I don't think we have lost the ability to innovate- the goals and priorities are different. When those magnificent early theatre sound systems were designed, they were addressing the needs of an entire industry transitioning to the "talkies" and trying to accommodate the space limitations of existing theaters. But, the resources were there and the top companies were competing to develop product.
Today, look at big data- the ability to collect and analyze massive amounts of data and apply it- to everything from serving targeted advertising to national security- is where the action is, and there are no doubt innovations in that field. The trickle down to consumer level products- in the form of "smart" phones and appliances, as well as interfaces that are guided by past user selections is what we get, not necessarily better audio. (Though things like DSP have made woofer set up for modest home theatres pretty easy).
Materials science and acoustic models (aided by computers) may have improved, but some of the materials- copper in field coil speakers- mercury vapor tubes, or even the materials and tooling for most vacuum tubes are expensive or hazardous or obsolete. (Look at what happened during the "vinyl boom"- suddenly there was a need for record presses-and none had been made for years; now, those presses have been salvaged, rehab'd and new ones are being built simply because there is demand).
I'm fascinated by the early days of audio. I'd love to see and hear your private museum at some point John.
One book worth reading although it isn't strictly technical, and has some gaps- is Cowboys and Indies. Dumb title, but it is essentially the history of reproduced sound and the emergence of the industries and businesses that depended on it (music publishing, record companies and trends in listening behaviors from the 19th century to date). In the process, there is some discussion of the changes in audio technology and how that related to cultural changes at the time. |
Fabulous. Unfortunately, many of the vintage horn systems are expensive, but compared to the cost of some uber gear today, may not be so crazy. I went to a modern horn/SET implementation a decade ago. I'm intrigued by the vintage stuff. |
There's no doubt that large theatre horn systems from the '30s are impractical for most homes. And many of the improvements cited have to do with smaller size to accommodate a home environment. (I remember early implementations of Villichur's acoustic suspension design, and they always sounded "wooly" and thick to my ears, even with powerful amplifiers). But, there is something magical about the combination of high quality horns and SET- an immediacy and "in the room" quality that is not squawky or ear-bleeding.
Horns, at least in the States, were given short shrift by the hi-fi commentariat, and except for modern implementations (Avantgarde, Cessaro, Acapella) are still largely ignored as "fringe." (I think Art Dudley explores older horn gear, but I'm no longer a regular reader of hi-fi magazines).
The biggest drawback I have found--using a modern implementation (Avantgarde) is the discontinuity between the horn midrange and dynamic woofers. The thing I like about them is the absence of any crossover on the midhorn. This helps, I think, give that speaker a quality that sounds less "reproduced."
Interestingly, within the "fringe," field coils have made a comeback.
No doubt these speakers and their more modern reinterpretations have their shortcomings. But, when I hear a big state of the art dynamic speaker system with multiple ranges of drivers, driven by large power amps, I also hear shortcomings- a loss of immediacy and inability to render musical "detail" at low output levels.
I'm not advocating one school or another as "better"-anybody who has spent time around this stuff knows that there are firmly entrenched views based on listener experience and preference that I won't question. And, it's all trade-offs, isn't it? One strength gained in exchange for another weakness.
I was an electrostat (Quad) listener for many decades, and lived with the shortcomings of the original Quad (a/k/a the '57) because of the purity of the midrange despite the speaker's enormous limitations. That was a tradeoff I was willing to make for a long time.
Interesting comment from Terry9 that electrostats have improved too- but in sound quality or practical useability? I still have an old pair of Crosby-modded '63's and while they were a "better" speaker overall in terms of range, dynamic ability and size of image, I didn't think they had the magic of the original Quad in the midrange. Trying to get the '57 to work with ribbon tweeters and subwoofers at the time was a mess of incoherency-a glorious mess, but not something I could live with- I chose to listen to the Quads straight up, without supplementation of the bass or high frequencies.
Sometimes, I think of the analogies to the automobile (i know it is a cliche in hi-fi to make this comparison but...). A modern car is better in every way than a pre-war car. Size, acceleration, stopping, handling, practicality, reliability and ready availability of parts. But, there's something profound about the experience of driving one of the old sports cars that connects you with the road like nothing else. I find the immediacy and visceral quality of horns to be very compelling and despite their size, they seem to get out of the way of the music. I'm no doubt within that segment of listeners that appreciates these things for their positives and is willing to ignore their limitations.
|
The Acapella line includes a plasma tweeter, not sure what relation it bears to the Plasmatronic. (<What a great name). |
The epiphany for me, as regards "bandwidth" was hearing the original transcriptions of Benny Goodman's 1938 Concert at Carnegie Hall, in the process of being restored by an archivist. I listened to the flat transfer and to his cleaned up version of Sing, Sing, Sing. The bandwidth, running through a phone line to a cutter some blocks away from the Hall, was around 8Khz. The cleaned up version had dynamics and air on the drums, propulsive and alive sounding. It made me reconsider the value of digital for historic recordings- if done well, in addition to appreciating how much could be extracted from such an old recording.
Last night, I heard Los Straightjackets do a cover of Sing, Sing, Sing at a small club nearby- in their inimitable surf-pysch rock style. That was great too. :) |
To me, a lot of audiophile quality double bass is too closely miked- you hear things that even the player probably doesn’t hear. I think that is intended to create an immediacy, but real bass doesn’t sound like that in a club. Piano, to me, is also a tough instrument. Sometimes, very simple recordings are best- but many lack the weight and heft of a real piano in the lower registers and sound two dimensional; to compensate, sometimes the instrument is very closely miked in the same way I described the bass, above. When recorded with other instruments, it sounds out of proportion.
The more modern, big heavy weight bass sound is great for "thwack" but there’s also stuff going on above- the "air," the skin sound, the tonality of a drum beyond the explosive movement of air. I think it is hard to get it all. I’ve always suffered a bit of a trade-off b/c to me, it starts (and often ends) in the midrange- bandwidth, imaging, soundstage, whatever audiophile attributes you ascribe to as important are pretty irrelevant if the thing sounds reproduced.
|
@salectric --which compression driver for the Altec? And if a modern paper cone woofer, which one? And what do you do for a X-over? The WE stuff is too recherché, but doing this with a bit of Frankenstein-ing might be cost-effective.
TIA,
bill hart |
I looked up the YL and saw that both of you guys were discussing this on the Hoffman forum. Someone else on one of the fora had mentioned Deja Vu recently, in connection with recreating old WE horns.
I've been using a commercial horn system (Avantgarde Duo) for 11 years and love their strengths- the "bespoke" vintage approach fascinates me- if it could sound coherent between the bass and mids, which has always been the challenge for me. I had also seen anecdotal reports on the GIP but have not heard any of these recreations. It sounds like the YL is actually vintage recreation which is appealing if it isn't as costly as some of the WE or other early stuff.
I just got my Quad based system restored, and as noted above, within their limitations, using restored Quad IIs with real GEC glass, they are breathtaking to listen to.
I guess on both systems, the horns (with Lamm SETs) and the Quad-Quad system, i live with their shortcomings to revel in their strengths. I wouldn't mind assembling an all out horn system, but for space and cost.
Sidenote: sorry if I mentioned this before, but the one thing I like about the Avantgarde design is that the mid horn is run directly from the amp with no crossover. It is very transparent, and with an even better driver, this arrangement would make much sense to me-- so much is in the midrange and if you can avoid the crossover there, it would seem to allow optimal performance. The issue then becomes making the bass (and treble) cohere.
|
