then of course, there is todays music itself, pop music having been taken over by the computer and home digital audio workstation, allowing people that are not musicians to make music, and I hear it all the time, people listening to classic music of the 50,s, 60,s, 70,s 80,s and early 90,s, and then, music seems to hit a standstill that has never really gone away. But to me, none of todays music sounds natural, analog recording is gone.

[4313B]

far fewer folks sit down and really listen to music as a pastime the way they used to.I completely agree. There simply isn't time for such activities anymore.

[boputnam]

...I don't think it is coincidental that far fewer folks sit down and really listen to music as a pastime the way they used to. I don't know if it's related to digital / technology advance, per se, but the observation is certainly true nonetheless.

I find the less time I spend "here", translates into more time in-front of the JBL's. It's a surprisingly rewarding inverse relationship...

[scott fitlin]

There simply isn't time for such activities anymore.Or, todays music isnt good enough to captivate peoples attentions?

Cause, Il`ll tell you, people still seem to have enough time to come to amusement areas like Coney Island to enjoy hot dogs, games and rides and go to the beach! This past Saturday and Sunday, plenty of people on the Coney beaches, radios blaring hip hop, reggaeton, and salsa music!

And I had half an hour to look out over the beaches from the Boardwalk, and man, the bikinis! America still has time for our favorite pastimes!

:)

[4313B]

I find the less time I spend "here", translates into more time in-front of the JBL's.I find that less time here translates into fixing stuff for other people. :rotfl:

people still seem to have enough time to come to amusement areas like Coney Island to enjoy hot dogs, games and rides and go to the beach!I wonder what kinds of jobs they have... I mean, I realize that people do indeed do that kind of thing, I just can't figure out how they do it. :p

I think the best of today easily beats the best of yesterday.Yeah, probably so.

And I had half an hour to look out over the beaches from the Boardwalk, and man, the bikinis! America still has time for our favorite pastimes!Maybe I should just drive Rob's drivers out to him and check out Coney Island. How fast can I get through it? My wife knows exactly where your place is Scott having been there before.

[scott fitlin]

I find that less time here translates into fixing stuff for other people. :rotfl:
I wonder what kinds of jobs they have... I mean, I realize that people do indeed do that kind of thing, I just can't figure out how they do it. :p

Maybe I should just drive Rob's drivers out to him and check out Coney Island. How fast can I get through it?Some people are store clerks, some are bank managers, all kinds of people do fun things on the weekends, even doctors and lawyers.

You can get through Coney Island quickly or it can be an all day affair. Depends on the day, the pretty women, and how many beers you want to have!

:D

[Zilch]

Between the colder balance and the emotional distancing of modern technologies, I don't think it is coincidental that far fewer folks sit down and really listen to music as a pastime the way they used to.A major concomitant benefit of DIY is lots of "really listen."

Tweak, listen ...

A/B, listen ...

Tweak some more, and really listen ...

New project.... :thmbsup:

[Mr. Widget]

My experiences in recent years have mostly involved experimenting with mountains of used industrial sound equipment, horns, compression drivers and tube amps, pressing it into service for home use because its capabilites for natural sound reproduction run circles around much of today's "high end" (hind end?) gear. It strikes me as a crazy situation, and quite unfortunate, but that is how I see it.It isn't at all a crazy situation... it is your personal preference. After all what is natural sounding? To me it is a heartlessly revealing tonally neutral sound... one without any sense of soul or warmth of it's own. The perfect system to me is an open window to the recording. I don't want it to soften the details or obscure any of the beauty of the music or diminish any of the warts in the recording. The systems you are describing as superior have a fair amount of "character" or personality of their own. That is fine and you are certainly not alone in your appreciation of them.


Over the past few decades the quest has been for imaging and detail...That's for sure.. and there is a good reason that imaging and detail have become more important than they were in the '40s and early '50s... stereo didn't yet exist and the early recordings were not capable of capturing all of the nuance in a performance. By the late '50s recordings began improving and speaker systems began improving to allow us to enjoy the better recordings. It took another decade or two for engineers to really understand the requirements for great stereo recording and reproduction... it has taken quite awhile for truly outstanding stereo imaging to become available... it is today. Some consider it a special effect, which it is, but it is how the stereophonic promise is realized.


Despite the advances in some areas, I think I would have found more to like at a hi fi show in 1956 than in 2006. Also plenty of great stuff in the movie theatres in 1936!While I think it would be very cool to take a trip down that memory lane, I don't think those systems are able to compete with the better stuff of today, or even the better stuff from the '80s. I used to think that a person who advocated those honking and colored sounding systems of yesteryear simply hadn't heard the good stuff... now I am inclined to think that may be the case for some but there are others who just like that sound. Obviously you know what you like and it isn't the tonally neutral and detailed systems with incredible imaging that are available today. The superior accuracy of today's better systems isn't up for debate, whether you like it as well as the older stuff is certainly a matter of personal preference and in that realm no one can ever be wrong.


Widget

[Steve Schell]

Hi Mr. Widget,

I hear ya, but I think you have me pictured as an anachrophile who prefers the sound of muffled old boomy hi fi stuff. That is far from the case, and I think that if we sat down and listened to some of our favorite equipment we would find considerable agreement in our preferences. Not sure I would like "...heartlessly revealing..." though, that sounds a lot like what Joe Roberts once referred to as "painfully accurate." Actually "revealing" would be a result of accuracy, which is what I am after. Tonal neutrality is a part of this, and it is one thing I seek in my work. So often in modern gear though, excessive, distortion-laden yet dynamically lacking high frequencies are passed off as detail, often accompanied by underachieving bass and mid bass. Dynamic compression is also pervasive in most high end speakers, which have considerably less jump than the 1930s theatre speakers.

I guess my main frustration is that the average performance level of consumer audio gear (even at exhorbitant price points) is so much worse than it could have been, and should have been, considering the promising start the technology had many decades ago.

[Audiobeer]

I wish I had time to sit around and listen to good music. Time is a commodity that years ago I took so much for granted. I have listened to some old audio gear that literaly knocked my socks off. Sounded fantastic. That was a rarity as it seemed most of the vintage stuff I was chasing always had worn or dirty pots and needed work......I guess that is what Ebay is for to some sellers. Some of the old Marantz and Mcintosh stuff really would make my JBLs sing. I always found that the pieces I purchased would cost a fortune to bring up to spec (Can't work on it myself). So after having pots and caps replaced it seemed that special sound had changed. A Pioneer SX-1250 and a Marantz 250M in particular come to mind for me. After adding up all the purchase & repair costs and downtime, I could have purchased a good used Aragon 4004MKII and come out ahead. It is fun trying it all out. But the fact is that I am convinced that buying a piece used from someone who is tired of it 2 years after it was made is smarter to me than doing the same with a piece that is 30 - 40 years old. The old Mcintosh amps I had like the 2250 count down were good investments in price and sound. Mcintosh still has the parts. Music.....well that is a different story. I just don't believe that there are as many good recording artists as there used to be. Some of the groups get succesful just mimicking each other.. Sometimes when I do get time I revisit the same music I listened to growing up in the 70s. In fact I end up missing some CDs because my daughters borrow them and forget to bring them back!
:banghead:

[Mr. Widget]

...but I think you have me pictured as an anachrophile who prefers the sound of muffled old boomy hi fi stuff.No, but based on the gear you seem to like, I am not so sure we will agree on what high-fidelity really means. I agree that there are dozens of "high-end" systems that are god awful, but there are also dozens of stupidly expensive systems that are absolutely amazing...



I guess my main frustration is that the average performance level of consumer audio gear (even at exhorbitant price points) is so much worse than it could have been, and should have been, considering the promising start the technology had many decades ago.I'll go with that... it is remarkable just how good the best work from Bell Labs and the rest was way back then... I am sure that they would have expected us to be much further along by now... priorities have changed.



So often in modern gear though... often accompanied by underachieving bass and mid bass.In the early '80s John Meyer was working on improving theater sound. He installed some large bass reflex subs in a local theater and measured their output... they were significantly lower in distortion, offered deeper extension, and greater SPLs... the booming horn loaded Altecs sounded louder and bigger... the test audience was divided as to which sounded better.



Dynamic compression is also pervasive in most high end speakers, which have considerably less jump than the 1930s theatre speakers.
Have you listened to the Wilson Grand Slams or the Maxx 2s? How about the TAD Model 1s or the JMLab Grand Utopias? All of these speakers sound pretty darn accurate, have plenty of "jump" and offer HF extension that no phenolic tweeter ever will... Sure they all cost as much as very nice car, but if you purchased a brand new '30s style theater system that was engineered from the ground up today, it'd cost about the same... maybe not if furnished in raw plywood.:)


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Many people rip on contemporary gear... and I'd agree if my baseline for comparison was what is available at Best Buy, Circuit City and the rest... you can't find a decent speaker or amp or even computer monitor in any of those places... they sell cheap junk at low prices. The fact is that most of us or our parents couldn't afford a pair of Hartsfields or a Paragon when they were new, and most of us can't afford today's versions either... the distortion in our comparison of today's gear versus yesterday's gear is that there are some remarkably good values on the used market so we can afford some outrageously good vintage stuff even if we can't afford the really great new stuff.



Widget

[duaneage]

I have a lot of "vintage" Yamaha gear from the 80's. I like the look of the components and I also feel the quality is great compared to today's Made In China stuff (no offense Northwood) and I have not had trouble with it.

Since I listen to old music it seems correct to use old speakers. new music doesnot do much for me anymore. I like some new Jazz but not much else.

I'm not against newer technology per se, I just prefer the older stuff. Someday we will be talking about todays technology as vintage, right?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Steve,

I know where you are coming from.

Widget,

All I can say is if you are still deciding on what you think right you still have not got there yet if you know what I mean.

I agree that some of the best speakers are quite dynamic and have quite amzing HF extension.

However, they (the best) only convey what they are fed being that the more ideal a speaker is the more efficient and effective it is in transforming the current from the amp into vibrations and sound.

Many people get confused about what they are listening to.

Is it the speakers or the power/pre amp?

Given the law of diminishing returns if your speaker is ultimately accurate what you end up with is what the amps are doing and this is one of the most perplexing aspect of audio to appreciate. Unfortunately too few have the opportunity to appreciate and compare what these differences are and it is assumed that the speaker system is to blame when in fact the amps are infact not blameless.

This is why I regard amplifiers as more important than anything else after arriving at an accurate loudspeaker. The amplifier amplifies voltage and current under dynamic conditions and one would be very niave to imagine they are perfect and they all sound the same. Two active devices with similar specifications can sound totally different and this applies to not just Valves and BJT transisters and Fets. Often large amounts of feedback are used it hide these non linearities but feedback brings with it its own curse by destroying the true dynamic transient character of music and an electronic glare which listeners refer to a listening fatigue.

In essense, a remarkable loudspeaker will often sound less flattering on the best amplification. As Steve said earlier, the excessive, distortion laden yet dynamically lacking highs are OFTEN passed off as detail.

Wrong.

A very high quality amp will provide more fine details, trasnients and transparency without ever sounding tiring. There is also a far less compelling tendency to increase the volume level to reveal more transients and details.

I think this is why many good vintage loudspeakers sounded good in the early days before the downward spiral of modern solid state amplfiers.

Fortunately this trend is reversing in a small way and we are seeing the rebirth of many classic loudspeaker systems using SOA amplification.

[Mr. Widget]

All I can say is if you are still deciding on what you think right you still have not got there yet if you know what I mean.I almost never know what you mean. :D

I think most of us have a pretty good idea about what we think is right. We just don't always agree on what right is.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

I was a skeptic caught up in the circle of denial once to until I started listening to the right people and hearing the right things.:D

Go out and buy yourself a real amplifer (Halcro) and set of speakers (JBL .........) and shut up.

[4313B]

Someday we will be talking about todays technology as vintage, right?Um, no... it isn't built to last that long.

[Robh3606]

Um, no... it isn't built to last that long.


In general that's true but one exception is the drivers we use. Bet those will still be working:thmbsup: At least that hasn't changed.

Rob:)

[Ian Mackenzie]

Just make sue you don't over drive the old Alnico woofers.

[scott fitlin]

Um, no... it isn't built to last that long.Sadly, when it comes to todays pro stuff, your statement is really, really true!

[scott fitlin]

Many people rip on contemporary gear... and I'd agree if my baseline for comparison was what is available at Best Buy, Circuit City and the rest... you can't find a decent speaker or amp or even computer monitor in any of those places... they sell cheap junk at low prices. The fact is that most of us or our parents couldn't afford a pair of Hartsfields or a Paragon when they were new, and most of us can't afford today's versions either... the distortion in our comparison of today's gear versus yesterday's gear is that there are some remarkably good values on the used market so we can afford some outrageously good vintage stuff even if we can't afford the really great new stuff.



WidgetOK, Im NOT most people, and Ill make a direct brand to brand comparison here. Crown -vs- Bryston! The Crown Power Line 2 and D-75 against the Bryston 2B LP, and the Bryston 3B ST against a Crown D-150A. All the amps mentioned are well made and cost alot of money considering the amount of power available from them, as they are not high power amps.

Crown D-75,s make a pleasing, nicely rounded top end, and sounds clean. The Bryston 2B LP, sounds cleaner, but has a bright metallic tonality to it, one you cant EQ out, and the Bryston always fatigues me after a while, yet, it IS audibly cleaner and more powerful than its crown counterpart, just never as pleasing.

The Crown D-150A is arguably NOT the highest resolution amplifier, yet this little crown performs remarkably well on HF like JBL 2441 drivers. Conversely, I have listened to my Bryston 3B ST on many occasions, I hear the amps cleaner circuitry, it does have more power then the 150, it is more resolving of minute details in recordings, BUT, it is a god awful bright, metallic and mechanical sounding mid/hf to my ears. I have many Brystons, and they cost a pretty penny, they aint cheapo crapo from China. And yet? I cant stand the Bryston sound.

The funny thing is, and I learned this the expensive way, what makes music sound right, isnt always whats technically 100% correct, or the cleanest and most accurate device, notes through the Crowns just sound more real, like music sounds, and through the Brystons, very clean, but quite tiring to listen to after a while. Most importantly, I also learned that just because it costs as much as a Mercedes S-500, and has snob appeal DOES NOT guarantee good sound. I find many make this mistake with audio! If it costs more, it must be better. I have made this mistake myself. Boutique consumer, and pro audio manufacturers play upon this phenomenon too. Believe that!

:)

[edgewound]

Scotty...

Maybe the 2441 isn't the right complement for the Bryston. Could be the 2441 isn't good (accurate) enough for that amp.

You make the great points of finding the gear that sounds right together.

[Zilch]

Could be the 2441 isn't good (accurate) enough for that amp.Some drivers can't handle the TRUTH?

[Dear gawd, say it ain't SO.... :p ]

[scott fitlin]

Scotty...

Maybe the 2441 isn't the right complement for the Bryston. Could be the 2441 isn't good (accurate) enough for that amp.

You make the great points of finding the gear that sounds right together.I, too, believe in synergy between components. Certain brand and model drivers just work so well with a certain brand and specific model of amplifier, very true! But, I have tried my TAD 4002,s with the Bryston 3B ST as well, and I hated that even more.

Then, I had the Bryston xovers, the 10B,s, and also, didnt work out well for me, at all. Very bright, and somewhat metallic sounding.

I listened to the B & W 802,s at my freinds house, he had several amps on hand to audition, McIntosh, Classe, and Bryston. The Mc was too dark sounding with the B & W,s, the Bryston had a much brighter sound, but being cone mid speakers, wasnt blowing me out of the room, but the highs still sounded metallic and we didnt love the bass with this combo. And the Classe was the surprise of the day, sweet and clear, warm but not overly so, good bass, nice image, the B & W,s liked the Classe best of all. So, this is what he purchased to run them.

But, as I said, Bryston is well made, fairly expensive, but not my cup of tea!

Another combo I loved was a Dynaudio monitor setup being driven by a Yamaha Natural Sound amplifier from the 80,s! Say what you want, but the setup rocked, and sounded terrific.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Scotty,

Your've got great ears and you nailed it.

You spoke from your own wide practical experience, no hype just the facts, excellent post.

[Ken Pachkowsky]

Like a good book, this thread has made me late for work.

Excellent debate.

Ken

[SUPERBEE]

Scotty,

Your've got great ears and you nailed it.

You spoke from your own wide practical experience, no hype just the facts, excellent post.


Ummmmmmm..........


I think that is what this thread is about. Rather than enter into a pissing contest, lets talk about good and bad combos, both vintage and new that we know from actually LISTENING to them.....

Like I can tell you the Fisher X-101-C sounds horrible on a JBL Paragon compared to a Fisher 500-C which sounds EXCELLENT on a JBL Paragon.

Or.........The Fisher X-101-C sounds GREAT when matched up to a set of bland JBL 2060s.

As I have said all my life........"I dont know much.......But I know what I like"

[scott fitlin]

"But I know what I like"At the end of the day, this is what its all about! Since you are the one your system must please, it should be what you like, not what someone else says is right.

The big debate that was going on when I was first learning how to turn the stereo on, was the JBL L100 or the AR3a. The classical music lovers said the AR3a was the right speaker, but when I was listening to the Jackson 5 at my uncles house, the JBL,s had that life, that ryhthm, that dynamic pulse.

OTOH, my mom had the AR3a,s, and they sounded boring. But this is correct they told me, the JBL bass is exaggerated. Who cares? The JBL,s sound good, your AR,s sound stale!

And the L100,s sounded really good with a Fisher reciever, I dont remember what model it was, though.

[SUPERBEE]

Thanks for remindning me Scott.......


The AR 4X's sound KICK-ASS when flown about mid way up a wall matched with a Mcintosh 5100.


Also a JBL Minigon sounds TERRIBLE with the the 5100 or any other power amp I tried.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I saw on the news stand yesterday the latest Sterophile magazine with a current day review of the small Advent in terms of current day . Quite an interesting read along the lines of what has been discussed here.

I dare say that this sort of discussion would be blown off by those cottage businesses attempting sell in the current vogue of "more detail is better" with the new new drivers and systems of today.

Back on old experiences I recall hearing the 4343 at a dealership in Richmond on a Luxman power amp about 200 watts a side. It was terrible...the model escapes me for the moment.

Downtown they sounded great on a GAS Ampzilla.

Despite being rather dated now I always had nice results bi amping the 4343 on the mid and top end with a Quad 405 current dumping amp from the UK. It was not a cheap amp at the time (late 70's $700) but I much preferred it to the Marantz 140 power amp and the BGW.

You can pick up the Quad 405 on Ebay for about 100 bucks ..a steal.

[jblnut]

Lots of great debate here about new vs. old. It's one I have with friends quite often. On thing that stands out as absolutely true - for old or new - is that there is no "right" amp/pre/CD for all speakers. Trying to get the right mix for your speakers in your room with the recordings you like most, is something not done overnight. It may likely take quite a few swaps before you get the sound mix you like the most. I know it's been a voyage for discovery for me and I can't say with 100% certainty that I'm done.

It's all good, and a lot of fun in the process :) .

jblnut

[Ian Mackenzie]

I agree but the sticking point is: Is it better or change.

To illustrate the point and reflect on the previous posts I organised some comparisons of old versus new amps over the weekend using what I consider an old but good vintage loudspeaker. As The Widget fondly reminds me "... I am sort of surprised you, an obvious audiophile, are using the 4345"...Well I am not an audiophile and as someone ..possibly the designer of that system said ...screw you!! Anyway who cares..read on.

Oh well this makes it more interesting to subjectively assess if an old amp sounds better on an old speaker or does a new amp sound better on an old speaker.

To arrange this comparison l set up the JBL 4345 in full passive mode and invited a friend over.

Firstly, I set up a large Kenwood home theatre amp on loan to me, the KRF-V7773D. Its a few years old now but it was 2nd from top of the range, Crystal Shark processor and 120 watts x 5.

I have been using the processor aspect of this unit for some home theatre stuff via the preamp out puts so it was interesting to hear what its power amps would be like.

Well it sounded quite powerful and smooth and had a fleshy tonal charactor although the sound had a boogie factor to it that was a bit tiresome after a while. This quality is great for home theatre but not so good for Cd's or vinyl.

Then I tried out an old SAEXXX1B power amp rated at 50 watts per channel. The amp was connected via the pre amp outputs of the Kenwood ( taking a direct co-axial digital feed from the DVD/CD player)

The SAEXXX!B was a completely different kettle of fish. The bass was noticably more dynamic and natural sounding and sounded every bit as powerful if not more so than the Kenwood. The mids had an almost tube like tonal quality and the highs were clear.

This amp is a mid 70's vintage but is sounds superior to the modern amplifier using an old speaker system.

My final assessment was made connecting an X Aleph diy amp rated at 36 watts per channel. This is a modern current day soa diy design based on the Passlabs XA Series. No more need besaid.

This amp was different again but a vast improvement in every area over the other two amps. The engagement and level of exacting detail was such that the notion of listening to an amp and speakers dissolved in such a way that the focus on on the music.

My friend suggested it was the best thing he had heard period. That is probably not true because he has spent a fortune on his hifi system over the years. But is nice to know you don't have to be a member of the hifi/audiophile crowd to enjoy your favourite tune!

[Shane Shuster]

...Well I am not an audiophile

You did a 3-way amp shootout. One was DIY. I bet you had the speaker wire lifted up off the floor.:D

The vintage stuff sounds great on vintage music, but I dont like it as much on new music. I have modern in the main listening room and vintage in the basement.

[Ken Pachkowsky]

The vintage stuff sounds great on vintage music, but I dont like it as much on new music. I have modern in the main listening room and vintage in the basement.

Please list what you have, both vintage and modern.

[Shane Shuster]

Modern I have Tannoy System 1200s, 800s, Jbl4645c. Vintage I have diy 2way Altecs and Iconic S.H. V which are remakes of Altec 604-8ks. The 2-way Altecs are 511bs/802-8gs crossed over at 500hz to the 15.

As a younger guy I would say the vintage electronics I've listened too sound better at very low volumes but worse at mid to high volume. I think they sound different than modern stuff but not better.

[Mr. Widget]

...Well I am not an audiophile...From Wikipedia: Audiophile, from Latin audio "hear" and Greek φιλειν (philein) "love", is a word used to describe a person dedicated to achieving high fidelity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity) in the recording and playback of music.

I guess Ian is not dedicated to or has no love for high fidelity in the recording or playback of music then... odd for someone who spends so much time tweaking circuits... oh well.:hmm:


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hi Shane,

Your right, I have $10,000 teflon insutlators suspending the 12 gauge solid silver cables from the ceiling. (just kidding)

But I hope you are not mocking my kitchen table-diy amps. As a matter of interest both Carver and Pass built their prototypes on the kitchen table for before scaling up for production in the garage! Pass still uses his kitchen table (which I have sat at) for the exclusive First Watt Series.


In truth I find terminations a route of all evil in degrading sound quality. Mt Isa copper to copper please. Plated brass is for the audio infants like .........(See 4343-4344 upgrade thread)


"The vintage stuff sounds great on vintage music, but I dont like it as much on new music. I have modern in the main listening room and vintage in the basement"

I agree but there is vintage and there is vintage. Anything with an Alnico 2405 Slot Loaded Ring Radiator qualifies for new vintage. For the record I am not an advocate of paper and oil capacitors.

New techniques and technologies are being applied to many of those vintage designs yesterday and this is what is deemed hi-end audio by so many. The designs themselves were nice , the original execution at the time was only so so. Take the Manley amps for example in the Manely Mausoleum
http://www.manleylabs.com/mausoleum99.html or the new Hifi http://www.manleylabs.com/hifimain99.html with the Tannoys!!

[Ian Mackenzie]

:snore:
From Wikipedia: Audiophile, from Latin audio "hear" and Greek φιλειν (philein) "love", is a word used to describe a person dedicated to achieving high fidelity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity) in the recording and playback of music.

I guess Ian is not dedicated to or has no love for high fidelity in the recording or playback of music then... odd for someone who spends so much time tweaking circuits... oh well.:hmm:


Widget

Yawn. :snore:

I hate quotes from the American Nerds dictionary and I guess you are hard of hearing given I have brow beaten your squiggly little head senseless on this semantic dribble.

Most of you aspire to discovering the real facts behind just why your JBL's sound and work the way they do. I guess do that but on a much broader scale.......

Then there are those who talk the talk and walk the walk in circles...apparently.

[Zilch]

Then there are those who talk the talk and walk the walk in circles...apparently.That'd be me -- back and forth to the clinic every time I get a drivel.... :p

[Shane Shuster]

Hi Ian,

I was only teasing and not mocking your DIY. I just thought your post was funny in a "I'm not an alcoholic but I drink a fifth of gin everyday" kind of way.

$9000 for a decent powered Manley. Thats only 4 times what the Tannoys cost. I'll take ten.:D

[Ian Mackenzie]

Yep,

I'm supposed to be at Sunday school, must go up there before the Keg runs out.

[QwertyAccess]

Ipods are the devil, the only thing i can say that doesnt seem to have diminished in quality of the years, are Headphones!, made from companys like Sennheiser, Grados, or something,

This, makes me cry, Never actually heard it, but i really dont think i want to.
http://www.apple.com/ipodhifi/

[Ian Mackenzie]

Been Playing Eric through that little SAEXXX1B amp this afternoon.

I like the air and bite of this amp. There is a sort if synergy with the JBL's on that score. In comparison I have a really excellent GB150 mosfet amp that is so smooth and polite But it does not quite grab the edge of your pants the way this little old amp does.

Ever gone out and heard your favorite band at the local and stood 10 feet in front of the kit and an old Marshall 100 watt head with the Strat screaming ""Fire" . All you hear is the band not the FOH.

It's a bit like fire crackers going off in front of you but the focus is the soul of the tune and that's what its all about.

If you can't feel the soul of the tune something is wrong. I tend to find that more often than not with modern hifi, cold and clinical, sterile and lifeless. I've heard that also about a certain Japanese branded hi end stuff that is opposition to JBL. No wonder their market share is crap too.

Ian

Pic is Phil Para, The Espy Lounge.

[Steve Gonzales]

Been Playing Eric through that little SAEXXX1B amp this afternoon.

I like the air and bite of this amp. There is a sort if synergy with the JBL's on that score. In comparison I have a really excellent GB150 mosfet amp that is so smooth and polite But it does not quite grab the edge of your pants the way this little old amp does.

Ever gone at heard your favorite band at the local and stood 10 feet in front of the kit and an old Marshall 100 watt head with the Strat screaming ""Fire" . All you hear is the band not the FOH.

It's a bit like fire crackers going off in front of you but the focus is the soul of the tune and that's what its all about.

If you can't feel the soul of the tune something is wrong. I tend to find that more often than not with modern hifi, cold and clinical, sterile and lifeless. I've heard that also about a certain Japanese branded hi end stuff that is opposition to JBL. No wonder their market share is crap too.

Ian

Pic is Phil Para, The Espy Lounge. Very well put Ian. I strive to get as close to the real thing myself. I know what High Fidelity means. It does seem that some understand it as a graph on some computer screen. There are times when a driver measures bad on the screen, but sounds right. There is nothing wrong with measuring drivers and response, don't get me wrong, but if what you end up with is a dry, lifeless "machine", I believe you have to start trusting your own ears and what satisfies your ears, not your eyes. Most of the "Lab Techie types" will always try to undermine an opinion that doesn't prescribe to their "knowledge" by calling a system non-linear or some other completely dismissive term. I've noticed that there is a consensus that the traditional JBL sound is lacking and needs to be "fixed". While I'm sure that there are some good tweaks that can be done, I rather like the traditional JBL or West Coast sound. I've read here recently about the L300 being lacking or not good enough to compete with current day offerings too. While a big 4way JBL will certainly have more to offer, the L300 is an awesome speaker and can still outperform just about anything at many times it's price point today. I think that alot of members might feel like they don't have a great sounding rig because someone says: "That measures bad on the graph". They say that a system is "Neato" or "Fun", in a derogatory manner, because it isin't up to some "machine standard" they're trying to herd people into. I've read countless posts about many people's experiences with vintage JBL or Altec systems, and that they fell in love with that sound. I say that unique quality of sound is really what most are after and should feel no shame in preserving it. A person is not an idiot because he loves his L100's or an Lxxx or 4xxx. Upgrade the caps and coils in the passive crossover, install a better driver, etc-etc, but don't tweak it until it doesn't sound like a JBL anymore. I've heard many over-tweaked systems, and by and large, the only thing that resembles JBL or Altec are the foilcals and badging, sometimes not even that, and they can KEEP IT!. If loving the unique sound of vintage JBL/Altec systems is wrong, I don't want to be right!. I recommend 80's vintage Yamaha M series SS for the LF and VTL/ Manley/Conrad Johnson (EL34 based) tubes for the rest, especially if you have compression drivers and horns.

[scott fitlin]

Very well put Ian. I strive to get as close to the real thing myself. I know what High Fidelity means. It does seem that some understand it as a graph on some computer screen. There are times when a driver measures bad on the screen, but sounds right. There is nothing wrong with measuring drivers and response, don't get me wrong, but if what you end up with is a dry, lifeless "machine", I believe you have to start trusting your own ears and what satisfies your ears, not your eyes. Most of the "Lab Techie types" will always try to undermine an opinion that doesn't prescribe to their "knowledge" by calling a system non-linear or some other completely dismissive term. I've noticed that there is a consensus that the traditional JBL sound is lacking and needs to be "fixed". While I'm sure that there are some good tweaks that can be done, I rather like the traditional JBL or West Coast sound. I've read here recently about the L300 being lacking or not good enough to compete with current day offerings too. While a big 4way JBL will certainly have more to offer, the L300 is an awesome speaker and can still outperform just about anything at many times it's price point today. I think that alot of members might feel like they don't have a great sounding rig because someone says: "That measures bad on the graph". They say that a system is "Neato" or "Fun", in a derogatory manner, because it isin't up to some "machine standard" they're trying to herd people into. I've read countless posts about many people's experiences with vintage JBL or Altec systems, and that they fell in love with that sound. I say that unique quality of sound is really what most are after and should feel no shame in preserving it. A person is not an idiot because he loves his L100's or an Lxxx or 4xxx. Upgrade the caps and coils in the passive crossover, install a better driver, etc-etc, but don't tweak it until it doesn't sound like a JBL anymore. I've heard many over-tweaked systems, and by and large, the only thing that resembles JBL or Altec are the foilcals and badging, sometimes not even that, and they can KEEP IT!. If loving the unique sound of vintage JBL/Altec systems is wrong, I don't want to be right!. I recommend 80's vintage Yamaha M series SS for the LF and VTL/ Manley/Conrad Johnson (EL34 based) tubes for the rest, especially if you have compression drivers and horns.Basically!

I learned this years ago. The techs used to say you can measure performance, and what couldnt be measured couldnt be heard. Yet, I always preferred the sound of some things, and not others, in spite of what the measurements said.

It even applies to rooms themselves! Look at Carnegie Hall. Always known for its wonderful sounding acoustics, then, they redid the hall, and with modern technology, and MEASUREMENTS, they fixed what wasnt broke, and made it RIGHT, it has never been the same! They then spent money trying to get back what they had, they threw blame on the contracting companies for using the wrong materials, etc! But, they have not been able to recapture the original sound of Carnegie Hall.

Just because its older, doesnt mean it is bad, or wont work.

I mean, how did they create halls and theatres, or speakers and electronics that sound so nice, even by todays standards way back without all the technology available today? The Vacumm Tube was all but dead, except for MI apps, then, the tube is back with a vengeance in todays world of sophisticated digital technology!!!!!!!!

To my ears, some, not all, but some of the best vintage gear that was available, had a much more musical sound, than todays SOTA gear!

[Shane Shuster]

Ipods are the devil, the only thing i can say that doesnt seem to have diminished in quality of the years, are Headphones!, made from companys like Sennheiser, Grados, or something,

Wasn't the mass market equivilant of the Ipod in the 1970's those suitcase looking recordplayers? How is an Ipod worse than that? The non hifi crowd had much worse all in one systems in the 1970s. As for headphones, to me the modern speakers sound closer to headphones which is both good and bad.

Have any of you guys tried the newer stuff in your home? I dont mean the overpriced boutique stuff. The bigger JBL, Tannoy, Genelec ect.

[Zilch]

Oh, Steve, Steve....

Read Toole's latest paper in the June AES Journal on this very subject: Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction-A Scientific Review

Spend $250 on a Behringer RTA and start measuring stuff.

Use its EQ to try different curves.

Resolve your frustration with not experiencing and appreciating the scientific side of this.

You're not an idiot. It'll be enlightening.... :thmbsup:

[Ian Mackenzie]

Nice post Steve and Scotty.

I think most muso's would endorse your comments.

Anyone heard the term scrubbed as in "scrubbing" the sound.

That term generally applies to over or poor processing of the signal.

I see even Behringer has some valve stuff at the premium end of their range!

I am going to see of I can borrow a Cary push pull 35+35 power amp with some nice valves in it and see what happens.

[alskinner]

As a lot of us have found out good measurements don't always equal a good speaker system.

Most large speaker manufacturers use scientific measurements that are usually in a controlled environemnt such as an Anechoic chamber or other external sound proof room. The main concern is an environmental standard with reproduceable results to check quality control and the speaker system or tranducers abilities within that standard.

The measurements obtained in a garage or room will most likely will vary with things like weather and other external influences, not to say these readings are not useful. They can save time when constructing a speaker system for a paticular persons room.

In the end because of the differences in hearing perception , hearing loss and room placement environment will affect the satisfaction of the end user.

I too prefer a lot of the vintage stuff for one reason, the sound. But am always open to new ideas. Zilch's and others work on the 2407 tansducer peaked my interest. I'm waiting for the horn to come in for them. I am crossing them at 10K and they don't sound bad without the horn.

Ian is spot on about amplifers making a great difference in the sound. I went through about 20 different amps to arrive at four that worked great together in my active version of my 4344 clones.

Main thing is to enjoy the music keep growing and learning.

AL

[jim campbell]

is there a system out there that will sound as good as good as a vintage jb at l300 volumes that doesnt cost the equivilent of a german luxury sedan.a friend of mine needs to know

[scott fitlin]

You know, it comes down to this for me. From years now, engineers have told me I am stuck in the mud. Oh, that was great back in the day, but things are different now, etc!

Well, I have been through digital, analog, this speaker, that speaker, this cabinet, etc. but, I dont know, even todays music sounds nicer, just more natural and relaxed, through certain vintage electronics and speakers.

To me, it is up to the individual to find their likes and dislikes.

Ill tell you this, one thing the speakers of yesteryear, the great ones, had over todays speakers, is transient response. Todays subs take more power, but they dont have that fast snap that used to make bass come to life. In my opinion. I find most of todays sub woofers too garbled sounding, yeah they go down deep, but they have no articulation, and speed, that nimbleness that lets you visualize the instrument and player.

I dont know, but, I do know a few engineers who admit we did have it really good years ago, and it does seem as if we have gone backwards to some degree.

Then of course, there is todays music vs the music of the past. In this area, I definitely feel as if we have moved backwards. Everything is computer made now. Does anyone besides a country an western artist know how to play a guitar, or drums?

I dont know....

[edgewound]

You're absolutely, friggin' right Scotty. There isn't enough time, it seems, for mass craftsmanship anymore.

I do think though the tide will turn in a decade or so. Today's younger crowd....that being late teens and early twenties are very in tune to retro cars, clothes....things that had some style to them. Things that last a long time... I think a new generation of quality seeking consumers will demand more lasting value for their money. Too many iPods, MP3 players, laptop computers, etc...break down into throw aways to soon...and that's just wasted money.

I thinks we've had this discussion before....All us old farts longing for the "good 'ol days".

[Shane Shuster]

If you think you have something better and its a non JBL system then this forum is not for you.
No Altecs?

[SUPERBEE]

Ummmmmmmm......


You guys keep posting. I am gonna go have a drink (Or 5) and listen to some music.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Steve,

What model VTL do you have?

I used to know the local agent and heard some VTL amps a while back, very nice stuff.:)

[Steve Gonzales]

It is a model Stereo 45. 2 EL34's per channel. I run an active 3way crossover (JBLM553), so it is plenty of power to drive my 2397/2441 combo. I followed Greg Timbers advice (via Giskard) and use a class A Yamaha M35 4 channel to power my HF section (four 076's). That is good advice. I would love to have the ability to raise my Mid to HF point to 8-9khz. The M553 allows for a max point of 5khz. Still sounds great but could be better. Have you ever auditioned an 80's vintage Yamaha MX-1000u?. This amp is a dual mono design, has a S/N of 127db and a THD figure of .003. 260 clean wpc and is actually 1 ohm stable with 1000 watts available power to that load. It has a near 3db of clean dynamic headroom to boot @ 8 ohms. I'd love to read your comments if you ever do. An M80 or M85 of the same era are also solid performers too. I've owned them all and cannot believe these amps sell for such a great price. Your design work with Ken P is an very interesting read. I wish I had the privilage of owning/building one of your designs. I also like your newest endeavor with your active 4345 design XO. You are very gifted. I look forward to your various amp comparisons, should be good info for those of us that need good affordable amplification. I had an SAE P-250 for a while and liked the sound with my then stock L220's. The big MX-1000u is the ticket for me now. It delivers a clean, tight botom end with a seemingly inexhaustable amount of headroom power. Ian, I want to publically apologize for our past run-ins. And I give you big Kudos for speaking with courtesy and class, regards Steve G.

[Steve Gonzales]

While I took a short vaction to meet my best friend, Mr. Dave Brink and his lovely wife Alexandra in NorCal/SF, I went to a high-end shop to hear some of what they had. I spent some time auditioning various speakers. Their sales person really talked up the Vandersteen 2C. He had a high dollar Audio Research pre/ power amp combo. Now, I've read alot about these speakers and was very anxious to hear them. All of the system was in the $10k per piece range. I was not very impressed at all. They did have a great tactile punch in the midbass but other than that, no deal, no way. I cannot imagine what a person could assemble with JBL stuff for that kind of loot, what a shame. I will admit a one time audition is not the absolute bottom line, but, he did say that went through great pains in building a great acoustic environment in which to audition their gear.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Steve,

Yes Yamaha is a good brand and you have some nice hardware.

Nice to see you are having fun and that is what its all about.

Life is too short to be doing anything less.

There are thousands of audiophiles out there who spend (thousands and have ) many sleepless nights unahppy with their endless pursuit.

I am glad I not one of them

Ian

[57BELAIRE]

Ah....the debate rages on with the emphasis on RAGE.

Man, if you want to stir things up on these pages just ask "what's better,new or vintage?"

So many elements come into play on the subject yet the overall consensus seems to be "whatever sounds best to YOUR ear" is best.

That's my philosophy, always has been..."if you like it, it's right"

I have two cars...a new one and an old one. The new one is technically superior with it's computers and modern advancements. Yet, if merely performing their basic duties...going from point A to point B...my personal preference would be this one....:D

[4313B]

Man, if you want to stir things up on these pages just ask "what's better,new or vintage?"Yeah but notice how many of the 4,777 members bother with such a topic?
So many elements come into play on the subject yet the overall consensus seems to be "whatever sounds best to YOUR ear" is best.Yeah, it's probably best left at that.
I have two cars...a new one and an old one. The new one is technically superior with it's computers and modern advancements. Yet, if merely performing their basic duties...going from point A to point B...my personal preference would be this one....:DI certainly appreciate the Chevy for what it is but my '65 Impala took the same trail as all my old JBL's. Nice example though! 283 or 348?

[Robh3606]

Off Topic

Here we go again. Can all of you guys and I mean all you guys stop pounding your chests for a minute. Passion for this hobby is a good thing. It is not good when it spills over into what are obviously personal issues. Can we please keep this stuff off line and could all parties give each other a little breathing room.

Thank you


On Topic

I started with L100's then tried to upgrade to 4312A's then L80T3, 4655's and then built up my mains from tent sale drivers. After that I built up XPL 200 clones a Urie 811C center, 4344's. I just finished with an upgrade on the main system with 2435's and a crossover update on the 4344/XPL system that both speaker pairs share. I have JBL's in any system I use for any long term listenning. One thing I tried very hard to do was keep the JBL sound in my main system. By JBL sound I don't mean the West Coast vs. East Coast that was the raging debate in the 70's. I think a lot of people mistake the L100's as the JBL Sound. It's not, that speaker was voiced to emulate the Altec 604 used at the time. It was the wedge in the door that got JBL really going in the 70's. Being the most popular consumer JBL's they did a lot to fuel the love hate relationship most have with JBL. What is the JBL sound is the effortless dymanics and stunning clarity that many of these systems have. It doesn't matter if they are vintage or current they all share this. They really do get you closer to the music and have that remarkable abillity to just let you relax and enjoy.


Rob:)

[4313B]

Nice post Rob.


Can all of you guys and I mean all you guys stop pounding your chests for a minute.No, but thanks for asking just the same. :D

Widget and I were talking last night about how the vintage stuff is still a tremendous bang for the buck. I doubt it will stay that way. I think alot of people are confused with JBL's current strategy. All I know is that their strategy to survive seems to be working.

What is the JBL sound is the effortless dymanics and stunning clarity that many of these systems have. It doesn't matter if they are vintage or current they all share this. They really do get you closer to the music and have that remarkable abillity to just let you relax and enjoy.It does matter if they are vintage or current from a price point perspective. You have to spend more money today to retain the same power and dynamics of the vintage gear.

For instance, the 8-inch 3-way PT800 doesn't have the power and dynamics of the 8-inch 3-way L212. There's no denying that the PT800 is an overall smoother performer with better depth and clarity, less distortion content, lower power compression and a significantly better midrange performance from the 904Ti transducer. Regardless, the L212 is still a nice sounding loudspeaker system even today, especially with mods. I can appreciate why people would keep them around.

The Array Series is very nice with excellent power and dynamics, even from the little 8" and 10" models. The 1400 Array's are considerably more expensive than old L300's off eBay but their price reflects their performance. They really are THAT much better.

[Robh3606]

Hello Giskard

Thanks. I would have to agree it sure is money well spent. Been to enough Hi End shows of late to know what I want isn't there. It's on Craigs list or our members livingrooms.

Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

Been to enough Hi End shows of late to know what I want isn't there. It's on Craigs list or our members livingrooms.Sounds like we had better all keep an eye on Rob if he comes over to visit...;)


Widget

[Maron Horonzakz]

I have my listening room built in a vault..Let the bergalers take the silver. It will be interesting what the 60th anniversary JBL line will look like. ;)

[boputnam]

Sounds like we had better all keep an eye on Rob if he comes over to visit...;)He is NOT getting my 4301B's, that's for sure.

(FWIW, I just moved my second pair into our new offices and I've re-awakened even more JBL fans... :applaud: )

[SUPERBEE]

Well SUPERBEE, I don't hate you. I think your reaction to so much of the constant put-downs of the vintage stuff strikes a cord with those of us who know otherwise, but are mostly portrayed as unlearned hacks without a clue. I haven't heard the New Array Series or a pair of K2's, but I'll have to temper your comments by trusting that there are some sweet new products out there. Would I plop down $30-40-50k plus for them?. I would have to hear them first and then decide if I want my house/marriage or the new stuff ;) . I believe with all my heart that there are thousands of JBL fans from all walks of life and preference, that are completely satisfied with what they have.

Steve, I dont care who hates me. I was drunk and just trying to "Stir the turd"

But in reality I think that at that money level (30-40-50K) people MAKE themselves believe there gear sounds better. Recently I purchased a set of L-200s for a friend. Now I am not a big fan of the L-200s. I think they are big and boomy sounding tempered only by the Mcintosh solid state gear I matched them up with. But the gentleman I bought them from was a nice guy with a big spread and the room I was to demo them in also housed brand new and very expensive Mcintosh gear with $8,500 speakers. Well those $900 vintage JBL L-200s that are known for being "Big and boomy" sounded WAY better than his brand new high end expenso speakers. I had them hooked up side by side and the difference was shocking.Luckily he was not in the room while I did this so we avoided any uncomfortable situation but again I could not believe how much better the vintage gear sounded.

Now that being said I am not "Married" to anything except my wife and my Super Bee. While I LOVE the look and preformance of my vintage gear if I see/hear anything that sounds better, I will buy it.

[SUPERBEE]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for alot of people. Unfortunately they are wrong harboring such a simplistic view but whatever. All I can say is - save your money for the end of this year because what JBL has cooked up this time spanks everything JBL has ever come up with previous. For those who are serious about their musical reproduction there will be no substitute.

I will give anything except Klipsch and Fords a listen

[4313B]

I will give anything except Klipsch and Fords a listenI was a "diehard Ford fan" due to family influences beyond my control (you can pick your friends but not your family) up until I got my own driver's license and my first personal Ford. My buddies bought Chevys, Buicks, Olds and Mopars and I saw the light. The two baddest cars I ever rode in were an Olds 455 and a 440 GTX. I personally like the 440 better than the 426 Hemi, although the Hemi is extremely cool. Of them all I like the mice and rats, along with any pair of fenders they're hung between the best.

Speaking of vintage. We all know that the 409 was eclipsed in short order but to this day there is still something about driving an M22 rock crushing four-speed, dual-quad, posi-traction 409 that simply kicks ass.

All my cars had JBL sound systems. It was a requirement.

[Robh3606]

Ahh come on guys!! I will keep the handtruck in the van.

Rob;)

[4313B]

Ahh come on guys!! I will keep the handtruck in the van.

Rob;):applaud:

[Mr. Widget]

All my cars had JBL sound systems. It was a requirement.Now that's dedication. :D

For most of my life I have had stereo's worth more than whatever car I have had at the time... and that is still true today. Every one of them has had the stock sound system... whenever I had extra money to buy a car stereo, I'd buy a new cartridge or a better amp for my stereo.


Widget

[SUPERBEE]

I was a "diehard Ford fan" due to family influences beyond my control (you can pick your friends but not your family) up until I got my own driver's license and my first personal Ford. My buddies bought Chevys, Buicks, Olds and Mopars and I saw the light. The two baddest cars I ever rode in were an Olds 455 and a 440 GTX. I personally like the 440 better than the 426 Hemi, although the Hemi is extremely cool. Of them all I like the mice and rats, along with any pair of fenders they're hung between the best.

Speaking of vintage. We all know that the 409 was eclipsed in short order but to this day there is still something about driving an M22 rock crushing four-speed, dual-quad, posi-traction 409 that simply kicks ass.

All my cars had JBL sound systems. It was a requirement.

A 440 GTX, GAWD now thats a FALL KING car!!!!

I would run my current 440 Super Bee against any stock Hemi or six pac car out there

[4313B]

I would run my current 440 Super Bee against any stock Hemi or six pac car out thereCool!

I was hauling up the highway one day in my 289 Ford when I saw a 340 Duster coming up in my mirror. I floored it and had it up to 110 before the Duster dusted my windshield. The two guys in that sucker were G-O-N-E. I backed down to 70 because it was obviously hopeless but my rear tire blew and sent me into the weeds. There were three girls riding with me but none of them screamed for their lives. We could easily have been four statistics. They just said "Wow! That was cool!" I shudder to think of it now.

[SUPERBEE]

Cool!

I was hauling up the highway one day in my 289 Ford when I saw a 340 Duster coming up in my mirror. I floored it and had it up to 110 before the Duster dusted my windshield. The two guys in that sucker were G-O-N-E. I backed down to 70 because it was obviously hopeless but my rear tire blew and sent me into the weeds. There were three girls riding with me but none of them screamed for their lives. We could easily have been four statistics. They just said "Wow! That was cool!" I shudder to think of it now.

Those 340 Duster and Demons are FAST cars.

Besides blowing the doors off of those silly import "Tuner" cars my other favorite past time is stomping on Rustangs of ANY age.

[edgewound]

You all know the 5.0 liter Ford Mustang from the late 1980's to the early '90's could eat Chevy Camaro's for breakfast, lunch and dinner. With a little engine tweaking...Corvettes too. At that time, Mopar had nothing to offer.

Still is the best performance value on the planet with a visceral sound of an American V8....and 20+ mpg on the highway.....and could stayed glued to a mountain road if need be.

[SUPERBEE]

You all know the 5.0 liter Ford Mustang from the late 1980's to the early '90's could eat Chevy Camaro's for breakfast, lunch and dinner. With a little engine tweaking...Corvettes too. At that time, Mopar had nothing to offer.

Still is the best performance value on the planet with a visceral sound of an American V8....and 20+ mpg on the highway.....and could stayed glued to a mountain road if need be.

And at the end of the day its still a butt ugly FERD. Didn't those things still use dog-leg drive?

You have to hand it to MOPAR. The 1969 Dodge Six Pack Super Bee and the 1969 Plymouth Six Barrel Road Runner were not only bad-ass looking cars but out of the box, off the lot were 13 second 1/4 mile cars

[edgewound]

Absolutely! :rotfl:
Glued in place is right! :D

Sorry! Couldn't resist. :p

Yeah? Well....I'm right, you're wrong....so bite me!:D :p

Unfortunately...like Paragons, but even more so...the 60's muscle cars have become unreachable to the average gear head. $500K for GT350's, GT500's, Hemi 'Cuda convertibles, Chevelle SS's. Makes the lil' 'ol 302, 5.0L Mustang a pretty fun, affordable alternative.

But you're right...Hemi's ruled...especially when gas was 35 cents a gallon

[jim3860]

first off I wanted to say great topic and posts. the intelligence and well thought out remarks are refreshing. BRAVO BRAVO. :applaud: All i can do is speak from my own life experinces on this matter, unlike some here i havent listened to a lot of nicer new high end stuff. But does it sound better than the older stuff does? in most cases yes!!! My first memory of music was listening to an old wind up phonograph then an old tube radio a few years later.does the newer products sound better than those? yes by far. A few years ago i bought a sony 5000es reciever. retail price $1500.00. then i bought an old marantz at a yard sale. a simple 20 watt reciever nothing fancy. the marantz sounded much better on the radio and through the analog inputs with my cd player than the sony did. they werent even close by comparison. now on the other hand i love the sound of the sony playing dts and dolby digital sacd and dvd audio tracks. but for 2 channel the marantz was better by far. newer isnt always better nor is older always better. and sometimes cost isnt always indicative of quality or sound either. take the older proton AA2120 amp and adcom gfa-555 amp. there both low cost retail but are still sought after for quality and sound by audiophiles. can you beat the sound and quality with a newer product? sure but its gonna cost you!!!! I think the the main reasons that the older audio gear is bringing high prices is #1 supply and demand, lots of people want kool older stuff and theres not much to go around. #2 - memory of a time long ago, I look fondly back at things i remember when i was young and couldnt afford and always wanted one of those. Now that im older and have the money ill pay whatever it takes to get it. #3- build quality and style. the build quality and style of most older products were far superior to todays. it would cost a fortunte to reproduce some of the older stuff today. personally I think there is no set better or worse with older and newer. I embrace the old and look forward to the future with the newer.:) REGARDS JIM

[4313B]

I think the the main reasons that the older audio gear is bringing high prices is #1 supply and demand, lots of people want kool older stuff and theres not much to go around. #2 - memory of a time long ago, I look fondly back at things i remember when i was young and couldnt afford and always wanted one of those. Now that im older and have the money ill pay whatever it takes to get it. #3- build quality and style. the build quality and style of most older products were far superior to todays. it would cost a fortunte to reproduce some of the older stuff today.Pretty solid points.

[Mr. Widget]

I embrace the old and look forward to the future with the newer.:)I actually agree with your whole post.

On the subject of receivers, that is an area where in my experience virtually any decent Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui etc. receiver from the '70s or '80s will sound significantly better playing 2-channel music than most of the recent digitally run surround receivers... that includes the $2700 surround receiver I own and the $2500 one a buddy owns... they just don't build them like they used to. There are processors available with discrete analog sections but they are extremely expensive. All that said, a decent surround processor or receiver playing a 5.1 movie through quality speakers kicks ass over most higher quality 2 channel systems for movies.


Widget

[jim3860]

One other thing i find fasicnating is the trend towards hiding ones audio and video gear behind drapes, in closests. behind paintings, retractable and or invisible audio and video. I can remember the day when if you had a humengous 25' tv and console you had arrived. and it was proudly displayed for all to see. has the audio video products of today gotten so hideous that we are afraid to display them? perhaps thats why the paragons metergons etc of yesteryear are demanding so much. not only did they sound good but people arent ashamed to have people see a work of art.:bouncy:

[4313B]

One other thing i find fasicnating is the trend towards hiding ones audio and video gear behind drapes, in closests. behind paintings, retractable and or invisible audio and video. I can remember the day when if you had a humengous 25' tv and console you had arrived. and it was proudly displayed for all to see. has the audio video products of today gotten so hideous that we are afraid to display them? perhaps thats why the paragons metergons etc of yesteryear are demanding so much. not only did they sound good but people arent ashamed to have people see a work of art.:bouncy:I think the primary reason all that gear is now hidden has to do with HGTV and TLC. :p
Do I really have to elaborate?

[Mr. Widget]

If you want to continue the who is a bigger jerk discussion please go here:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11307

Let's continue the Vintage vs. New debate here.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

The purpose of this thread is to request the comments of those who have experience with some of the so-sought-after vintage pieces. How do these pieces compare to current equipment or equipment of, say, middle vintage? Is the hype valid? Or simply the result of mass/shared beliefs?

From personal experience I can speak to the idea that some pieces of new equipment seem to be a breakthrough. I remember spending a day with a high quality passive preamp - it made the Naim 72/hicap I was comparing it to sound like a muffled, soggy muddle by comparison (note that I own and use a 72/hicap). But perhaps the sonic compromises with the 72/'cap were due to impedance mismatches between the preamp, interconnects and the vtl 225 tube amplifiers we were listening through? I don't know...

Sometimes equipment must be carefully matched to demonstrate its full potential and those who denigrate it have heard it incorrectly set up. Information about optimized setups would also be very interesting.

So, for those of you who have experience and can share them, having heard properly set up vintage gear, I'd very much appreciate reading your comments here. Of particular interest are the old JBL's, Altec 17s, 19s and other horn-based systems, tannoys, Klipschs, tubes, quads, electrostatics, etc.

I hope others will be as interested in this topic as I am. Thanks, in advance, to those who can share their experience.

Markus

Well back to the point before the landslide from no where what we were talkign about was "WHY"" certain combinations of old with old and other old with new sound so cool and yet others combinations are not so nice.

Years ago I worked for Hoyts (cinemas) and they decided to do the whole multi matrix thing with 6-10 cinemas in each centre. Aside from the destroying all the grand old theatres they through out the original systems and all the valve amps and other aspects of the sound system.

Who was the first to complain..the projectionists. They hated the new sound. That went in was a contractor installed solid state amps with many of the original VOTT still entact. The budget did not allow upgrade of those.

I recall it sounded hard, thin, lifelesss and dry and worst of all the bass lacked guts. I think its reasonable to assume if the guys who designed and installed the original systems calibrated and voiced them as one to sound good back then and its was the intent then as it is currently then nothing has changed.

When you start taking things apart in isolation and swapping out old for new there can be issues and this is where the old can get a bad wrap.

>One of our members is / was a projectionist .so .it would be interesting to get his observations.

[boputnam]

...virtually any decent Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui etc. receiver from the '70s or '80s will sound significantly better playing 2-channel music than most of the recent digitally run surround receivers... Bingo, dood.

So often I get dragged to a neighbors to "fix this - it sounds awful"!! First thing I do is punch out all the processing to get as pure a stereo mix possible. It always surprises them what crappy sound they put up with just to have a 5.1 or 7.1 system hidden behind the drapes and arm chairs.

:dont-know I'm stuck on 2.0...

[scott fitlin]

Me too! 2 channel stereo still has something to offer.

:D

[jblfreeek]

Ditto.

I am also in love with 80's stereo gear which sound quite superior to today's surround system sounds.

But this is again when listening to music recorded on a stereo source.

I believe this is like comparing apples to oranges.

There are systems that can simply shook anyone's regard towards surround systems. Those setups usually come with a hefty price tag though which is rather obvious.

[norealtalent]

What is "surround sound?" ;) Never mind, I'm sure I really don't care to know. Like I said,"Ignorance IS bliss." :thmbsup:

[Steve]

Aloha

One of the things that I have noticed with a lot of the audio goodies of today, is that I am lacking the "experience" of the music. The reproduction of the music might sound or be technically better, but the feeling isn't there.
A long while back, there was a post from a member of the reaction of a neighborhood kid that got to listen to his system. Don't remember the exact wording or the member who posted, my apologies. Basically it said the same thing. I have heard better sounding systems, with this system, I experience the music.

Of course there are exceptions.

In my discussions with people in the past, I use the analogy of an eating establishment and recipe's. Give 100 people the same ingredients and recipes and there will be 100 different results. How come one food establishment is a favorite over another? Personal tastes, comforts, price priorities, atmosphere etc.
There is nothing wrong with a quick meal or a 3 hour meal.
Comparing them to each other, ie, small 5 or 7 speaker modern surround
system to older systems, or new $50K system to a paragon or Model 19's is fuel for a great debate. They each have their own benefits and minuses.

Now if I can figure out how to put a 70mm screen in my living room.

Steve

[Shane Shuster]

On the subject of receivers, that is an area where in my experience virtually any decent Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui etc. receiver from the '70s or '80s will sound significantly better playing 2-channel music than most of the recent digitally run surround receivers...

Mr. Widget,
Can you talk a bit more about the differences? Are you playing cds or records?

[Mr. Widget]

Mr. Widget,
Can you talk a bit more about the differences? Are you playing cds or records?While I prefer the sound of quality separates (vintage or new) a used $200 Marantz or similar brand receiver comes closer to their sound than the handful of contemporary receivers I have tried or owned. The differences can be heard while playing CDs or vinyl. The current crop of digitally controlled surround receivers tend to have a flat, one dimensional stereo image with little or no stage depth and a corresponding lack of a sense of air. In general they also have a slight coloration to their sound... this coloration is a bit of a hard and pronounced midrange. The '70s and '80s vintage receivers while better than the new stuff tend toward this direction when compared to the better quality separates that I have heard. We have discussed this subject before. Here is one of many threads that cover several viewpoints on the topic:

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8131

As for the digital surround stuff, the comparisons I made were with the receivers set to all analog 2 channel operation when such an option was available. I found this to also be the case when I used the pre outs and used a separate basic power amp instead of the built in amp section.


Widget

[Shane Shuster]

While I prefer the sound of quality separates (vintage or new) a used $200 Marantz or similar brand receiver comes closer to their sound than the handful of contemporary receivers I have tried or owned.
I agree with your assessments on digital receivers. You are talking about 2ch. separates, correct? The surround sound processors I've tried sound the same as receivers. Is a Pioneer sx450 good enough for a general idea of the sound you are talking about?

If you could only have one system that had to play movies, cds, and a video game system what would you use? Would you give up the soundstaging and better midrange for more inputs and processing?

[duaneage]

I have a marantz 2235B in my garage that I really like. The Loudness button needs to be off though, the bass is just too boomy with vented speakers for that,But with sealed box systems it is absolutely perfect. I call it the Seal Box Button, not the loudness switch.

[Ian Mackenzie]

While I prefer the sound of quality separates (vintage or new) a used $200 Marantz or similar brand receiver comes closer to their sound than the handful of contemporary receivers I have tried or owned. The differences can be heard while playing CDs or vinyl. The current crop of digitally controlled surround receivers tend to have a flat, one dimensional stereo image with little or no stage depth and a corresponding lack of a sense of air. In general they also have a slight coloration to their sound... this coloration is a bit of a hard and pronounced midrange. The '70s and '80s vintage receivers while better than the new stuff tend toward this direction when compared to the better quality separates that I have heard. We have discussed this subject before. Here is one of many threads that cover several viewpoints on the topic:

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8131

As for the digital surround stuff, the comparisons I made were with the receivers set to all analog 2 channel operation when such an option was available. I found this to also be the case when I used the pre outs and used a separate basic power amp instead of the built in amp section.


Widget

This was the practical observation I made recently with the 30 yr old SAEXXX1B / Pre / power separates and recent model Kenwood digital surround wonderbox.

[Mr. Widget]

Is a Pioneer sx450 good enough for a general idea of the sound you are talking about? I am not familiar with that model, but I assume it is a low wattage unit. I have used a 40wpc entry level mid '70s Kenwood integrated amp for years... I have always thought it sounded acceptable. It sure as hell isn't a GAS Grandson, a Crown DC75, or a Mark Levinson, but it's great considering it was the entry level product back then. It'll sonically kick ass on my contemporary $2750 B+K!


If you could only have one system that had to play movies, cds, and a video game system what would you use? Would you give up the soundstaging and better midrange for more inputs and processing?For movies I find 5.1 necessary... not everyone agrees with that.... last week we rented The New World... a beautifully filmed but sentimentalized Hollywood rewrite of history. During the opening credits and at a few points in the film the sound track places you under a canopy of birds and forest sounds... it was the most remarkable thing I have heard to date as far as surround sound... there were no birds at any speaker location... it really felt as though we were outdoors among them. Stereo can not do that.

I guess you have to decide what you are after... I use separate dedicated systems for HT and stereo. In one system that I use for both, I have a two channel stereo that can be used as the left and right channels of a surround system... to do this I set the stereo to an Aux input and preset the volume so that it's gain matches the rest of the system. You could do this with your Pioneer and a surround receiver as long as you have one with pre outs.


Widget

[Shane Shuster]

Thanks Mr. Widget,

I need processing and only want one main system. I'll stick with what I have.

There is one thing modern electronics do much better, remotes.

[Mr. Widget]

I'll stick with what I have.

There is one thing modern electronics do much better, remotes.Can't argue with the convenience... there are modern systems with remotes that sound fantastic, but not really in the "affordable" range yet.


Widget

[SUPERBEE]

Call me crazy but........
My stereo is my stereo and my home theater setup is just that, Never the twain shall meet.


My "Stereo" or in this case "Stereos" are for playing music. LPs. CDs. and cassettes. And my home theater is for playing DVDs.

Two different systems for two different purposes.

[vintage-chile]

Think on the 300b set new devices using WECO 300b tubes!
There must be something about that knowledge...

I had the chance to listen to stuff like: WECO 46, 43, 86 + other WECO for 300b amps through WECO 555's and 594's drivers with the most venerable WECO horns , 16 , 15, 13,17, 24 and 25 or the little setups with 713b/C and 12025-4-3 horns. The luck of course to match with ta4181's ta-4151's and 754 bass drivers.
If you have the money to restore the electronics to original and improve with better caps , restore the cones and diaph's you will have a glorious system. With all the benefits of horns , like transparency and definition on the mids.I've never listened to the 3 way WECO setups ,so I can't talk about crisp highs. You have in mind that a complete WECO setup drive you easily over the $100K tag price.

The problem of this setups are the same with JBL , Altec , EV , Klipshchs ..... etc. The crossovers are designed giving the mids 10-15db at least over the bass and 5-10db more than tweeters ( in case of 3 ways). So you'd have a harsh sounding speaker. Considering as well
that vintage speakers were tuned down to 40-50hz only!

My own experience , giving me one of the best sounding speakers
I ever heard is :
1)Take a 136a , le15a or b driver or pro-equivalents with broken cones or foams, restore them with the 2235h/j recone. Make a nice cabinet tuning the bass
to 28hz or even 20hz ( not recommeded). Cost app. $ 600-800 drivers and cabs depend on you .
2) Take the le175 ,le85 or pro equivalents not 375 ( for me is too much of metal through it)
and matching horns. Cost app. $600-700.
3) Take the 2405 - 077, please do not consider for a minute the 2402
if you are on a budget the ferrite new tweeters will fit too. Cost $300-700.
4) Make your own X-overs or get the 3115-3105 combo for instance.
THEN USE A RESISTOR TO DOWN ON 10DB THE MIDRANGE. JUST THE HORN NOT THE TWEETER. Cost $ 150-600.
So with the cheaper options you get the kit for $1650 + cabinetry.
Maybe you get one of the better speakers out there for $2500!!
With new recones them will last for 20 more years!!

Now the best speakers for me were my brother in-law's experiment:
Project everest speakers modification:
1) original project everest speakers.
2) midrange and woofers replaced for TAD top of line drivers.
The 145-h are a disgrace ( no matter the EVerest were designed to Japanese homes ).
3) jbl 2405 replaced for 077's alnico units.
4) Crossovers ( a disgrace the ones that everest carry)
changed for : a) N-333 ( from L-300) b ) custom ones made by Classic audio reproductions ... he has 2 pairs of Everest modified.

The comparations with these speakers were made with :
wilson audio x-1 , proac's top of line , dunlavy's sc-vi , last k2 ( he owns a pair too ) model , my own JBL project , B&W top of line models .....well
maybe i forgot someones but the list is long and full of top names....
The modified Everest make the others play like child toys.

If you want to know what kind of electronics were used :
system
a) Kondo KSL Ongaku + Kondo KSL DAC + Jadis later JD1 transport.
b ) Cary 805 AE + cary sl98 + cary top cd player.

Both systems were absolutely outstanding but the same timbre and
reality was present on them and the other virtues( theme for other post) as well. The only coincident units were the speakers , so...
Unfortunately the price for this project is substantially higher than on my own speakers.
Sincerely Victor.

[Edwards]

This is the age old story that plagues people in more than the area of electronics, it is applicable to cars, motorcycles, guns, computers, appliances, homes, furniture, and pretty much any thing else that has changed in the last 100 years.

You have all of this new technology that goes into everything that is made today, manufacturing standards are much tighter now than ever before, computer aided product development, and design are more quickly optimizing designs, and getting better product to market faster, and more cost effective.

I'm not a physicist, and I do not know the exact differences in the drivers of today VS the drivers of yesterday, but I do know what my ears like. I have always been a big fan of the JBL sound. Having owned several pair of more recent classic JBL’s L-65’s, L-166’s, L-36, and L-212’s, I definitely like what they do.

But 6 years back my Dentist sold me an amp. When I went to his house he demoed it on a pair of Wilson Audio speakers. I immediately fell in love with the sound that I thought was from the amp. When I got the amp home I was surprised to learn that it made a big improvement in my system, but the Wilson speakers were in a completely different league. (I mean no dis-respect to JBL or any other speaker manufacturer). But the newer speakers should have sounded incredible as they cost new some $15,000. Vs the JBL speakers that sold for less than a 10th that in 1975 dollars.

So that brings us to Ed’s Theorem #3, “Newer can always be alot better, but financially, there is a point of diminishing return”

Great forums, and great information on this site!

Ed

[Steve Schell]

Victor, welcome to Lansing Heritage. I have enjoyed watching your ebay auctions for years. You have found and sold an amazing amount of ultra-rare gear; do you find it all in Chile?

[edgewound]

1)Take a 136a , le15a or b driver or pro-equivalents with broken cones or foams, restore them with the 2235h/j recone. Make a nice cabinet tuning the bass
to 28hz or even 20hz ( not recommeded). Cost app. $ 600-800 drivers and cabs depend on you .
Sincerely Victor.

Please don't recone an LE15A or B with a 2235 recone kit...that would be a disaster and a waste of time, money and a recone kit. 136A yes....LE15 no....not interchangeable.

I just had to point this out...no other issues with your post.

[vintage-chile]

Ed,
I insist about the great pedigree of my JBL projects.
No one of the JBL speakers you mentioned are
prepared to the new digital era dynamical requirements ( if you like digital I must add). The ones I was talking are made with premium JBL parts , and midrange horns. Them are better in a lot of senses than any Wilson audio's but WA also has something to say on other aspects. No one is better than the other in absolute terms.

But... the ones made with current 21 century TAD components and
Everest cabinets and the glorious Everest horns is in absolute terms , for my ears and tastes ,better than any WA .

Having in mind that TAD is the fruit of Pioneer pro series started by Mr. Locanthi designer of the best golden era JBL drivers.

Hope you can listen to a apir of TAD studio monitors , having in mind that
still the everest horns will outperform the TAD wood ones.








This is the age old story that plagues people in more than the area of electronics, it is applicable to cars, motorcycles, guns, computers, appliances, homes, furniture, and pretty much any thing else that has changed in the last 100 years.

You have all of this new technology that goes into everything that is made today, manufacturing standards are much tighter now than ever before, computer aided product development, and design are more quickly optimizing designs, and getting better product to market faster, and more cost effective.

I'm not a physicist, and I do not know the exact differences in the drivers of today VS the drivers of yesterday, but I do know what my ears like. I have always been a big fan of the JBL sound. Having owned several pair of more recent classic JBL’s L-65’s, L-166’s, L-36, and L-212’s, I definitely like what they do.

But 6 years back my Dentist sold me an amp. When I went to his house he demoed it on a pair of Wilson Audio speakers. I immediately fell in love with the sound that I thought was from the amp. When I got the amp home I was surprised to learn that it made a big improvement in my system, but the Wilson speakers were in a completely different league. (I mean no dis-respect to JBL or any other speaker manufacturer). But the newer speakers should have sounded incredible as they cost new some $15,000. Vs the JBL speakers that sold for less than a 10th that in 1975 dollars.

So that brings us to Ed’s Theorem #3, “Newer can always be alot better, but financially, there is a point of diminishing return”

Great forums, and great information on this site!

Ed

[vintage-chile]

The last 5 years are ones of the most funny and happy years of my life.
My partner and me had a 5 years hunting Saffari , having succes and joy on collecting vintage gear from Mexico to Chilean and Argentinean patagonia .
This started as a hobby , turned to a business. and ended on a
Indiana Jones adventure. Wow if I can only talk about it...

Sadly this gear is getting harder to find and the trips more and more scarce ... hope to list some new gear soon but we are seling almost all directly to big collectors.

Anyway I still have pics. on my database , at least 1 for each type we sold... if anyone is interested in pics. just ask.
.







Victor, welcome to Lansing Heritage. I have enjoyed watching your ebay auctions for years. You have found and sold an amazing amount of ultra-rare gear; do you find it all in Chile?

[Mr. Widget]

The ones I was talking are made with premium JBL parts , and midrange horns. Them are better in a lot of senses than any Wilson audio's but WA also has something to say on other aspects. No one is better than the other in absolute terms.I think you are spot on here. Whether new or vintage every system is a set of compromises including the crazy expensive Wilsons, Rockport Technologies and others.


My partner and me had a 5 years hunting Saffari , having succes and joy on collecting vintage gear from Mexico to Chilean and Argentinean patagonia .
This started as a hobby , turned to a business. and ended on a
Indiana Jones adventure. Wow if I can only talk about it... Maybe when you have time you could start a new thread and share some of your experiences... I am sure there are many of us who would love to hear about your travels.

Widget

[vintage-chile]

I having JBL woofers reconed by a pro-tech that is a JBL autorized
technician in my country ( the only one).
I knew that almost all the vintage 15" may be reconed with 2235 units , among the ones you cant is the 150-4c .
I asked him and be told that the reconing JBL Paragon suggestions ,
in a JBL service manual appears clearly that the 2235h will suit the LE15a . Maybe is a mistake but we did with good results.


Please check his site , and there appears my own projects pics.
and the Everest I mentioned as well.
http://www.parlantes.cl/diseno.html

cheers and congratulations for the nice site.





Please don't recone an LE15A or B with a 2235 recone kit...that would be a disaster and a waste of time, money and a recone kit. 136A yes....LE15 no....not interchangeable.

I just had to point this out...no other issues with your post.

[Steve Schell]

Victor, I hear the same story from vintage audio resellers here in the U.S.; most of the classic theatre gear has already been found, and new discoveries are few and far between. Of course the majority of the 1920s and 1930s equipment had already been discarded before the collecting began in earnest in the 1970s. One fellow told me that he figures he has been to every small town west of the Mississippi looking for equipment.

I'm sure that much of the fun is in the chase. My exploits were limited to exploring one closed theatre, and I remember my heart racing as we entered the projection booth. Someone had gotten there sooner, and all we found were the wall brackets for the 41/42/43 amplifier rack. The speaker field coil rheostat panel was still in place, as were the carbon arc lamps.

I'd sure like to hear more about that Indiana Jones adventure...

[boputnam]

Victor...

¿Es posible para más información sobre esto?

Muy interesante...

Y, ¿dónde en Chile? Apartamento o casa hermoso.
Trabajé en áreas norteñas - Region II a Region IV - minas cobre y oro

(and, do it in english? I'd hate to lose anything in my poor translation! ;) )

[edgewound]

I having JBL woofers reconed by a pro-tech that is a JBL autorized
technician in my country ( the only one).
I knew that almost all the vintage 15" may be reconed with 2235 units , among the ones you cant is the 150-4c .
I asked him and be told that the reconing JBL Paragon suggestions ,
in a JBL service manual appears clearly that the 2235h will suit the LE15a . Maybe is a mistake but we did with good results.


Please check his site , and there appears my own projects pics.
and the Everest I mentioned as well.
http://www.parlantes.cl/diseno.html

cheers and congratulations for the nice site.

Hi Victor,

The later models of the Paragon used the 136H as the woofer and called out the 136H as a replacement should the LE15A not be repairable or available.

The 130A/2220 is also unique, and reconers do, unfortunately install 2235 kits into them...but it is plain wrong and it riles me to no end that the practice continues. It's in every JBL Factory Authorized Servicers field manual and covered in factory training... and on JBL's website



I hate to be the bearer of JBL incorrectness, but with all due respect and to keep the JBL Legacy intact and accurate....nowhere in the Service Manual does it say the LE15 can be reconed with a 2235 recone kit. I'm a factory authorized technician. The voice coils and motors are significantly different. You might contact the factory for confirmation....and check the manual.

[vintage-chile]

Please dont misunderstand me.
We have the 2235H as recomended when no original recone is available.
The goal is to get to life the woofer again when the cone has severe damage.
For instance I prefer to restore a broken ERPI Ta4181 cone than to
use a similar ( some Jensens out there fit since that unti was made by Jensen).
I think you are right and most of the vintage 15" baskets cant be reconed with the same unit.
Now my question is what we have to use then?
Is a 130a , Le15a decent recone on the market? I mean
better to adapt the 2235?
Thanks in advance.
victor.





Hi Victor,

The later models of the Paragon used the 136H as the woofer and called out the 136H as a replacement should the LE15A not be repairable or available.

The 130A/2220 is also unique, and reconers do, unfortunately install 2235 kits into them...but it is plain wrong and it riles me to no end that the practice continues. It's in every JBL Factory Authorized Servicers field manual and covered in factory training... and on JBL's website



I hate to be the bearer of JBL incorrectness, but with all due respect and to keep the JBL Legacy intact and accurate....nowhere in the Service Manual does it say the LE15 can be reconed with a 2235 recone kit. I'm a factory authorized technician. The voice coils and motors are significantly different. You might contact the factory for confirmation....and check the manual.

[vintage-chile]

The URL is from my friend Ariel Lagas ( www.parlantes.cl (http://www.parlantes.cl)) , and the JBL speakers on the pics with 2370
horns are my own projects he designed a Xover for the
one that carries : 136a reconed with 2235h + Le175 +2405's +237a horn.
The other has changed from the pic to a : 2405+le85+H91 horn+tad1603 woofer + 3115+3105 X-overs. Each system has great perfomance beeing the last close to a studio monitor sound with the warmest females voices .... and the first one is a damn devil with awesome dynamics.
The other pics . is from a JBL everest modified with TAD componenents that are from my syster husband. That is my future dream but the entry price buying the everest cabs. and sell the components is too high for me.

Maybe you can help me with the Everest horns , anybody selling them alone??

If you need to ask Ariel in English I can do my best translating.


I live in Santiago Chile , in a nice house with my wife and kids you are welcome anytime to share a nice audio session when you come again to
this country.
Thanks.
Victor.



Victor...

¿Es posible para más información sobre esto?

Muy interesante...

Y, ¿dónde en Chile? Apartamento o casa hermoso.
Trabajé en áreas norteñas - Region II a Region IV - minas cobre y oro

(and, do it in english? I'd hate to lose anything in my poor translation! ;) )

[edgewound]

Please dont misunderstand me.
We have the 2235H as recomended when no original recone is available.
The goal is to get to life the woofer again when the cone has severe damage.
For instance I prefer to restore a broken ERPI Ta4181 cone than to
use a similar ( some Jensens out there fit since that unti was made by Jensen).
I think you are right and most of the vintage 15" baskets cant be reconed with the same unit.
Now my question is what we have to use then?
Is a 130a , Le15a decent recone on the market? I mean
better to adapt the 2235?
Thanks in advance.
victor.

Yes Victor, I'm sorry...I must be misunderstanding you. The 2235H is a complete replacement driver for the LE15A...that is correct. Their recone kits are not interchangeable with each other though.

The original driver in the Paragon was the 150-4C. An E145 with a paper dome (150-4H) would be a great replacement...if you can find them. JBL Pro is still making recone kits for them. The later LE15A succeeded the 150-4 providing lower bass extension at the expense of efficiency. I wouldn't use a 130A or 2220 in a Paragon...not enough bass response.

LE15A can be reconed with C8R2215H...same recone kit.

Sorry for the miscommunication.:o:

[vintage-chile]

Steve ,
The 41,42,43 rack dissambled is an experience we had a lot of times.
Several times that historic pieces were droped to the garbage and replaced with Altec and solid state equipment.

Respect Indi jones , we had to travel rain forest and rivers in Peru for instance to get to some very rare instalations in far cities.

A very fun situation was when we entered an .......( religion omited....)
church during the ceremony. There was a huge cross surrounded with lights ( like hundreds of 205 tubes LOL). We step behind the courtain to pickup an JBL/WEstrex setup. Cassually my foot crushed with the electric plugs and outlets , everything went dark but first the 205 tubes exploded
like fireworks ,and everyone was screaming .... the deal was cancelled but the memories dont.-:)

This pic. is from an Erpi 17 horn founded in Argentina's country.
It was collected with over 1000 kgms of other WECO stuff.
It was one of the best surprises ever , when we saw that elephantiasic
horn still mounted as it was 60 years ago



Victor, I hear the same story from vintage audio resellers here in the U.S.; most of the classic theatre gear has already been found, and new discoveries are few and far between. Of course the majority of the 1920s and 1930s equipment had already been discarded before the collecting began in earnest in the 1970s. One fellow told me that he figures he has been to every small town west of the Mississippi looking for equipment.

I'm sure that much of the fun is in the chase. My exploits were limited to exploring one closed theatre, and I remember my heart racing as we entered the projection booth. Someone had gotten there sooner, and all we found were the wall brackets for the 41/42/43 amplifier rack. The speaker field coil rheostat panel was still in place, as were the carbon arc lamps.

I'd sure like to hear more about that Indiana Jones adventure...

[vintage-chile]

victor.


Yes Victor, I'm sorry...I must be misunderstanding you. The 2235H is a complete replacement driver for the LE15A...that is correct. Their recone kits are not interchangeable with each other though.

The original driver in the Paragon was the 150-4C. An E145 with a paper dome (150-4H) would be a great replacement...if you can find them. JBL Pro is still making recone kits for them. The later LE15A succeeded the 150-4 providing lower bass extension at the expense of efficiency. I wouldn't use a 130A or 2220 in a Paragon...not enough bass response.

LE15A can be reconed with C8R2215H...same recone kit.

Sorry for the miscommunication.:o:

[Steve Schell]

Victor, it sounds like they were using some expensive light bulbs! I hope that I am able to meet you someday and hear a few more of those stories. I really appreciate what you and others like you have done to rescue the surviving equipment from the golden era and place it in the hands of the preservationists/collectors.

[Tom Loizeaux]

I think the higher-end modern speakers can be quite respectible. Some of them are actually very good and surpass the JBL studio monitor classics in terms of accuracy, flat response and imaging.
But I think there is great satisfaction in restoring, or even preserving those JBL classics. There's pleasure in knowing the build quality of those classics surpasses most of what is made today and that many of these designs have played in front of countless mixing engineers and recording artists. Though most of the modern speakers use newer technology and employ the most recent audio concepts, some of these JBL classics still have the edge in dynamic range and sheer transient punch. Efficient 15 inch woofers, over-built compression drivers and pro-quality UHF componants can be a real pleasure when attempting to reproduce a live music experience in your home. Achieving this with only a modest investment makes it all that much more fulfilling!

Tom

[lucfm]

Hi Victor,

really interesting everest DD55000 modifications with TAD speakers : could you tell us more :
- wich TAD units have been used ? ( TD 2001 + TL 1603 ?)
- what LF-3dB point is reached with TAD woofer in the 8 cu. ft everest enclosure ( same vents ?)
- about the crossovers ( plans if available...) ; I couldn't find the everest clones you mentioned in Classic Audio Reproduction website.
- about the sonic differences between everest horn and TAD wood horns.

thanks for your answers.

Luc

[vintage-chile]

Ill ask him which exact pieces he used.
If my memory dont fail he used :
A) 1601a ( or b not 100 sure) and 4001 with a 2·" to 1" adaptor to the horn. Crossover JBL N333.
B ) 1602 +4001+adaptor + custom crossovers from classic audio repro.

Marcos bought several units from C.A. Repro starting by 2 Hartsfields repros., you may send a mail and ask there which crossovers fits that kind of project.

The -3db response was never measured with test equipment , but
the response is clearly better than the original 40HZ or higher.
The sound of the bass is extremely deep and accurate on both projects .
I cant say if the 1601 or 1602 is better since are instaled in different setups.
My own project uses a 1603 , that is enough good but not as the 1601 or 1602.

I have the luck of buying a Tad Ls-10 or something. Like 5 years ago.
You may ask what is the ls-10. Well it was one out of 10 units produced
by TAD circa 1979. It consisted on a huge cabinet with 2 x 15" drivers ,
the first 4001 that's not the same as the new one and a wood horn plus the tweeter. It looked like the et-703 but with a different model.
Please remind that them were protos.
I bought them and sold to Marcos , we had the chance to compare this TAD protos . with the modified everests , everyone liked more the Everests . What is noticeable different is that the Everest were more natural and warmth without loosing dynamics. The tad's are slower and the bass extension was poor despite double 15" bass but still were great units . I think with some modifications it would get to nowadays dynamic requirements. What I had the impression were better than the modified
everest was the top octaves through the TAD tweeters . That tweeters beguilded my ears like no other I heared yet.

I have no experience with modern TAD horns or tweeters.
But if we only compare the horns on that speakers ( LS-10 and mod. Everest) , I remember the FIM CD of three blind mice catalogues
track 7 , And I Love You So, singer Yoshiko Goto .On the mods. Everests listening with closed eyes you swear Yoshiko was there even you can ask her to go out on a date ;) . No other speaker , with regular cone mids , electrostatics , horns or whatever you talk about give that sense of presence sometimes is scary ....





Hi Victor,

really interesting everest DD55000 modifications with TAD speakers : could you tell us more :
- wich TAD units have been used ? ( TD 2001 + TL 1603 ?)
- what LF-3dB point is reached with TAD woofer in the 8 cu. ft everest enclosure ( same vents ?)
- about the crossovers ( plans if available...) ; I couldn't find the everest clones you mentioned in Classic A mice ction website.
- about the sonic differences between everest horn and TAD wood horns.

thanks for your answers.

Luc

[vintage-chile]

I was kidding the lights were regular bulbs , but them
looks like 205 tubes exploding.



Victor, it sounds like they were using some expensive light bulbs! I hope that I am able to meet you someday and hear a few more of those stories. I really appreciate what you and others like you have done to rescue the surviving equipment from the golden era and place it in the hands of the preservationists/collectors.

[Zilch]

No other speaker , with regular cone mids , electrostatics , horns or whatever you talk about give that sense of presence sometimes is scary ....Defined directivity works.

Comparing to any other horn type is apples and oranges....

[lucfm]

Thanks for these first informations ; I've been quite surprised by the choice of the 2" TD 4001 with a reversed adaptator to mate the 1" throat of the 2346 horn.
As I understood it the beryllium TAD drivers, thanks to their significantly lower moving mass share a significantly higher mass rolloff with respect to usual compression drivers, around 8 kHz for the TD 2001 : this allows the use of a more " classical " crossover ( without equalisation to compensate the 3,5 kHz rolloff of the 2425/2426 drivers ).
I wouldn't have tried the strange combination experimented by your brother-in-law...with initial negative flaring...as I have no idea of predictibility of results.Anyway, this was a successfull try according to you. I would like to learn any theoretical background about this configuration.
I am working on a modification of the 2346 horn profile , to cancel the more significant profile discontinuities from the throat to the conical waveguide , while keeping approximatively the same pattern control limits. I intended to use it with a LE 85/2405 and TAD or fluxmag 15 inch speaker in the everest cabinet.It seems the sensitivity of TL-160X speakers is lower ( 94-95 dB/W/m instead of the 97 claimed by the manufacturer ?)

Obviously, any suggestion is welcome .
Regards ,
Luc

[vintage-chile]

Please hold on until he is back to give you the exact drivers used.
What I agree with you is that the tl-1603 has no 97db no matter what is told on the specs.
I have one pair of speakers done with JBL 136a's reconed with 2235h and the other pair done with tl-1603.
Used both loudspeakers with 300b's 8 watts SET and a 300b PSE with 10w, always the 136a seems to get lower and deeper . On the other hand if you use more powerful amplifiers occurs just the opossite.





Thanks for these first informations ; I've been quite surprised by the choice of the 2" TD 4001 with a reversed adaptator to mate the 1" throat of the 2346 horn.
As I understood it the beryllium TAD drivers, thanks to their significantly lower moving mass share a significantly higher mass rolloff with respect to usual compression drivers, around 8 kHz for the TD 2001 : this allows the use of a more " classical " crossover ( without equalisation to compensate the 3,5 kHz rolloff of the 2425/2426 drivers ).
I wouldn't have tried the strange combination experimented by your brother-in-law...with initial negative flaring...as I have no idea of predictibility of results.Anyway, this was a successfull try according to you. I would like to learn any theoretical background about this configuration.
I am working on a modification of the 2346 horn profile , to cancel the more significant profile discontinuities from the throat to the conical waveguide , while keeping approximatively the same pattern control limits. I intended to use it with a LE 85/2405 and TAD or fluxmag 15 inch speaker in the everest cabinet.It seems the sensitivity of TL-160X speakers is lower ( 94-95 dB/W/m instead of the 97 claimed by the manufacturer ?)

Obviously, any suggestion is welcome .
Regards ,
Luc

[Charley Rummel]

Greetings, all:

I've had the profound pleasure of mind-f@#&ing a few individuals over the years who initially laughed at my eccentric system, composed of mostly home-brewed tube gear (now driven primarily by a Mackie CFX16 in conjunction with a variety of other pieces) with 30 and 50 year old JBL and Altec gear on 5 channels ("...Charley, you actually (ha! ha! hee! hee!) have (ho! ho!) turntables?!?!). Ain't nothing like the feeling of turning a self proclaimed audio expert-snob into a broken man, as I'm sure many of you have also done.

On the other hand, different individuals expect different things from their preception of what fine audio gear should deliver. I lean more towards the effect of having it feel like the stage is actually in the room (like recreating the Grande Ballroom in Detroit with an MC5 concert), or where I'm within the first few rows centrally located in front of the event or orchestra (like Eugene Ormandy conducting the Philidelphia Philharmonic Orchestra), whereas some acquantences of mine find the effect of recreating the ambience of the concert hall or venue more apealing (such as the Lyric Opera from the balcony, or, dare I say, Pink Floyd 30 rows back from the stage).

Therefore, it's more like deciding what color paint or style of wallpaper an individual will select, rather than striving towards alleged technology perfection. No color at all is still a color, relatively speaking - right?

Kind Regards,
Charley Rummel

[Ken Pachkowsky]

No color at all is still a color, relatively speaking - right?

Kind Regards,
Charley Rummel

True enough Charley.

Ken

[Steve Schell]

Charlie, you made many valid points. Good sound is where you find it, and many people's preconceptions set them up for a mind-blowing reappraisal upon hearing a good vintage system. Converts are made this way; I'm sure many of us have had such an experience, I know I have.

Just think of the fun the Bell Labs engineers had in 1933 when they conducted the Auditory Perspective experiments and successfully reproduced the sound of a symphony orchestra in a large hall using the Fletcher Horn systems. At that point in time most of the public had heard only small and squeaky reproduction, so it must have been a mind-roasting demo for them.

As to individual preferences in sound and some folks' intolerance, Joe Roberts once said in Sound Practices magazine something to the effect that if no one has yet invented a hi fi system that is a perfect ten, why shouldn't he be able to enjoy an 8 or 9 that he likes?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Charley,

I suppose that is one trait that will stick with the older..larger systems ..they were very sensitive and dynamic even with the lower power amps back then so you could get that big close up presentation.

Perhaps the debate is then are the older systems using vintage drivers more natural sounding over the more technically advanced drivers used in like systems today?

Is more detail better? What I find interesting is that I can vary the degree of detail by using different amps old and new without resorting to fancy driver upgrades or materials.

Ian

[pentictonklaus]

like recreating the Grande Ballroom in Detroit with an MC5 concert


While comparing old and new speakers. The ones in the back are still the No. 1 choice for bringing up the MC 5 when they were asking :" Do you want to be the problem or the solution? "

The ones in the front make Eugene Ormandy sound very nice too.

Both models are keepers for shure. Both models are equally painful to move. Also about the same price range. Both belong to my brother.

Klaus

[HipoFutura]

OK SuperBee, now it's getting personal! I have to enter the fray. I agree with you 100% on the vintage gear. But, the Ford comments are WAY out of line! My 44 year old small block Falcon is just quiverring with the thought of shaming a SuperBee.:nanana: All in fun!

I hate to be seen as a troglodyte, but I love my L100s, Phase Linear preamp/poweramps, and tube mono-blocks. It's not about money. I just love the sound and the looks. This is what the hobby is about for me. How it makes me feel when I sit in a dimly lit room enjoying the glow of the tubes and listening to "Little Wing" or "Dark Side of the Moon".

[jblnut]

How it makes me feel when I sit in a dimly lit room enjoying the glow of the tubes and listening to "Little Wing" or "Dark Side of the Moon".

What he said.....

:applaud:

jblnut

[edgewound]

My 44 year old small block Falcon is just quiverring with the thought of shaming a SuperBee.:nanana: All in fun!

.

It's not all about horsepower only....power to weight ratio, baby. Falcon weighs...what? 2600lbs? Superbee weighs what? 4000+? :hmm:

Remember...all in fun now.

[MJC]

It's not about the actual quality of the sound, rather the perceived "quality" of it, i.e., it's "character" and coloration.

The technology has moved well ahead in 40 years, and doesn't sound the same anymore.
No amount of expenditure on restoration, tweaking, or voodoo is going to bring "Vintage" up to today's standards....

The sound has changed over the years. if only for the change of the source. LP, CD, DVD, DVD-audio, etc.
But that second sentence, now there is a debate. I've been comparing, over the last two weeks, a new pair of Studio L 890s to a pair of upgraded(mirror imaged, and Charged-Coupled) L212s.
Now the L890s are more dynamic, but for a wide, 3D soundstage, the L212s have the 890s beat, by a long shot.

[HipoFutura]

EdgeWound, It's about 2,900 lbs, 510HP, and a street car. Pump gas, just a carb, and no NOS. Clevelands Rule!!

[edgewound]

EdgeWound, It's about 2,900 lbs, 510HP, and a street car. Pump gas, just a carb, and no NOS. Clevelands Rule!!

That sounds like too much fun!!!!

I know this is WAY off topic...but here is a really mild..er...amateur rendition...'cause it'll be more hot rod... of my '63 Falcon 2 door wagon back yard basket case in convertible fashion. Money and time is all I need:blink: :D ;) :p :banghead: .

[Titanium Dome]

That sounds like too much fun!!!!

I know this is WAY off topic...but here is a really mild..er...amateur rendition...'cause it'll be more hot rod... of my '63 Falcon 2 door wagon back yard basket case in convertible fashion. Money and time is all I need:blink: :D ;) :p :banghead: .

The dream is a looker! Now make it reality.

[Titanium Dome]

Most of the time when I read these kinds of discussions, I think the debate is more important than the conclusions.

Some prefer vintage gear for reasons that are important to them. Some prefer current gear for reasons that are important to them. Some prefer stock, some prefer modified. Some like gargantuan horns, some like Ti domes. ;)

What's most useful to me is when someone comes up with a nuance that I hadn't considered before. All the chest-thumping and one-liners aside, a few well-expressed ideas go a lot farther than all the claims and counter-claims of vintage vs. modern.

Hipofutura's comments on his L100s and tube gear is a case in point. I love my L100s, too, though I've only driven them with vintage SS gear. All the badgering in the world from tube guys would never get me to change, but

This is what the hobby is about for me. How it makes me feel when I sit in a dimly lit room enjoying the glow of the tubes and listening to "Little Wing" or "Dark Side of the Moon". makes me want to experience what he describes there.

Tubes, eh?:coolness:

[Rolf]

All the badgering in the world from tube guys would never get me to change, ....

I hear you, nice and clean.....:applaud:

[HipoFutura]

Titanium, selecting the right combination of components is what makes it work. Just because it's over 30 years old or just because it uses tubes, doesn't make it good. They were making just as much junk 30 years ago as they are today. When I decided to make the leap into tubes amps I did my homework. Generally speaking tubes amps can't compete with good SS gear. I spent just under $3K building my two mono-blocks. That's what it took to get tubes to sound as good as my SS amps. I'm currently bi-amping with a SS amp driving the subs (home designed and built), and am going to build a pair of hi-freq drivers and then tri-amp them with another SS amp. I enjoy doing the research and building the gear as much as I enjoy listening to it. I haven't heard an "off the shelf" tube amp that sounds as nice as my SS amps. That's why I built my mono-blocks. Even the Mac tube gear (vintage or otherwise) doesn't sound as good as a high-end SS amp. The Mac amps cost thousands of dollars, not because they sound good, but because they are beautiful pieces of work and are collectibles. I didn't want to comprimise the sound of my hifi system just to have tube amps. For that reason I decided it was necessary to build a set.

[Tom Brennan]

Maybe some modern horns are better than the old Altec and JBL horns (though I liked my A5s better than I liked a pal's Edgar Titans) but I'll take almost any old Altec or JBL horn system over a new direct raditor.

So IMO the best of the vintage stuff is better than most of the new "high end" stuff. I'm talking speakers only.

[SUPERBEE]

OK SuperBee, now it's getting personal! I have to enter the fray. I agree with you 100% on the vintage gear. But, the Ford comments are WAY out of line! My 44 year old small block Falcon is just quiverring with the thought of shaming a SuperBee.:nanana: All in fun!

I hate to be seen as a troglodyte, but I love my L100s, Phase Linear preamp/poweramps, and tube mono-blocks. It's not about money. I just love the sound and the looks. This is what the hobby is about for me. How it makes me feel when I sit in a dimly lit room enjoying the glow of the tubes and listening to "Little Wing" or "Dark Side of the Moon".

Hey Hipo,

I never met a FERD I didnt enjoy beating the daylights outta.

The JBL L-100s with good tube power is a great combo. It really opens those L-100s up and makes them sound like way bigger speakers. I was amazed.

[HipoFutura]

SuperBee, check out my falcon when you're bored.

www.hipofutura.com

Just got it back from 18 months at the painters. Don't know when I'll have time to put it back together. Hope I can still find all the pieces!

Don

[Tom Brennan]

I don't get this "I don't like Ford" or "I don't like Mopar" and such, it's like 1960s highschool stuff.

I like lots of cars, even BMWs. In the past 3 years I've owned and enjoyed a 2003 Crown Vic H&P (handling and performence package---lower gearing, dual exhaust V-8, handling suspension), a 2005 Cadillac CTS, a 2006 Ford F-150 (six cylinder-stick shift with rubber floor and crank windows---a MAN'S truck) and a 2003 Saab convertible. Right now I own the F-150 and the Saab.

Note though that until they made Dodge pickups "pretty" they couldn't give them away. Whereas people who buy Chevy and Ford pickups don't care what they look like. That tells ya something.

I also like Altec AND some JBLs. And some EVs and even some Klipsches. And Tom Danley's speakers, oh yeah.

[Titanium Dome]

SuperBee, check out my falcon when you're bored.

www.hipofutura.com

Just got it back from 18 months at the painters. Don't know when I'll have time to put it back together. Hope I can still find all the pieces!

Don

Dude

That's a real labor of love. The new paint looks awesome--can't wait to see the reassembly.

Your lady is beautiful, too. Looks like you have a good life.

[Titanium Dome]

I don't get this "I don't like Ford" or "I don't like Mopar" and such, it's like 1960s highschool stuff.

(snip)

This statement contradicts itself. It proves you do get it. :spin:

[HipoFutura]

Tom, you got it exactly right! It is all about "highschool" mentality and the 60's. This is true of both the car and hifi discussion. Both hobbies are more enjoyable when shared with others. The Ford vs Mopar debate is no different than the vintage vs new debate. There are facts and then there are the opinions. The opinions are by far more important!

I enjoy and appreciate any car that someone has taken pride in and invested something of themselves in. Doesn't matter if it's a Mustang, AMX, or Honda. This is also true of hifi gear. It's all the different cars that make it fun. The last Falcon club show I attended had over 200 Falcons. I was bored out of my mind! A SuperBee is a jaw dropping car! I don't want one, but I have the utmost respect for them. Razzing each other about the type of car or hifi gear is just playful banter.

I've exclusively bought Fords! However, last month I bought a Toyota FJ Cruiser. Looks like I've lost my "moral authority"!

[SUPERBEE]

Hipo


That looks to be about an 11 second 1/4 mile car or so.


Pretty fast for a Ford.

[Steve Gonzales]

Extremely nice 62' you have there Hipo. Sweet ride

[HipoFutura]

Thanks guys, I am blessed!

SuperBee, the Falcon is a street car. Never seen a track and probably won't. I'd be mighty dissappointed if it didn't run the quarter in the 10s. The main limiting factor is the 3.89 gears. Ok for the street, but way to small for the strip. Even with street tires it will lift the front tires way up! The Detroit Locker has Cosworth springs - very stiff. It locks instantly. Hit the gas in a corner and the things locks in a straight line. Takes some getting use to.

I de-tuned the motor as it was just too radical for street use. Wouldn't idle under 1.2K RPM. Before I pulled the titanium valves, big carb, and big cam (Reed .744 roller), it was putting out close to 600 HP. Since the last dyno runs I've changed carb and added a 2" open spacer. Should be producing about 510 - 515 HP.

Ok, I'm feeling guilty with all the car talk. We should get this thread back to hifi gear. If anyone wants to talk cars please email me off-list.

Don

[vintage-chile]

The tad mids were td-2001 , was my bad sorry.
Anyway his first modified everest used JBL 2450 instead the 2425.
Thats why I remember he converted a 2" to 1" output midrange.
The result was cool as well. But the tads were better , maybe the
matching 1" helps-




Ill ask him which exact pieces he used.
If my memory dont fail he used :
A) 1601a ( or b not 100 sure) and 4001 with a 2·" to 1" adaptor to the horn. Crossover JBL N333.
B ) 1602 +4001+adaptor + custom crossovers from classic audio repro.

Marcos bought several units from C.A. Repro starting by 2 Hartsfields repros., you may send a mail and ask there which crossovers fits that kind of project.

The -3db response was never measured with test equipment , but
the response is clearly better than the original 40HZ or higher.
The sound of the bass is extremely deep and accurate on both projects .
I cant say if the 1601 or 1602 is better since are instaled in different setups.
My own project uses a 1603 , that is enough good but not as the 1601 or 1602.

I have the luck of buying a Tad Ls-10 or something. Like 5 years ago.
You may ask what is the ls-10. Well it was one out of 10 units produced
by TAD circa 1979. It consisted on a huge cabinet with 2 x 15" drivers ,
the first 4001 that's not the same as the new one and a wood horn plus the tweeter. It looked like the et-703 but with a different model.
Please remind that them were protos.
I bought them and sold to Marcos , we had the chance to compare this TAD protos . with the modified everests , everyone liked more the Everests . What is noticeable different is that the Everest were more natural and warmth without loosing dynamics. The tad's are slower and the bass extension was poor despite double 15" bass but still were great units . I think with some modifications it would get to nowadays dynamic requirements. What I had the impression were better than the modified
everest was the top octaves through the TAD tweeters . That tweeters beguilded my ears like no other I heared yet.

I have no experience with modern TAD horns or tweeters.
But if we only compare the horns on that speakers ( LS-10 and mod. Everest) , I remember the FIM CD of three blind mice catalogues
track 7 , And I Love You So, singer Yoshiko Goto .On the mods. Everests listening with closed eyes you swear Yoshiko was there even you can ask her to go out on a date ;) . No other speaker , with regular cone mids , electrostatics , horns or whatever you talk about give that sense of presence sometimes is scary ....

[lucfm]

The tad mids were td-2001 , was my bad sorry.
Anyway his first modified everest used JBL 2450 instead the 2425.
Thats why I remember he converted a 2" to 1" output midrange.
The result was cool as well. But the tads were better , maybe the
matching 1" helps-

Thanks for this precision ; not only the better matching , but also the higher general quality of the driver and higher mass rollof ; somebody in France made use of the 2346-TD 2001 combination from 600 Hz up ( with 2405 and Altec 416 in Onken 360 liters enclosure ) and already reported better results than DD 55000. Prior to this experiment measurements of 2346 + TD 2001 made at " la Maison de l'Audiophile " in Paris showed good linearity ( without any equalization ) from 0,6 to 8 kHz with a slight decrease in level between 600 and 900 Hz , indicative of the loading limits of the horn.
Another question is the mid bass range : the TL 160X are known for their good LF performance but their relatively high Mms may not help very good definition in this area ( say 500 to 1000 Hz ). At that time I nether heard one but heard many contradictory positions about this ( the mid bass of the E 145-8/150 4H - with a Mms being nearly half of the TAD- was one of the inherent qualities of the original DD 55000 design: could you precise your subjective ( listenin ) impressions in this respect ?

Best regards